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]

But no challenge was ever made in the Supreme Court on constitutional grounds, to the Compromise of 1850 Law, which moved responsibility for returning Fugitive Slaves from Northern States to the Federal Government.

That "no challenge was ever made" means what in terms of constitutional validity? Are we to accept this as a new standard for constitutional law? Congress can make changes, and they are valid if nobody challenges them?

And here I thought we had this amendment process.

[central_va]

Rebels sometimes looked like scare crows and were scrawny but they always had plenty of ammo.

[Ditto]

Article IV says states have to respect other states slave laws. I take that to mean that in a contest between freedom laws of a free state, and slave laws of a slave state, the slave laws must always prevail.

What is that, the famous Heads I Win, Tails You Lose clause in the Constitution?

Again, you seem to be under the impression that Scott sued for his freedom in a free state. He did not. He was taken by his owner into both a free state, and free territory, lived there for years, even married and had a child there and was then returned by his owner to the slave state of Missouri. He sued in Missouri court for his freedom, and under well recognized Missouri law was awarded his freedom under the doctrine of "once free, always free."

[rockrr]

You’re forgetting about the notorious slaver “neener neener, crossed my finger” clause ;’)

[wardaddy]

You spoke very good logic right out of the gate

There is a cadre of south bashers here

They work in concert and have since 99/2000

Some are same poster and some have been exposed as agitators trying the make the forum racist looking

Many have been zotted as libs

If they were not here there would be little talk of this stuff....well I till Charleston when the purge started

Some of them were once busted as a Maryland GOPe black group

Others sound like Beckites

Or NRO sorts

Their code word is neoconfederate which was a word I never heard till here 15 years ago

It’s a smear on Paleos basically ....

Most of these folks are caught sooner or latter being soft on homosexual agenda or abortion and get zotted by JR

But they sneak back

That was a brief history for you

I salute you

[DiogenesLamp]

What is that, the famous Heads I Win, Tails You Lose clause in the Constitution?

That is exactly what it seems to be when you analyze the larger consequence of it. It does indeed appear to create and maintain a disadvantage in the law towards people who wish to abolish slavery in their state.

When you have a clause that specifically says there can be no state laws interfering with the labour owed by the laws of another state, that pretty much torpedoes any means of freeing a slave who was born subject to another state's laws.

Again, you seem to be under the impression that Scott sued for his freedom in a free state

I am under the impression that it is irrelevant to the larger point.

[Tau Food]

But I just don't like when he speaks Latin. (sic temper tyrannis)

Oh, don't pay any attention to that. Every once in a while, he slides into this little riff that's in the key of rebel.

(I think he thinks it's Spanish.)

;-)

[HandyDandy]

Now, that there is funny. It’s good that we can share laughs, no matter which side we would have been on. The yanks and the rebs actually would yell across to one another, in communication, during lulls in the action. It was brother against brother. Tell central_va that “sic semper tyrannis” is Spanish for, “Lincoln said that someday we’ll back on this War and have a good laugh!”

[HandyDandy]

“look back”

[wardaddy]

You guys need to drink some coffee or snort some No Doze and push this thing over 1000

10 years ago it woulda rivaled a Hobbit Thread

[HandyDandy]

I hear ya. It's quiet out there......... too quiet! Sumpin's up. I'm just sitting here in this tree on picket duty and chewing on bark and shoe leather. The damn hobbits had magic stuff to get through the rough spots.

I think everybody is either out there reconnaissance'n (or copy and pastin').

"Hey Reb, you out there? Ya got us good today but we'll getcha tomorrow!"

[BroJoeK]

wardaddy: "There is a cadre of south bashers here."

Sorry, but no.
There are no "south bashers" here, not one.
All of us love the South, most have lived there, some were born there.
I may be typical -- half my family is Southern and over many years I've lived in eight different Southern states, today in a part of rural Pennsylvania where you drive through many small towns and see the US and Confederate Battle Flags flying side by side.
We love the South and we love Rebels here.
But we also love the old Union and don't like to see it trashed or lied about.

That's why we're here.

wardaddy: "Their code word is neoconfederate which was a word I never heard till here 15 years ago."

Without exception that I've seen, people like yourself object to being called "neo-confederates" -- I'm pretty sure that's because the term is so easily shortened to "neo-cons", and that is, well, just beyond unacceptable.

