Was the Civil War about Slavery?

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

[HandyDandy]

That is correct. The “site” where he died was not any of his own property. Until I read that placard, I had always thought that he had died from a mortal wound.

[miss marmelstein]

Not at all. They were fighting old battles. If you watch the magnificent film “The Red Badge of Courage” (which unfortunately was tampered with by the studio) directed by John Huston, you really see how the two sides interacted during the taking of prisoners scene. Poignant and funny - and no, a high-toned conversation about slavery is not included. Perhaps Michael Medved gives it two thumbs down on that basis!!

And for those who attack me for using fictional sources: tough luck. Good fiction always reflects reality and while it may tell the truth slant, it does tell the truth.

[HandyDandy]

Not attacking, but, is it true that Stephen Crane never actually fought?

[BroJoeK]

spintreebob: "We Nat Turner abolitionists were changing from Quakers, Amish, Mennonites and other non-violent preferences to churches that condoned violence because we saw slavery as such an evil practice that it was the ultimate justified war."

Of my four great-grandfathers alive during the Civil War, one was fresh off the boat from Europe, didn't speak much English but enlisted in the 119th Illinois Infantry Regiment, served the entire war, marched nearly 2,000 miles, was captured & wounded but, thank God, survived.

Two of my great-grandfathers were Mennonite conscientious objectors, also farmers who stayed home and did what they knew best: farmed.

The fourth was older, had a young family and lawfully hired a replacement, whose fate we don't know...

My point is, we all come from many threads making a tapestry picture of who we are.
And wars are started for reasons we may or may not understand, but our duty as citizens under the Constitution is to serve when called according to our best abilities.

[BroJoeK]

miss marmelstein: "What is the motivation on this, I wonder?"

I confess, I've never understood that.
I'm not ever certain if all of what they post is legit, but when I can, I like to respond as best I know how...

[BroJoeK]

rockrr: "I finally received my copy of a book titled “The State of Jones”.
It is a recounting of the resistance to confederate rule that went on in in Jones County Mississippi.
Fascinating book!"

Thanks for reminding me, that even a Deep South state like Mississippi had its hotbeds of Unionism.

[HandyDandy]

Call me naive. I thought the reason for the Civil War threads was because 2015 is the “sesquicentennial”. The Civil War may never be discussed at such length ever again (the way things are going in this country). Until it was mentioned not for back-thread about the recent attention to Confederate symbols did I give pause and consider that some posters might have ulterior motives. Then again, I don’t read any history that wasn’t written prior to 1960.

[rockrr]

Nah, WBTS threads have been going on longer than I’ve been here, and that’s been 13 years.

[Tau Food]

I confess, I've never understood that.

I'm not ever certain if all of what they post is legit, but when I can, I like to respond as best I know how...

I agree with you. I have no idea why I post. Sometimes I'm serious, but much of the time I'm just kidding. I think part of it is that in a different area of my life, I have be careful to do things right. Here none of it matters. Sometimes I pretend to have strong feelings about things that I care nothing about. I got a chance to fingerprint with two real artists recently and I got sort of the same feeling. I made a mess, of course. ;-)

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "So let's say you are a slave owner living in Georgia, and you decide to take your slave to Massachusetts.
So what happens next? You tell me."

As you should expect, each state had its own laws governing such matters, with no two exactly the same.
In the particular case of Massachusetts my understanding is that slaves brought into that state remained slaves unless & until they sued in court for their freedom, at which point it would be granted, by Massachusetts, regardless of laws in their "master's" home state.

And Massachusetts' practice was one of the first in the nation, in effect at the time of the Constitutional Convention of 1787.
So there is no possibility that Massachusetts would agree to a Constitution which was intended to restrict Massachusetts from abolishing its own slavery.

DiogenesLamp: "You bitch about my foolish understanding, but all you do is ASSERT that it is foolish, you never demonstrate it to be foolish.
You hand wave."

He says while wildly waving his hands & arms in the air!

Pal, that very word "DiogenesLamp" translates into normal English as: "master of unsubstantiated assertions."
And you wish to claim my points are not demonstrated??

The truth is your reading comprehension is so low, you couldn't even see a substantiation if it were right in front of your wildly waving arms & hands.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Oh, and to address your point, citing state cases is what an IDIOT does.
They have no binding power over a Federal case or Federal law, of which the US Constitution article IV most certainly is."

So now instead of deafening silence you give us WIMPY insults to substantiate your unfounded claims?

The fact is: neither the Constitution, nor laws of the United States, nor Supreme Court rulings before Dred-Scott supported any of your claims.
And Dred-Scott has been disputed by historians, scholars, lawyers & other researchers ever since.
It was utterly rejected by Northerners at the time, whether Whigs, Democrats or those new "Black Republicans".

And Dred-Scott was to a large degree responsible for the Republican majority which drove Deep South Fire Eaters to declare secession.

All of the above are historical facts, not "unsubstantiated assertions".

DiogenesLamp: "Arguing with religious nutjobs is an effort in futility."

"Religious nutjob" is it?
First time I've been called that on Free Republic.
Assuming by it you mean "Christian" will take it as a point of pride.

Do you have a problem with Christians, FRiend?

[miss marmelstein]

No, he grew up in Asbury Park, NJ and never served. He may have been too young, I’m not sure of his birthdate.

[Ditto]

DiogenesLamp: "Oh, and to address your point, citing state cases is what an IDIOT does. They have no binding power over a Federal case or Federal law, of which the US Constitution article IV most certainly is."

For the umpteenth time, Dred Scott was not a Fugitive Slave. Article IV had nothing to do with his case, and Taney never even claimed it did in his decision. In fact Taney ignored the first clause of Article IV by not overturning the Missouri Supreme Court ruling in which they stated that they were not bound to respect the laws of other states.

[DiogenesLamp]

Semantics. I have no interest in splitting hairs with you. Seems like that’s all you people do.

[Ditto]

Semantics. I have no interest in splitting hairs with you. Seems like that’s all you people do.

So you have no answer as to what the Fugitive Slave Clause had to do with the Dred Scott case? And what the hell is with the "you people" stuff?

[Pelham]

“argument”

‘Argument’ is a conventional term in both debate and logic, no quotation marks needed. It has a different meaning than the combative sense found in your writing.

[Pelham]

“My reference to the “USA’s invasion of the USA” was an oxymoron designed to remind another poster that the South remained part of the USA despite the fact that some people in the South pretended to “secede” from the USA. “

He’s making the same argument that the Crown used for waging war against the British Colonials to force them to remain in the Empire- the Colonies remained a part of the United Kingdom and only “pretended” to secede and become independent.

[Tau Food]

That's right. The British troops (under George III) thought that they were on soil belonging to the British Empire during our War for Independence. The British troops (under George II) felt the same way when they fought the Jacobite Uprising. The British won when they beat Bonnie Prince Charlie at Culloden in 1745. But, George III lost the War of Independence in America.

The lesson - When you go to war, you can win or you can lose. Lincoln didn't lose. He preserved the Union.

And today, nearly every American (North, South, East and West) is grateful that Lincoln preserved the Union. And, they're grateful that the Union ended slavery.

One nation, under God, indivisible. We're so lucky to be here.

[Tau Food]

But Lincoln solved the mystery of his reason for the war by repeatedly saying that his goal in waging it was to force the seceding States back into the Union. He declared the secession to be treason and rebellion,

Robert E Lee also indicated that it was a rebellion. It was a rebellion. The mystery is why anyone would want to now change the terminology.

[Tau Food]

Lincoln didn’t claim the right to burn out and kill Americans who engaged in slavery. He did believe that he had the right to use violence to prevent States from leaving the Union. Preserving the Union was his causus belli. People ought to read his own words. He was using the army in the same fashion that Buchanan had in the Utah War just four years earlier, to compel obedience to federal law.

Every one of our presidents have used force "to compel obedience to federal law." Our Constitution obligates the president to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed . . ."

(I'll bet that they tried to teach you that in high school civics.)