Was the Civil War Justified?

[consumedconvert]

I’m no Civil War historian, but I can’t resist the question. Was the Civil War justified? A very interesting question, and not at all a “moot point.” In the North (and particularly here in the “Land of Lincoln”) it is often characterized as a war to end slavery; of course, it was not. The Emancipation Proclamation came years into the war, and was arguably more about winning the war than freeing the black man.

The war was about keeping the Union together. Here’s a few things to consider:

1. The war started when Southern militias seized a federal fort.
2. While many argue the invasion of the South was justified by Article VI of the Constitution Lincoln clearly violated the Constitution when he allowed West Virginia to break away from Virginia in order to join the Northern cause. (This, by the way, has never [to my knowledge] been redressed).
3. Over 500,000 died in the Civil War. It is the bloodiest conflict the US has ever been involved in.

In light of the Catholic Church’s aversion to war as emphasized by Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI, was this particular war justified? If so, what justified it?

How might the war have been prevented?

And finally, was the preservation of the Union worth the sacrifice of half a million American lives?

There will be an essay test at the end of the thread

I leave you with an interesting quote from Lincoln:

“I hope to have God on my side, but I must have Kentucky.”

–http://www.lincolnpresenters.com/PDF/Lincoln Presenters Newsletter 8-06.pdf (page 7)

 

[TMC]

All wars are bad, sometimes they are the best choice amongst many other bad choices. I would not call any war “Justified”, the question to me is could this war have been avoided with even more injustice.

I think you show your hand when you say that the civil war was not about slavery. I know it has become popular to say the war was not about slavery. The origins of the war are complex and involved social, economic, and cultural issues. It was about keeping the union together. It was about redefining the American experiment. It was all of those things that people like to point to instead of slavery. But it was mostly about slavery.

The institution of slavery in the US was a very great evil. Human beings were bred, bought, and sold for profit. Women were routinely abused. Children were taken from their mothers and sold to strangers. Millions died of abuse. Generations lost their identities. Ending this evil was worth a great sacrifice. If it could have been done more easily it should have been, I don’t know if it could have.

As for preserving the Union - was that worth it? What would the cost of not preserving the Union have been? Would the US have been the power that it became? If not, who would have defeated fascism and communism?

All of this is an interesting intellectual exercise, but I’m wondering what you think? It seems like you are asking because you think the war was not justified.

 

[consumedconvert]

All wars are bad, sometimes they are the best choice amongst many other bad choices. I would not call any war “Justified”, the question to me is could this war have been avoided with even more injustice.

I think you show your hand when you say that the civil war was not about slavery. I know it has become popular to say the war was not about slavery. The origins of the war are complex and involved social, economic, and cultural issues. It was about keeping the union together. It was about redefining the American experiment. It was all of those things that people like to point to instead of slavery. But it was mostly about slavery.

The institution of slavery in the US was a very great evil. Human beings were bred, bought, and sold for profit. Women were routinely abused. Children were taken from their mothers and sold to strangers. Millions died of abuse. Generations lost their identities. Ending this evil was worth a great sacrifice. If it could have been done more easily it should have been, I don’t know if it could have.

As for preserving the Union - was that worth it? What would the cost of not preserving the Union have been? Would the US have been the power that it became? If not, who would have defeated fascism and communism?

All of this is an interesting intellectual exercise, but I’m wondering what you think? It seems like you are asking because you think the war was not justified.

Yes, that’s true, I don’t think it was justified. Great Britain, with the largest empire on earth, managed to end slavery through legislation. Why did we “need” a war? If the North had declared slaves free throughout the Union (before the war) and the South seceded, I believe lawmakers in the North could have honestly said they had done all they reasonably could to end slavery.

As to whether or not the war was caused by slavery, it is true that it was an indirect cause; but for the warring powers (those who made the decisions), it was not a decisive motivation. Men were initially sent to their deaths to preserve the Union, not to free the slaves.

Slavery is a great evil, absolutely you’re right; but war is also evil, and a greater one. Many would argue (including myself) that slavery would have died out under its own weight; just as (I believe) one day abortion will everywhere be vilified because one day soon we will be able to watch embryos and fetuses move about as clearly as we watch TV; and people will actually think about the fact that these are children, just as people thought about the fact that black people are as human as everyone else (in many places, a hundred years after the Civil War. Would it have taken so long if the North had not destroyed and embittered the South? I’m not so sure).

