The REAL cause of the Civil War.

Vanity | 1957 | Ayn Rand

[DiogenesLamp]

For some time I have wondered how to explain the cause of the Civil War in simple terms that are easy to understand. I now see that Ayn Rand did it years ago. Laws passed by a Northern controlled Congress routed all the money produced by the South into Northern "elite" pockets.

[jmacusa]

“There is never one reason for a wwar of any srt’’.

Really?

So what was the Revolutionary War?

What shut down the gas chambers?

[DiogenesLamp]

I'll just add this: I believe that the principal of eradicating slavery trumps the principal of self-determination.

Well of course you do. This idea that slavery is the ultimate evil has been hammered into you all your life, just as it has been hammered into all of us. We are taught to believe that the saintly and powerful DC government only did what they did because of the milk of human kindness and there was never any greed or power involved in the decision to invade other people and kill them.

But the Founders did not believe that the principle of eradicating slavery trumps the principle of self determination.

And we know this how? We know this because every single state that declared independence from the United Kingdom was a slave state. We know this because they did not first free their own slaves before they demanded they be free of Britain.

Even if South Carolina had been an independent country right from the start, the north would have had the right to invade and liberate slaves by force.

They wouldn't even liberate the slaves in Delaware, so stop making excuses for people that didn't even believe what you are claiming.

There were still slaves in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. The North really wasn't interested in slaves. They just used them as an ex post facto excuse to justify what they had done.

Self determination begins with the individual, not with a state or nation.

Not in the history of this nation. The 13 slave states got independence first. Eventually, some of them later let go of slavery. (Mainly because it was no longer profitable. They never would have gotten rid of it if it was still making them lots of money.)

[DiogenesLamp]

Research the subject and find just how much capital slaves represented in dollars.

From my recollection, 4.5 billion dollars in 1860 dollars.

[DiogenesLamp]

Dismissing the Confederate leaderships statements of slavery at the root of the civil war causes is what is irrational.

I will take the word of a ledger book over any statement by a politician. We are told the North invaded to stop slavery, but they wouldn't even stop it in the North. Furthermore, the North tried to pass a constitutional amendment making slavery permanent, all the while saying they were against slavery.

The money tells the truth. Everyone else is lying.

You need to look at the money, and *ONLY* the money. The war was a war to protect the fortunes of the wealthy and powerful elite of the Northeast who would have been financially devastated by the South taking control of it's own trade and finances.

[GranTorino]

The South shot at a unarmed ship that was attempting to supply Sumter. That’s why the fleet was sent and the South attacked the fort before it could be relieved by the fleet IIRC.

[DiogenesLamp]

ALL of the money? So the South were living with zero money. Interesting theory.

Yes, it was ALL of the money. No, the South was not living with zero money.

ALL of the money did indeed pass through the hands of the Northeastern elite, and they kept about 60% of the total. Including Washington DC's portion of the take.

The Southerners received about 40% of the total value of their trade with Europe. All the rest was kept by the North, but *ALL* the money went through Northern control.

(except for a tiny bit that went to New Orleans.)

This map pretty well represents what was happening.

[DiogenesLamp]

Forcing people to leave, like a number of Southerners , who were NOT all in favor of it is slavery too. Ever hear of John Minor Botts. That man was hero.

Yes, there were plenty of @$$holes in the South as well.

[ConservativeMind]

George Washington signed the first tariff and Andrew Jackson threatened to use the army to force paying tariffs. President John Tyler signed the Black Tariff and James Polk signed the 25% Walker Tariff with the help of a Democrat Congress in 1846.

You know what’s fascinating about all these tariffs and their amounts? THESE TARIFFS WERE ALL ENACTED BY SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_in_United_States_history
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_of_1842
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walker_tariff

[DiogenesLamp]

Lincoln was resupplying a Federal installion, not launching an invasion of the South.

No he wasn't. He was sending warships and troops with the deliberate intention of provoking a war. Every member of his cabinet told him that sending that fleet of warships would trigger a war.

