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.

[Tau Food]

Do you really think it's fair to blame Lincoln for the "Gay Rights Movement" without balancing it out with some credit due him for 1) the general theory of relativity, an idea stolen from him by Einstein, 2) our victory in WWII; 3) the Salk vaccine; 4) the invention of the internet: and 5) the concept of real estate time shares?

The first step is to recognize that there is a problem.

[x]

That War was a long time coming.

True, and if it hadn't happened when it did, war would have happened at some other time -- over the Border States or the territories.

Buchanan was simply waiting for his term to end, so that he could pass the buck to his successor. That successor would have to make some response to secessionist provocations.

If he didn't we'd be talking about how atrocious it was the a US president did nothing to prevent the country being torn apart by ambitious opportunists.

[DiogenesLamp]

Rather than doing "nothing", it seems me to that he could at least have explained to the people of his country that, "the laws recognize that the South had a legitimate right to leave the Union if the government of such no longer suited their Interests."

Sure, because everyone needs the color of the sky "explained" to them from time to time. It's too much to just ask them to read the Declaration of Independence or something.

[DiogenesLamp]

Do you really think it's fair to blame Lincoln for the "Gay Rights Movement" without balancing it out with some credit due him for 1) the general theory of relativity, an idea stolen from him by Einstein, 2) our victory in WWII; 3) the Salk vaccine; 4) the invention of the internet: and 5) the concept of real estate time shares?

If you can show a connection between Lincoln and any of those other things, I have no objection to him getting credit for them.

What I don't think you are grasping is the fact that our Clever Liberal Lawyer President from Illinois took us into uncharted waters. He took us to a destination that was predicted by the Anti-Federalists when they were trying to argue against ratification of the US Constitution, and that our deviation from the normal rule of law has had very bad consequences is simply glossed over by the cheerleaders for the side that won.

The Declaration of Independence says that people clearly have a right to leave a government that no longer suits their interests. This foundational document is well understood, and the claim it makes is clear and unambiguous.

But where is the clear recourse in American law to forcing people to remain in the Union? What significant proclamation is there in any of our founding documents that argues such a thing is reasonable or proper?

Lincoln said he embarked on war to "Preserve the Union", but where does it say in the Constitution that he has a clear duty to preserve it against the will of those states that voluntarily joined it? And even if you could find something that can be twisted into meaning that the President had a duty to "preserve the union", how can you square it against the natural law principle we assert in establishing our own legitimacy independent of the British Union?

In a contest of reason and morals between the Declaration of Independence, and the second of our Operating charters, I would say the document which created the nation and therefore empowered the authority by which the other was created, ought to be the stronger Legal/Moral claim.

How can something be more authoritative than the document which gave us our own independence?

Perhaps the British should have had one of those, and they could have avoided all the "unpleasantness." Who knew that all the British needed was a "constitution" and that could have nipped the whole "independence" thing in the bud?

Obviously our founders would have written their appeal to "nature and nature's God" and then someone would have pointed out "Whoa boys, the Brits have one of them there "Constitutions", and so we have no moral claim to leave now."

If only the Brits knew.

[Tau Food]

I admire Lincoln and for purely selfish reasons I am glad that he saved he Union, but Lincoln was a good and decent man and I know he would never have wanted to save the Union had he known that it would lead to homosexual weddings. I don't think he saw that link.

And, you weren't there to warn him. You must feel terribly guilty.

[lacrew]

“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”

This is the Corwin amendment. You should read about it and learn.

[DiogenesLamp]

I admire Lincoln and for purely selfish reasons I am glad that he saved he Union, but Lincoln was a good and decent man and I know he would never have wanted to save the Union had he known that it would lead to homosexual weddings. I don't think he saw that link.

No, of course he didn't. His vision didn't extend that far. Only God, Prophets, and some very intelligent people who contemplate these sorts of things, can see that far.

For that matter, the founders also couldn't see that far regarding some of the laws they wrote, and we are still suffering today from the lack of clarity some of them put into the various articles/amendments of the US Constitution. ("Natural Born Citizen", for example.)

But the lesson here is "Don't Tamper with things you don't understand." Isn't that our arguments against the Liberal efforts to enact social change?

[Tau Food]

For that matter, the founders also couldn't see that far regarding some of the laws they wrote, and we are still suffering today from the lack of clarity some of them put into the various articles/amendments of the US Constitution. ("Natural Born Citizen", for example.)

Have you ever considered the possibility that draftsmen often intentionally use vague language in order to delegate more power to future decision makers? Do you find that notion disturbing?

[DiogenesLamp]

Have you ever considered the possibility that draftsmen often intentionally use vague language in order to delegate more power to future decision makers?

I think the Drafters of the 14th amendment were very much interested in expanding their own power during this era, (have you read that thing? Compare it to any other amendment, it's a mess. ) but I very much doubt the founders were attempting anything like this when they wrote the Constitution.

Do you find that notion disturbing?

Very much so because it represents an attempt to subvert power through deception, and not an honest and forthright agreement between honest people. You are against slavery, right? I would think slavery imposed by deception is just as objectionable as slavery imposed by force.

[DiogenesLamp]

And by the way, I just found this quote. I thought it was pertinent to both Lincoln and what we have been discussing regarding our currency.

