The American Civil War, Fought Over Slavery, Begun by South Carolina
March 7, 2007 at 1:30 pm | Posted in America, American politics, Civil War | 146 CommentsWith that shot on the Union ship “Star of the West” the Civil War officially began. The causes of the Civil War are complex and deep, however one word describes the heart of the division of America that led to actual fighting: slavery.
Thousands of books have been written on the subject. My few words here will not be comprehensive, and certainly nothing to improve upon any of actual scholars who have studied the topic in full. My point here is to make clear a few things, because—and I am continually surprised at this—today’s Republicans, especially the more militant, hardcore right-wing Christian kinds, believe the South was right, that the South was innocent, and that the war was not fought over slavery. The irony is that today’s Republicans call themselves the Party of Lincoln. Heh, he’s rolling in his grave right now over what his party is thinking today! So let’s get a few things straight about the civil war that tore our country for so long.
In 1796, George Washington, America’s first president, gave his Farewell Address. In his final words to the Union, he addressed that very word, union. He said:
The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts…
The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations…
But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by those which apply more immediately to your interest. Here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the union of the whole.
He emphasized how a unified States would be less prone to foreign intervention, more freedom and more safety and security. He also warned against those who would attempt to weaken this union:
With such powerful and obvious motives to union, affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who in any quarter may endeavor to weaken its bands.
Distrust the patriotism of those who endeavor to weaken its bands.
In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection.
He continues pressing the point of the strength of a Unified States versus the separation of the states into smaller allied groups:
To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliance, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a constitution of government better calculated than your former for an intimate union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.
Nearly half of President Washington’s farewell address covered the important issue of unity, the United States of America. The whole being more important than the part. The national being more important than the local. Why did he spend nearly half of his farewell address focusing on this topic? Because even then, in 1796, he saw the division that would destroy his beloved country. He never named the issue, because he was a slave-owner himself, and because there were many issues which divided the nation (he does mention an issue the Western states had brought up regarding a deal with Spain). The point is that for President George Washington, what was most important was that the union would remain whole.
Unfortunately for President Washington, the union would not remain whole, but bitterly divided. Northern states that used to employ slavery, abolished the practice over the next few decades. The North also increased its population due mostly to immigration from European countries. By 1860, Northern states had a population of 22,08,250 while Southern states had a population of 9,103,332. Furthermore 39% of those 9 million Southerners were slaves while only 2% of the Northern states’ population were slaves. These numbers show many things.
1. Only about 5 million Southerners were white and only about 2.5 million of them male, who fought for their lands quite bravely in the Civil War. That so few could stand against so many Northerners is definitely romantic.
2. More importantly, in a democracy, especially a representative republic, where representatives are based on population levels, the South was constantly in the rut, losing more and more, and as such fearing the Constitutional amendment abolishing slavery. This is a very important point because as America expanded to the West, what would those new states base their laws and governance on? Would they allow slavery? If not, the South would basically lose out on its greatest asset.
Northerners were not generally for abolishing slavery.
While some in the North hated slavery because they felt that it was wrong, most people held no opinion of it at all, and some even condoned it because abolishing it would be bad for business. Without slaves there would be no cotton. Without cotton the textile industry would suffer. To many it was just that simple.
Besides, if they could abolish slavery just like that, what would the country do now with the nearly 4 million ex-slaves? No, the north, including one Abraham Lincoln was not pressing for the abolishment of slavery. There were many individuals who certainly did, but not as a whole.
It is the expansion to the west that set things in motion. If western states were against slavery, the South would lose its political clout and influence, and would expect at some future point for its way of life to cease. This was their fear. As to how founded or unfounded, I’m not sure, myself. I haven’t studied the topic enough. I do know that the North passed several laws and tariffs that pressed and choked Southern states. In 1832, South Carolina nearly seceded from the Union over tariffs. President Jackson threatened the state with invasion, stating that the state cannot simply ignore the federal government. South Carolina backed off. Here is a portion of Andrew Jackson’s proclamation regarding nullification by South Carolina:
The ordinance is founded, not on the indefeasible right of resisting acts which are plainly unconstitutional, and too oppressive to be endured, but on the strange position that any one State may not only declare an act of Congress void, but prohibit its execution- that they may do this consistently with the Constitution-that the true construction of that instrument permits a State to retain its place in the Union, and yet be bound by no other of its laws than those it may choose to consider as constitutional. It is true they add, that to justify this abrogation of a law, it must be palpably contrary to the Constitution, but it is evident, that to give the right of resisting laws of that description, coupled with the uncontrolled right to decide what laws deserve that character, is to give the power of resisting all laws. For, as by the theory, there is no appeal, the reasons alleged by the State, good or bad, must prevail. If it should be said that public opinion is a sufficient check against the abuse of this power, it may be asked why it is not deemed a sufficient guard against the passage of an unconstitutional act by Congress. There is, however, a restraint in this last case, which makes the assumed power of a State more indefensible, and which does not exist in the other. There are two appeals from an unconstitutional act passed by Congress-one to the judiciary, the other to the people and the States. There is no appeal from the State decision in theory; and the practical illustration shows that the courts are closed against an application to review it, both judges and jurors being sworn to decide in its favor. But reasoning on this subject is superfluous, when our social compact in express terms declares, that the laws of the United States, its Constitution, and treaties made under it, are the supreme law of the land; and for greater caution adds, “that the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” And it may be asserted, without fear of refutation, that no federative government could exist without a similar provision. Look, for a moment, to the consequence. If South Carolina considers the revenue laws unconstitutional, and has a right to prevent their execution in the port of Charleston, there would be a clear constitutional objection to their collection in every other port, and no revenue could be collected anywhere; for all imposts must be equal. It is no answer to repeat that an unconstitutional law is no law, so long as the question of its legality is to be decided by the State itself, for every law operating injuriously upon any local interest will be perhaps thought, and certainly represented, as unconstitutional, and, as has been shown, there is no appeal.
If this doctrine had been established at an earlier day, the Union would have been dissolved in its infancy. The excise law in Pennsylvania, the embargo and non-intercourse law in the Eastern States, the carriage tax in Virginia, were all deemed unconstitutional, and were more unequal in their operation than any of the laws now complained of; but, fortunately, none of those States discovered that they had the right now claimed by South Carolina. The war into which we were forced, to support the dignity of the nation and the rights of our citizens, might have ended in defeat and disgrace instead of victory and honor, if the States, who supposed it a ruinous and unconstitutional measure, had thought they possessed the right of nullifying the act by which it was declared, and denying supplies for its prosecution. Hardly and unequally as those measures bore upon several members of the Union, to the legislatures of none did this efficient and peaceable remedy, as it is called, suggest itself. The discovery of this important feature in our Constitution was reserved to the present day. To the statesmen of South Carolina belongs the invention, and upon the citizens of that State will, unfortunately, fall the evils of reducing it to practice.
If the doctrine of a State veto upon the laws of the Union carries with it internal evidence of its impracticable absurdity, our constitutional history will also afford abundant proof that it would have been repudiated with indignation had it been proposed to form a feature in our Government…
I consider, then, the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one State, incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which It was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed.
Clearly, South Carolina’s weak attempt to ignore a law passed by Congress, and then threaten the Union with secession, was rebuked strongly, and appropriately by President Jackson. Clearly also, it was an unconstitutional move by South Carolina. It is no surprise to anyone then that in 1860, South Carolina would take the first shot. But we’ll get to that soon enough.
As the nation grew larger, expanding westward, laws were passed and compromises reached to avert a bloody showdown between the North and South. The problem still arose from the fact that the North was growing in numbers far greater than the South, or slave-owning states, even though Texas was set up as a slave-owning state in the Compromise of 1850. As I showed earlier, the numbers show a huge disparity between the two sides.
