Who Was Right in the American Civil War

[Miss Spaulding]

It's the Confederates, honey. (I don't mind being called a Rebel, hahaha, I'm just sayin'...)

It really irritates me that today's society is under the impression that the Civil War was ALL about the slavery issue, because it wasn't. Slavery was AN issue, but there were very many reasons, serious and important reasons why we went to war, not just about the slaves.

(Let me clarify where I stand: I do not agree with the slavery. However...we all need to be adults about this and consider the fact that things were very different back then. Does that make slavery right? No, certainly not. But still, that's just the way things were back then, you know? ...It's called 'history;' things change, things progress over the years, hard times come, good times roll around, ect, ect. Life can very good, but the hard truth is this: life is also very cruel, it's rough, it's full of hate, sorrow and hardships. Life has moved on since the Civil War era and slavery ended over 150+ years ago. So...for crying out loud, let's move on and get over it already.

 

[Wirraway]

....
armyman, you have to acknowledge the difference between those who would be willing to fight a tyrannical government for noble reasons, and those who are merely chomping at the bit to fight against this government for not-so-noble reasons, and simply waiting for any kind of flimsy rationalization to do so.

the only sane comment on this thread.

 

[Gracchus]

It really irritates me that today's society is under the impression that the Civil War was ALL about the slavery issue, because it wasn't. Slavery was AN issue, but there were very many reasons, serious and important reasons why we went to war, not just about the slaves.

Have you read the Confederate constitution? The Confederate president was elected for six years instead of four. He had a line-item veto. And slavery was given a protected status. It was unconstitutional to pass any law against it.

The South participated and lost the election of 1860. Then the South started a war.

No, certainly not. But still, that's just the way things were back then, you know? ...It's called 'history;' things change, things progress over the years, hard times come, good times roll around, ect, ect. Life can very good, but the hard truth is this: life is also very cruel, it's rough, it's full of hate, sorrow and hardships. Life has moved on since the Civil War era and slavery ended over 150+ years ago. So...for crying out loud, let's move on and get over it already.

This is the History Forum. If you don't want to discuss history, what the $%^# are you doing here?

 

[armyman_83]

[/font]
Have you read the Confederate constitution? The Confederate president was elected for six years instead of four. He had a line-item veto. And slavery was given a protected status. It was unconstitutional to pass any law against it.

The South participated and lost the election of 1860. Then the South started a war.

The Confederate Constitution allowed for only one term, not many for the President of the Confederate states. This to me, actually makes a lot of sense.

Slavery was given a protected status. However, they also restricted improrting of Slaves. Its not like they were opening the flood gates again.

"No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."

But with States' rights being key, I am under the impression that unless action was taken to the Confederate Supreme Court that a State might well ban Slavery. So long as it did not also ban people from taking their slaves into a non-slave state: "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired."

The Emancipation Proclamation issued by Lincoln freed only slaves in "rebel" states. Had Lincoln been some demi-god as the school books would have you think, why not free every slave? OH and didn't he do away with habeas corpus? Yeah he did. Didn't he also raise troops without the consent of congress?

 

[Gracchus]

The Confederate Constitution allowed for only one term, not many for the President of the Confederate states. This to me, actually makes a lot of sense.

Perhaps it does. There is also a good argument for a line-item veto. But those things or their absence did not lead to the war.

Slavery was given a protected status. However, they also restricted improrting of Slaves. Its not like they were opening the flood gates again.

There was no need to import more slaves. Virginia, having worn out its land with tobacco and cotton, was reduced to breeding slaves as an industry. And many slave did not work on plantations or as domestic servants. Many were skilled laborers whose masters rented them out as a source of income.

"No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."

The US Constitution also forbids ex post facto laws and bills of attainder.

But with States' rights being key, I am under the impression that unless action was taken to the Confederate Supreme Court that a State might well ban Slavery. So long as it did not also ban people from taking their slaves into a non-slave state: "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired."

How could a state ban slavery?
You argue that a state had the right to ban slavery but the Constitution said no state hadt the right to prevent slaveholders from bringing slaves into the state. What this means is that no state could ban slavery. In fact the Dred Scott decision ruled exactly that, but the peskiy abolitionists just kept the underground railroad going. (As a matter of fact, one of my ancestors was a passenger on that line!)

The Emancipation Proclamation issued by Lincoln freed only slaves in "rebel" states.

That fact is in every American history book I ever read.

Had Lincoln been some demi-god as the school books would have you think, why not free every slave?

