Was U.S. Civil War a just war?

[Ahimsa]

Dont forget that the issue of slavery back then (and even now) was endorsed by the bible and religion and many slavers were doing what they believed to be Gods will.

Actually, the whole use by many Southerners of the Bible to justify slavery, is a good argument against sola scriptura.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Actually, the whole use by many Southerners of the Bible to justify slavery, is a good argument against sola scriptura.

Or that slavery in itself is not immoral. Of course, you and I and anyone else with some common sense believe it is immoral. I have always wondered how a sola scriptura Christian could be anti-slavery. Sure they can site things like loving your neighbor as yourself and the like, but even Paul only went as far as to say "if you are a slave, do not let it trouble you, but gain your freedom if you can. He also told slaves to be submissive to their masters.

IMO this is one of the reasons I like the Catholic concept of the Magisterium…the ability to examine scripture that was written thousands of years ago, and by the guidence of the Holy Spirit, can interpret and apply scripture to a contemporary setting.

 

[Jerusha]

also told slaves to be submissive to their masters.

Only as a matter of self-preservation, not as a sign of inferiority.

Ulysses Grant entered the war on the North only with the sincere belief that it would be cut short by slave insurrection.

Wht would have happened if the South had been allowed to seceede? I don’t believe that it could have survived on its own, and would have gone the way of the Caribbean islands, by slave insurrection.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Only as a matter of self-preservation, not as a sign of inferiority.

Ulysses Grant entered the war on the North only with the sincere belief that it would be cut short by slave insurrection.

Wht would have happened if the South had been allowed to seceede? I don’t believe that it could have survived on its own, and would have gone the way of the Caribbean islands, by slave insurrection.

Slaves are told to be submissive as a matter of obeying the authority placed above them. Paul mentions such a command in the context of telling children to be submissive to their parents, wives to husbands, in Ephesians 6. Likewise, Paul never commands abolition, but only commands masters to treat slaves with dignity (some masters in the antebellum south obeyed this commandment, but far too many broke it).

What do you base the idea of insurrection on, other than your own speculation? There were small insurrections, such as with John Brown or Nat Turner, which were put down sucessfully. It would have taken a nationwide, organized effort for a slave insurrection to be truly effective. The South, unlike the Caribbean, was too large and sparsely populated to organize such an effort.

 

[Jerusha]

Slaves are told to be submissive as a matter of obeying the authority placed above them.

Whatever. :dts: Your interpretation comes from your cultural context. Mine comes from mine.

some masters in the antebellum south obeyed this commandment, but far too many broke it

Like-- absolute power corrupts absolutely? The worst point of slavery was that it was race-based and hereditary, unlike that in Roman times. Which makes it worse.

What do you base the idea of insurrection on, other than your own speculation?

an autobiography/journal by Ulysses Grant, himself.

It would have taken a nationwide, organized effort for a slave insurrection to be truly effective. The South, unlike the Caribbean, was too large and sparsely populated to organize such an effort.

Exactly. Your analysis is correct. Grant’s hope was incorrect, obviously. Whether it would have eventually happened in the face of economic problems stemming from the split of the nation is entirely speculative.

 

[Vigis]

If anyone decides to read more into what the Catholic Church says about slavery you will find out what kind of slavery they condemn, and what kind of slavery they are okay with.

God speed.

Vigis

 

[Phillip_II]

Or that slavery in itself is not immoral. Of course, you and I and anyone else with some common sense believe it is immoral. I have always wondered how a sola scriptura Christian could be anti-slavery. Sure they can site things like loving your neighbor as yourself and the like, but even Paul only went as far as to say "if you are a slave, do not let it trouble you, but gain your freedom if you can. He also told slaves to be submissive to their masters.

IMO this is one of the reasons I like the Catholic concept of the Magisterium…the ability to examine scripture that was written thousands of years ago, and by the guidence of the Holy Spirit, can interpret and apply scripture to a contemporary setting.

In interpreting Sacred Scripture, the Magisterium guides us to the Truth, not to adapt it to contemporary society. It is for contemporaries to accept the truth from the Magisterium; but this has not been popular for some five-hundred years or more.

Most of the conversation in this thread is made within a vacuum; all discussion of slavery for instance, is in the context of the post-enlightenment, mistaken notion, of the freedom of the individual, and then the idea is hybridized further with the super-enlightenment drug of the “American” idea of freedom. You will have to look long and hard in the Gospels to find any moral statement against slavery. Christ’s words to slaves are words to us; be content with your lot in life, be obedient.

In the pre-Christian west, slavery was a fact of life and had existed since beginning of recorded history, the Roman system of slavery is hardly comparable to the British/Dutch/American program that sprang-up illegally, against the direction of the Church and was a purely commercial enterprise. Though slavery was certainly condemned by the Church, even the galleys of the Holy League at Lepanto held some slaves of one degree or the other. I am quite sure that America’s abhorrence of slavery is based solely in its misguided ideas of freedom; for the American could there be a worse fate than to be a slave?