As recounted here
The whole mess went up in smoke in the presidential election year of 1860. The Democratic party split badly. Stephen Douglas became the nominee of the northern wing of the party. A southern faction broke away from the party and nominated Senator John Breckinridge of Kentucky. The remnants of the Whig party nominated John Bell of Tennessee.
Into this confusion the new Republican party injected its nominee, Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln was a moderate Republican. As such he was a compromise candidate, everybody’s second choice. He was convinced that the Constitution forbade the Federal government from taking action against slavery where it already existed, but was determined to keep it from spreading further. South Carolina, in a fit of stubborn pride, unilaterally announced that it would secede from the Union if Lincoln were elected.
To everyone’s amazement Lincoln was victorious. He had gathered a mere 40% of the popular vote, and carried not a single slave state, but the vote had been so fragmented by the abundance of factions that it had been enough.
South Carolina, true to its word, seceded on December 20, 1860. Mississippi left on January 9, 1861, and Florida on the 10th. Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas followed.
What were the reasons? Let’s read the declarations of secession themselves from the various states:
Here are the Ordinances of Secession of the 13 Confederate States
Here is Georgia’s Declaration of Secession
Here is Mississippi’s Declaration of Secession
Here is Texas’ Declaration of Secession
Here is South Carolina’s Declaration of Secession.
I’ve always found Mississippi’s declaration to be most amusing:
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
Could they be more ridiculous? In any case, at the heart of all the declarations of secession is the desire to prolong and continue the practice of slavery. The South felt the noose of the loss of political power, and instead of following the rest of the nation toward a better future, decided that their best interest no longer resided with the union. Two Southern presidents, Andrew Jackson and George Washington both stated clearly the larger union was of greater priority. Could the South learn to move on? No.
So what happened when South Carolina broke away, followed by the rest of the South? Nothing really. Not at first. The North didn’t suddenly invade the South. The South didn’t suddenly attack the North. President James Buchanan could really do nothing about the South seceding as his term was ending. Abraham Lincoln won the election in November 1860, but the first shot was fired on 10 January 1861. And of course, it all started in South Carolina.
This link explains well what happened:
The January 26, 1861 edition of Harper’s Weekly featured the following illustration, showing the First Shot of the Civil War. The first shot was fired on January 10, 1861. It was fired by the South Carolinians on Morris Island. They fired on the Union Ship “Star of the West” as it attempted to reinforce Major Anderson at Fort Sumter.
Nothing else happened until April 12, 1861, when the war began, again by South Carolina firing on Fort Sumter:
After her secession from the Union, South Carolina perceived herself as a sovereign state – the presence of Union forces in an armed fortress whose guns commanded her principal harbor was intolerable as it belied her independence. For President Lincoln the voluntary abandonment of this fortress was equally intolerable as it would be a tacit acknowledgment of South Carolina’s independent status.
Lincoln learned that the garrison at Fort Sumter was in trouble on the day he took office in March 1861. The garrison was running out of food and supplies and had no way of obtaining these on shore. The President ordered a relief expedition to sail immediately and informed the Governor of South Carolina of his decision. Alerted, General P.G.T Beauregard, commander of the Confederate military forces, realized he had to quickly force the evacuation of the fort before the relief expedition’s arrival. He would try threats first, and if these failed he would bombard the fort into submission.
The firsthand account is a fascinating read. The garrison had told the South Carolina soldiers that they were due to run out of provisions fairly soon. That did not stop South Carolina from the bombardment.
On the afternoon of April 11, waving a white flag, two members of General Beauregard’s staff were rowed across Charleston’s harbor to Fort Sumter carrying a written demand for surrender. One of the emissaries – Stephen D. Lee – wrote of the experience after the war:
“This demand was delivered to Major Anderson at 3:45 P.M., by two aides of General Beauregard, James Chesnut, Jr., and myself. At 4:30 P.M. he handed us his reply, refusing to accede to the demand; but added, ‘Gentlemen, if you do not batter the fort to pieces about us, we shall be starved out in a few days.’ The reply of Major Anderson was put in General Beauregard’s hands at 5:15 P.M., and he was also told of this informal remark. Anderson’s reply and remark were communicated to the Confederate authorities at Montgomery. The Secretary of War, L.P. Walker, replied to Beauregard as follows:”
‘Do not desire needlessly to bombard Fort Sumter. If Major Anderson will state the time at which, as indicated by him, he will evacuate, and agree that in the meantime he will not use his guns against us, unless ours should be employed against Fort Sumter, you are authorized thus to avoid the effusion of blood. If this, or its equivalent, be refused, reduce the fort as your judgment decides to be most practicable.’
” The same aides bore a second communication to Major Anderson, based on the above instructions, which was placed in, his hands at 12:45 A.M., April 12th. His reply indicated that he would evacuate the fort on the 15th, provided he did not in the meantime receive contradictory instructions from his Government, or additional supplies, but he declined to agree not to open his guns upon the Confederate troops, in the event of any hostile demonstration on their part against his flag. Major Anderson made every possible effort to retain the aides till daylight, making one excuse and then another for not replying. Finally, at 3:15 A.M., he delivered his reply. In accordance with their instructions, the aides read it and, finding it unsatisfactory, gave Major Anderson this notification:”
‘FORT SUMTER, S.C., April 12, 1861, 3:20 A.M. – SIR: By authority of Brigadier-General Beauregard, commanding the Provisional Forces of the Confederate States, we have the honor to notify you that he will open the fire of his batteries on Fort Sumter in one hour from this time. We have the honor to be very respectfully, Your obedient servants, JAMES CHESNUT JR., Aide-de-camp. STEPHEN D. LEE, Captain C. S. Army, Aide-de-camp.’
“The above note was written in one of the casemates of the fort, and in the presence of Major Anderson and several of his officers. On receiving it, he was much affected. He seemed to realize the full import of the consequences, and the great responsibility of his position. Escorting us to the boat at the wharf, he cordially pressed our hands in farewell, remarking, ‘If we never meet in this world again, God grant that we may meet in the next.’
It was then 4 A.M. Captain James at once aroused his command, and arranged to carry out the order. He was a great admirer of Roger A. Pryor, and said to him, ‘You are the only man to whom I would give up the honor of firing the first gun of the war’; and he offered to allow him to fire it. Pryor, on receiving the offer, was very much agitated. With a husky voice he said, ‘I could not fire the first gun of the war.’ His manner was almost similar to that of Major Anderson as we left him a few moments before on the wharf at Fort Sumter. Captain James would allow no one else but himself to fire the gun.
The boat with the aides of General Beauregard left Fort Johnson before arrangements were complete for the firing of the gun, and laid on its oars, about one-third the distance between the fort and Sumter, there to witness the firing of ‘the first gun of the war’ between the States. It was fired from a ten-inch mortar at 4:30 A.M., April 12th, 1861. Captain James was a skillful officer, and the firing of the shell was a success. It burst immediately over the fort, apparently about one hundred feet above.
The firing of the mortar woke the echoes from every nook and corner of the harbor, and in this the dead hour of the night, before dawn, that shot was a sound of alarm that brought every soldier in the harbor to his feet, and every man, woman and child in the city of Charleston from their beds. A thrill went through the whole city. It was felt that the Rubicon was passed. No one thought of going home; unused as their ears were to the appalling sounds, or the vivid flashes from the batteries, they stood for hours fascinated with horror.”
The rest as we know it is history. Unfortunately, the South doesn’t like the fact that they are perceived as rebels and secessionists, even though that is exactly what they were. So you get individuals like Major General John Gordon who try to justify the actions of the South. He states:
During the entire life of the Republic the respective rights and powers of the States and general government had furnished a question for endless controversy. In process of time this controversy assumed a somewhat sectional phase. The dominating thought of the North and of the South may be summarized in a few sentences.
