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.

[DiogenesLamp]

Yes, I understand what you're saying - why should we be responsible for the way in which we do things when we haven't had time yet to correct the crazy decisions that people made hundreds of years ago?

If you don't grasp how and where you went wrong, you will not understand how to correct it.

Stabbing in the dark is not my idea of a reasonable solution.

[DiogenesLamp]

“Lincoln’s Fault - for those times when simply blaming Bush just won’t do”

Both Bush's did plenty enough that was wrong, especially HW. You must have missed my many harangues on the topic. I blame Bush Sr. for Clinton, and I blame Clinton for the sorry state of our judiciary as well as the 2008 financial collapse.

But I blame HW For letting him get into a position to do these things.

[Tau Food]

If you don't grasp how and where you went wrong, you will not understand how to correct it.

Stabbing in the dark is not my idea of a reasonable solution.

That sounds like another way of saying that people don't agree with you about the need to change things. We have a right not to change things if we like things as they are. Whether we change things or we don't change things, it's certainly not Lincoln's fault what we do.

[DiogenesLamp]

That sounds like another way of saying that people don't agree with you about the need to change things. We have a right not to change things if we like things as they are. Whether we change things or we don't change things, it's certainly not Lincoln's fault what we do.

We have a right to not change our own lives. We don't have a right to tell other people that they might not change theirs, especially if they represent the consensus of their community. This used to be a characteristic of Federalism at one time.

"The laboratory of Democracy", I think they used to call it.

[DiogenesLamp]

None of those are mutually exclusive and, thus, to me, it becomes a "chicken-or-the-egg" argument that just goes round and round.

My personal opinion is that the principles put forth in the Declaration of Independence apply as well to the Confederacy as they did to the 13 colonies.

The Declaration asserts that people have a right to leave a larger union and create whatever sort of government suits them.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

This is the principle that founded our own government, so I think it is rather hypocritical for our government to apply a different set of standards to a group of states which want to leave the Federal Union.

If the need to "Preserve the Union" is the higher principle involved, then how could we have broken from the British Union?

[Tau Food]

No, you're clearly confused about that. We adopted the 14th Amendment and we can repeal the 14th Amendment. Your assignment is to study Amendments 18 and 21.

But, we're not required to repeal the 14th Amendment. Whether we repeal it or not is none of Lincoln's business and is not his fault. He wasn't even around when we adopted it.

I don't want to hear any more whining about Lincoln. What you do with your life is none of his business. It's time to take care of yourself.

[DiogenesLamp]

Well, the fact is that the secessionists were just wrong. In their declaration of "secession," the slaveholders in Mississippi argued that they had no choice but to secede because they had become totally dependent upon slaves. Specifically, they argued:

Even if your claim is true, it does not speak to their right to leave if they so chose.

You and others are constantly preoccupied with their reasons for leaving, and deliberately ignore their right to do so.

You do this because if the question is focused on their rights, you lose the debate. You persistently insist that it be focused on everything but their right to leave, because along that avenue you have no valid argument.

You simply cannot get to the result you want (that the Union was right) if you go down that path, so this is why you refuse to look at the issue as a matter of the rights of the Southern states.

You only want to focus on their reasons because those are anachronistically unpopular now.

[DiogenesLamp]

In this case I agree with most of his argument, but would still ask: when Confederate armies invaded Union states, which they did numerous times, how did your average Confederate or Union soldier’s views of things change?

You've brought this up before, and I simply don't understand why you think this is significant. After being invaded, returning the favor is a perfectly reasonable, and possibly militarily sensible thing to do.

Sometimes a good offense is the best defense.

[DiogenesLamp]

Maybe you should file a lawsuit so that you can find out what your rights really are.

Now see here, this is where you and I disagree. I don't regard my rights as being established by lawsuit, I regard them as being established by "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God".

From what I have seen, lawsuits generally result in the curtailing of long held rights, not the affirmation of them. The Courts have become a Judicial tyranny, and much of their power to impose their will is the consequence of the Civil War.

[DiogenesLamp]

No, you're clearly confused about that. We adopted the 14th Amendment and we can repeal the 14th Amendment. Your assignment is to study Amendments 18 and 21.

I have long noted that most amendments after the first 10 are utter dreck, and have simply contributed to the decline of what was once a very worthy country.

I pick on the 14th a lot, because it is responsible for most of our judicial troubles, but it is by no means alone in the craptacular erosion of sanity in our nation.

Whether we repeal it or not is none of Lincoln's business and is not his fault. He wasn't even around when we adopted it.

But you cannot face the fact that had he not been around, we never would have adopted it.

I don't want to hear any more whining about Lincoln. What you do with your life is none of his business. It's time to take care of yourself.

You really do seize on an idea and then smother it to death, don't you? You can try to make this about me, but it comes across as you clutching at straws.

Like it or not, Lincoln hatched FedZilla, and now we are all dealing with it. He even turned it against the Northern states. Look up the New York riots.

[HandyDandy]

There was no "union" in 1776. A "colony" is quite distinct from a State that is one of many. "British Union"? Eh? What is that mate? Methinks it was a Monarchy. Lincoln would respond to you thusly:

"I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself. Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?"