So I've not seen that term "neo-confederate" on these threads in many years.

But almost nobody objects to the totally accurate term "pro-Confederate" and so that's what I've used whenever some such word is needed.

wardaddy: "Most of these folks are caught sooner or latter being soft on homosexual agenda or abortion and get zotted by JR."

Ouch, that hurts.
But I would note, with respect, that for every pro-Union poster here who was eventually banned, there is at least one old pro-Confederate poster who no longer shows up to vomit his foul language and hatred of all things good & decent.

So my impression is that JR is very fair & balanced in his judgments on who is, or is not, a credit to his Free Republic.

[BroJoeK]

HandyDandy: "I hear ya.
It's quiet out there......... too quiet!
Sumpin's up.
I'm just sitting here in this tree on picket duty and chewing on bark and shoe leather..."

LOL!
You may know, I travel a lot on business, last week in New Orleans for the first time, this week back to Sioux Falls, South Dakota, one of my favorite places.
Result is days & sometimes weeks between posting.

Anyway, at this point I've had no success trying to talk sense to DiogenesLamp, and don't see much potential in further efforts.
But perhaps there are others to address... :-)

[rockrr]

Thanks BroJoeK.

You should take a gander at wardandy’s page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~wardaddy/

He’s updated it and it’s a hoot. The unintentional irony is in his puerile insults and slanders against FReepers with whom he disagrees, all the while calling us “bashers”. I guess self-awareness isn’t his strong suit.

Like the left’s misuse of the race card, he has worn out any cachét of “south-basher” until it’s only meaning is “anyone who disagrees with me”.

Sad really.

Pathetically sad.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp suggesting a possible 1790 SCOTUS ruling against Northern anti-slavery laws: "I suspect you would have gotten different results from different Federal Judges.
Those in the South would likely have abrogated such state laws, while those in the North likely would not have done so."

The Federalist Papers and other documents show that our Founders intended Judicial Review of laws, but the Supreme Court did not start off willy-nilly striking down laws as unconstitutional.
Instead, the first example of SCOTUS declaring any law "unconstitutional" is Marbury vs. Madison in 1803 -- but that was Federal law.

The first example I can find of SCOTUS declaring a state law unconstitutional is 1824, Gibbons vs. Ogden where SCOTUS struck down a New York state law, in a commerce regulation case.

Point is: there is no possibility that the US Supreme Court in 1790 was going to strike down a Northern state's anti-slavery laws, because that was simply not part of the Founders' Original Intent & understandings.

DiogenesLamp: "But we must contemplate what an objective judge would have done, had such a case come before him, and I don't see how someone objectively applying the laws of the day could have ignored that provision in article IV."

But by "objective" you, of course, mean "whatever thoughts flitter across DiogenesLamp's brain", and that just cannot be the standard, ever.
The real standard, the only possible standard, is Founders' Original Intent, and we can see this in both what they wrote, and what they did.

In the case of slavery, it is absolutely beyond reasonable dispute that our Founders intended both that Northern states could lawfully abolish slavery, and that the Federal government could pass restrictions against it in, for examples, international waters and US western territories.

So, to declare, as in effect Roger Tanney did in Dred-Scott, that slavery must be allowed in every state, and no African-American could be a US citizen was in no way understood by our Founders, and was strongly objected to by Northern voters in 1860.

DiogenesLamp: "It also argues states were a lot more autonomous than they are now.
It's odd, but this is a case where you seem to be championing states rights against the Federal Constitution.
I expect that soon you are going to argue that the North had a right to secede from the South over slavery. :)"

Don't be ridiculous.
My argument is, and has always been, "Founders' Original Intent".
Their words and actions clearly tell us that Founders intended: slavery could be outlawed at will by Northern (or Southern) states, and restricted by Federal government outside states.
To suggest otherwise is neither historical, logical nor "objective".

[BroJoeK]

PeaRidge: "Whether slavery is viewed as a legal, political, or social problem, then describe the problem the Northern states had with it after secession."

Before the 1857 Dred-Scott decision, Northern states knew with certainty that they could outlaw slavery within their own borders.
They also saw that slavery was seriously declining in Border States like Delaware, Maryland and Missouri.
So there was realistic hope that slavery itself could be gradually abolished.
Based on that, about half of Northerners were content to vote in alliance with Southern Democrats -- to preserve the Union, and the domination of the Slave Power over Federal Government in Washington, DC.