“I would to God that one of the most atrocious of each state was hanged in gibits upon a gallows 5 times as high as the one prepared by Haman. No punishment, in my opinion, is too great
for the man who can build his greatness upon his country’s ruin!”
(George Washington on those who would depreciate the currency.)

[Tau Food]

Do you think that there are times when lawmakers believe that it is a good thing to increase the power of future decision makers by using vague rather than specific language? When the qualifications for being president were being drafted, they included the requirement that the president by 35 years old. That's pretty specific. When the Fourth Amendment was drafted, they used the term "unreasonable" searches and seizures, which is very vague. Have you ever thought about why they chose such a vague word - unreasonable?

[DiogenesLamp]

Do you think that there are times when lawmakers believe that it is a good thing to increase the power of future decision makers by using vague rather than specific language? When the qualifications for being president were being drafted, they included the requirement that the president by 35 years old. That's pretty specific. When the Fourth Amendment was drafted, they used the term "unreasonable" searches and seizures, which is very vague. Have you ever thought about why they chose such a vague word - unreasonable?

For Brevity. James Madison explained this fairly well.

If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & antirepublican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law. If they had undertaken a discrimination, they must have formed a digest of laws, instead of a Constitution.

They had to leave the interpretation of the word "unreasonable" to some level of subjectivity because it would simply be too lengthy to articulate all such distinctions.

[Tau Food]

They had to leave the interpretation of the word "unreasonable" to some level of subjectivity because it would simply be too lengthy to articulate all such distinctions.

Well, you're suggesting that they used vague language because they believed it was impossible to be more specific. I am suggesting that they used vague language for an additional purpose - because they wanted to expand the power of future decision makers to determine what is reasonable or unreasonable under the different circumstances in which the future decision makers would be living. I am suggesting that they knew that circumstances would change and that future decision makers would make better decisions than the drafters could make about what would be reasonable or unreasonable under those changed circumstances.

Does that disturb you?

[HandyDandy]

lacrew, I took your advice and read up on the Corwin amendment. Just a quick overview in wiki. Fascinating none-the-less. Now I know that is what Abe was referring to in his 1st Innaugural when he said,

"I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service....holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.

For DL and TF, there was an amusing exchange during the "contentious debate": Corwin proposed his own text as a substitute and those who opposed him failed on a vote of 68 to 121. The House then declined to give the resolution the required two-thirds vote, with a tally of 120 to 61, and then of 123 to 71.[10][11] On February 28, 1861, however, the House approved Corwin's version by a vote of 133 to 65.[12] The contentious debate in the House was relieved by abolitionist Republican Owen Lovejoy of Illinois, who questioned the amendment's reach: "Does that include polygamy, the other twin relic of barbarism?" Missouri Democrat John S. Phelps answered: "Does the gentleman desire to know whether he shall be prohibited from committing that crime?"

It is good to see American humor still holding up strongly during those times. It also, just might make DT sound not quite so crazy after all. It turns out that there are many more than just those two "twin relics of barbarism".

[Tau Food]

From what I've been reading here today, I suspect that Lincoln would have preferred an amendment compelling homosexual marriage. But, when they wouldn't give him what he wanted, he was forced to accomplish his objective by launching a civil war (which he knew would within a couple of hundred years produce the same result).

So, I hope that all you young secessionists out there are happy with what you have caused!

[HandyDandy]

A man of tremendous foresight, he laid the foundation for the return of all the relics of barbarism that we delight in today. The lgbtq, the booming industry of infant parts (our peculiar industry), rap, hollywood. I can remember celebrating Abe’s Birthday every February. Dunno what the hell happened that...........

[rockrr]

He was one heckuva vampire slayer as well.

[HandyDandy]

And “they say” he was born in a log cabin that he built with his own hands!

[DiogenesLamp]

I am suggesting that they knew that circumstances would change and that future decision makers would make better decisions than the drafters could make about what would be reasonable or unreasonable under those changed circumstances.

They had already incorporated a solution into their work. It's called "the amendment process."

Does that disturb you?

It disturbs me somewhat that you think like this. No, it doesn't disturb me that the founders thought like this because I have no belief that they did.

[BroJoeK]

central_va: "How many soldiers from Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky and Missouri serve in the PACS?
Hundreds of thousands."

Thanks for a great question, which I'll answer in its larger context:

1. Overall, just under half the Confederate Army came from the seven original secession Deep South states (493,000), and just under half from the four later-secession Upper South states (464,000), with the balance of 9% from three non-secession Border States (98,000).

2. In all eleven Confederate states, only South Carolina and Georgia provided near zero troops for the Union Army, and the overall ratio of Confederate to Union troops supplied in the Deep South was eight to one (493,000 C's to 60,000 U's).

3. In the Upper South, the ratio of Confederate to Union troops supplied was four to one (464,000 C's to 105,000 U's).

4. In the Border South states, the ratio was reversed: two to one Union soldiers (232,000 Union to 98,000 Confederates).

5. I could find no numbers for Union state boys fighting for the Confederacy, though am certain there were some, as the story of Culp's Hill at Gettysburg illustrates.

Bottom line: the total of Union troops from slave states, plus colored troops from Northern states sums up somewhere around 500,000 compared to the estimated 1,054,000 total Confederate troops.