[Tau Food]

You and others are constantly preoccupied with their reasons for leaving, and deliberately ignore their right to do so.

We would have been better off if they had left. But, they didn't leave. They stayed here in the USA.

[DiogenesLamp]

There was no "union" in 1776. A "colony" is quite distinct from a State that is one of many. "British Union"? Eh? What is that mate? Methinks it was a Monarchy.

You might look at this.

It explains how the British flag looks like this:

The Cross of Saint Andrew counterchanged with the Cross of Saint Patrick, over all the Cross of Saint George.

You see, it was a "Union."

"I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments.

Thank you for posting that. We now have it in Lincoln's own words that he is reading this interpretation into the constitution. I guess this is the first example of the US constitution being interpreted as a "living constitution" with deep and hidden meanings only perceivable by the enlightened who are just smarter then we mere mortals who see naught but straightforward concepts with little in the way of hidden meaning.

Unfortunately, he is contradicted completely by the Declaration of Independence, which in my opinion is a far higher authority than the US Constitution. The Constitution is merely a rule book, while the Declaration is what created this nation.

It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination.

Histrionics. The 13 slave holding colonies didn't destroy the British Union because they left, and the Southern States would not have destroyed the Union by their leaving either.

If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it?

The founders answered this question in the affirmative. Yes, people can leave a larger union without the consent of the rest of the Union. See Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776.

[DiogenesLamp]

We would have been better off if they had left. But, they didn't leave. They stayed here in the USA.

Why do you keep thinking you have a right to other people's property? The 13 colonies didn't "leave" either as implied by your context. They kept their property but changed their government as they declared they had a right to do.

[Tau Food]

But you cannot face the fact that had he not been around, we never would have adopted it.

I don't know about whether we would have adopted the 14th Amendment had Lincoln not lived and died before we adopted it, but I assume that we would have never adopted it if we hadn't had Founding Fathers to create the USA in the first place.

Go ahead, blame it on Madison. It won't help you.

I love the USA and am very happy here. If there are a few of you who really want to leave, then please just leave. I don't think that we could pry you loose from this country.

[Tau Food]

I don't claim a right in anyone else's property. Your people were claiming a right in other people.

The 13 colonies won their independence. You people lost.

Before they lost, the "secessionists" were whining about how they might be forced to work outside if they lost their slaves. They whined about how they might have to learn how to take care of themselves.

Of course, they lost. And, now you're whining about that.

Whining isn't the answer that you need.

[DiogenesLamp]

I don't know about whether we would have adopted the 14th Amendment had Lincoln not lived and died before we adopted it, but I assume that we would have never adopted it if we hadn't had Founding Fathers to create the USA in the first place.

This is called diversion. It is pretty axiomatic that without Lincoln, the 14th would read very differently than it now does. So would the 13th. The 13th almost read differently anyways, and apparently Lincoln was willing to acquiesce to it.

This is why I put little stock in claims that the Union went to war about slavery. Apparently the continued status of slavery was completely negotiable up until about two years after the war started.

I love the USA and am very happy here.

It is still the best country around, but that just means that we are simply in last place in the race to the dungheap. The rest of the world is getting worse faster than are we, but we are still going in the same direction as they.

We still have that hundred trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities to deal with, and one of these days those interest rates are going to go up.

[DiogenesLamp]

I don't claim a right in anyone else's property. Your people were claiming a right in other people.

If you are referring to Slavery, the Union recognized that "right", so this is simply a case of the pot calling the kettle black, and therefore without any moral force to it.

The 13 colonies won their independence. You people lost.

They asserted it, and the British gave in rather than risk all the death and bloodshed which would have been necessary to refute their assertion. Having asserted it as a sacred principle, you would have thought that same government would have honored it "four score and seven years" later.

Mad King George III was not as crazy as Lincoln. He stopped after 15,000 casualties. Lincoln kept pushing until 600,000 people were killed and trillions of dollars (relatively) were burned in an effort to subjugate people who wanted to be free of Washington D.C.

Of course, they lost. And, now you're whining about that.

If you are referring to my pointing out that the Union was the immoral aggressor that subjugated a people against their will, contrary to the founding principles of the Union government, and at great and tragic cost, as "whining", then I dare say your sense of proportion is seriously out of whack.

[Tau Food]

Apparently the continued status of slavery was completely negotiable up until about two years after the war started.

Your people never negotiated with any of the slaves about slavery.

Your people lost. They were tested by history and lost.

The 13 Colonies was a winning idea. The Confederacy was a losing idea.

History found the secessionists to be losers and unworthy. It tossed them onto the dungheap and that's where they will remain. Don't be in such a hurry to join them.

[BlueLancer]

"This is the principle that founded our own government, so I think it is rather hypocritical for our government to apply a different set of standards to a group of states which want to leave the Federal Union. If the need to "Preserve the Union" is the higher principle involved, then how could we have broken from the British Union?"

I will not disagree with you there.

However, at what level does this become hypocrisy for all concerned ---

West Virginia "seceded" from Virginia during the war and the Federal Government had nothing to say about it.

On the flip side, several counties in Alabama wanted to remain with the Union and attempted to "secede" from Alabama. The Confederacy sent in troops to prevent it.

Hypocrisy abounds ...