Perhaps because he did not have the power. He was not a demi-god. He was, in fact one of the most vilified presidents in history. He succeeded because he was also one of the canniest politicians ever to sit in the White House.

OH and didn't he do away with habeas corpus? Yeah he did. Didn't he also raise troops without the consent of congress?

Yes he did.

And wasn't he elected to a second term? Yes he was. The "Damn Yankees" were more practical than principled. The South was "principled" only in matters of "property".

Shelby Foote points out that one factor in the South's defeat was the insistance on state's rights, with some states withholding troops and supplies from any Confederate armies outside their own territories. Jefferson Davis said that the South seemed bent on dying from "States' Rights"! (Or at least, I read that somewhere.)

So, the South was defeated, at least in part, by its own stupid and arrogant leaders. They started an unjustified war they could not have hoped to win without foreign support, and that foreign support would never be provided to a Confederacy with the institution of slavery.

Without slavery, the south might have won, but without slavery there would have been no war in the first place.

Certainly, the South was "fattin fur ther rats" but the ""rats thay wur fattin fur" was the right to spread slavery into the non-slave states and the territories.

 

[The Lady Kate]

It's the Confederates, honey. (I don't mind being called a Rebel, hahaha, I'm just sayin'...)

It really irritates me that today's society is under the impression that the Civil War was ALL about the slavery issue, because it wasn't. Slavery was AN issue, but there were very many reasons, serious and important reasons why we went to war, not just about the slaves.

Be that as it may, slavery was still one of the main issues of the Civil War, and arguably the main one. To try to whitewash it as the South's fight for "states' rights" when their own words blast the federal government for not being strong enough to keep the (northern) states in line sounds hollow.

Much like the Revolutionary War, the Civil War boils down to economics. At one point, the South accounted for 75% of the world's cotton production, and they were making an obscene amount of money off it... slavery was key to the Southern industry, exonomy, and lifestyle. Aboloshing slavery would've been a serious blow to Southern wallets, just as George III's taxes were a major hardship to the colonists.

 

[armyman_83]

There was no need to import more slaves. Virginia, having worn out its land with tobacco and cotton, was reduced to breeding slaves as an industry. And many slave did not work on plantations or as domestic servants. Many were skilled laborers whose masters rented them out as a source of income.

Agreed. It just seemed from your post that you were decrying the Confederate Constitution, when in reality there is very little difference to it and the United States' Constitution. Maybe I read your intention wrong, if so I do apologize.

How could a state ban slavery?
You argue that a state had the right to ban slavery but the Constitution said no state hadt the right to prevent slaveholders from bringing slaves into the state. What this means is that no state could ban slavery. In fact the Dred Scott decision ruled exactly that, but the peskiy abolitionists just kept the underground railroad going. (As a matter of fact, one of my ancestors was a passenger on that line!)

I suppose the same way a state might could regulate firearms? The second amendment is being "infringed" in some states, but under the Constitution that is illegal. I am sure all sorts of legal jargon could eventually propell slavery in the past. I just think that the legal means would be far better than putting to the edge of the sword hundreds of thousands of American lives. Slavery would have died out peacefully eventually, I suspect.

That fact is in every American history book I ever read.
Perhaps because he did not have the power. He was not a demi-god. He was, in fact one of the most vilified presidents in history. He succeeded because he was also one of the canniest politicians ever to sit in the White House.

He had the power to free slaves in States in "rebellion" but not in the Union? Freeing states wherein the Federal Government actually held power seems way more possible. I am just saying.

It was a total political ploy to keep other nations from recognizing the Confederate States' right to exsist. England wouldn't be too prone to recognize the Confederacy since they had already outlawed Slavery.

Yes he did.

And wasn't he elected to a second term? Yes he was. The "Damn Yankees" were more practical than principled. The South was "principled" only in matters of "property".

He was elected again. But that doesn't make doing away with the Constitution any less wrong. Or do you think that makes it ok to undo the Constitution because he got votes? I suppose those thrown in jail without charges didn't have a say...

Shelby Foote points out that one factor in the South's defeat was the insistance on state's rights, with some states withholding troops and supplies from any Confederate armies outside their own territories. Jefferson Davis said that the South seemed bent on dying from "States' Rights"! (Or at least, I read that somewhere.)

So, the South was defeated, at least in part, by its own stupid and arrogant leaders. They started an unjustified war they could not have hoped to win without foreign support, and that foreign support would never be provided to a Confederacy with the institution of slavery.