The South maintained with the depth of religious conviction that the Union formed under the Constitution was a Union of consent and not of force; that the original States were not the creatures but the creators of the Union; that these States had gained their independence, their freedom, and their sovereignty from the mother country, and had not surrendered these on entering the Union; that by the express terms of the Constitution all rights and powers not delegated were reserved to the States; and the South challenged the North to find one trace of authority in that Constitution for invading and coercing a sovereign State.
The North, on the other hand, maintained with the utmost confidence in the correctness of her position that the Union formed under the Constitution was intended to be perpetual; that sovereignty was a unit and could not be divided; that whether or not there was any express power granted in the Constitution for invading a State, the right of self-preservation was inherent in all governments; that the life of the Union was essential to the life of liberty; or, in the words of Webster, “liberty and union are one and inseparable.”
To the charge of the North that secession was rebellion and treason, the South replied that the epithets of rebel and traitor did not deter her from the assertion of her independence, since these same epithets had been familiar to the ears of Washington and Hancock and Adams and Light Horse Harry Lee. In vindication of her right to secede, she appealed to the essential doctrine, “the right to govern rests on the consent of the governed,” and to the right of independent action as among those reserved by the States. The South appealed to the acts and opinions of the Fathers and to the report of the Hartford Convention of New England States asserting the power of each State to decide as to the remedy for infraction of its rights; to the petitions presented and positions assumed by ex-President John Quincy Adams; to the contemporaneous declaration of the 8th of January assemblage in Ohio indicating that 200,000 Democrats in that State alone were ready to stand guard on the banks of the border river and resist invasion of Southern territory; and to the repeated declarations of Horace Greeley and the admission of President Lincoln himself that there was difficulty on the question of force, since ours ought to be a fraternal Government.
In answer to all these points, the North also cited the acts and opinions of the same Fathers, and urged that the purpose of those Fathers was to make a more perfect Union and a stronger government. The North offset the opinions of Greeley and others by the emphatic declaration of Stephen A. Douglas, the foremost of Western Democrats, and by the official opinion as to the power of the Government to collect revenues and enforce laws, given to President Buchanan by Jere Black, the able Democratic Attorney-General.
And I might add, two of those Founding Fathers who advocated a “more perfect union and a stronger government” were Southerners, Andrew Jackson and George Washington, not to mention Thomas Jefferson.
On one major point, Major General Gordon is very right. We do need a more rounded education about the Civil War. However, let’s not revise history and portray the North as aggressors, when clearly the South began the conflict, and that at its heart this conflict wasn’t about slavery. There was no other issue that Southern states were as troubled by as the institution of slavery becoming prohibited in the nation in which they were in. As Andrew Jackson said, however, if a state were to ignore and nullify one part of the law, it would “give the power to resisting all laws,” and destroy the union.
I close with the words of Abraham Lincoln on why he fought the South’s secession:
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.” … My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. … I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.
146 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a reply to Erich WWK Cancel reply
Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.
Very nice post, Daniel!
Comment by Brian Duffin— March 7, 2007 #
The North, on the other hand, maintained with the utmost confidence in the correctness of her position that the Union formed under the Constitution was intended to be perpetual; that sovereignty was a unit and could not be divided
Isn’t that pretty much a restatement of how Britain felt about the colonies? Why was it a good thing that the colonies were able to break away from Britain, but not a good thing for the Southern states to attempt to declare their own sovereignty? Was it simply a case of might makes right?
The South maintained with the depth of religious conviction that the Union formed under the Constitution was a Union of consent and not of force
From Thomas DiLorenzo, via LewRockwell.com:
Comment by Mark N.— March 7, 2007 #
Also of interest is DiLorenzo’s article Let’s put myths to rest, from May of 2003, wherein he discusses the following myths about Lincoln and the Civil War:
Myth #1: Lincoln invaded the South to free the slaves.
Myth #2: Lincoln’s war saved the Union.
Myth #3: Lincoln championed equality and natural rights.
Myth #4: Lincoln was a defender of the Constitution.
Myth #5: Lincoln was a “great humanitarian” who had “malice toward none.”
Myth #6: War was necessary to end slavery.
Comment by Mark N.— March 7, 2007 #
Mark,
Not really. The big difference between the British manner of ruling the colonies and the South is that the South actually had a say in the governing of the nation as a whole. Granted, their power was diminishing because hey, the whole rest of the world gave up slavery, however, they were always represented fairly at Congress. Their concern, with the expansion of the west was that their power would so diminish that Northern states would upon a veto proof majority, alter the Constitution to abolish slavery. This fear was somewhat unfounded, as those against slavery were not necessarily in the majority in the North, and even when they would be, they understood that to suddenly abolish slavery meant that you had to put 4 million now free individuals somewhere other than on plantations. Just what do you do with 4 million people now free? Do you give them a state of their own out west? Do you bring them north? Do you let them stay south?
Thomas DiLorenzo may quote Lincoln, but he needs to also go back further to both George Washington and Andrew Jackson who imply pretty strongly that it is actually the other way around, that the union should have and does have priority and superiority over the state. As for the myths, well….
First of all, Lincoln did not invade the South. The South attacked Fort Sumter unprovoked. Secondly, yes, it is true that Lincoln did not intend to free the slaves out of this war. He said so himself, which I quote at the end of my post.
I don’t think anyone has ‘saved the union.’ Even George Washington saw that this country would be divided ever so, sadly, and he counselled long in his farewell address to remember the union over the local.
and so on….
Comment by Daniel— March 7, 2007 #
Nice post Daniel, nice comments Mark.
The issues involved in the Civil war have not been resolved.
In many ways the same issues are reflected in the Iraq War, ie do we have the right to continue slavery (colonies inherited from the British) in the ME. Just as cotton was the foundation of the colonists economy, dependent on slavery, so are we dependent on cheap foreign oil, extracted from far below market price by force.
Is it a coincidence that the Republican Party has morphed into a party of the south, where exploitation of human beings is condoned, and where those that appear different are demonized?
How far we have strayed from Christian basics- love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek, income equality, etc. Every time we stray, we accumulate karma, for which there is eventual blowback. Ever since WWII, when we created the CIA, overthrew Mossadegh in Iran to hang on to oil, we have accepted our right to manifest destiny, and the usurpation of foreign resources by deceit and force.
We are just beginning to pay the piper. It is our turn to play “King George” and experience the futility of suppressing those determined to be free, and contest foreign interference in economic life.
As General George Marshall stated:
“Military power wins battles, but spiritual power wins wars.”
Comment by Erich WWK— March 7, 2007 #
I don’t think anyone has ’saved the union.’
Can’t disagree with you there. Lincoln’s attempt to “save the union” made about as much sense as it would for a husband to threaten to shoot his wife should she ever decide that she wants out of the marriage. Maybe a divorce in this hypothetical doesn’t take place, but the marriage that remains is a sham and a union in name only.
If someone wants out of a political union badly enough to start shooting people over it, why compound the problem by shooting back? About the only justification I can come up for doing so would be to claim that the dissolution of the union by the secession of the South threatened the very lives of those in the North. I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone try to make that claim.
Comment by Mark N.— March 7, 2007 #
Here’s another good DiLorenzo article on the non-indivisible United States: Lincoln’s Spectacular Lie, which contains the following:
Comment by Mark N.— March 7, 2007 #
Mark,
The Founding Fathers, George Washington especially, saw something far grander in the Union than the South ever could envision. His words, for me, speak the clearest about the importance of the Union versus the importance of state rights. I quoted them above, but let me quote them again.
and
And he was a Southern slave-owner. He saw the Union as far more important than the local policies of the South, the North, the East, or the West.
Comment by Daniel— March 7, 2007 #
oh and as further evidence that indeed it was a rebellion I give you D&C 87:1
See, the South started it, the Lord says so. 😉
Comment by Daniel— March 7, 2007 #
Of course, the problem is that Washington was unable to speak on behalf of (or shall we say “dictate to”?) Virginia, New York and Rhode Island as to their ratifications of the Constitution being predicated on the idea that secession would remain a right reserved to the states in case things didn’t go in a way that was seen as favorable to the separate states.