He had to stop the South from leaving the control of DC, because 200 million dollars would be leaving the control of his buddies in the North if he did not.

The war was to protect the money of the Northeastern elite liberals who still run the country, and still live in the Hamptons and Martha's vineyard.

[GranTorino]

I would like to see a link to this information on Star of the West.
Never heard any such thing.
Even if true, the south still fired the first shot.
The north had every right to resupply the fort.

[DiogenesLamp]

There is no Constitutional right to secession.

You cannot create human rights. They are given by God. Mankind cannot gainsay them.

The right to independence and self determination is a human right.

[higgmeister]

Tobacco was a product of mostly Union states, including Kentucky.

Kentucky was a Southern State.   I just didn't secede.

[Albion Wilde]

While Lincoln was still President-elect and touring through supposedly "neutral" but slave-supporting Delaware trying to calm the storm the Dims were brewing, the people of Delaware tried to kill Lincoln multiple times. Keep in mind that the state of Delaware surrounds DC on 3/4ths of the perimeter with confederate Virginia on the rest of the perimeter.

Uh, the closest part of Delaware is a mere 60 miles away from DC as the crow flies, with a many miles-wide Bay in between:

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

But the Founders did not believe that the principle of eradicating slavery trumps the principle of self determination.

Oh, I'm quite sure that at least some of them very clearly understood slavery to be a violation of the principle of self-determination. But they were prisoners of what was possible in their time. There wasn't anything close to the general anti-slavery movement in the 1770s that existed in the 1850s. They never had to make a choice between national self-determination and individual self-determination because there was no plausible means to eliminate or even limit slavery period.

But that doesn't matter in the end anyway because so what if the Founders didn't place that high a priority on limiting/eliminating slavery? Their moral choice doesn't limit the right of later generations, or of us, to make a different choice.

[DiogenesLamp]

The South shot at a unarmed ship that was attempting to supply Sumter.

Well this is incorrect. Assuming you are referring to the "Star of the West", that ship was not unarmed. It was loaded with Union troops intending to be sneaked into Fort Sumter. It was also carrying munitions.

President Buchanan initially wanted to send the Brooklyn loaded with troops to Sumter, but then he thought this would provoke a war, so he ordered the USS Brooklyn to offload the troops onto the Star of the West and sneak them into the fort secretly.

As the troops were being transferred from the Brooklyn, (out at sea where they thought they wouldn't be seen) southern ships nearby spotted them being moved and they immediately sailed to shore where they telegraphed the Confederate authorities that the Union was attempting to sneak troops into the fort disguised as a "supply" mission.

This alerted the people guarding the harbor that the Star of the West was a belligerent ship intent on moving soldiers and munitions into Sumter, and so they fired at it.

Bet you didn't know these details. They don't teach stuff that makes the North look bad.

That’s why the fleet was sent and the South attacked the fort before it could be relieved by the fleet IIRC.

If one ship (Star of the West) could suffice to resupply fort Sumter, then why would it be necessary to send 5 warships, and an ocean going passenger ship loaded with soldiers and munitions? (the Baltic)

Here is an image of one of your "supply" ships.

It is clearly an 1860s era warship, and it wasn't even the most powerful one they sent.

[DiogenesLamp]

You left out the Morril Tariff. And how do you know those tariffs were enacted by Southern Democrats? There were a lot of Democrats in the North too. New York comes to mind.

[Tell It Right]

I meant Maryland. I had Delaware on the brain because I had just read an article about Bradon’s history as a senator.

[Albion Wilde]

There is no Constitutional right to secession.

...there is nothing in the constitution about how a state can go about leaving the union. Neither is there anything in the constitution saying that a state cannot leave the union. Therefore, as per the tenth amendment, the federal government has no authority on the matter, and it is the decision is left to each individual state. To demand that the states lack the power to seceded is to ignore the tenth amendment itself...

—Constitutionality of Secession

[ConservativeMind]

Look up where they were born and died and what party they were.

[ConservativeMind]

I believe the constitutionality of succession without going through an amendment or approval process through Congress was questioned and ultimately determined to be wrong by both law and war.