Consider it this way: If you do accept the premise that the main cause of the Civil War was slavery (which I do not) Would we not be much more justified starting a new civil war to end the nightmare of abortion than our forefathers were in starting a war to fight slavery? Not that I’m suggesting a new war–nothing of the sort. We ought to do everything in our power to save life except take lives; If we do take life, it must be in defense of life and without any other options. We must either accept that premise (with or without qualifications) or else we find ourselves in the same philosophical camp as those who murder abortionists.

I guess I would stop short at arguing that the only truly just war is a defensive one. There should certainly be a role for responsible intervention to prevent genocide (for instance, in places like Rwanda, Sudan, etc.), and there could be other just reasons for war, when all other options are exhausted.

As to the questions you posed, the US would most likely not be nearly as powerful as it is today; but that wouldn’t be the end of the world. Perhaps North America would look a bit more like Europe or South America, with many countries instead of three (since “manifest destiny” would not probably have seemed such a huge issue). WHo would have opposed Fascism? Probably the same people who defeated it–the Europeans, British possessions, some Asian nations, and North Americans, the USA, the CSA, and perhaps one or two of "_SA"s. Communism? Same answer. Anyway, “what would have happened” down the road is irrelevant to the discussion if we accept the premise that the ends never justify the means.

Interesting discussion.

 

[pnewton]

I think not. I believe not only would slavery had ended otherwise, it was, legally, and unconstitutional war. Were the old Soviet Union fought a major conflict to prevent states from breaking off, we would be subsidizing the states breaking away.

 

[consumedconvert]

I should also mention that I have always had a hard time justifying how the 13 Colonies had a right to secede while the South did not. It seems a little like having it both ways.

An interesting historical question, with ramifications for the future. The responses so far have been good food for thought, polite, and thought provoking. I hope we can continue to keep this thread relatively on track, and keep finger-pointing and pointless personal accusations out of it. **I hope this conversation will be characterized by respect, thoughtfulness, and a lack of ad hominum comments This should be an interesting conversation!
**

 

[love4mary]

Slavery was such an afterthought of the War of Aggression (Civil War). The main reason was States Rights for the South.

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

The Civil War was nothing more that the North “imposing its morals” on the South.

I’m just waiting for the big guns to come out

 

[Arnobius]

I think not. I believe not only would slavery had ended otherwise, it was, legally, and unconstitutional war. Were the old Soviet Union fought a major conflict to prevent states from breaking off, we would be subsidizing the states breaking away.

I am inclined to believe otherwise. Despite the revisionism among some scholars about the causes about the war and the issue of “rights”, it was always about the right to own slaves. The “States rights” were about slavery and the secession was about slavery. “Bleeding Kansas” was about whether the state would be slave or free, and the arguments about admitting states into the union was over whether they were slave or free and the balance to be maintained.

As for Lincoln, one must recognize he did not adapt the anti-slavery position as a convenience in office. The Republican Party was founded on an anti-slavery platform.

Lincoln’s House Divided speech was given in 1858:
showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/house.htm

Or this statement from 1855:
“As a nation, we began by declaring that “all men are created equal.” We now practically read it, “All men are created equal, except Negroes.” When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read, “All men are created equal except Negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.” When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some other country where they make no pretense of loving liberty - to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, without the base alloy of hypocrisy.”

While Lincoln may have considered the delay of freedom for the sake of expedience, it is clear he believed it was wrong before he ran for president

We should remember that Slavery was an issue like abortion today, people were strongly divided about it, and even then there were people who used the “personally opposed but…” argument

Economically we need to remember that one of the reasons the South was less economically developed than the North was the large amount of infrastructure invested in the North was invested in slaves in the South.

To say that the slaves would have been freed without war is something I find hard to accept when we see the South was willing to separate from the Union to keep their right to slaves.

This is my views on the subject at any rate.

 

[Arnobius]

I should also mention that I have always had a hard time justifying how the 13 Colonies had a right to secede while the South did not. It seems a little like having it both ways.

An interesting historical question, with ramifications for the future. The responses so far have been good food for thought, polite, and thought provoking. I hope we can continue to keep this thread relatively on track, and keep finger-pointing and pointless personal accusations out of it. I hope this conversation will be characterized by respect, thoughtfulness, and a lack of ad hominum comments This should be an interesting conversation!