See Secession and Liberty for more info on this.
From Secession and Liberty (emphasis is mine):
Comment by Mark N.— March 7, 2007 #
Mark,
But the federal government was not a tyrannical government. Read Andrew Jackson’s words again from the first time that South Carolina attempted to leave the nation.
Let me quote his words again:
Southern states had two courses to take besides leaving the Union. They could take up their cause with the people (the voters) or with the justices (the Judicial Branch). They did neither. Instead, they fled. If allowed to continue, America would have been destroyed.
Comment by Daniel— March 7, 2007 #
But the federal government was not a tyrannical government.
Well, the South was certainly ticked off about something. Could the following be at least part of the problem?
(See Rewriting Economic History.)
Comment by Mark N.— March 7, 2007 #
Mark,
Do you have any other references besides DiLorenzo?
Comment by Daniel— March 7, 2007 #
He is my favorite. What can I say?
Comment by Mark N.— March 8, 2007 #
If allowed to continue, America would have been destroyed.
Why? Was Britain destroyed after we left? Was India’s independence the downfall of Britain?
Isn’t this continent big enough to allow more nations than just Canada, the U.S. and Mexico?
As for DiLorenzo, is he wrong?
Comment by Mark N.— March 8, 2007 #
Mark,
It is my belief that a divided America would have ended up fighting for a very long time, always at conflict one with the other, in competition for which side could get the most land westward and southward. This would have destroyed the nation.
Also, there is no way a divided America could have withstood the powerful German armies of the 1910s and 1940s, not to mention Japan’s powerful military.
As for DiLorenzo, it’s not a matter of being wrong or right, it’s more a matter of his theories. He’s clearly trying to show that Lincoln was a bad guy, a selfish leader, interested more in the economics of the North than anything else. This leads a real scholar of the period to conclude that he is cherrypicking Lincoln (and the North). In other words, the whole situation is far more complicated than DiLorenzo is attempting to describe it. Yes, the economy factored in to the decisions of the North, just as it did for the decisions of the South. But to claim that war with the South would be in the North’s best economic interest is to not understand economic policies well. The North could have continued trade with the South without any concern about the morality of slavery. The relation would just have been between two nations rather than inter-state relations.
I really don’t understand this need by many today to try to portray the South as innocent, and also as “peaceful.” It is one thing to try to get a full understanding of an event, but wholly another to try and fully reverse the traditional thinking of that event, especially when there really isn’t any new evidence that has not been looked at before.
Comment by Daniel— March 8, 2007 #
I really don’t understand this need by many today to try to portray the South as innocent, and also as “peaceful.”
I don’t think the South was any more or less innocent or peaceful than the North was. My dispute (if you want to call it that) centers around the idea as to whether the Civil War had to be fought at all. Lincoln preserved by force the union, when it’s evident that secession was believed by at least some (not Lincoln, though) to be a right available to all states in the union at the time.
I think that to claim the Civil War was fought largely about the question of slavery is inaccurate. Most disputes, at the bottom, are about money. Certainly slavery was an integral part of the economic circumstances of the nation, but other nations managed to do away with slavery without feeling the necessity of killing hundreds of thousands of people in order to settle the question.
DiLorenzo’s main beef with Lincoln originates with the idealized view that we seem to have of him today. It’s a picture he sees as wildly inaccurate, and he’s attempting to show that Lincoln really wasn’t the saint that our second grade teachers would have us believe that he was. If Dubya seems to be getting away with murder with regard to our civil rights, Lincoln tread that ground way before Dubya did.
Comment by Mark N.— March 8, 2007 #
Daniel,
“In other words, the whole situation is far more complicated than DiLorenzo is attempting to describe it.”
No, it is far more complicated than you are describing it. When you read history and pretend that the first shot fired by the South made them the aggressors in the conflict, you are the one doing the simplifying. The North knew the only way to get the South back in the Union was through force. There were still undecided states that had not yet chosen a side. The “first shot” was President Davis being outmaneuvered by President Lincoln so that Lincoln could unify the North. “Lincoln knew that his first task was to unite all these discordant elements [the North], and he knew, too, that the most effective way to do this was to wait an act of aggression by the South, exerting in the interim just enough pressure to provoke such an action, without exerting enough to justify it.” (The Civil War, Shelby Foote, p 44). However, after the attack on Sumter, Lincoln outmaneuvered even himself by calling for a 75,000 man militia draft. This demand for troops to be used against her kinsmen offended the buffer states and led to their secession from the Union (Foote, p 50). So you see, neither party was innocent. They both knew war was coming, and the initial maneuvers by either side were done to gain as much ground as possible before the conflict started. That said, the North could have stopped fighting at any time and recognized the South as a new country. Instead you champion the North as just in conquering a peacefully liberated people. Hmm. I would say you are the one that sounds like the “militant” one.
“My point here is to make clear a few things, because—and I am continually surprised at this—today’s Republicans, especially the more militant, hardcore right-wing Christian kinds, believe the South was right, that the South was innocent, and that the war was not fought over slavery.”
In your reply to Mark N you justified conquering a nation simply because it would make that country stronger. You are the hardcore militant one. You pretend that the Confederates were the aggressors because they fired the first shot, while at the same time explicitly arguing that the Union NEEDED to be preserved. Do you seriously believe if the South hadn’t fired the first shot, that the North would not have conquered the South? The idea that the North fought in the war because they were fired on first by the South is a joke. And you admit it with your reasoning.
I could not be more surprised that you believe “force is not the best option to liberate a people” and are taking the stand you are on the Civil War. I am almost tempted to call it a logical fallacy 🙂
Comment by knightstemplar— March 8, 2007 #
Ditto.
Comment by knighthospitaller— March 8, 2007 #
Mark,
I do wonder if South Carolina did not fire on Fort Sumter if there would have been a war. I think that action sparked the fight. We will never know if they could have avoided conflict. That said, it wasn’t just Lincoln who didn’t think that secession was available for any state. As I quoted in my post, both Andrew Jackson and George Washington, both Southerners, also thought the same.
Did you read the declarations of secession? Note in particular the declaration of secession by the state of Mississippi. Slavery was at the heart of their secessions.
So DiLorenzo isn’t necessarily trying to just give us facts; his main purpose is to tear down the near-mythical image we have of Lincoln today. Unfortunately that doesn’t help us understand the era better, because DiLorenzo is writing from our perspective rather than trying to show us the whole picture as Lincoln and those around him saw it.
Comment by Daniel— March 8, 2007 #
Templar,
Well, let’s see the North was not preparing any sudden attack, and as such the South was not justified through a pre-emptive strike. As such any action that the South took was aggressive in nature, and as such they were the ones who started the fighting, and the war. We’ll never know if war could have been averted if South Carolina didn’t attack Fort Sumter.
Can you please share your evidence of this.
Diplomatic and strategic maneuvering is not warfare, Templar.
Where does this logic come from? That the North could have stopped at any time. That is a revision of history, a devious attempt to portray the North as rampaging aggressors upon the poor innocent “liberated” South. Sorry, but that’s not an accurate portrayal of what happened and will not pass muster here.
Right. That is correct.
Yes, but by this point, we would be speculating. In this post, I’m merely stating things as they happened. The South started the conflict. This is indisputable. All the maneuvering that occurred before South Carolina fired that first shot occurred on both sides, and as such is not indicative of who was the aggressor. The only thing remaining to judge who was the aggressor is who started shooting. That would be the South.
Force is not the best option to liberate a people. That is correct. The Civil War was not about “liberating” the South, though, was it. As such any comparison to the other post is invalid.
But of course, you would be in the wrong….again 😉
Comment by Daniel— March 8, 2007 #
Daniel, first I just want to say thank you for actually debating the issue. I really enjoy discussing these issues.
