Was the Civil War Justified?

[Brendan]

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.

True, that is why the Legislature conviened in Wheeling was considered a valid State Legislature. The one is Richmond was occupied by rebels.

But it is unconstitutional to break apart one state into two states (whether or not any legislature voted for it).

That is NOT what the Constitution says.

Here is Article IV Sec 3

Section 3 - New States

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

Bolded part for emphasis.

A State may be broken up into two States as long as both the Legislature of the State, and Congress give their consent. The legally recognized Legislature of the State of Virginia gave it’s consent, as did Congress. So there is no Constitutional issue.

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).

I fail to see how, the Constitution was followed.

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

 

[Arnobius]

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.

Article I Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress, not the States the right To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

More accurately, the Tariff issue was over Tariffs on British imports, and most accounts I have read that the tariff issue was an issue related to the control of slavery, seeking to limit it.

It seems no matter what issue one tries to replace slavery with, it still has slavery roots in the end.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Article I Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress, not the States the right To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

so what were the expected exports tariffs on cotton and tobacco for Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, Delaware? About zero that is why they voted to allow the south to pay a disproportional amount of the Federal expenses, eventually the south refused

.

More accurately, the Tariff issue was over Tariffs on British imports, and most accounts I have read that the tariff issue was an issue related to the control of slavery, seeking to limit it

Now that takes the cake. The slave trade was anchored in the north not the south. The north had plenty of slave issues which revision history chooses to ignore. Britain’s attempts to control American trade are notorious and played a major factor in creating the revolutionary war. Everyone understood control of trade was control of wealth. That is control of trade not control of slavery

It seems no matter what issue one tries to replace slavery with, it still has slavery roots in the end.

only if you wear the glasses to fit. How foolish to believe a million men who did not own slaves joined slaves to fight to preserve slavery
blackconfederates.com/

 

[steveandersen]

Control taxation

and what else?

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.

Taxation may have been the major issue in the 1820s and 30s

By the 1850s and the election of 1860 the abolition issue had become more prominent

Granted both taxation and slavery were issues in the 1780s but the political climate was different then.

That is why Fort Sumter was significant, Lincoln vowed to enforce if elected, SC refused his jurisdiction after his election by succession.

And thus violated the supremacy clause
You can’t have a nation were folks pick and chose which rules to follow or which taxes to pay.

The difficult thing about a democracy is that sometimes the other guy wins the vote.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Sorry however I cannot follow up on these statements

and what else?

what else else?

Taxation may have been the major issue in the 1820s and 30s

By the 1850s and the election of 1860 the abolition issue had become more prominent

actually Lincoln a true abolitionist had to promise to not push the issue in exchange for political support. That is the reason he addressed abolition in late 1863 when he believed his election chances were gone. In 1859 the civil war began not late 1863. Additionally in the emancipation proclamation he refused to free any northern slaves!

Granted both taxation and slavery were issues in the 1780s but the political climate was different then.

???

And thus violated the supremacy clause
You can’t have a nation were folks pick and chose which rules to follow or which taxes to pay.

The difficult thing about a democracy is that sometimes the other guy wins the vote.

The south did not pick and chose, they simply succeeded

I have no problem with the concept of slavery being a deep moral issue. However it simply was not the cause of the civil war. The problem is not whether slavery was immoral as practiced. The problem is it was equally immoral when practiced in the Northern US. Many wish to rewrite history simply to claim their ancestry or hometown was void of these actions, the facts simple tell a different story.

 

[steveandersen]

Sorry however I cannot follow up on these statements

isn’t your post a follow up on those statements?

what else else?

What other “rights” did certain states claim other than that of taxation?
Wasn’t it a generic claim to order their own affairs and preserve their own institutions, “peculiar” or otherwise?

actually Lincoln a true abolitionist had to promise to not push the issue in exchange for political support. That is the reason he addressed abolition in late 1863 when he believed his election chances were gone. In 1859 the civil war began not late 1863. Additionally in the emancipation proclamation he refused to free any northern slaves!

Because he only had the power to do so in those areas that had rebelled.
Congress or the individual states would have to make laws regarding the legality of slavery in the non rebelling areas.
By 1860 only the Border States and New Jersey (a portion of which lies below the Mason-Dixon line) still had slavery outside of the deep south.
By 1865 when Congress ratified the 13th amendment only Delaware and Kentucky still had it.

???

