Was the Civil War about Slavery?

Acton Institute, Prager University ^ | 8/11/2015 | Joe Carter

[iowamark]

What caused the Civil War? That seems like the sort of simple, straightforward question that any elementary school child should be able to answer. Yet many Americans—including, mostly, my fellow Southerners—claim that that the cause was economic or state’s rights or just about anything other than slavery.

But slavery was indisputably the primary cause, explains Colonel Ty Seidule, Professor of History at the United States Military Academy at West Point.

The abolition of slavery was the single greatest act of liberty-promotion in the history of America. Because of that fact, it’s natural for people who love freedom, love tradition, and love the South to want to believe that the continued enslavement of our neighbors could not have possibly been the motivation for succession. But we should love truth even more than liberty and heritage, which is why we should not only acknowledge the truth about the cause of the war but be thankful that the Confederacy lost and that freedom won.

[PeaRidge]

Lincoln's comment: “And what is to become of the revenue?” was the reply. “I shall have no government - no revenues.”

You said: "This must be the holy grail of lost causerdom(sp). Notice that they all point to the same source(s) (sources that point to one another in a circular-logic pseudo self-affirming style) but cannot provide one first (or even second) hand reference. Notice also that the alleged quote varies from assertion to assertion.

Here for you is a publication taken from the Congressional Record of Lincoln's comment. This quote was confirmed by Col. Baldwin who was with Lincoln. It was given in sworn testimony to the US Congress Committee on Reconstruction in 1866.

here

The second incident has been fully documented in newspaper stories given in earlier posts.

There are also several books that quote Lincoln that were published at the time...here is an example:

In the Presence of Mine Enemies: War in the Heart of America, 1859-1863 By Edward L. Ayers

I am sure this will answer your objections.

[HandyDandy]

This whole thing reminds me of the same sort of social dynamics involving "gay marriage" and other liberal causes du jour. Liberals get social "enlightened" and then can't leave everyone else well enough alone.

For some reason they feel the need to spread their moral enlightenment to other people who aren't interest in their latest greatest moral epiphany.

Now we have transgenders beating down the door of our Military, and the latest Liberal Morality is that they deserve to serve in our Military.

I am as upset about that sh*t as you are. That's why I like to hide in Civil War threads. But when I come in here and find you blaming this sh*t on President Abraham Lincoln, welp,...........have you ever heard the "Yankee Yell"? The blame lies with our peculiar institution, The Supreme Court.

Lincoln was sworn in by Taney. Then Taney had to sit there while Abe ripped him a new one in his 1st Innaugural in his comments about the people ceasing to be their own rulers due to a rogue tribunal.

[DiogenesLamp]

In essence the 1780 Act did ban slavery. The only slaves recognized were those then existing as slaves of residents, and when they died off, there would never be any more. It was an orderly process. The Act did not presume to encroach on ownership of wagons, et al.

It is perfectly reasonable for a state to ban the creation of new slaves within it's borders and in accordance with it's own laws, but it does not seem reasonable to construe this power to extend to governing the status of the citizens of other states and their slaves governed by the laws of other states, should they chose to come to a non slave state.

If you can't prohibit slave owners and their slaves from coming into your state, by what legal argument can you prohibit slavery in non slave states?

I'm glad slavery is gone in the United States, (I wish it were gone from the rest of the world as well,) but I am not seeing any good legal arguments for being able to stop it beyond banning the creation of new slaves within a state.

Another thing to remember is that the supreme Court had yet to find the full force of it's self-anointed eminence. That would come later when the supreme Court turned into The Supremely Eminent Tribunal (under Taney, the former Attorney General under President Andrew Jackson).

Again, I am not seeing an error on Tanney's part here beyond his statement that no blacks can be citizens. (Which as I said is a non sequitur and goes too far) That the Declaration was not comprehended to apply to slaves is absolutely correct. That article IV makes it virtually impossible to ban slavery in non slave states also appears to be correct. (Even George Washington skirted the laws of Pennsylvania as you have related.)

To reiterate from a previous post, a very key point implied by Article IV was the recognition that there were slave-states and there were free-states and that they needed to recognize each other's rights.

I don't see that clause as doing anything useful for the non slave states. It seems wholly one sided, and I cannot help but think it was put in there simply to reassure the states in which slavery was still popular in 1787.

[DiogenesLamp]

Lincoln was sworn in by Taney. Then Taney had to sit there while Abe ripped him a new one in his 1st Inaugural in his comments about the people ceasing to be their own rulers due to a rogue tribunal.

I envision this as similar to a Liberal President upset that the Supreme Court has told him he can't have "gay marriage."

As I have pointed out, I think Judge Tanney was following the law as it was intended when it was written, not as the latest Liberal trend in what they think it ought to mean.

He ruled that Dred Scott had to remain a slave, and I see this ruling as consistent with the requirements of article IV. It is unfair to Dred Scott, but fairness and law do not always coincide.