I have to say though, that your first shot theory about conflict is a gross oversimplification, and I’ll tell you why.
There were many engagements in which fire was exchanged and war was averted.
The biggest of which was the Cuban Missile Crisis. During the crisis, a U.S. Destroyer Fired star shells at a Russian freighter as it approached the Cuban harbor and refused to stop at the quarantine. Yet another “First shot” could have been the shooting down of US spy planes by Russian soldiers inside Cuba.
Another great example of a “first shot” that didn’t start a war was during the Iranian Hostage crisis. President Carter approved of a plan to rescue the American hostages. Part of the operation called for the American Special Forces to land in the Iranian desert to refuel. During that part of the mission, an Iranian fuel truck ended up driving by the Americans on a nearby road. The commander in charge of the operation told one of his men to “stop the truck”. The operative then fired an anti-tank round, which struck the vehicle causing a massive fireball and killing the driver.
It is a good thing other countries understand that conflict is way more complex then just who fired first…
Comment by knighthospitaller— March 8, 2007 #
I’m not sure what your point is, though, hospitaller. It doesn’t matter if other wars were averted. If you actually look at the Civil War more carefully you’ll find that South Carolina actually fired twice at the North, both times without provocation and only after the second time, with the full on assault of Fort Sumter did the North finally strike back.
Now can you show me another example in history where one nation’s entire fort was besieged and that nation did not strike back? I highly doubt it, but I’ll leave it open to be surprised.
Comment by Daniel— March 8, 2007 #
In other words, whatever happened in other conflicts does not change the fact that the South began the Civil War. It might do you well to stick to talking just about the Civil War on this thread.
Comment by Daniel— March 8, 2007 #
Daniel,
Just a quick point of clarification about what I said,
“The “first shot” was President Davis being outmaneuvered by President Lincoln so that Lincoln could unify the North.”
To this you reply:
“Diplomatic and strategic maneuvering is not warfare, Templar.”
I do not think I was clear here in what I wrote. I was not claiming the strategic maneuvering was the “first shot” of the war, only that the “first shot” was used for strategic maneuvering. When Davis authorized the first shot of the war, he was outmaneuvered by Lincoln. Lincoln knew this would unite the North, Davis played into Lincoln’s hands by firing the first shot. I wasn’t saying Lincoln fired the first shot of the war. You are quite right about the facts you recount of history. The South was the first one to fire on the enemy.
Comment by knightstemplar— March 9, 2007 #
“If you actually look at the Civil War more carefully you’ll find that South Carolina actually fired twice at the North…”
Ah, so it is dependent on the number of shots fired? Silly me…
😮
Comment by knighthospitaller— March 9, 2007 #
nah, just further evidence that in the case of the Civil War, the evidence is indisputable that the South started the conflict.
Comment by Daniel— March 9, 2007 #
Daniel,
“and only after the second time, with the full on assault of Fort Sumter did the North finally strike back. ” and then the North proceeded to use force to subdue all of the Confederacy into unconditionally surrendering. That is the part I find hard to justify, as you do, with the fact that the South fired on a fort in their territory that the North refused to vacate. You also might like to know there were no casualties in that engagement.
You use the events of the first shot to portray the aggressive nature of the South “The garrison had told the South Carolina soldiers that they were due to run out of provisions fairly soon. That did not stop South Carolina from the bombardment.” But you forgot to include one important fact. Here is what Shelby Foote writes,
“He heard their demand and replied that he would evacuate the fort “by noon of the 15th instant” unless he recieved “controlling instructions from my government, or additional supplies.” This last of course with the relief fleet standing just outside the harbor – though Anderson did not know it had arrived – made the guarantee short lived at best and therefore unnacceptable to the aides…” Remember the diplomatic negotiotion happened on the 12th, with ships just outside the harbor they would surely arrive by the 15th. They were not going to run out supplies, yet you seem to propose that they were going to, and that the South was aggresive because they couldn’t wait for the surrender so they attacked.
“In this post, I’m merely stating things as they happened.” Of course you are, you just leave out things that don’t support your claims.
Comment by knightstemplar— March 9, 2007 #
and just what point are YOU making, Templar? You don’t seem to want to debate, but instead cross me with my own words. Just one thing, I never said this was a comprehensive look at the war. Or did you fail to see those words right at the start of this post? Heck if I wanted to be comprehensive, I’d right a book like Mr. Foote.
But seriously, what point are you making? That the South didn’t start the war?
No one disputes that the North wasn’t innocent, so really what is your point? Because to this point all you are seemingly doing is attempting to find fault with my words. If that’s the case, I’m done here.
Comment by Daniel— March 9, 2007 #
I’m attempting to understand your thinking. And I believe Templar is trying to find sense in your words, which is proving to be an audious task.
The use of force is not the best option to liberate a people. But it seems clear that the North was justified to use force in order to liberate a people (preserve the union.). There are exceptions to the “the use of force is not the best option…” theory.
Theoretical question for you,
If a small nation starts a conflict with a huge nation, and the huge nation defeats the small nation to the point at which they aren’t really a threat any more, yet the large nation decides to continue the fight until there is an unconditional surrender. Does the large nation not become the agressor?
God is telling me, that right now you’re wondering what my point is, so I will give an example.
-The Hundred years war between England and France.
England started the conflict, yet it is safe to say that both were agressors at one point or another during the conflict.
Comment by knighthospitaller— March 9, 2007 #
hospitaller,
Dude! The North was not attempting to “liberate” the South. Don’t you get that yet? Don’t you see the striking contradiction in your very own words? “liberate a people (preserve the union).”
As for your example, yeah, you’re really stretching now. Admit it dude, you lost this debate. Time to move on.
Comment by Daniel— March 9, 2007 #
Daniel,
My point is that just because the South fired the first shots, does not make them the aggressors. In my eyes, the fact that the North would not stop until they had unconditional surrender from the South is what makes the North the aggressors. Evidence that the North would not stop until they reached that goal are: the refusal to evacuate Sumter so that the South would fire first shot and unite the North, the refusal of the North to recognize the South as a government, the next four years of history in which the North would slowly force the South to give up its freedom, and in those four years the North could have stopped fighting at any time without giving up their own freedom. In showing that the North was the aggresive party in the Civil War, I am only demonstrating that you can fight an aggressive war and still be justified in doing so.
“Further, you cannot use Churchill as an example to justify aggressive warfare, because he never espoused aggressive warfare. He espoused to be prepared, and that you have to defend yourself, a far cry from what you’ve espoused.”
If I can’t use Churchill, then I will use Lincoln.
Comment by knightstemplar— March 9, 2007 #
templar,
Let’s review your reasons:
This could be considered an aggressive move, however, it doesn’t compare with South Carolina’s secession. You talk about an aggressive move? That one outweighs the North not leaving Fort Sumter.
This one is incorrect. The North always recognized the South leaders and always worked with them when politically feasible.
Yes, that’s right because the North is an evil empire bent on destroying “free-loving” people! Give me a break. This one does not even come close to passing muster.
How far along are you in reading Shelby Foote’s account of the Civil War? Have you gotten to the part where the South entered into Northern territories? Or have you forgotten that Gettysburg, for example, is located in Pennsylvania, a North state?
No, the North could not have stopped fighting at any time without giving up their own freedom.
So to this point, you still have failed to provide an adequate rebuttal and my point stands.
and no you cannot rely on Lincoln, because the analogy does not fit. Try again.
Comment by Daniel— March 10, 2007 #
“South Carolina’s secession. You talk about an aggressive move?”
So you could say that the US’s declaration of independence from England was “aggressive”?
Comment by knighthospitaller— March 10, 2007 #
“have you forgotten that Gettysburg, for example, is located in Pennsylvania, a North state?”
Daniel,
Gettysburg happened because General Lee wanted to lift the siege at Vicksburg. He also wanted to prolong the impending Summer campaign by the North, and he believed that the rich farmlands of the North would help feed his armies.
