Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Was the Civil War about Slavery?
Acton Institute, Prager University ^ | 8/11/2015 | Joe Carter

Posted on 08/11/2015 1:11:21 PM PDT by 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.

(Excerpt) Read more at blog.acton.org ...


TOPICS: Education; History; Military/Veterans
KEYWORDS: civilwar; dixie; prageruniversity; secession
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 501-520521-540541-560 ... 1,081-1,098 next last
To: quadrant; BroJoeK

I agree. Dhimmicrats being dhimmicrats they just couldn’t leave well enough alone. Not to trivialize it but northern attitudes regarding slavery were like smoking - I don’t care if someone indulges in it as long as they stay the heck away from me with that disgusting habit. That (small “l”) libertarian attitude hardened as the south continually insisted on forcing the north to be more complicit in their peculiar institution.


521 posted on 08/19/2015 10:35:17 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 520 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; PeaRidge; rockrr; x; HandyDandy
DiogenesLamp: "Real Property located within the confines of a Independent Nation is the property of that nation despite other people's claims to it."

That is bogus to the max, pal.
In fact, deeds of property are unaffected by changes in administration or government, period, end of that discussion.

Today Cuba claims our forces at Gitmo are no longer legit and must be removed -- just as the Confederacy said about Fort Sumter.
But neither claim is recognized in law, and any assault by Cuba on Gitmo is just as much an act of war as was Jefferson Davis' assault on Sumter.

522 posted on 08/19/2015 10:37:49 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 469 | View Replies]

To: Mollypitcher1
Mollypitcher!: "THEIR VIEWS is a poor defense for preventing states to do what those state had the rightful and legal guarantee to do."

But of course they had no "rightful and legal guarantee" to provoke, start and declare war on the United States without suffering the consequences of such stupidity.

You people always fanaticize about a "right to secede", "RIGHT TO SECEDE" you claim.
But secession alone did not start Civil War, nor did forming a new Confederacy.

What started Civil War were the Confederacy's numerous provocations culminating in its assault on Fort Sumter, followed soon after by a formal declaration of war on the United States.

"Right to Secede" or "no Right to Secede", when you declare war on the United States, you will get your soft end whooped.
So don't do it. Just don't, FRiend.

523 posted on 08/19/2015 10:47:01 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 493 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

What started Civil War were the Confederacy’s numerous provocations culminating in its assault on Fort Sumter,
......................................................

Seward repeatedly assured South Carolina that Fort Sumpter was going to be abandoned. How then, I ask you, can the North then legitimately “resupply” a fort which they had promised would be closed? The EXCUSE of” merely” resupplying Fort Sumpter was a deliberate ruse. Les Ruses de Guerre are played everywhere and Lincoln lied deliberately, forcing the south into war.

Unfortunately, “WINNING” has gone out of the vocabulary of presidents since Truman dropped the bomb. Our soldiers might have won the battles, but America’s politicians lost the war. Kerry, among others, should be hung for treason.


524 posted on 08/19/2015 10:57:29 AM PDT by Mollypitcher1 (I have not yet begun to fight....John Paul Jones)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 523 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

Not refuted!


525 posted on 08/19/2015 11:06:17 AM PDT by Mollypitcher1 (I have not yet begun to fight....John Paul Jones)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 511 | View Replies]

To: Mollypitcher1
Not refuted!

You didn't read the posts, did you?

526 posted on 08/19/2015 11:12:41 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 525 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

Of course I read the posts and made several of my own scattered throughout the several hundred.. It is obvious, however, that you have jumped in at the eleventh hour with unsubstantiated statements. I would suggest you do some reading.


527 posted on 08/19/2015 11:23:19 AM PDT by Mollypitcher1 (I have not yet begun to fight....John Paul Jones)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 526 | View Replies]

To: Mollypitcher1
It is obvious, however, that you have jumped in at the eleventh hour with unsubstantiated statements. I would suggest you do some reading.

I've been here off and on since the start. And your stance, which is Lincoln bad, Davis good; the North tricked the South into starting the war; and every ill that has befallen this coutry for the last 150 years is directly attributable to Abraham Lincoln, is not new. It's basically the stance Diogenese Lamp has been taking. So I could probably scroll back over the 500-plus posts and refute any position you care to make by linking to a apecific reply rather than type out all the words.