The high-priests of the Enlightenment have done yeoman work to convince us that the U.S. Civil War was over slavery, it is a simple matter to see that the Civil War was an economic war, just as every other war we’ve waged, and there are plenty of statements from blessed Abraham Lincoln to prove he didn’t give two hoots about slaves. Remember, this is a good Calvinist country that has even successfully Calvinised most of its Catholics, what else would we fight over but Money?

 

[Ahimsa]

Remember, this is a good Calvinist country that has even successfully Calvinised most of its Catholics, what else would we fight over but Money?

Are you blaming Calvinism for Wall Street, EnRon, and Rupert Murdoch?

 

[estesbob]

Are you blaming Calvinism for Wall Street, EnRon, and Rupert Murdoch?

Wall Street and Rupert Murdoch are sucess stories and have helped inumerable people raise their standard of living…

 

[Phillip_II]

Are you blaming Calvinism for Wall Street, EnRon, and Rupert Murdoch?

Among other things…yes, and let’s not forget Luther, its just that Calvin has a much bigger influence here in the U.S. Though the consequences may have been unintended, is it arguable that the seeds these two sowed have grown into the spiritual and moral jungle that has now completely lost its way? And aside from allowing all this capitalist madness, do I really need to point out the rest of what’s happening around us (and for the past four hundred years)?

 

[b32865]

**Legitimate authority **
Only duly constituted public authorities may use deadly force or wage war

The North is not in question here. The South only engaged in war after their elected state governments or the popluation voted to leave the Union and placed a new government in place. Secession was not ruled illegal at the time, but only after the war. Both sides had legitimate authority.

Actually, I believe there is some question as to whether Lincoln exceeded his authority. In 1861 he declared a blockade of Southern ports, seen by some as an act of war, which was later approved by Congress (months later). I think Congress was in recess at the time, and Lincoln is often criticized for acting unilaterally. According to our Constitution, only Congress can declare war.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Whatever. :dts: Your interpretation comes from your cultural context. Mine comes from mine.

Are you saying scripture interpretation is a matter of cultural context. I agree with this analysis, wholeheartedly.
Phillip II:

In interpreting Sacred Scripture, the Magisterium guides us to the Truth, not to adapt it to contemporary society. It is for contemporaries to accept the truth from the Magisterium; but this has not been popular for some five-hundred years or more.

Most of the conversation in this thread is made within a vacuum; all discussion of slavery for instance, is in the context of the post-enlightenment, mistaken notion, of the freedom of the individual, and then the idea is hybridized further with the super-enlightenment drug of the “American” idea of freedom. You will have to look long and hard in the Gospels to find any moral statement against slavery. Christ’s words to slaves are words to us; be content with your lot in life, be obedient.

In the pre-Christian west, slavery was a fact of life and had existed since beginning of recorded history, the Roman system of slavery is hardly comparable to the British/Dutch/American program that sprang-up illegally, against the direction of the Church and was a purely commercial enterprise. Though slavery was certainly condemned by the Church, even the galleys of the Holy League at Lepanto held some slaves of one degree or the other. I am quite sure that America’s abhorrence of slavery is based solely in its misguided ideas of freedom; for the American could there be a worse fate than to be a slave?

The high-priests of the Enlightenment have done yeoman work to convince us that the U.S. Civil War was over slavery, it is a simple matter to see that the Civil War was an economic war, just as every other war we’ve waged, and there are plenty of statements from blessed Abraham Lincoln to prove he didn’t give two hoots about slaves. Remember, this is a good Calvinist country that has even successfully Calvinised most of its Catholics, what else would we fight over but Money?

 

[JohnnyReb]

Actually, I believe there is some question as to whether Lincoln exceeded his authority. In 1861 he declared a blockade of Southern ports, seen by some as an act of war, which was later approved by Congress (months later). I think Congress was in recess at the time, and Lincoln is often criticized for acting unilaterally. According to our Constitution, only Congress can declare war.

Lincoln believed that the Union was meant to be perpetual, and that the Southern acts of secession were illegal. The aim of the blockade was to subdue parts of the Union that were in rebellion, in his view. Because he and the Unionists viewed the southern actions as a rebellion, there was no need to declare war.

However, the act of a blockade does amount to a recognition of the seperation of the southern states, because it is designed to cut off those states from receiving supplies, instead of dealing directly with those engaging in armed rebellion.

 

[Elric]

I think that the abhorrence of slavery came from a ripple effect of what happened in England. Thanks to people like my ansestor, Thomas Clarkson, The British Parlament abbloished slavery and gradually other countries followed suit. The abblotionist goal was to make slavery illegal globally with Elgland being the starting point (since they were English), they tried a couple of times unsuccessfully to have the same bill passed in France before abbolition succeded. Eventually the idea reached the US and it took some time for people to get used to.

But back to the question:

I believe that the war was not justified and more could have been done to prevent it. There could have been a lot more comprimise by both parties to prevent secsesion and the federal government should have allowed them to secseed if that is what they wanted.

The aftermath of Fort Sumter certainly could have been handled far better than by raising 75000 troops to stamp out “rebellion”, it should not have even gone that far and there was no reason for it to.