Those were the main reasons Gettysburg happened in the first place. Lee had no intention of conquering the North. The North on the other hand, had every intention of conquering the South.
Comment by knighthospitaller— March 10, 2007 #
I think we’re done, hospitaller. You keep stretching to find any semblance of a justification for aggressive warfare. You won’t find much at all. As such I’m done debating here. You can keep posting all you want, but I won’t be responding to any continuation of this debate.
Comment by Daniel— March 10, 2007 #
Daniel,
I guess you and I will just have to agree to disagree on this issue.
I’ll let Grant sum up my point,
“I have never advocated war except as a means of peace.”
-Ulysses S. Grant
God bless,
-Knight
Comment by knighthospitaller— March 10, 2007 #
P.S.
The war was fought over slavery occording to the title.
The North therefore liberated the South,
Liberate, “To release from restraint or bondage; to set at liberty; to
free.”
Comment by knighthospitaller— March 10, 2007 #
Daniel,
One last quote from Shelby Foote,
“Three of them were in Washington now, sent there from Montgomery as commissioners to accomplish “the speedy adjustment of all questions growing out of separation, as the respective interests, geographical contiguity, and future welfare of the two nations may render necessary.” They had much to offer and much to ask. The Confederate Congress having opened the navigation of the lower Mississippi to the northern states, they expected to secure in return the evacuation of Sumter and the Florida forts, along with much else. Lincoln however would not see them. To have done so would have been to give over the constitutional reasoning that what was taking place in Alabama was merely a “rebellion” by private persons, no more entitled to send representatives to the rightful government than any other band of outlaws.” (Foote, p 45)
The North refused to recognize the South as a government. This is not incorrect.
Comment by knightstemplar— March 10, 2007 #
Templar,
You’re right, the North did not recognize the Confederacy. It still does not prove Lincoln was the aggressor, especially when you have this:
In the end of it all, the South fought against the inexorable tide towards freedom for blacks, sought to break away from the Constitution and the Union, were reeled back in by the North, and through the very war slaves were freed. No wonder the South is still feeling rather raw about the Civil War, even 150 years later. Unfortunately, we cannot revise history.
Comment by Daniel— March 10, 2007 #
I think you get the feeling that I sympathize with the South. I do not. The North was completely justified in doing what they did. They did in fact use force to liberate a people, unless slaves don’t count as people.
Comment by knighthospitaller— March 10, 2007 #
hospitaller,
we’re going in circles, so unless you have something new to add, I’m not going to respond anymore.
The North did not fight the Civil War to free slaves. The South seceded from the Union because their practice of slavery was threatened with the inexorable expansion westward of the Union with states joining the free North. The North fought the South to preserve the Union the South dismissed (even though their previous Southern leaders—George Washington and Andrew Jackson—espoused the Union over the individual state). The South started the conflict. The North proclaimed the Emancipation Proclamation as a military strategy. Take away the economic power the South had by telling slaves they were free if they came north was a military strategy and not the overriding goal of the reason why the North fought.
As such, the North did not use its military strength to “free the slaves.” They merely proclaimed to Southern slaves that they were free and left it up to them to do what they would of it.
So please, will you stop being foolishly stubborn, hospitaller. I know you’d love to justify our current conflicts with instances of warfare from the past, but there really are few if any examples that you can use to justify our aggressive war. Sorry, but that’s just how life is. It sucks sometimes.
With that, if you don’t have anything new to add, I’m done here.
Comment by Daniel— March 10, 2007 #
[…] worse about those Americans in South Carolina (though we shouldn’t be surprised, seeing South Carolina’s history for violence that they would love a joke about such […]
Pingback by What Would the Founding Fathers Do? and Other Matters « The Good Democrat— April 19, 2007 #
[…] have written a newer post, more detailed and comprehensive about the reasons for the civil war. Please take a […]
Pingback by The American Civil War was Fought over Slavery « The Good Democrat— April 26, 2007 #
your story is too long. And you guys are boring.
Comment by bob— May 2, 2007 #
Daniel,
Great post. I appreciate your admiration of Washington and furhtermore your admiration of the Union. Many good things said however not everything you said was correct.
Like it or not, Lincoln did invade the South. It was Union war ships that were sent to Charleston after the fall of Fort Sumter and not Confederate boats sent the opposite direction. As I recall, with the exception of the few engagements in Pennsylvania, all battles and engagements took place on Southern soil.
South Carolina was not innocent, but they did have the right to secede from the Union. Although once Federal property, I can understand their need to occupy the defenses of their state and ask for the surrender of these posts. Had they not their secession would have been brief and incomplete at best. The US refused, but even after SC took possession they took no prisoners and still allowed the US soldiers to walk away. That is not war.
South Carolina wanted to be left alone. Likewise, the Confederate States of America wanted to form a new nation and be left alone. Lincoln was granted approval from Congress to declare war on these states. The US did not have to respond to Fort Sumter with force, but did. It is the United States that turned this conflict into a war. Without the invasion of the Confederate states by the US there would not have been a war.
Slavery was a terrible injustice towards humanity but for those who think that the thousands upon thousands of boys and men who offered their time, and many their lives, in service to the Confederate States of America in order to preserve slavery are nothing short of narrow minded and misled. Less than 1/3 of the population of the Southern states even owned slaves, the majority of the Confederate soldiers came from small towns and hamlets all over the South to do one thing, to defend and fight for their respective states. Slavery was not an issue for them, the fact that Federal soldiers were about to invade their state was the issue. Many blacks in these communities, free and slave, supported the Confederacy, some even served in the Confederate army. The Confederate States were for state’s rights and for some that admittedly did mean the right to own slaves but for most it meant so much more than that.
As you have already pointed out, the US went to war to preserve the Union, not to abolish slavery. The Confederate states even once considered freeing the slaves for the same reasons that Lincoln did, to help win the war. So much for a war fought over slavery. Ironically, freeing the slaves had little impact on the outcome of the war. The sheer numbers of available men and industrial might of the North eventually wore the South down.
I am thankful our Union stands strong today. As Americans we should all stand together and stop allowing the events of 140+ years ago continue to divide some. This war was not all about slavery but thankfully the war did bring it to a close.
Comment by William— May 3, 2007 #
Well said William.
Comment by knightstemplar— May 6, 2007 #
William,
Thank you for your comments. As you can probably guess, I respectfully disagree with you. The South felt threatened by the increasing political power of the North, and the trend it was taking in making the United States slave-free. Slavery was a staple of life for the South. The secession declarations from each state specifically names slavery as the key issue of concern. Mississippi’s is most amusing, which I’ll quote again:
That was the reason each state gave for secession: the institution of slavery. That was the very reason for their secession. Now granted, the North was not “threatened” by any kind of invasion by the South. Most likely the South was quite willing to leave the North be. But if anyone were to objectively follow the future path of a divided land, like all divided countries in the world, eventually the division would lead to bloodshed. But that’s only one possibility. Heck, maybe ten years later, the South would have come to their senses on their own, given up slavery and rejoined the Union. But I personally don’t think that would have been a possible future. My personal feeling is that at some point, it would have come inexorably to violence.
The South’s actions were unconstitutional (as shown with the writings of both Washington and Jackson), and the North made the right move to, well, to put it kindly, to put the South in its place. And of course to add insult to injury for the South, not only did they lose their bid for secession, but the North, through a military strategy proclaimed all slaves free. A brilliant move politically and militarily, taking advantage of the war to free slaves.
The Civil War has slavery written all over it. Anyone saying otherwise is rewriting history.
