Was U.S. Civil War a just war?

[b32865]

Catholic Answers provides an “Answer Guide” on just war doctrine which references the Catechism.

catholic.com/library/just_war_doctrine_1.asp

My question is: was the U.S. Civil War a just war? My son and I are discussing this for a paper he’s writing. We are having trouble framing it in terms of just war theory as outlined in the Catechism, the first problem being who was the aggressor, the North or the South? Was the South the aggressor because it wanted to keep slavery, because it didn’t have the right to secede from the Union, and because it fired on Fort Sumter? Or was the North the aggressor because it wanted to stop the spread of slavery, because it didn’t have the right to preserve the Union, and because it invaded the South?

Any insights would be appreciated.

 

[b32865]

Catholic Answers provides an “Answer Guide” on just war doctrine which references the Catechism.

catholic.com/library/just_war_doctrine_1.asp

My question is: was the U.S. Civil War a just war? My son and I are discussing this for a paper he’s writing. We are having trouble framing it in terms of just war theory as outlined in the Catechism, the first problem being who was the aggressor, the North or the South? Was the South the aggressor because it wanted to keep slavery, because it didn’t have the right to secede from the Union, and because it fired on Fort Sumter? Or was the North the aggressor because it wanted to stop the spread of slavery, because it didn’t have the right to preserve the Union, and because it invaded the South?

Any insights would be appreciated.

 

[Steve40]

I’m biased and from NY state. But if I remember correctly the South drew first blood by attacking a Federal location. This justified the North going to war, it was an act of war as a first aggressor. The North had the right to retaliate. I don’t believe the North would have gone to war lightly. Again just based upon my understanding of history (which the winner usually writes), the plan for the North was to let more free states come into the Union and politically remove slavery. The North went to war to preserve the Union. They had the legitimate authority to govern and this authority was under attack.

The abolishment of slavery was a by product of the war and not the original reason for going to war. However, the injustice of slavery is grave enough, worth dying or killing for. All actions of all commanding officers and men can not be justified but this is not what makes a war unjust.

I think the guide lines from your link are vague and the reality is that God gives civil authority. That authority can be used for the common good or not. Since God gives the authority He shall be the Judge. The Pope and Magisterium of the Church have a right and responsibility to comment on wars, but just as civil authority does not come from the Pope, ultimate judgment over a war being just or not will not come from us or the Pope and the Magisterium.

 

[brotherhrolf]

This is an exceedingly complex question which can be argued from either side. One of the first things I would note is that while the issue of slavery was part of the complex roots of the war, it only became “THE” issue late in the war and after the war. Strictly speaking, the primary cause of the war was state’s rights. The discussion regarding slavery was part of our national governmental discourse within Congress. There was give and take in the course of things (e.g. the Missouri compromise).

By 1856, it was apparent that the north was going to aggresively pursue its goal of the abolishment of slavery and there were the early rumblings of a threatened civil war. John Brown’s actions in Kansas and at Harpers Ferry certainly figure into the equation as well. And then there was the election of 1860. Abraham Lincoln was not even on the ballot of nine Southern states. For Southerners of the period the election of Lincoln was perceived as the dashing of all hope that a compromise could be reached.

For Mr. Lincoln, the war was not about slavery - it was about preservation of the Union. For the South, the war was about preservation of state’s rights. When the southern states seceded from the Union, all federal properties became state properties and so the forts and arsenals were seized by state militias. You can’t think of state militias as National Guard troops. They weren’t. They were not under control of the federal government. They were the military forces of that particular state.

The federal troops all across the South surrendered their facilities except at Fort Pickens on Santa Rosa Island, FL and, of course, Fort Sumter (and naval facilities in Key West). So, from a state rights point of view, you have a hostile enemy force occupying sovreign state territory.