As with most Liberals, Lincoln probably didn't care so much about a rogue tribunal, he was probably just upset that it didn't go his way. When the Supreme court goes their way, Liberals don't care if the legal reasoning is sound or not.

[x]

This must be the holy grail of lost causerdom. Notice that they all point to the same source(s) (sources that point to one another in a circular-logic pseudo self-affirming style) but cannot provide one first (or even second) hand reference. Notice also that the alleged quote varies from assertion to assertion.

Baldwin fought for the Confederacy and came up with his account after the war had ended.

On another forum, it was mentioned that Lincoln briefed his secretaries after the meeting about what had been discussed.

I don't know if that's true, but if anybody's enterprising it would be a nice project.

It's also pointed out that this is "hearsay" evidence of the sort that courts dismiss out of hand.

And yes, the "quote" is related in different versions.

In Dabney's version of Baldwin's account it comes across as a non-sequitur -- Lincoln won't give up Sumter (as Baldwin lectures him about doing) because it would mean the loss of revenue.

But really, how much revenue was anyone going to be able to collect from one fort in a hostile part of the country?

[rockrr]

I’ve seen it before.

[PeaRidge]

Repetition of truth may be enlightening. Let it settle in.

[Ditto]

I can see where they could free someone born into their laws, but I cannot see how they can free someone born into the laws of another state, at least not without violating the Union Compact, the breaking of which you seemed to regard as sufficient cause for a group of states leaving the Union.

The legal basis of it dates back to British Common Law predating our independence. There were dozens of cases where state courts in slave states declared slaves free in identical cases as Dred Scott. here is the case of Rachel v. Walker

[DoodleDawg]

He ruled that Dred Scott had to remain a slave, and I see this ruling as consistent with the requirements of article IV. It is unfair to Dred Scott, but fairness and law do not always coincide.

He also ruled that blacks, free or slave, were not and could never be citizens. Do you think he was right there as well?

[rockrr]

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it”

No thanks, I prefer objective truth to your myths and distortions of the truth.

[PeaRidge]

I think the problem is that you will not ever agree that something has proved you wrong.

Your “ truth “ seems to lie in your ego rather than external proof of your mistakes.

[rockrr]

I don’t doubt that you believe that. Projection can be a funny thing.

[PeaRidge]

Brojoek, in over a dozen of your postings on this dead thread and several others, you say that the “Confederate government declared war on the Union.”

The declaration would likely look like this:

From the archives of the Government of the Confederate States of America.

On this date the Confederate Congress voted in the majority to declare war on the United States of America.

signed, Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America

I have looked in every source I have, and cannot locate that document.

Could you supply your source for your comments?

[Tau Food]

A President doesn’t have much choice when it comes to preserving the Union. He owed that duty to each American citizen, including the American citizens who lived in Southern States. The lesson is a simple one: no person or group of persons has the legal right to strip his neighbors of their American citizenship, even if they believe that they have a good reason, like the desire to own other human beings.

What we call the war was just the enforcement of U.S. laws and the performance of U.S. responsibilities in every part of the United States. If necessary, we’ll do it again, but it won’t be necessary. Nearly all Americans are proud to be American citizens and very few want to own other human beings. It’s over.

[PeaRidge]

I don’t think you answered the question of what was the problem of slavery in the Union states after February of 1861.

[PeaRidge]

As pointed out to you earlier, no citizen was stripped of his rights. Secession in no way harmed any rights of persons living under the original Constitution.

The Confederate States wrote and adopted its Constitution by the consent of the citizens.

You seem a bit confused in your logic.

[Tau Food]

Well, somebody is confused.

I believe that there is only one Constitution of the United States. I believe that there is only one United States of America.

And I believe that no person or group of persons can strip any other citizen of his rights under the United States Constitution or his status as a citizen of the United States. You and I apparently agree that no one was in fact stripped of his rights or his United States citizenship by the so-called "secessionists," but that is because the acts of the "secessionists" were then and are now a tragic nullity. However, at the time, the "secessionists" imagined that they were terminating the status of their neighbors as citizens of the United States of America. In fact, they actually imagined that they were creating a new nation of confederate states.

I think that you and I also agree that we are very fortunate that the "secessionists" failed in their efforts. Slavery is gone, and it is gone for good. Nearly all of of us are happy with that change and nearly all of the few people who aren't happy with that change lack the courage to admit it. So, their opinions don't matter, anyway.

[PeaRidge]

"You and I apparently agree that no one was in fact stripped of his rights or his United States citizenship.."

That is correct.

[Tau Food]

Gee, I was kind of hoping that you could also agree with me that we are very fortunate that the "secessionists" failed in their efforts and that slavery is gone for good. But, you may not be ready to share your views on that subject.

That's okay. Be patient with yourself. ;-)

[PeaRidge]

You fail to understand the content and the intent of my posts.

I do not post moral commentary.