Comment by Daniel— May 6, 2007 #
Wow, that pretty much comes back to the point I made in March. You just said that the North fought a war to liberate a people, and that you agreed that it was the best course of action. You are a human manifestation of contradiction…
Comment by knighthospitaller— May 7, 2007 #
hospitaller,
I’m scratching my head, befuddled…just where did I state that the North fought a war to liberate a people? I said the North put the South in its place. They did not respond to Southern aggression to free the slaves, but used the emancipation as a military strategy to reduce the South’s manpower. Keep trying to stretch to justify our war of aggression in Iraq, hospitaller. You’re going to have to find at minimum an example that actually fits. The Civil War does not.
Comment by Daniel— May 7, 2007 #
Dan my man,
“I said the North put the South in its place.”
How did the North do this? They did it by going on an all out offensive against the South. And this is ok in YOUR mind? What ever happened to war only being justified for defense?
I’m not trying to make a point about Iraq anymore. I’m simply trying to understand just what the heck you actually believe… Needless to say, my head is spinning.
Comment by knighthospitaller— May 8, 2007 #
hospitaller,
I’m afraid you’ll never understand.
I’m just curious how you come in here and only check this particular post. Do you have it like bookmarked or something?
Comment by Daniel— May 8, 2007 #
I check “My Comments.” Tis simple…
Comment by knighthospitaller— May 13, 2007 #
ah silly me, I forgot about that service. (I rarely use it).
Comment by Daniel— May 13, 2007 #
Daniel,
“My point here is to make clear a few things, because—and I am continually surprised at this—today’s Republicans, especially the more militant, hardcore right-wing Christian kinds, believe the South was right, that the South was innocent, and that the war was not fought over slavery.”
The South SECEDED because of slavery. The North INVADED to preserve the Union. The war would not have been fought if the North did not invade the South. Therefore the war was not fought over slavery.
Comment by knightstemplar— May 13, 2007 #
One more thing,
“Now granted, the North was not “threatened” by any kind of invasion by the South. Most likely the South was quite willing to leave the North be. But if anyone were to objectively follow the future path of a divided land, like all divided countries in the world, eventually the division would lead to bloodshed.”
Wait a minute, that would be a pre-emptive strike which you seem to think are bad “…the North was not preparing any sudden attack, and as such the South was not justified through a pre-emptive strike.” (from post 21)
Also, you say in the introduction:
“My point here is to make clear a few things, because—and I am continually surprised at this—today’s Republicans, especially the more militant, hardcore right-wing Christian kinds, believe the South was right, that the South was innocent, and that the war was not fought over slavery.”
Then in post 48, “A brilliant move politically and militarily, taking advantage of the war to free slaves.” Are you saying that the North took advantage of a war to free slaves to free slaves?
I am afraid we do not understand because we are confused.
Comment by knightstemplar— May 13, 2007 #
templar,
Yeah, and the war would also not have been fought if the south did not secede.
Of course it was. That was the reason for secession, and thus for “putting the South in its place.”
Comment by Daniel— May 14, 2007 #
templar,
it wasn’t a pre-emptive attack. You really don’t understand what a pre-emptive attack is do you. Why don’t you do your research first, and then we’ll continue.
Comment by Daniel— May 14, 2007 #
Daniel,
“Now granted, the North was not “threatened” by any kind of invasion by the South. Most likely the South was quite willing to leave the North be. But if anyone were to objectively follow the future path of a divided land, like all divided countries in the world, eventually the division would lead to bloodshed.”
A preemptive strike is engaging in conflict to prevent future conflict.
Did the North not invade the South so they could prevent a division that would eventually, “lead to bloodshed” ???
How is Templar wrong here? I believe that it is you who should re-evaluate your definition of “preemptive strike”.
Comment by knighthospitaller— May 14, 2007 #
hospitaller,
That is not the definition of “pre-emptive strikes.” Please try again.
Comment by Daniel— May 15, 2007 #
My bad. You were right (at least according to wikipedia), that your idea is not a pre-emptive strike. It is a preventive war. In other words, the North invaded the South to prevent a hypothitecal violent situation. Good job, you just justified the actions the North took in the same manner that Bush convinced the U.S. to invade Iraq. You might also like to know that Wikipedia calls this “a war of aggresion.” I look forward to your response 🙂
Comment by knightstemplar— May 16, 2007 #
Templar,
I’m glad you’re learning even if you’re only using wikipedia. But you’re still not describing the incident correctly. The war the North and South fought is not a “preventive war” either. Please try again.
Comment by Daniel— May 16, 2007 #
Daniel,
“Now granted, the North was not “threatened” by any kind of invasion by the South. Most likely the South was quite willing to leave the North be. But if anyone were to objectively follow the future path of a divided land, like all divided countries in the world, eventually the division would lead to bloodshed… My personal feeling is that at some point, it would have come inexorably to violence.”
From what you wrote, about the division leading to bloodshed, that is the reasoning used for fighting a preventive war. You are right in that the actual war was not a preventive war at all. I was just making the point that you were trying to justify the Civil War with the same reasoning used to justify a preventive war.
I am curious, if the South had not fired the first shots, would you still maintain that the North was not the aggresive party? (Assuming the rest of the war remained the same)
Comment by knightstemplar— May 17, 2007 #
Templar,
Try as you may, but you are still failing at making the Civil War into a battle between two nation-states. It was not. The South seceded unconstitutionally, and the North put them in their place. Andrew Jackson said it best back in the 1820s when South Carolina had previously attempted to say that the federal laws were moot for them, and they would choose not to follow them. I’ll quote him again. The reference is above:
The South basically wanted its cake and eat it too. They wanted to follow only the laws they wished to follow. But as Andrew Jackson clearly states, giving “the right of resisting laws of that description, coupled with the uncontrolled right to decide what laws deserve that character, is to give the power of resisting all laws.”
Such actions are clearly unconstitutional, and as such the consequences must be severe if the Union as a whole is to survive. So, no, this was not a preventive war either. This was putting down a rebellion, putting in their place those who would destroy the Union.
Comment by Daniel— May 18, 2007 #
Daniel,
You told me that I have failed at making the civil war a battle between two nation states. Are you sure you want to tell me that? The following are your arguments that the South started the conflict by firing on the North.
“I do wonder if South Carolina did not fire on Fort Sumter if there would have been a war. I think that action sparked the fight. We will never know if they could have avoided conflict.” (post 20)
“Well, let’s see the North was not preparing any sudden attack, and as such the South was not justified through a pre-emptive strike. As such any action that the South took was aggressive in nature, and as such they were the ones who started the fighting, and the war. We’ll never know if war could have been averted if South Carolina didn’t attack Fort Sumter.” (post 21)
“The South started the conflict. This is indisputable. All the maneuvering that occurred before South Carolina fired that first shot occurred on both sides, and as such is not indicative of who was the aggressor. The only thing remaining to judge who was the aggressor is who started shooting. That would be the South.” (post 21)
“If you actually look at the Civil War more carefully you’ll find that South Carolina actually fired twice at the North, both times without provocation and only after the second time, with the full on assault of Fort Sumter did the North finally strike back. Now can you show me another example in history where one nation’s entire fort was besieged and that nation did not strike back? I highly doubt it, but I’ll leave it open to be surprised.” (post 23)
“just further evidence that in the case of the Civil War, the evidence is indisputable that the South started the conflict.” (post 27)
“You’re right, the North did not recognize the Confederacy. It still does not prove Lincoln was the aggressor, especially when you have this: However, Lincoln being a strict follower of the constitution, would not take any action against the South unless the Unionists themselves were attacked first. It finally happened in April 1861.”
(post 40)
“The South started the conflict.” (post 42)
So you don’t think that the Civil War was a war between two nation states, but you argue that the South started the war. You see, I never had to make the Civil War a war between two nation states, you did that for me by arguing that the South started the war. So when you say that I am “failing at making the Civil War into a battle between two nation-states” apparently you mean that I have failed at making you convince yourself 🙂 If the South was not a nation, how could they start the war? Or to put it another way, if the South never started the war, would the rebellion never have been put down?