The US wanted a union of states and felt it would be weaker without those from the Confederacy, but you cant force people to be involved with something that they dont want to be involved with or force them to agree with something they choose not to agree with. Besides, who exactly would the union be weaker against?

I belive that if the states were allowed to secseed, eventually they would return to the union. Either through negotiation or financial means.

 

[Phillip_II]

I think that the abhorrence of slavery came from a ripple effect of what happened in England. Thanks to people like my ansestor, Thomas Clarkson, The British Parlament abbloished slavery and gradually other countries followed suit. The abblotionist goal was to make slavery illegal globally with Elgland being the starting point (since they were English), they tried a couple of times unsuccessfully to have the same bill passed in France before abbolition succeded. Eventually the idea reached the US and it took some time for people to get used to.

Yes, of course I forgot, the Brits were the first to question the morality of slavery. The same noble people that just a few years latter would allow the Irish to starve to the point of cannibalism. By the mid 1600’s, long before your relative picked up the cause, the subject had been debated and settled in Spain. Protestant sneering at he backward papist Spaniard, and their own hefty profits at that time, prevented any of the northern European states from even a glance at the moral question. Then later, in typical English fashion, they claim it as their own epiphany.

 

[Brendan]

The part where slavery did become an issue was when the federal government decreed that you were not allowed to bring slaves into the new territories, although they still allowed slavery in the slave states. .

So how would that be a matter of 'State’s Right’s". How would a prohibition on the importation of slaves into Kansas infrindge on Missouri’s soverinty?

Kansas, the Dakotas et all.were not a soverign entities like the State are, but Federally owned property.

 

[Elric]

Yes, of course I forgot, the Brits were the first to question the morality of slavery. The same noble people that just a few years latter would allow the Irish to starve to the point of cannibalism. By the mid 1600’s, long before your relative picked up the cause, the subject had been debated and settled in Spain. Protestant sneering at he backward papist Spaniard, and their own hefty profits at that time, prevented any of the northern European states from even a glance at the moral question. Then later, in typical English fashion, they claim it as their own epiphany.

What the heck!!!

I didnt make any claim that the Brits were the first to question the morality of slavery, nor could I because I know that isnt true.

I dont see any need for this attack on me (or my ansestor) and suggest that you get off your high horse and most definatly stop trying to put words into my mouth.

What you wrote is really of no relevence to what you replied to.

 

[Elric]

So how would that be a matter of 'State’s Right’s". How would a prohibition on the importation of slaves into Kansas infrindge on Missouri’s soverinty?

Kansas, the Dakotas et all.were not a soverign entities like the State are, but Federally owned property.

What it meant was that a person from a slave state couldnt bring their slaves with them, if they chose to settle in one of the new terriroties. People viewed their slaves as property and didnt agree with the law, many also saw it as the start of the start of the government imposing anti-slavery laws in the states.

 

[Ferdinand_Mary]

NOTICE: Charity is essential in dialog. Please up the charity on this thread or the thread will be closed and conduct action may be taken.

Mane Nobiscum Domine,
Ferdinand Mary

 

[Zooey]

The North fought for the preservation of the Union. The South fought for states’ rights which would have left the decision of slavery up to every state instead of the decision being left up to the Federal Government.

I have to say that I disapprove of the South treating slaves like property instead of like human beings. However, I would also have to say that I disapprove of the North’s desire to free all slaves in one big swoop (a lot of the Noth desired scuh before and during the Civil War) which would have rendered the South incapable of having any sort of economy. The bad would far outweigh the good in such a decision.

There is also the point that slavery was still part of Yankee thinking.** Grant held slaves whom he refused to free, even after the end of the War**!

With all due respect all of the states of the Confederate States of America had a legimate reason for succeeding from the United States of America. To them Abraham Lincoln was the incarnation of the destruction of their way of life. The North gave diddly little for my ancestors in the South. All they wanted to do was to abolish slavery which I agree with, but they only wanted to do that. They did not want to help us industrialize and help make another way for us to survive… The South was faced with the prospect of having their dignity destroyed, their economy destroyed, and their very lives destroyed. They had every right to fight.

As well as leave the new freedmen with no way to support themselves. (Tho **Lincoln **did propose sending them back to Africa, into the hands of the same slavetraders who sold them in the 1st place.)

So did the North have the right to fight as well to preserve the Union.

I respectfully disagree.

The South had the right to fire on Fort Sumter because it was in all respects it was part of the state of South Carolina. South Carolina had suceeded.

Something frequently & conveniently ignored.

Actually, I believe there is some question as to whether Lincoln exceeded his authority. In 1861 he declared a blockade of Southern ports, seen by some as an act of war, which was later approved by Congress (months later). I think Congress was in recess at the time, and Lincoln is often criticized for acting unilaterally. According to our Constitution, only Congress can declare war.

It was illegal. Much of Lincoln’s actions in office were grounds for impeachment, which is what the **moral **path of action for the north would have been! He was a war criminal. Had he not been shot, he could have been, should have been tried, found guilty, and removed from office–with criminal charges awaiting him.