I totally agree, the Confederacy fell upon its own sword. Its favored form of Government is what helped to undo it. That is because the Confederacy wasn't a form of government ment for massive expansionism, and imperalism. Republics are not supposed to be Empires. The United States was organized because they all answered to a super powerful central Federal government. The Confederacy didn't want such a government.

Without slavery, the south might have won, but without slavery there would have been no war in the first place.

Certainly, the South was "fattin fur ther rats" but the ""rats thay wur fattin fur" was the right to spread slavery into the non-slave states and the territories.

But considering that slavery was still legal in Northern States--the South was within their rights as Americans, and as human beings to throw off a form of government that was not suited to their happiness and progress.
States' Rights are key element averting despotism and oppression.

 

[armyman_83]

Ignoring the Godwin here, I need to ask: Who determines what the ends of the Constitution are?

Do you mean who determines if the Government is totally becoming oppressive and unconstitutional? "We The People". You might say the Supreme Court, but if should allow or promote the distruction of the Constitution, then it falls upon the People to correct them.


If you are asking what is the point of the Constitution then I would reference the Preamble.

Most of the "freedom fighters" I've seen have no interest whatsoever in human dignity or life beyond their own. Washington, Adams, Handcock... these men were paragons of wisdom and restraint in their era, and we've not seen the likes of them since... nor are we likely to. But even they were motivated by self-interest as well as the abstractions of freedom and liberty.

One man's terroirst is another man's freedom fighter. Washington, Adams, and all the rest were branded as rebels and traitors to the crown. Countless rebellions have taken place throughout human history. I don't think we would have some horrible revolution like the French, I think if a revolution were to happen--it would be to reset everything to a more strict form of the Constitution. It is hard to say that the people who will act in the next Revolution will be some deranged barbarians. Nor could we predict them as saints either. Honestly--we don't know what kind of people they will be. Let us pray, therefore, they are goodly and godly people.

I know I certainly woldn't fight to replace the old tyrant with a new one... bcause I can't help but wonder if it ever comes to armed insurrection against the US government, and the rebels win... what happens next? History shows that sooner or later, the new boss turns into the old boss.

I totally agree. No one wants a new tyrant...but rebellion seemed to work out pretty darn good for the American Colonies. I think it might work out well again, should such events take place. I assume that any armed rebellion would be done in order to make stricter constitutionalism the law of the land. But that is just me.

armyman, you have to acknowledge the difference between those who would be willing to fight a tyrannical government for noble reasons, and those who are merely chomping at the bit to fight against this government for not-so-noble reasons, and simply waiting for any kind of flimsy rationalization to do so.

I acknowledge the difference, but I also acknowledge that someone who won't say that they will fight against any form of unbearable oppression to mean just that--they won't fight to maintian human life and human rights.

I didn't call out a particular rulling group or what not--only an oppressive Federal government in general.

 

[Wirraway]

But considering that slavery was still legal in Northern States--

this statement keeps coming up, what do you mean?

Rhode Island abolished slavery in 1774, Vermont in 1777, Pennsylvania (1780), Massachusetts (1781), New Hampshire (1783), Connecticut (1784), New York (1799) and New Jersey (1804). States that never allowed slavery: Maine, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, Kansas, Oregon, California, Illinois and Nevada. States that abolished slavery during the war: Missouri, Maryland, and West Virginia.

so what are you talking about?

the South was within their rights as Americans, and as human beings to throw off a form of government that was not suited to their happiness and progress.
States' Rights are key element averting despotism and oppression.

its been explained to you at least a dozen times that the secession ordinances were illegal, void from the beginning.

further, the ending of slavery is not as simplistic as you believe. the government began emancipation as early as the 1861 Confiscation Act, the Confiscation Act of 1862, Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, then other orders that began freeing black servicemen and their families, culminating with the 13th amendment.

 

[mcswan]

Without slavery, the south might have won, but without slavery there would have been no war in the first place.

Without slavery there might not have been THAT war in the first place.

As has been noted here by several posters the Civil War was bout slavery but it was most certainly about state's rights as well. Both of these issues where left unresolved by the constitution and early U.S. history, but each would eventually have to be resolved, not necessarily together.

State's rights and the right of secession had been an issue before the Civil War, and continues even today to be an issue. I'm convinced that most Americans still believe, as I do, that the right - even the DUTY - to overthrow an oppressive government is a NATURAL RIGHT which cannot be abrogated by any secular government, even our own Supreme Court.