I think we need to remember that the colonies gave reasons for their secession, and that we need to ask whether the reasons the south gave… states rights to own slaves were justifiable compared to the rights claimed by the Colonists.

To accept this reasoning, we need to accept the principle that the states have a right to secede for any reason at all or none, compared to the idea that this was a desperate measure

The Declaration of Independence:
ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm

 

[pnewton]

I know we all have different opinion on the War of Northern Aggresion. Not surprising since it was after all a war. Here is a new thought. If we are going to consider all the ramifications, one downside to the maintaining of the union was stronger a stronger federal government which in subsequent years allowed the imposition of federal law on the individual states in ways never perceived by the founding fathers. One such right that was forced upon the states was the right to abortion. This has resulted in the loss of millions of lives. I can almost guarantee that Texas would still not allow the murder of children if we weren’t forced by the Supreme Court.

 

[Arnobius]

I know we all have different opinion on the War of Northern Aggresion. Not surprising since it was after all a war. Here is a new thought. If we are going to consider all the ramifications, one downside to the maintaining of the union was stronger a stronger federal government which in subsequent years allowed the imposition of federal law on the individual states in ways never perceived by the founding fathers. One such right that was forced upon the states was the right to abortion. This has resulted in the loss of millions of lives. I can almost guarantee that Texas would still not allow the murder of children if we weren’t forced by the Supreme Court.

Well, perhaps my view of history is off, but I think the Federalism that led to this coercive policy has its roots with the FDR court packing attempts, the 1950s creation of rights arbitrarily by the Warren court and the 1960s radicalism that led to the legalization in 1973.

Certainly the South was generally left alone from 1868 to 1964 for example to govern as they saw fit.

So from my reading of history, it was not the Civil War, but the later New Deal Federalism that began to lead to the situation we have today.

 

[pnewton]

So from my reading of history, it was not the Civil War, but the later New Deal Federalism that began to lead to the situation we have today.

You are quite right I am sure. But the New Federalism that arose in the middle of the twentieth century would have not affected as many were it limited to the states north of the Mason-Dixon. I guess what stands out most is the Civil War is first time that I know of that the Constitutional protection given to the states was ingored for the greater good. Once a right is sacrificed, it is never given back.

 

[Ridgerunner]

This is all speculative, of course, but it has sometimes seemed to me the Civil War was a situation in which people jumped the gun to resolve by arms something that would likely have resolved itself in time anyway.

It has been said that only Massachussetts and South Carolina really wanted war. I know my own state tried to simply stay out of it, but was invaded, and had no choice in the matter.

Likely slavery was on the verge of collapse; the prewar period being its high water mark. Slaves were extraordinarily expensive and, as an economic thing, slaves could be justified only if the price of the typical products for which slave labor was utilitzed was high per labor unit invested. Certainly, in the case of cotton, which was the most significant use of slave labor, the price of cotton on the world market collapsed toward the end of the Civil War and never did recover its former lucrativeness. Eventually, too, mechanization would have ended its utility.

Before and after the Civil War, immigrant labor was cheaper, when you considered capital investment. Immigrants on the low end of the scale were barely paid subsistence, which was approximately what the maintenance cost of slaves was. But you didn’t have to buy the immigrant. The difference was that, there being a frontier, immigrants could up and leave if they could manage it, whereas slaves couldn’t. So, it was only the slave’s inability to walk away that gave him capital value. After the Civil War, cheap agricultural labor was still available, it was just that the lower price for product could not have any longer justified the initial capital investment.

Had South Carolina been tacitly allowed to secede, it has seemed questionable to me whether all other seceding states would necessarily have followed, as there was great reluctance on the part of some to do so. Ultimately, those states that formally seceded (and it might have been only South Carolina) would almost have had to rejoin the Union at some point, if only to reverse what would have been a savage, seemingly endless depression. If, indeed, SC’s secession really was motivated by a desire to see slavery extended into the West, it would likely have been frustrated anyway, because, after Texas, there really wasn’t much of “the West” left in which slavery would have been economically viable, and new “slave states” would have likely have been so only formally. As it was, some of the “slave states” had few slaves, little prospect of increasing the use of slave labor and little dedication to it. One could argue that, since very few of the Confederate combatants were slaveowners or had any prospect of being slaveowners, they were motivated by something else. It likely varied from place to place. In my own state, joining the Confederate cause does appear to have been largely motivated by the North’s demand that it provide troops to fight in the East, and the North’s “preemptive strike” into it when it refused to do so.