How do you square this with the Church’s just war doctrine? If you frame it in terms of slavery, how do you account for what was done and not done to and for the masses of Irish immigrants up north? Ever read what happened to the Irish in New York during this same time period? If you read the northern press at the time, they are full of outrage about slavery but they treat the Irish as subhuman. Look at the editorial cartoons of the period in which the Irish are routinely portrayed as monkeys. So, the idea of some kind of moral “high ground” for the North about slavery really makes no sense in light of their treatment of the potato famine victims.

Slavery was a great evil. There is no question about this. But I believe that the answer to your question must be found within the context of state rights. The ultimate cause of the American Civil War is political not moral.

 

[mary_bobo]

Good synopsis of the war. I think it would be good for us to remember that the War Between the States occurred at a time when we were not as far removed from the formation of the Constitution as we are now. The Constitution clearly lays out the things that the federal government is required to do—which is very little–and clearly states that all else is left to the states. When we start pulling away from that concept, as in the mid 1800s, we run into trouble.

 

[brotherhrolf]

Mary, you are exactly right. In many ways the Civil War was a constitutional crisis. Prior to the CW it was the United States are in all documents - a clear reference to the fact that we were not the nation that we are today. The concept of one nation, under God, indivisible is a result of the CW. After the fact not because of the fact.

 

[geezerbob]

Until the Civil War, as someone else has repeatedly pointed out, it was “The United States are,” not “The United States is.” There was nothing in the constitution prior to that time to prohibit a state from seceding from the voluntary union it had previously joined and the states were sovereign except for those few powers delegated to the federal government by the constitution.

Yes, the south fired the first shots at Fort Sumter, which was on a tiny island in the middle of Charleston harbor in the sovereign State of South Carolina. Under the laws in effect at the time, a good argument could be made that upon request by SC, the federal troops should have been removed from the fort. The request was made, the troops stayed, and the rest is history. Right, wrong, or indifferent, that’s what happened and discussing it here isn’t going to change any of it or make it any more or less right or wrong, whichever it was, for either or both sides.

Slavery would have died out from economic considerations even without the war. No landowner would want to buy, feed and clothe a couple of hundred slaves after farm machinery became available that cost less to buy, was cheaper to maintain, and produced more work. In addition, Irish immigrants could be hired to do the hard work for a lot less that the cost of keeping slaves. So, with the various forces at work against slavery, it’s days were numbered, war or no war.

Little mention is ever made of another cause for the war, and that was the imposition of import duties on agricultural commodities going from the south to the north and export duties on manufactured goods moving in the opposite direction. Unconstitutional, but some northern states found ways around it and the south was getting the short end of the stick every time out until they eventually decided they would be better off outside the union.

 

[Setlew]

Perhaps getting a bit off-topic, but (to geezerbob and brotherhrolf), do you think this country or the countries would have been better if the South had won the war? I’m not trying to start a heated argument, but merely curious about your opinions. I’m a 19-year-old boy from upstate New York, and have heard more from the “Northern” side of the historical equation than the Southern (although my sister’s violin teacher, and family friend, is from Southern Louisiana - and has had something to say on this topic ).

Also, from what I have read (correct me if I’m wrong), the Confederacy’s military strength was greatly crippled by states squabbling with each other over who was contributing what, and how much relative to each other. The central gov’t had very little power to try and make them work together effectively. Do you think it is possible that some kind of balance between this kind of “states’ rights” and the stronger federal gov’t advocated by the North could exist? Would it be more fair in the distribution of power between state and federal gov’t?

 

[didymus]

Good summary, Brotherholf.
I’d just say that the South who were supposedly seceded to protect their “rights” (i.e. slavery) were not, in fact under any immediate threat at all. If they had stayed in the Union, Lincoln would have been a one-term President who didn’t accomplish anything. Pre-secession, the Democrats still controlled the House of Representatives. The Supreme Court was solidly Southern. Lincoln & the Republicans couldn’t have abolished slavery if they’d wanted to – and they didn’t want to.

The distant threat was that there weren’t ever going to be any more slave states and already 80% of the country’s population growth was in the free states. In another generation or two the free states would be able to abolish slavery.

I think the real reason for secession was pride (“honor”). If you look back at the rhetoric of the time a lot of it is about refusing to be ruled by northern mechanics & factory workers & immigrants & especially that “ape” Lincoln. Of course, I’ve always wondered how it’s honorable to participate in an election and then refuse to abide by the result.

 

[brotherhrolf]

Perhaps getting a bit off-topic, but (to geezerbob and brotherhrolf), do you think this country or the countries would have been better if the South had won the war? I’m not trying to start a heated argument, but merely curious about your opinions. I’m a 19-year-old boy from upstate New York, and have heard more from the “Northern” side of the historical equation than the Southern (although my sister’s violin teacher, and family friend, is from Southern Louisiana - and has had something to say on this topic ).

Also, from what I have read (correct me if I’m wrong), the Confederacy’s military strength was greatly crippled by states squabbling with each other over who was contributing what, and how much relative to each other. The central gov’t had very little power to try and make them work together effectively. Do you think it is possible that some kind of balance between this kind of “states’ rights” and the stronger federal gov’t advocated by the North could exist? Would it be more fair in the distribution of power between state and federal gov’t?

The United States “is” a far better country. The only way the South could have won the war would have been through a simultaneous victory at both Gettysburg and Vicksburg resulting in an armistice or Great Britain entering the war on the side of the South.

The lack of a strong central government and the states having their own military forces did create problems.

I don’t believe a compromise between states rights and a stronger federal government could have been worked out. The politics of the 1850s were very complex - remember there weren’t just two political parties, there were many.

Here’s a link that might be of interest to the OP and to everyone else:

tulane.edu/~sumter/

 

[estesbob]

This is an exceedingly complex question which can be argued from either side. One of the first things I would note is that while the issue of slavery was part of the complex roots of the war, it only became “THE” issue late in the war and after the war. Strictly speaking, the primary cause of the war was state’s rights. The discussion regarding slavery was part of our national governmental discourse within Congress. There was give and take in the course of things (e.g. the Missouri compromise).

l.

Even a cursory reading of the articles of secession of the rebelling States will show that the ONLY Stae Right that was at issue was the Right to own Slaves.

I suggest going to here to see what I mean: members.aol.com/jfepperson/causes.html

 

[estesbob]

The United States “is” a far better country. The only way the South could have won the war would have been through a simultaneous victory at both Gettysburg and Vicksburg resulting in an armistice or Great Britain entering the war on the side of the South.

.

Britain would never enter the War on the Side of the South as long as it allowed slavery.

 

[LRThunder]

Britain would never enter the War on the Side of the South as long as it allowed slavery.

But Britain was importing cotton at that time, which was the prime commodity from the South. So even if Britain didn’t like slavery, cotton would’ve been a major reason to enter the war on the South’s side.

 

[b32865]

Thanks to everyone for their responses thus far. I especially found interesting setlew’s suggestion that the Confederacy was hampered militarily by its devotion to states’ rights; also, I did read the website suggested by brotherhrolf and found its discussion of whether Lincoln provoked the war, was a man of peace, or was a political realist, to be helpful. I also have to say I agree with estesbob’s comment that the “only state right that was at issue was the Right to own Slaves”. His link is to a site containing many primary sources…very interesting.

But I would like, if possible, to refocus the discussion on the justness of the war. The CCC and the Catholic Answers Guide discussion of Catholic just war teaching speak of an “aggressor”. Who was the aggressor in this conflict? Is it always this hard to answer that question? If so, does it make Catholic just war teaching less useful?

Or would it be helpful to look at it from both views: if the North is the aggressor, does the South meet the criteria for fighting a just war? if the South is the aggressor, does the North meet the criteria for fighting a just war?