528 posted on 08/19/2015 11:35:37 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 527 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

http://forloveofgodandcountry.com/2012/11/13/secession-does-a-state-have-the-right-to-secede-from-the-union-2/

The Declaration announces that it is the right of the people to abolish their government. It doesn’t say that they People must first clear it with a court of competent jurisdiction.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to 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 affect their safety and happiness.”

The Declaration gave the colonies a reason to fight the Revolutionary War for their independence. The Declaration gave the States a reason to form a limited and federal government. It is the reason why our Founders and the States placed such an emphasis on the Compact Theory.

Back in 1860, the states still remembered why they fought for their independence from Britain and why they joined together in a Union (as Ben Franklin advised, for mutual benefit – “Join or Die”). They joined for security and on the basis that each state would be on equal footing. They would enjoy the protections and benefits of the Constitution – EQUALLY. The issue of slavery aside, the Southern States dissolved their association with the Northern States because the association had become hostile and had become destructive of the very reasons they joined together in the first place. They seceded for the same right of self-determination and self-government that our earlier Americans asserted for our independence from Great Britain”.


529 posted on 08/19/2015 11:47:24 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 518 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
The Declaration announces that it is the right of the people to abolish their government. It doesn’t say that they People must first clear it with a court of competent jurisdiction.

Nor does it guarantee success, and it also doesn't make the rebelling side right and the remaining side wrong.

The Declaration gave the colonies a reason to fight the Revolutionary War for their independence.

I imagine the Southern Declarations of the Causes of Secession were meant to do the same for the Confederate cause.

The Declaration gave the States a reason to form a limited and federal government.

Which the Southern states certainly did not do in 1861.

It is the reason why our Founders and the States placed such an emphasis on the Compact Theory.

There were multiple parties, but two basic sides to the Compact. Why did those leaving the compact have all the rights and those remaining have none?

The issue of slavery aside, the Southern States dissolved their association with the Northern States because the association had become hostile and had become destructive of the very reasons they joined together in the first place.

In what way?

They seceded for the same right of self-determination and self-government that our earlier Americans asserted for our independence from Great Britain”.

And they promptly lost their rebellion. Are we supposed to feel sorry for them?

530 posted on 08/19/2015 11:53:24 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 529 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

Well I will try to end by saying this. Jefferson was never brought to trial because union lawyers knew that the South would have been vindicated in court. Secession was legal then and it’s legal now. The form of government, a limited form of government, with power resting in the states, like Jefferson and the other Founders envisioned for this nation, not Washington DC, ended when Lincoln invaded the Southern States and brought them back into the Union at a cost of a million American dead. All because of the revenue the Southern States provided, and for no other reason. If the South had won Lincoln would have been hanged from the nearest tree, with the murdering psychopath Sherman hanging beside him.


531 posted on 08/19/2015 12:10:27 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 530 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
Jefferson was never brought to trial because union lawyers knew that the South would have been vindicated in court.

Keep telling yourself that.

Secession was legal then and it’s legal now.

Not the way the South chose to pursue it. The Supreme Court ruled on that.

The form of government, a limited form of government, with power resting in the states, like Jefferson and the other Founders envisioned for this nation, not Washington DC, ended when Lincoln invaded the Southern States and brought them back into the Union at a cost of a million American dead.

Sure it did.

All because of the revenue the Southern States provided, and for no other reason.

Of course it was.

If the South had won Lincoln would have been hanged from the nearest tree, with the murdering psychopath Sherman hanging beside him.

And if flies carried shotguns then frogs wouldn't mess with them.

532 posted on 08/19/2015 12:15:50 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 531 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
You said: "The Morrill Tariff bill was introduced and tabled in the first session of the 36th Congress, before the election of 1860."

That is wrong.

Lincoln was elected Nov. 6, 1860.

The Morrill bill was passed out of committee in the US House and brought up for a floor vote near the end of first session of the Congress on May 10, 1860; the bill passed by a vote of 105 to 64.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Tariff http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/36-1/h151

533 posted on 08/19/2015 12:25:19 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 508 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food; rockrr; DiogenesLamp; Pelham; PeaRidge; x; iowamark; HandyDandy
Tau Food: "Washington didn’t have slaves.
The people working at Mt. Vernon were employees of Martha...."

Ooooooof! What is that, a joke?
Do you realize that, yet again, your intended audience didn't "get" it?

I see where they've been caterwauling and dancing around in their own end-zones, just as if they had scored a game-winning touchdown.
So tell me you meant that as a joke.

If not, and if you were simply mistaken, then allow me to give you some advice: be careful what you post here, don't trust your own memory, it will deceive you sometimes, so you need to check frequently to make certain you remember it right.