But, none of this would have seemed so at the time. No doubt it seemed, in the Deep South, that cotton would be “king” forever, just as it recently seemed that housing prices would keep spiraling into infinity, and just as it seemed, a few years ago, that “techs” would keep climbing forever.

This is not to say slavery was morally justified, any more than oppressing immigrants in “dark, Satanic mills” was morally justified. It is only to say slavery was likely to have ended fairly shortly, Civil War or no Civil War.

 

[Brendan]

1. While many argue the invasion of the South was justified by Article VI of the Constitution Lincoln clearly violated the Constitution when he allowed West Virginia to break away from Virginia in order to join the Northern cause. (This, by the way, has never [to my knowledge] been redressed). )

The partion of Viriginia WAS voted on by the Legistlature of the State of Virginia. A new Legislature of those not in rebellion was convened and voted in favor of the resolution.

The Legislature in Richmond had no power or legitimacy under US law after it voted to rebel and thus the convention that formed in Wheeling was viewed as the legally valid legislature. That convention initiatiated a popular vote to seperate several western counties from the State of Virginia. The vote passed ( the ballots send to the other counties in Virginia were never returned for counting.). The vote was ‘aided’ by the fact that many pro Union Virginians had moved into the area after sucession.

The issue was brought forward to the US Supreme Court after the war ( when several men who had returned from service in the Confederate Army came home and refused to recognize the change) The Supreme Court decided in favor of the State of West Virginia.

 

[consumedconvert]

The Legislature in Richmond had no power or legitimacy under US law after it voted to rebel and thus the convention that formed in Wheeling was viewed as the legally valid legislature.

I think that was Lincoln trying to have it both ways. He insisted that the seceded states were not really seceded, that they were still US states. But it is unconstitutional to break apart one state into two states (whether or not any legislature voted for it). I think Lincoln here sacrificed the Constitution for expediency and troops (but in his then-current position, I’m sure it would be almost impossible not to).

The issue was brought forward to the US Supreme Court after the war ( when several men who had returned from service in the Confederate Army came home and refused to recognize the change) The Supreme Court decided in favor of the State of West Virginia.

Thanks for the info, I did not know that it was addressed. BTW, I’m not suggesting that the two states reunite. I, for one, prefer WV

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I am inclined to believe otherwise. Despite the **revisionism **among some scholars about the causes about the war and the issue of “rights”, it was always about the right to own slaves. The “States rights” were about slavery and the secession was about slavery. “Bleeding Kansas” was about whether the state would be slave or free, and the arguments about admitting states into the union was over whether they were slave or free and the balance to be maintained.

so I am curious why did South Caroline become the focal point of the Kansas war ?

As for Lincoln, one must recognize he did not adapt the anti-slavery position as a convenience in office. The Republican Party was founded on an anti-slavery platform.

Lincoln’s House Divided speech was given in 1858:
showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/house.htm

Or this statement from 1855:
“As a nation, we began by declaring that “all men are created equal.” We now practically read it, “All men are created equal, except Negroes.” When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read, “All men are created equal except Negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.” When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some other country where they make no pretense of loving liberty - to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, without the base alloy of hypocrisy.”

While Lincoln may have considered the delay of freedom for the sake of expedience, it is clear he believed it was wrong before he ran for president

yes but Lincoln did not actually free the slaves! why do you think he altered the proclamation to avoid freeing any current slaves?

We should remember that Slavery was an issue like abortion today, people were strongly divided about it, and even then there were people who used the “personally opposed but…” argument

Economically we need to remember that one of the reasons the South was less economically developed than the North was the large amount of infrastructure invested in the North was invested in slaves in the South.

this may need some research I suggest you look up cotton and cotton tariffs

To say that the slaves would have been freed without war is something I find hard to accept when we see the South was willing to separate from the Union to keep their right to slaves.

That is circular logic, if Kansas had no slaves why did the other states risk such a loss?
BTW
How many slaves existed in the North?
How was slavery ended in the Northern US?
slavenorth.com/profits.htm

 

[steveandersen]

I’m no Civil War historian, but I can’t resist the question. Was the Civil War justified? A very interesting question, and not at all a “moot point.” In the North (and particularly here in the “Land of Lincoln”) it is often characterized as a war to end slavery; of course, it was not.

Well of course it was
In part

The Emancipation Proclamation came years into the war, and was arguably more about winning the war than freeing the black man.