Anti slavery language was removed from the declaration of independence
The constitution included language that prevented slaves escaping by crossing state lines and counted slaves as partial persons for apportionment.
The nascent abolition movement of eh 1780s had to roll over on that one or there would have been no nation and no way to eliminate slavery in the future.

The south did not pick and chose, they simply succeeded

Actually they failed (sorry, it’s that old secede/succeed thing. I couldn’t help myself.)

They picked and chose not to obey the supremacy clause

Had they brought the issue to the Supreme Court in 1860 rather than 1869 they might have gotten a different a different interpretation. But the law of the land is that secession is not allowed.

I have no problem with the concept of slavery being a deep moral issue. However it simply was not the cause of the civil war.

It was a cause of the war. Wars are complex things, they never have one cause.
Each side probably had much different reasons. The causes for the war are not only why the South fought to secede but also why the North fought to stop them. It takes two to tango.

Slavery may not have mattered a lot to the average southern white that didn’t own slaves
But abolition groups were powerful in the north and it mattered to them. They had spent the previous decades eliminating slavery form the north and were now intent on spreading their views.

The problem is not whether slavery was immoral as practiced. The problem is it was equally immoral when practiced in the Northern US. Many wish to rewrite history simply to claim their ancestry or hometown was void of these actions, the facts simple tell a different story.

The “everybody was doing it” defense doesn’t really hold a whole lot of weight.
So what if there was slavery in the North? Most places in the globe had slavery at some time or another.

Slavery had been dieing out in the north for decades both for practical and moral reasons. The political will to stamp it out nation-wide took decades to develop. When it looked like the political movement had gained sufficient strength the opposition decided to take their ball and go home.

 

[Zooey]

Re: Abraham Lincoln and slavery…You Yankees are right; he did want to end slavery.
The problem is, that ol’ “Honest Abe” wanted to end slavery by sending all the black people back to Africa. His big objection to slavery was that it kept blacks & whites in too close company to one another for his tastes.
Pardon me, if I think that a process of gradual education and manumission of slaves was a better idea than dumping them on the coast of Africa, and sailing home without them. (Said education/manumission efforts were well under way in the South well before the time Lincoln was elected; the efforts were spearheaded by–wait for it!!-- Thomas Jonathan [Stonewall] Jackson. ).
Lincoln, au contraire, believed that it was “not natural nor desirable for the black race and the white race to co-exist”.
Lee & Jackson wanted the slaves freed as they became able to support themselves as free citizens, in America.
Lincoln, being a White Supremacist, and a supporter of what the 20th Century came to call apartheid, just wanted all the African Americans gone–sooner rather than later. Some “hero”.

 

[repo_man]

no. the slavery thing is just some biased american thing that american writers put in american school textbooks. the civil war was as much of a war to end slavery as the war in iraq is to end terrorism. it’s just a bumper sticker excuse to gain support. had lincoln not turned it into a war over slavery on the surface, the british would have helped the southern states in the war effort spelling the end of the union. but slavery was already outlawed there in europe so lincoln decided to make it about slavery in order to make the british morally obligated to not help the confederates.

 

[Ridgerunner]

no. the slavery thing is just some biased american thing that american writers put in american school textbooks. the civil war was as much of a war to end slavery as the war in iraq is to end terrorism. it’s just a bumper sticker excuse to gain support. had lincoln not turned it into a war over slavery on the surface, the british would have helped the southern states in the war effort spelling the end of the union. but slavery was already outlawed there in europe so lincoln decided to make it about slavery in order to make the british morally obligated to not help the confederates.

I’m not sure either one of them works. Certainly, in the Civil War, Lincoln didn’t make it the “cause” until very late on, and even then not completely.

The Brits found an alternate source for cotton toward the end of the war, and I’m sure their early interest in keeping the British looms busy with American cotton waned when they did. I suspect, too, that the unprecedented and enormous size of the American armies and the manifest Northern industrial capacity gave them pause. They had Canada to protect, and came within an ace of a full-scale Union invasion as it was. Had the Brits declared for the South and actually aided it, they would have had to be sure it would not only tip the scale, but destroy Union military power indefinitely, or they could kiss Canada goodbye. Britain might have ruled the waves, but there was no possibility at all that it could have overcome Union land power on the American continent. And they could never have felt secure for very long even in their sea power, particularly if Union armies managed to cut off their timber supplies from Canada.

Lincoln’s political support was strongly abolitionist, and whatever he might have thought about it, he could not have just left slavery alone once the whole thing started.

I just don’t see that anti-slavery sentiment in Britain was the motivating factor in their staying neutral in the Civil War.I think the two were simply parallel events.