Also remember how, basically, our Lost Causers operate: they throw out endless falsehoods, deceits, deceptions, obfuscations, etc., and as soon as you refute one, they go right on changing the subject to the next item on their list.
And they will keep changing the subject until they find one you don't know very well, so you trip up and make some mistake (i.e., the one above).
And now you will see post after post of them whooping it up, dancing around their own end zone fire, just as if every falsehood they posted doesn't matter, but your one mistake makes them victorious.

It doesn't, but why give them the satisfaction?
Double check your work, and if you really intended it to be a joke, make certain everybody, even a Lost Causer, "gets" it, FRiend.

534 posted on 08/19/2015 12:25:53 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 410 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
If the South had won Lincoln would have been hanged from the nearest tree, ........

As it was, the North won and Lincoln was shot in the back of the head.

None of us are at all pleased about our "strong central government". It is quickly growing stronger by the day. I blame that on the guy who shot Lincoln.

535 posted on 08/19/2015 12:30:12 PM PDT by HandyDandy (Don't make-up stuff. It just wastes everybody's time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 531 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
You said: "But a blockade is, in an of itself, not an act of war.

In the case of Lincoln's announcement of a blockade, it was an act of war...your opinion not withstanding.

After the war, the Supreme Court issued an opinion fixing the exact dates on which the war began and ended. 

It held: “...The proclamation of intended blockade by the President may therefore be assumed as marking the first of these dates, and the proclamation that the war had closed, as marking the second.''

Thus, according to the Supreme Court, Lincoln’s signature on this order sealing the imposition of the blockade marked the official beginning of the Civil War.

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:4oC7LRG1GSMJ:www.raabcollection.com/presidential/abraham-lincoln-autograph/abraham-lincoln-autograph-7590.aspx+supreme+court+%22beginning+of+the+civil+war%22&cd=78&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&ie=UTF-8

536 posted on 08/19/2015 12:40:26 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 517 | View Replies]

To: BlueLancer
And there's the sticking point ...

It would not be a sticking point for honest men four score and seven years after the principle was established.

Perhaps someone wasn't so "honest" after all?

537 posted on 08/19/2015 12:41:15 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 510 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
No such "right" to secede is enumerated within the Constitution.

No, it is enumerated in a document of far greater power. One which threw back English law, and established a principle which they claimed to be given by "the laws of nature and of nature's God"; The Document which actually CREATED the United States, and under the authority of which all the other documents were drafted. To disavow the Declaration is to disavow the legitimacy of anything created through it.

The Declaration is the Mother of American's Authority to rule themselves, and no document in contradiction with it can be regarded as legal or moral.

Besides that, the Constitution does not prohibit separation.

538 posted on 08/19/2015 12:45:25 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 501 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
Disposition and deportment of the states is enumerated unto congress.

If King George did not have the right to rule us against our will, than neither does congress. Law of Nature and of Nature's God.

539 posted on 08/19/2015 12:46:35 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 503 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
Unfortunately, most people are as misinformed on the beginning of the war as are you. Firing of weapons, whether in serious hostility or not, does not mean war has been declared.

You may be aware that the first shots were fired by Federal troops on Florida civilian militia in the area of the old Spanish Fort San Carlos in Pensacola in January of 1861. The next day the Star of the West, a federal ship under contract to run supplies into Ft. Sumter received fire and retired from the area of Ft. Moultrie.

Following these events, nothing changed. No declaration of war, nothing.

The same is true of the firing on Ft. Sumter. The seceded states remained in place. No invasion, nothing. Civilian shipping from New York continued to reach Charleston in peace.

The only event related to a declaration of war was Lincoln's issuance of personnel call up and a blockade of Charleston. These commands were signed by President Lincoln on April 17-19, 1861, ordered the Secretary of State to affix the seal of the United States to his proclamation blockading the South, and thus made it official. Under international law of the era, declaration of a blockade is an act of war, and thus after the conflict the United States Supreme Court held the institution of the blockade to constitute the legal commencement of the Civil War.

No doubt you may be inclined to rely on your choice of historians for their opinions....the libraries and Google are full of them. However, for the purposes of consummation of war time issues, the United States government itself affixed the beginning on Lincoln's actions, with no transactional relationship to Charleston Harbor.

540 posted on 08/19/2015 12:47:29 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 484 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 501-520521-540541-560 ... 1,081-1,098 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson