Was U.S. Civil War a just war?

[estesbob]

No, not all the southern states seceded over slavery. The lower South cited slavery as a cause, but also tariffs. But when Lincoln called for 75,000 troops to launch a war against against their southern brothers, Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas and North Carolina left the Union. Maryland and Kentucky did would have as well had the Lincoln administration not illegally interfered with their state governments from voting on the matter.

The tarrif in effect at the time the war started had recieved more votes from Southern Congessmen that Nothern Congressmen. The very few seceding States that mentioned Tarrifs did so as an afterhtought and were not refering to the Tarrifs in efffect at that time but to a supposed fear that the 1836 “Tarif of Abominations” would be reininstated.

Here is the secseeion Declaration of Va. note no reference to tarrifs:

JOINT RESOLUTION concerning the position of Virginia in the event of the dissolution of the Union. Adopted January 21, 1861.

Resolved by the General Assembly of Virginia, That if all efforts to reconcile the unhappy differences existing between the two sections of the country shall prove to be abortive, then, in the opinion of the General Assembly, every consideration of honor and interest demands that Virginia shall unite her destiny with the slave-holding States of the South.
(OR, Ser. IV, vol. 1, p. 77.)

From Botetourt County, Va:

These reasonable expectations have been grievously disappointed.

Owing to a spirit of pharasaical fanaticism prevailing in the North in reference to the institution of slavery, incited by foreign emissaries and fostered by corrupt political demagogues in search of power and place, a feeling has been aroused between the people of the two sections, of what was once a common country, which of itself would almost preclude the administration of a united government in harmony

from the Tennessee Articles of secession:

1. Resolved, That in the opinion of the general assembly of Tennessee, such plan of adjustment should embrace the following propostions as amendments to the Constitution of the United States:

First. **A declaratory amendment that African slaves, as held under the institutions of the slaveholding States, shall be recognized as property, **and entitled to the status of other property in the States where slavery exists, in all places within the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress in the slave States, in all the Territories south of 36 degrees 30 minutes, in the District of Columbia, in transit, and while temporarily sojourning with the owner in the non-slaveholding States and Territories north of 36 degrees 30 minutes; and, when fugitives from the owner, in the several places above named, as well as in all places, in the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress in the non-slaveholding States.
Lincoln was responidng to an armed attack on

 

[JohnnyReb]

The Civil War was nowhere NEAR the American Revolution. The only infringement on southern “liberties” (ironic since they kept a portion of their population in chains) was in their minds.

Before the Civil War, there was only a small movement for abolition. Most of the North just wanted to stop the expansion of slavery. Had the South realized that distinction, there probably would not have been secession and thus no Civil War.

Granted, most of the opposition to slavery was not for humane reasons and Lincoln wasn’t a saint, but 7 of the 11 Confederacy states pulled out just because a candidate they liked won, which is a poor reason to secede. I could understand Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas’s reasons for leaving, even if I disagree with them.

Actually it was very close. Saying it wasn’t doesn’t make it so. IMO, most if not all wars come down to conflicts over money and/or power. As Clauswitz said, war is nothing but an extension of politics. The American revolution was a war over taxes for the most part, that were necessary to recover debts from the colonies for their defense in the sever years/French and Indian war. Yet I bet you’re glad the USA won, as am I. But is going to war over your economic interests such a bad thing? That is all the South did.

Perhaps if the government really wanted to end slavery, they should have compensated the owners the value of the slaves and abolished it.

 

[JohnnyReb]

The tarrif in effect at the time the war started had recieved more votes from Southern Congessmen that Nothern Congressmen. The very few seceding States that mentioned Tarrifs did so as an afterhtought and were not refering to the Tarrifs in efffect at that time but to a supposed fear that the 1836 “Tarif of Abominations” would be reininstated.

Here is the secseeion Declaration of Va. note no reference to tarrifs:

JOINT RESOLUTION concerning the position of Virginia in the event of the dissolution of the Union. Adopted January 21, 1861.

Resolved by the General Assembly of Virginia, That if all efforts to reconcile the unhappy differences existing between the two sections of the country shall prove to be abortive, then, in the opinion of the General Assembly, every consideration of honor and interest demands that Virginia shall unite her destiny with the slave-holding States of the South.
(OR, Ser. IV, vol. 1, p. 77.)

nps.gov/archive/gett/gettkidz/cause.htm

There were many reasons for a Civil War to happen in America, and political issues and disagreements began soon after the American Revolution ended in 1782. Between the years 1800 and 1860, arguments between the North and South grew more intense. One of the main quarrels was about taxes paid on goods brought into this country from foreign countries. This tax was called a tariff. Southerners felt these tariffs were unfair and aimed toward them because they imported a wider variety of goods than most Northern people. Taxes were also placed on many Southern goods that were shipped to foreign countries, an expense that was not always applied to Northern goods of equal value. An awkward economic structure allowed states and private transportation companies to do this, which also affected Southern banks that found themselves paying higher interest rates on loans made with banks in the North. The situation grew worse after several “panics”, including one in 1857 that affected more Northern banks than Southern. Southern financiers found themselves burdened with high payments just to save Northern banks that had suffered financial losses through poor investment.

In the years before the Civil War the political power in the Federal government, centered in Washington, D.C., was changing. Northern and mid-western states were becoming more and more powerful as the populations increased. Southern states lost political power because the population did not increase as rapidly. As one portion of the nation grew larger than another, people began to talk of the nation as sections. This was called sectionalism. Just as the original thirteen colonies fought for their independence almost 100 years earlier, the Southern states felt a growing need for freedom from the central Federal authority in Washington. Southerners believed that state laws carried more weight than Federal laws, and they should abide by the state regulations first. This issue was called State’s Rights and became a very warm topic in congress.

The national park service seems to disagree with you abouth the tariff issue. The page I site is written by the Gettysburg National Military Park.

Also some good educational reading on the matter

lewrockwell.com/rockwell/civilwar.html

Consider this little tidbit from the pro-Lincoln New York Evening Post, March 2, 1861 edition:

"That either the revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the port must be closed to importations from abroad, is generally admitted. If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe. There will be nothing to furnish means of subsistence to the army; nothing to keep our navy afloat; nothing to pay the salaries of public officers; the present order of things must come to a dead stop.

“What, then, is left for our government? Shall we let the seceding states repeal the revenue laws for the whole Union in this manner? Or will the government choose to consider all foreign commerce destined for those ports where we have no custom-houses and no collectors as contraband, and stop it, when offering to enter the collection districts from which our authorities have been expelled?”

This is not an isolated case. British newspapers, whether favoring the North or South, said the same thing: the feds invaded the South to collect revenue. Indeed, when Karl Marx said the following, he was merely stating what everyone who followed events closely knew: “The war between the North and the South is a tariff war. The war is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for sovereignty.”

 

[estesbob]

Here is an essay on the causes of the war from a southern point of view for you to read. Its too long to reproduce in a post here.

This sums it up well:

There were those, a few years ago, who were especially devoted to the somewhat stereotyped phrase that in our Civil War one side (meaning the North) “was wholly and eternally right,” while the other side (meaning the South) “was wholly and eternally wrong.” I might cite those on the Southern side of the great controversy, equally sincere and fully as able, who would have been glad to persuade posterity that the North was “wholly and eternally wrong”; that her people waged war upon sister States who sought peacefully to set up a homogeneous government, and meditated no wrong or warfare upon the remaining sister States. These Southern leaders steadfastly maintained that the Southern people, in the exercise of the freedom and sovereign rights purchased by Revolutionary blood, were asserting a second independence according to the teachings and example of their fathers.

Written AFTER the WAR. Note that everything I have posted was from BEFORE the war, As I said the myth of the “lost cause” and the war was over States Rights was created ONLY after the war was over.

 

[estesbob]

nps.gov/archive/gett/gettkidz/cause.htm

There were many reasons for a Civil War to happen in America, and political issues and disagreements began soon after the American Revolution ended in 1782…"

I have posted cites from the actual articles of secession issued by the States gving thier reason for seceding. They speak for themsleves.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Written AFTER the WAR. Note that everything I have posted was from BEFORE the war, As I said the myth of the “lost cause” and the war was over States Rights was created ONLY after the war was over.

As was any history of the war, which by necessity sites sources written before and during the war.

 

[JohnnyReb]

I have posted cites from the actual articles of secession issued by the States gving thier reason for seceding. They speak for themsleves.

Sure they do, as what I posted does as well, and analysis backed by National Historical Park historians. Feel free to disagree with them. I will acknowledge the role slavery played in the conflict, but I can’t help that you are not looking at other aspects of it and at the bigger picture. Deo Vindice Resurgam

 

[Jerusha]

Many hoped to end slavery through legislation, to help it wither away. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_Prohibiting_Importation_of_Slaves
Importation of slaves was banned in 1807. However, it did continue, and slave trade was augmented by enslavement of NativeAmericans. Bear in mind that Ulysses Grant and Abraham Lincoln and John Hay were Illinoisans. Indians were being sold “down the river” Even today, many light “blacks” in New Orleans and Louisiana, upon receiving DNA test results, are amazed at a much higher percentage of NativeAmerican and lower of African than their pre-testing estimate. Other evidence of this exists in my family history.

Obviously, legislation did not work-- and this was evidence that the path to the Civil War could not be stopped.

Bear in mind that Abe’s mother, Nancy Hanks, died when he was eight. He was castigated by his enemies because his coloring was darker than that of a person of 100% European ancestry. His personal theology was described as beeing somewhat “hay-seed” , again, indicative of Native culture.

Sorry to put a radically different twist on this, but that is what I do. Oh, for the resources to research this further.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Here are a few quotes from South Carolina’s article of secession that deal with constitutional issues

facweb.furman.edu/~benson/docs/decl-sc.htm

[p4]
In the year 1765, that portion of the British Empire embracing Great Britain, undertook to make laws for the government of that portion composed of the thirteen American Colonies. A struggle for the right of self-government ensued, which resulted, on the 4th of July, 1776, in a Declaration, by the Colonies, “that they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; and that, as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.”

[p5]
They further solemnly declared that whenever any “form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government.” Deeming the Government of Great Britain to have become destructive of these ends, they declared that the Colonies “are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.”
No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

[p19]
This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

[p20]
The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

[p21]
The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

[p22]
The ends for which this Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be “to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”

**Seems to me that South Carolina saw the slavery issues and the constitutional issues as being tied together. Its not either/or but both/and. **

 

[Phillip_II]

Easy: the Second World War.

Peace,
Dante

Hmmm… I submit that the U.S. involvement in the Second World War did not fit, in the least, with Catholic Just War Doctrine.

With-in this thread people have mentioned “the end justifies the means”, someone from Long Island was talking about how the average Southerner was “propagandized”… give me a break, you know the Church teaches us to reason.

In the Second World War, a largely puritan country, most of who’s founding fathers were openly hostile to Catholicism, the good old U.S. of A., had Josef Stalin as an ally, our Hollywood friends made propaganda films that were the envy of both Germany and the Soviet Union, and within this fever swamp of righteousness we firebombed hundreds of thousands (millions maybe) of noncombatants in German and Japanese cities along with the near complete annihilation of both countries infrastructure.

Fit this into the Church’s Just War Doctrine.

 

[Jerusha]

In no war is either side completely right, therefore, strictly speaking, no war is a just war. The effort should be taken to prevent wars. Naziism was the worse evil at the time.

Lincoln’s problem with chronic depression is another indication of the emotional consequences of passing for white. His wife, a Southerner, racist against blacks, was supportive of him, also another indication.

de las Casas is said to have regretted, late in life, that he had argued so little against black slavery. Thomas Jefferson, who was familiar with de las Casas’s arguments, also argued for the intellectual ability of Native Americans, and therefore against thier enslavement. He also said, perhaps with insight from his beloved Sally, that American black slaves appear less intelligent as a result of the conditions of slavery. “Keep your mouth shut, don’t threaten them by letting them know how smart you are, etc.”

 

[Phillip_II]

Naziism was the worse evil at the time.

de las Casas is said to have regretted, late in life, that he had argued so little against black slavery. Thomas Jefferson, who was familiar with de las Casas’s arguments, also argued for the intellectual ability of Native Americans, and therefore against thier enslavement.

A perfectly propagandized answer; Nazism was the worse enemy at the time. I’d love an explanation of the moral differences between gas chambers and the calculated, systematic enforced starvation of an entire geographic region.

And de las Casas, you mention him as if he was some kind of hero; you need to remove yourself from the influences of the Black Legend that he laid the foundation for, and reread your history. The fact that Jefferson was a fan should be proof enough of his (de las Casas) unreliability as a historian, let alone moralist. de las Casas’ regrets should have included (in the spirit of Veritas) his smearing the good name of Spaniards (not to mention the Dominicans).

The conversation in this thread is all so much rehashing of American war history in an effort to boil down an answer to that first question; was the U.S. Civil War a just war?
Again, as Catholics, and from a true Catholic theological and cultural perspective, and from within a country whose culture and politics has always despised Catholicism, the question should be; what war, if any, that the U.S. has fought, been just?

 

[JohnnyReb]

Getting the discussion back on track, instead of discussing if the North or South was right, let’s discuss whether the war was a just war. Here are some of my thoughts from the Southern perspective:

**Just cause **
The reason for going to war needs to be just and can therefore be recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong. A contemporary view of just cause was expressed in 1993 when the US Catholic Conference said: “Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations.”

Both North and South will claim that the other was the aggressor: The South for firing on Fort Sumter, and the North for reinforcing it in the face of the South’s requests not to.

The Union did not go to war to eliminate slavery. It was to preserve the Union. The South attempted to win their independence,appealing to the principals of the American war for independence.

**Comparative justice **
While there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to override the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other. Theorists such as Brian Orend omit this term, seeing it as fertile ground for exploitation by bellicose regimes.

See above, was the injustice faced the North or South out of proportion as faced by the other. It depends on who you ask, but I will say probably not. The South attacked Fort Sumter and fired the first shot, but only after what they saw was an act of aggression by the Union. The situtation is comparable to the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Soviet attempt to place missiles in Cuba was an act of aggression, even if shots were not fired. The same holds true of the Union reinforcement of Sumter.

**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.

**Right intention **
Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose—correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not.

If this is the case, the Southern cause to preserve slavery was not justified, nor was the American war for independence, triggered by grievences over taxes. However, most wars come down to conflicts over money and/or power. The Northern cause of perserving the Union was rooted in economic reasons as well, so perhaps it was not justified either. Maintaining the Union as a whole would keep Southern markets loyal to emerging Northern industry, and maintain emerging American political power on the world scene.

**Probability of success **
Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;

Both sides had reason to believe they would be successful. The North had a superior industrial infrustructure, but the South had better military leadership, and only had to defend their territory. The South also counted on outside help that never came. If the South had won at Gettysburg and began to march on Washington, Jefferson Davis was ready to sail up the Potomac from Norfolk under a flag of truce to negotiate the Confederacy’s independence. The circumstances would probably have forced Lincoln to give in.

**Last resort **
Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted.

Both sides feel that they had negotiated. Lincoln had tried to talk the South into coming back into the Union. The South had tried to negotiate their independence. Neither side would budge.

Both the North and South fulfilled most points, but as I understand it if you don’t meet all points, your war is not a just war. Neither side did.

 

[Vigis]

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.

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 was no black and white in the American Civil War, but there was grey. In some ways both sides were justified to a degree, but no side in my opinion was justified completely.

God speed.

Vigis

 

[Jerusha]

And because a person is not Catholic, but acts on sincerely held, well thought out ethical principles, anything that person does or says is worthless?

De las Casas was not criticising the Spaniards, the Catholics, or the Dominicans. He was criticizing the actions of individuals, superficially converted from Islam. Especially if you read him, inserting quotation marks in statements like: “And these are the actions of “Christians”?”

Ulysses Grant’s ambivalence, in making his decision on which side to fight with, is another indicator of how much he knew, that neither side was completely right. The South certainly suffered from the sins of the North, and resistance by racists in the North made the war unnecessarily long.

They could have taken persistent action against the Indian slave trade on the Mississsippi, but, in my mind, this would have only delayed the war.

 

[LRThunder]

Actually it was very close. Saying it wasn’t doesn’t make it so. IMO, most if not all wars come down to conflicts over money and/or power. As Clauswitz said, war is nothing but an extension of politics. The American revolution was a war over taxes for the most part, that were necessary to recover debts from the colonies for their defense in the sever years/French and Indian war. Yet I bet you’re glad the USA won, as am I. But is going to war over your economic interests such a bad thing? That is all the South did.

Perhaps if the government really wanted to end slavery, they should have compensated the owners the value of the slaves and abolished it.

The first 7 states of the Confederacy seceded because Lincoln won the 1860 election pure and simple. The last four had “better” motives.

The American Revolution, on the other hand, came on the heels of increasing taxes (without representation), the basic suspension of civil liberties in Massachusetts (Quartering Act, trial of British troops in England for shooting colonists).

The South had a say in the laws governing slavery. They did NOT have to secede; they did not have to fire on Ft. Sumter.

 

[Phillip_II]

And because a person is not Catholic, but acts on sincerely held, well thought out ethical principles, anything that person does or says is worthless?

De las Casas was not criticising the Spaniards, the Catholics, or the Dominicans. He was criticizing the actions of individuals, superficially converted from Islam. Especially if you read him, inserting quotation marks in statements like: “And these are the actions of “Christians”?”