Like you said you are no historian

The Whig party broke up and the Republican Party was founded with abolition being one of the main issues.

While the shooting started in 1861 the events leading up to it were decades in the making

Now naturally it was tied up in bigger issues such as the notions of interposition and nullification and the meaning of the supremacy clause

but these issues were also behind South Carolina’s semi-secession attempt in 1832 (when slavery was not an issue… yet)

Andy Jackson was able to contain that attempt. But he was a southerner and a slaver owner.
When the specter of a party with abolitionist leanings was added to the mix 30 years later things turned violent.

The war was about keeping the Union together. Here’s a few things to consider:

1. The war started when Southern militias seized a federal fort.
2. While many argue the invasion of the South was justified by Article VI of the Constitution Lincoln clearly violated the Constitution when he allowed West Virginia to break away from Virginia in order to join the Northern cause. (This, by the way, has never [to my knowledge] been redressed).

It was addressed by the Supreme Court in 1870

(As was the secession issue in 1869)

The enabling legislation that admitted WV into the Union also required the gradual abolition of slavery BTW

1. Over 500,000 died in the Civil War. It is the bloodiest conflict the US has ever been involved in.

In light of the Catholic Church’s aversion to war as emphasized by Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI, was this particular war justified? If so, what justified it?

The abolition of slavery.

How might the war have been prevented?

You can’t secede just a little bit
Similarly you can’t just have a little bit of supremacy
Compromise is fairly difficult under those conditions.

And finally, was the preservation of the Union worth the sacrifice of half a million American lives?

If the US was broken into many smaller states it may have fallen prey to the European powers in their big colonizing grab of the 1870s. (or maybe just petty internecine wars as was the case in much of the world.)

Remember the UK still governed vast swaths of North America (“54 50 or fight” had been an election slogan in 1844 and even the pugnacious Polk backed down from that one).
France had installed a puppet emperor in Mexico while the US was distracted with the Civil War.
Russia once had land claims from Alaska to Northern California
Span still had holdings in the Caribbean and had only been thrown out of the mainland of the western henisphere
And Mexico was still licking its wounds from 1848.

What would a truncated, weakened (or non-existent) US been able to contribute to the world in 1914 or 1939?
Who would have built the trans continental railroad?
Who would have built the vast water and land reclamation projects that make the West livable?
Who would assure that the Mississippi was open to navigation both from the physical hazards and political obstructions?

There will be an essay test at the end of the thread

I leave you with an interesting quote from Lincoln:

“I hope to have God on my side, but I must have Kentucky.”

–http://www.lincolnpresenters.com/PDF/Lincoln Presenters Newsletter 8-06.pdf (page 7)

Lincoln was a wise man
It would be very presumptuous to assume that God has chosen your side.
But Kentucky was the key to keeping the Ohio River open and protecting the Republican heartland in the then-Midwest.

 

[steveandersen]

Slavery was such an afterthought of the War of Aggression (Civil War). The main reason was States Rights for the South.

the State’s right to do what exactly?

 

[steveandersen]

I should also mention that I have always had a hard time justifying how the 13 Colonies had a right to secede while the South did not. It seems a little like having it both ways.

They didn’t secede
They revolted

The colonies didn’t join the kingdom they were plantations and colonies given various charters by the kingdom
Some were set up as companies some as proprietorships
Some were gained by conquest
Eventually most became Crown colonies.
There was no pact uniting the colonies to the Crown

Revolt was justified in that the natural law and rights of Englishmen were being denied (in their view) to the colonial population

An interesting historical question, with ramifications for the future.

How so?

The responses so far have been good food for thought, polite, and thought provoking. I hope we can continue to keep this thread relatively on track, and keep finger-pointing and pointless personal accusations out of it. I hope this conversation will be characterized by respect, thoughtfulness, and a lack of ad hominum comments This should be an interesting conversation!

 

[Texas_Roofer]

the State’s right to do what exactly?

Control taxation
That was the actual spark issue; the entire US government was run on tariffs as was most other governments at that time. No income tax, no true sales tax, the stamps were to prove the tariff had been paid. The south had no problem with import tariffs however the many small northern states votes export tariffs on the large few southern states (cotton, tobacco). The southerners refused to collect, pay, and report such. That is why Fort Sumter was significant, Lincoln vowed to enforce if elected, SC refused his jurisdiction after his election by succession.