One incident showing the constant underlying belief in the right to secession occurred in 1814 in Hartford Connecticut: The Hartford Conference. Historians disagree about how important the issue of secession was at the Hartford Conference, but from the sources I've found here in the Hartford area, I believe that the issue was more than just incidental.

Hartford Convention at AllExperts

"The Hartford Convention was an event in 1814 in the United States during the War of 1812 in which New England's opposition to the war reached the point where secession from the United States was discussed."

"On October 10, 1814 the Massachusetts state legislature called for the Hartford Convention, ostensibly to discuss several constitutional amendments necessary to protect New England's interests. On December 15, 1814, delegations from the then-five New England states Maine at this point was still part of Massachusetts) met in Hartford, Connecticut. Official delegations were sent by Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. Delegations from New Hampshire and Vermont were from dissident counties; these two states were not as dependent upon foreign trade, or as culturally tied to Boston. Meetings continued in secret through January 5, 1815."

"In all, 26 delegates attended. Largely due to the sensitive nature of what was being discussed, no records of the proceedings were kept. In January, a final report was issued, containing language to the effect that New England had a "duty" to assert its authority over unconstitutional infringements on its sovereignty — a doctrine that echoed the policy of Jefferson and Madison in 1798 (in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions), and which would later reappear in a different context as "nullification""

"Some Hartford Convention delegates may have been in favor of New England's secession from the United States, and forming an independent republic. No such resolution was adopted at the convention; however, Massachusetts actually sent three commissioners to Washington, to negotiate these terms. When they arrived in February, 1815, news of Andrew Jackson's success at the Battle of New Orleans, and the signing of the Treaty of Ghent, preceded them and, consequently, their presence in the capital seemed both ludicrous and subversive. They quickly returned to Massachusetts. Thereafter, both the Hartford Convention and the Federalist Party became synonymous with disunion and secession, especially in the South."

 

[armyman_83]

this statement keeps coming up, what do you mean?

Rhode Island abolished slavery in 1774, Vermont in 1777, Pennsylvania (1780), Massachusetts (1781), New Hampshire (1783), Connecticut (1784), New York (1799) and New Jersey (1804). States that never allowed slavery: Maine, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, Kansas, Oregon, California, Illinois and Nevada. States that abolished slavery during the war: Missouri, Maryland, and West Virginia.

so what are you talking about?

I guess Delaware and Kentucky aren't states?......






And I agree with you about the secession ordences being declared illegal by the Federal Government. But we are talking about if such declarations are right or wrong--not just legal.

The execution of Jews and other desireables was legal in Germany. Legal does not always mean--right.

 

[Wirraway]

...

The Emancipation Proclamation issued by Lincoln freed only slaves in "rebel" states. Had Lincoln been some demi-god as the school books would have you think, why not free every slave?

if you're going to argue a strawman, you've got to have a better grasp of history.

OH and didn't he do away with habeas corpus? Yeah he did.

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 9

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

are you talking about Ex Parte Merriman? good luck with that loser argument. or the Habeas Corpus Act which ratified the suspension?

Didn't he also raise troops without the consent of congress?

let's try something new. instead of me doing your work for you, why don't you identify which call up you're talking about.

 

[Wirraway]

I guess Delaware and Kentucky aren't states?......

you keep making blanket statements about slavery in the north (Ky is a border state) and you needed correction, again, because most of your statements are based on incorrectly presenting historical fact.

And I agree with you about the secession ordences being declared illegal by the Federal Government. But we are talking about if such declarations are right or wrong--not just legal.

there's only one argument weaker than asserting something isn't "right" and that is ....

The execution of Jews and other desireables was legal in Germany. Legal does not always mean--right.

.... dragging in the nazis. Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies

 

[armyman_83]

you keep making blanket statements about slavery in the north (Ky is a border state) and you needed correction, again, because most of your statements are based on incorrectly presenting historical fact.

Kentucky was a border state, but the US side still had slavery legal. Delaware....well Delaware is quite a Northern State.

"But considering that slavery was still legal in Northern States..."--me (post number 127 )

I am totally correct in this statement. I never said--ALL Northern States, nor did I specify. I never incorrectly presented historical fact--you read that I meant ALL Northern States, when I did not. If there is any fault, it is not in how I am displaying facts, but how you are reading them.

there's only one argument weaker than asserting something isn't "right" and that is ....