 

[krimshas]

I’m not sure either one of them works. Certainly, in the Civil War, Lincoln didn’t make it the “cause” until very late on, and even then not completely.

The Brits found an alternate source for cotton toward the end of the war, and I’m sure their early interest in keeping the British looms busy with American cotton waned when they did. I suspect, too, that the unprecedented and enormous size of the American armies and the manifest Northern industrial capacity gave them pause. They had Canada to protect, and came within an ace of a full-scale Union invasion as it was. Had the Brits declared for the South and actually aided it, they would have had to be sure it would not only tip the scale, but destroy Union military power indefinitely, or they could kiss Canada goodbye. Britain might have ruled the waves, but there was no possibility at all that it could have overcome Union land power on the American continent. And they could never have felt secure for very long even in their sea power, particularly if Union armies managed to cut off their timber supplies from Canada.

Lincoln’s political support was strongl y abolitionist, and whatever he might have thought about it, he could not have just left slavery alone once the whole thing started.

I just don’t see that anti-slavery sentiment in Britain was the motivating factor in their staying neutral in the Civil War.I think the two were simply parallel events.

What? His Majesty’s armies defeated by a few upstart yankee colonists? Like THAT would happen!

 

[Ridgerunner]

What? His Majesty’s armies defeated by a few upstart yankee colonists? Like THAT would happen!

And perhaps most important of all, a LOT of those upstarts were IRISH.:irish1:

 

[Zooey]

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

Because if Lincoln had actually freed any real actual slaves, they could have got up and moved out of his path when he and his White Separatist friends & he came along to deport them…

Or, maybe it was that dandy one-liner of Ulysses S Grant’s: “If [the North] were about freeing the slaves, I would resign my post immediately, and enlist to fight on the other [Southern] side”.

had lincoln not turned it into a war over slavery on the surface, the british would have helped the southern states in the war effort spelling the end of the union. but slavery was already outlawed there in europe so lincoln decided to make it about slavery in order to make the british morally obligated to not help the confederates.

Give that man a gold star!! The British were ready, willing, and able to make an alliance with the South…until Lincoln started yelping about slavery.
You know, it :idea: occurs to me, the man could never get away with it now. The Lincoln Douglas Debates would get played & replayed on the evening news…complete with all the White Separatist/Supremacist http://bestsmileys.com/puking/1.gif garbage that flowed out of Abe’s mouth. Imagine the soundbites on that…

 

[TMC]

Because if Lincoln had actually freed any real actual slaves, they could have got up and moved out of his path when he and his White Separatist friends & he came along to deport them…

Or, maybe it was that dandy one-liner of Ulysses S Grant’s: “If [the North] were about freeing the slaves, I would resign my post immediately, and enlist to fight on the other [Southern] side”.

Give that man a gold star!! The British were ready, willing, and able to make an alliance with the South…until Lincoln started yelping about slavery.
You know, it :idea: occurs to me, the man could never get away with it now. The Lincoln Douglas Debates would get played & replayed on the evening news…complete with all the White Separatist/Supremacist http://bestsmileys.com/puking/1.gif garbage that flowed out of Abe’s mouth. Imagine the soundbites on that…

Calling Lincoln a White Supremecist is, at best, a great distortion of the facts the times he lived in. It is similar to saying that Stonewall Jackson died after being shot by his own troops. Technically true, but not the real and whole truth by any stretch.

Lincoln did say that he thought whites were superior to blacks, and at times he did advocate a back to Africa movement. At the time, scientists and doctors all supported the idea that whites were superior to blacks in many ways, and most black leaders wanted the back to Africa movement.

But Lincoln was certainly life long abolitionist, and very committed to freedom for the slaves. He believed slavery to be immoral, and spoke and wrote against it for decades. Rather than paying attention to popular recreations of him, take a look at what the black men that knew and worked with him said. Frederick Douglass believed his committment to this cause was sincere. His writings paint a very different picture of Lincoln than you do, he believed Lincoln to be one of the few powerful white men to ever treat him with the respect they applied to whites. There are a lot of things that can be said about Lincoln, but to suggest that he was not really against slavery, or that he was not a progressive on race and equality, is just revisionism, and not very good revisionism at that.

 

[LRThunder]

What? His Majesty’s armies defeated by a few upstart yankee colonists? Like THAT would happen!

Actually, from 1861-1865, it would’ve been HER Majesty’s armies since Victoria was queen.