 

[strngrnrth]

I have heard that one economic reason the South wanted out was that the federal funds for roads and rails were going to Northern states, making it harder for Southerners to hope to go west. Access to the West was a major commodity in the 19th Century.
However, many southern states and counties were against the CSA. Half of Tennessee voted to stay in the USA. And a large number of Texan counties wanted to secede INDIVIDUALLY – each county a nation unto itself. Some states, including Texas, hoped to secede on their own and stand alone. If they had all had their ways, by now the US would be fragmented into thousands of countries, all of which would have been conquered by someone more powerful. But I don’t know what would have been right. After all, if the Founders of our country had been even-handed with their ideals of equality and self-determination, nearly the entire country would still be run by the Native Americans. What would that be like by now? A compromise between white, black, Asian and Native American citizens, with women equal from the start and voting rights for anyone old enough to fight. Would it have lasted? Could it have held together as one or would it be in several pieces? It’s a cool thought.

 

[estesbob]

But Britain was importing cotton at that time, which was the prime commodity from the South. So even if Britain didn’t like slavery, cotton would’ve been a major reason to enter the war on the South’s side.

So the South thought BUT Britain had been stockpiling cotton for years in anticipation of a war.

The closest Britain came to entering the war was not over Cotton or Slaves-it was over the Trent affai-caused wehen an American Man of War stopped a British ship and pulled off the Confederate Diplomats

 

[Phillip_II]

The better question, from a truly Catholic perspective, would be; which war, if any, that the U.S. has fought, was just?

 

[Little_Flower]

I have not read the whole thread, but I would say it was not a just war at all. Had the North allowed the Southern states to secede, the union would have shrunk, true, but there would have been no loss of life, over 600,000 I think was the final tally. For it to be a just war, more than 600,000 lives would have to have been presumed to be lost if the war did not happen. Slavery would have died on its own, as many nations had already banned it and I suspect would have started to boycott Southern cotton. Much the same thing happened in South Africa. If I am not mistaken, I thought Virginia insisted on the right to secede when it signed the Constitution.

Joseph Sobran surmised that if the South had been allowed to leave the Union, Roe v Wade might never have happened. The country was conservative enough in '73 that some state might have left, had there been a precedent to do so in the 1800’s. Where in the Constitution is a state forbidden to leave? Where in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to attack Americans? (Apologies to Mr. Sobran, I’m sure I am parphrasing poorly)

 

[Nino]

Catholic Answers provides an “Answer Guide” on just war doctrine which references the Catechism.

catholic.com/library/just_war_doctrine_1.asp

My question is: was the U.S. Civil War a just war? My son and I are discussing this for a paper he’s writing. We are having trouble framing it in terms of just war theory as outlined in the Catechism, the first problem being who was the aggressor, the North or the South? Was the South the aggressor because it wanted to keep slavery, because it didn’t have the right to secede from the Union, and because it fired on Fort Sumter? Or was the North the aggressor because it wanted to stop the spread of slavery, because it didn’t have the right to preserve the Union, and because it invaded the South?

Any insights would be appreciated.

 

[Nino]

Presidnet Lincoln in his first add.to congress proposed a constitutional amendment that would allow the southern states 35 years…to the year 1900 to eliminate slavery…and during that time the north would pay the south for each slaves freedom…but to no avail…the southern leadership was always closer to england then new england and wanted to trade with them more then the US northern states…sadly they also controlled southern means of communication…re: media and thus brainwashed the average southener who did not own slaves that it was their way of life that was threatened by those mean yankees etc etc…600,000 casulaties resulted…yes I believe it was a holy war…of course it was the average person who did all the fighting and dieing not the fat cats but whats new with that! Sure if we had let them go and leave …since they were protestant ,and in the habit of splittng and dividing…there is no way that the wealthy states like Virginia and Georgia would have remained and stayed with mississippi and arksansas etc…so by the 20th century the North would be living next door to a bunch of small nations all hating each other…what this would have brought by 1940 and WW2 is upsetting to ponder on…the battle hymn of the republic says it all…Nino