.... dragging in the nazis. Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies

Ha ha ha. Of course, because there isn't any real point in bringing up historical events if they make your point of view look wrong. My bad.

Do you want me to type another historical event that was lawful but completely wrong in the sense of moral man?



Lincoln's orders for 75,000 volunteers. April 1861.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:
A PROCLAMATION​

Whereas the laws of the United States have been for some time past and now are opposed and the execution thereof obstructed in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings or by the powers vested in the marshals by law:
Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution and the laws, have thought fit to call forth, and hereby do call forth, the militia of the several States of the Union, to the aggregate number of 75,000, in order to suppress said combinations and to cause the laws to be duly executed.
The details of this object will be immediately communicated to the State authorities through the War Department.
I appeal to all loyal citizens to favor, facilitate, and aid this effort to maintain the honor, the integrity, and the existence of our National Union, and the perpetuity of popular government, and to redress wrongs already long enough endured.
I deem it proper to say that the first service assigned to the forces hereby called forth will probably be to repossess the forts, places, and property which have been seized from the Union, and in every event the utmost care will be observed, consistently with the objects aforesaid, to avoid any devastation, any destruction of or interference with property, or any disturbance of peaceful citizens in any part of the country.
And I hereby command the persons composing the combinations aforesaid to disperse and retire peaceably to their respective abodes within twenty days from date.
Deeming that the present condition of public affairs presents an extraordinary occasion, I do hereby, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, convene both houses of Congress.
Senators and Representatives are therefore summoned to assemble at their respective chambers at twelve o'clock noon on Thursday, the fourth day of July next, then and there to consider and determine such measures as in their wisdom the public safety and interest may seem to demand.
In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.
Done at the city of Washington this fifteenth day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, and of the Independence of the United States the eighty-fifth.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.​

By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD,
Secretary of State.



"...under the act of 1795, the President is precluded from acting even upon his own personal and absolute knowledge of the existence of such an insurrection. Before he can call forth the militia for its suppression, he must first be applied to for this purpose by the appropriate State authorities, in the manner prescribed by the Constitution."--President Buchanan

 

[Wirraway]

when and if you make valid points, I'll address them.

 

[The Lady Kate]

But with States' rights being key, I am under the impression that unless action was taken to the Confederate Supreme Court that a State might well ban Slavery.

But you're assuming that states' rights were in fact key, and not merely a buzzword to rationalize the secession... the South's own declaration of secession belies this when they decried the lack of a stronger federal government to keep (Northern) states in line to enforce certain laws (read: Fugitive Slave Act)

 

[armyman_83]

But you're assuming that states' rights were in fact key, and not merely a buzzword to rationalize the secession... the South's own declaration of secession belies this when they decried the lack of a stronger federal government to keep (Northern) states in line to enforce certain laws (read: Fugitive Slave Act)

Perhaps the Southern States figured that if the Federal Government was going to be strong, then it might as well work for their favor some of the time?


"Resolved, That the union of these States rests on the equality of rights and privileges among its members, and that it is especially the duty of the Senate, which represents the States in their sovereign capacity, to resist all attempts to discriminate either in relation to person or property, so as, in the Territories—which are the common possession of the United States—to give advantages to the citizens of one State which are not equally secured to those of every other State." Jefferson Davis (February 2, 1860)

 

[armyman_83]

when and if you make valid points, I'll address them.

So are you talking about the points I made about Lincoln or do you admit he broke the law in many ways? I have posted evidence that Lincoln called up troops unlawfully. Or do you defend his actions against the Constitution?

I can repost them, if you missed them perhaps.

 

[SirKenny85]

I think both sides were horribly wrong. Neither side was willing to give up some power, or wealth, or ideas to accommodate the other and America is still paying the price of that war today

Excellent post, and couldn't agree with you more.

 

[MarkSB]

Perhaps the Southern States figured that if the Federal Government was going to be strong, then it might as well work for their favor some of the time?


"Resolved, That the union of these States rests on the equality of rights and privileges among its members, and that it is especially the duty of the Senate, which represents the States in their sovereign capacity, to resist all attempts to discriminate either in relation to person or property, so as, in the Territories—which are the common possession of the United States—to give advantages to the citizens of one State which are not equally secured to those of every other State." Jefferson Davis (February 2, 1860)

The southern states were rather hippocritical in their theories about states rights. Didn't they basically want northern states to dedicate their resources toward finding and returning runaway slaves, even though many of them didn't agree with the practice (as per the Fugitive Slave Act, as Lady Kate stated).