But Dred-Scott turned everything on its head -- not only was slavery not to be abolished by Border States, but now it could not be forbidden in Western Territories or even in Northern States themselves.
That act helped abolish the old Whig Party, and turned many Northern Democrats into abolitionist Republicans.

In sum: by 1860 Northerners were content, as a condition of Union, to allow slavery in the South, but would not tolerate it being imposed on their own states or western territories.

After secession:

At first, many Northerners (especially Democrats) were willing to make almost any concession necessary to preserve the Union, including making slavery lawful everywhere.
But no Congressional proposal was ever even considered, much less accepted, by the new Confederacy, which quickly went the other way: first provoking, then starting (Ft. Sumter), then declaring war on the United States, May 6, 1861.

So there was to be no political compromise to save the Union.

Once the Confederacy declared war on the United States, now the wheel turned yet again.
Almost immediately, Union armies began freeing runaway slaves under the rubric of "enemy contraband".
When they looked to President Lincoln for guidance on this, he considered it in stages, eventually releasing his Emancipation Proclamation in 1862.
That was a happy marriage of military necessity and abolitionist Republican ideological beliefs.

Soon after Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, Republicans in Congress began work on a constitutional amendment to abolish slavery in all states, forever.

So what began as an existential war to prevent destruction of the United States ended as war to complete our Founders' unfinished work regarding the Declaration's pledge that, "all men are created equal".

What do you disagree with here?

[Tau Food]

Well, I want to add my name to those who have no desire to bash the South. It's true that there was at one time a group of very powerful Southerners who had some trouble coming to terms with what history was demanding of them and a huge number of good Americans died as a result, but for nearly everyone living now those difficulties are over. Today, the people of the South are at least as patriotic as the people of any section of our wonderful country.

I have Highlander ancestors who often killed one another for reasons that no one can even remember anymore. And, it's just as well that we can't remember a lot of that nonsense because a lot of us are here now because our own people made it impossible for many of our ancestors to continue living in a place that they thought was home. In the end, clans became little more than a reason to sell t-shirts to ignorant tourists.

However we got here, I think we're all very lucky to be here. If there was another country that I liked better, I'd be living there now. We're supposed to complain about this or that, but I notice it when people don't leave.

As for wardeddy, I don't know much about him, but he does have a beautiful family. And, what can be more important than that?

So, as we abuse one another over nothing, let's try to remember to keep smiling. I'm old enough now to know that it doesn't much matter what any of us think. We're just lucky to be here.

[wardaddy]

dont be cowards

Own it

You should be happy

[wardaddy]

ANYONE WHO DOESNT BELIEVE ME THAT DEES IS DOING THE WORK OF SOUTH BASHERS HERE NEED ONLY CHECK THE POSTING HISTORY OF THOSE ON MY LIST

ANYONE DOESNT BELIEVE JR ROUTINELY ZOTS SOUTH BASHERS HERE WHO SLIP UP AND EXPOSE THEMSELVES

I CAN GIVE EXAMPLES

SHERMAN LOGAN BEING THE LATEST AND I SPOKE UP FOR HER

SOUTHERN WHITES ARE THE LAST REDOUBT IN AMERICA ALONG WITH SPOTS IN THE MIDWEST AND MOUNTAIN STATES

THOSE WHO WISH TO DESTROY OUR HERITAGE ARE DESTROYING AMERICA IN THE PROCESS

DO NOT BELIEVE THE LIARS YOU SEE ON THIS THREAD

LIARS WHO NEVER EVER GIVE ANY PERSONAL REFERENCE

[spintreebob]

To address the title, on the same side of a war, or any thing that has people on “sides” different people have different reasons for being on the same side.

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.

The fire and brimstone churches pushed war.

Others were more refined. They rationalized “to save the union”.

But look at Iraq. In the 2000 election Bush explicitly rejected “nation building” which was being advocated by Cheney and the neo-cons. But post-911 Bush flip-flopped to give the neo-cons the green light. Their motivation was not WMD.

But WMDs was the Democrats boogeyman. So it was cynically used to get their support for the same war. Different motivations, same side in the war.