The de las Casa I know was both Spaniard and Dominican, and his book A Brief Account of the Destruction of the Indies, is the very foundation of all Black Legends, deals exclusively with what are supposedly his eyewitness accounts, along with a bunch of hearsay regarding Spanish “atrocities” in the New World.

As for the worth of the sincerity and principals of the U.S. founding fathers (I guess that’s where you were going with that first part), have you taken a good look around lately? Two-hundred-thirty years later and, other than material greatness, exactly what are our accomplishments? And in the name of what?

My point, in the context of this thread, is that for Catholicism, these questions have to be answered before you can even think about applying Just War Doctrine to our Civil War, outside of these questions being answered, i.e. the very legitimacy of the United States, it is senseless to try and apply Catholic doctrine to an entity that wholly rejects Catholicism.

 

[JohnnyReb]

The first 7 states of the Confederacy seceded because Lincoln won the 1860 election pure and simple. The last four had “better” motives.

The American Revolution, on the other hand, came on the heels of increasing taxes (without representation), the basic suspension of civil liberties in Massachusetts (Quartering Act, trial of British troops in England for shooting colonists).

The South had a say in the laws governing slavery. They did NOT have to secede; they did not have to fire on Ft. Sumter.

1. I thought the first seven states seceded over slavery, not because Lincoln won the election. Can you provide evidence from the Southern articles of secession which back your claim?
2. The taxes that angered the colonists were in place mostly to pay for their defense during the seven years war. If you read the articles of secession, Southerners saw their liberties as states being threatened by the Federal government (and the Northern states) overstepping the boundries set forth in the constitution.
3. November 6, 1860 - Abraham Lincoln, who had declared “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free…” is elected president, the first Republican, receiving 180 of 303 possible electoral votes and 40 percent of the popular vote.

The abolition of slavery was on the agenda of the Republican party. The South seceded to protect slavery, but they did not go to war to protect it, but rather to defend their newly formed nation.

They clearly saw their constitutional rights as states being violated. Here is an essay on the matter

Something to think about

civilwarhome.com/warorigin.htm

When the vast territory obtained from Mexico at the close of the war was organized, the Missouri compromise line was set aside, and the non interventio
n principle was adopted, by which it became between the sections a mere question of the ability to colonize – a question in regard to which there could scarcely be a doubt, with the superior resources in wealth and population of the free States. It had become manifest that the South had no protection for its rights but the constitution, nor could it hope to avail itself of that protection without an increase of power in the government. Its hopes for acquiring that were daily becoming less, whilst sectional animosities were constantly becoming more angry and bitter. A party had sprung up which proclaimed the constitution to be “an agreement with death and a covenant with hell.” This party was daily becoming stronger and more dangerous in spirit. It began at first by taking part in the contests between Whigs and Democrats, and grew upon the agitations in Congress and the newspaper press. This war of petitions for abolition was commenced by John Quincy Adams in 1831, when he presented a petition from Pennsylvania for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, but at the same time declared that he could not vote for it.

**In other words, the changes in laws from time to time were eroding the protection of slavery that had been given to the South by the laws written to protect it by the North and South. **

 

[Vigis]

The first 7 states of the Confederacy seceded because Lincoln won the 1860 election pure and simple. The last four had “better” motives.

The American Revolution, on the other hand, came on the heels of increasing taxes (without representation), the basic suspension of civil liberties in Massachusetts (Quartering Act, trial of British troops in England for shooting colonists).

The South had a say in the laws governing slavery. They did NOT have to secede; they did not have to fire on Ft. Sumter.

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. All they wanted to do was take away a major labor force from us and leave us to rot. Whether it was wrong or not to have slaves is valid, but also is the violation of states’ rights and carelessness of the North for the South. 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. So did the North have the right to fight as well to preserve the Union.

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. And they did have the right ot succeed. Why? Because their rights were on the verge of being violated. And not only that, but they were also threatened with being left for dead.

God speed.

Vigis

 

[Elric]

The South seceded over slavery. it was only after the war that they started the nonsense about the “lost cause” and "states rights’. The Southern States held 4.5 million people in brutal bondage. I can not beleive that in day and age anyone even attempts to defend what the South stood for.

The South didnt secede over slavery and the war wasnt fought because of slavery.

Many prominate Southerners like Robert Lee, Thomas Jackson and George Pickett to name a few, didnt care for or were down right opposed to slavery.

The institution of slavery was iniatally used as a political tool to keep European powers, like England and France, from allining with the Confederacy.

Lets not forget that two Union States endorsed the institution of slavery right up until the middle of the conflict.

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. 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.