Comment by knightstemplar— May 18, 2007 #
Oh by the way,
“So, no, this was not a preventive war either.” Who are you talking to? Yourself? I do not think it was a preventive war. You are the one that talked about the justification of the war in those terms:
“It is my belief that a divided America would have ended up fighting for a very long time, always at conflict one with the other, in competition for which side could get the most land westward and southward. This would have destroyed the nation. Also, there is no way a divided America could have withstood the powerful German armies of the 1910s and 1940s, not to mention Japan’s powerful military.” (post 16)
“But if anyone were to objectively follow the future path of a divided land, like all divided countries in the world, eventually the division would lead to bloodshed. But that’s only one possibility. Heck, maybe ten years later, the South would have come to their senses on their own, given up slavery and rejoined the Union. But I personally don’t think that would have been a possible future. My personal feeling is that at some point, it would have come inexorably to violence.” (post 48)
Comment by knightstemplar— May 18, 2007 #
About the pre-emptive strike thing. The North as you so plainly explain, believed the South to be nothing more than a rebellion. If someone believes you are a rebel, you would have to be an idiot to believe they are not going to attack you. As such, “the North was not preparing any sudden attack, and as such the South was not justified through a pre-emptive strike” is not true. It was justified because the South was viewed as a rebellion. Therefore they could, with a high degree of certainty, expect to be attacked.
Comment by knightstemplar— May 18, 2007 #
Nice…
Comment by knighthospitaller— May 19, 2007 #
Templar,
a preventive war, and a pre-emptive war are both between two nation states. The South was not a nation-state. It was a rebellious secession. As such any action taken by the real holders of the Constitution, the North, was justified, not aggressive, and correct. The South started the conflict by attacking Fort Sumter.
And further, it is not I who brought up the “pre-emptive and preventive war” tangent, but you:
So I’m going to say now, unless you talk about something new, I will not be responding to any future comments of yours.
Comment by Daniel— May 20, 2007 #
Daniel,
My point here is to make clear a few things, because—and I am continually surprised at this—today’s Democrats, especially the more liberal, pacifist left-wing Mormon kinds, believe the North was right, that the North was innocent, and that the war was fought over slavery. (Sound familiar? How does it feel to be accused of something you don’t believe?)
These liberal, pacifist left-wing Mormons believe the South started the conflict by firing on the North. Ha. They say this while at the same time maintaining that the South was not a nation-state, but a rebellion. (Mind you, a rebellion that had a government, a rebellion that had an army, a rebellion that had a constitution. Sounds like a sophisticated rebellion.) It is a contradiction to believe that a rebellion can start a war by firing first on a nation. Is not the nation by definition at war with the rebellion? Hardly suprising that such a contradiction would be argued by a liberal pacifist left wing Moron (oops I meant Mormon).
Let me pre-empt your next move, which will be to either delete my post, or to respond by saying that I am a horrible person because I attack my opponent instead of debate them, and say that I enjoyed this debate because I learned a few things.
Comment by knightstemplar— May 20, 2007 #
de·ni·al(d-nl)
n.
1. A refusal to comply with or satisfy a request.
2. A refusal to grant the truth of a statement or allegation; a contradiction.
3.
a. A refusal to accept or believe something, such as a doctrine or belief.
b. Psychology An unconscious defense mechanism characterized by refusal to acknowledge painful realities, thoughts, or feelings.
.
4. Daniel…
Comment by knighthospitaller— May 20, 2007 #
No, the debate ended long ago, when I won. 😉
Now we’re wasting space.
Comment by Daniel— May 20, 2007 #
The South was not a nation-state. It was a rebellious secession.
So, how is that different from how Great Britain viewed the colonies in 1776? We said we were a nation-state, despite what King George had to say on the subject.
I guess we were right only because we won (or they gave up). And thus we see how history is written by the victors.
Comment by Mark N.— May 21, 2007 #
Mark,
Wars and events are not static entities, they change, and sometimes quite drastically. The way the story ends will say everything about the story as a whole. The British indeed did not see us as a nation-state, but a wayward rebellion needing to be taught a lesson. In this respect it is understandable why some would want to compare the South’s leaving the Union to the original position of the 13 colonies. There are many large differences, however, between the Revolutionary War (even though it wasn’t technically a revolution per se) and the situation in the Civil War. For one, and I think this is the biggest difference, the 13 colonies had no representation in the British parliament, and as such no influence in the creation of laws that affected them. The South did. The South, like a petulant selfish boy, wanted to follow only laws they wanted to follow and did not understand the significance of the greater Union (so eloquently described by George Washington in his Farewell Address).
In the Revolutionary War, the British gave us legitimacy by letting us follow our fancies and creating our own nation-state. They felt that prolonged conflict was not going to be good for them. What Union was there to preserve? The British felt they could still control this “colony” in their empire through economic leverages.
The South’s actions were going to destroy the Union as they knew it, and as we know it today. George Washington warned about this disunion. He saw it coming and wished the parties would harken to his words, that the Union as a whole was of greater priority than local state politics and priorities. The South never understood this, but their actions were going to destroy the Union. As such, they needed to be put in their place.
Now, what would have happened if the North gave legitimacy to the South’s secession? Well, then you’d have a new nation state born out of the division. In the 1860s it was no one’s right to give legitimacy to this new “nation state” except the North, the holders of the original Union. This was partly what the battle was about. The secession was about the rights of slavery. The North’s actions were about preserving the Union as a whole. The South’s violence was about getting legitimacy. If the South won, they would have been legitimate. If the South lost, they had no legitimacy to start with.
In other words, one cannot say the South was a nation-state of its own in 1860, as the situation was unresolved. If the North did nothing to respond to the South’s provocations, then it would be legitimate. If the North responded, then the South’s legitimacy is in question until the conflict ended.
Comment by Daniel— May 21, 2007 #
In the 1860s it was no one’s right to give legitimacy to this new “nation state” except the North, the holders of the original Union.
Huh?
This is a new one on me. Essentially, what you’ve said here is that the South was owned by the North, and you’ve just made slave-owners of the North over the South.
From the link to an article on the rights of secession:
“Perhaps the most important violation of the law of free association, at least on pragmatic grounds, occurs in the political realm. This is crucial, because other infringements, such as affirmative action, union legislation, etc., stem from political sources. If freedom of association in the realm of affirmative action is the right to discriminate, and in the field of labor the right to hire a “scab,” then when it comes to the political realm, it is the right to secession.
“Those who are not free to secede are in effect (partial) slaves to a king, or to a tyrannous majority under democracy. Nor is secession to be confused with the mere right to emigrate, even when one is allowed to take one’s property out of the country. Secession means the right to stay put, on one’s own property, and either to shift alliance to another political entity, or to set up shop as a sovereign on one’s own account.
“Why should the man who wishes to secede from a government have to vacate his land? For surely, even under the philosophy of statists, it was the people who came first. Government, in the minarchist libertarian view, was only instituted by them in order to achieve certain ends, later, after they had come to own their property. That is to say, the state is a creation of the people, not the people a creation of the state. But if a government was once invited in, to provide certain services, then it can also be uninvited, or invited to leave, or expelled. To deny this is to assert that the government was there first, before there were even any people. But how can this be? Government is not a disembodied entity, composed of creatures other than human (although, perhaps, there may be legitimate doubts about this on the part of some); rather, it is comprised of flesh and blood, albeit for the most part evil, people.
“Given, then, that secession is a human right, part and parcel of the right to free association, how can we characterize those who oppose this? Who would use force and violence, of all things, in order to compel unwilling participants to join in, or to remain part of, a political entity they wish to have nothing to do with? Why, as would be slave holders, of a sort.”
Comment by Mark N.— May 21, 2007 #
Mark,
Essentially yes. The Union was not a contract of free association, but binding on all parties. Essentially, the South needed to get the approval of the rest of the nation in order to leave. I thought Andrew Jackson’s remarks on the subject were quite clear as to why this was important. Let me repeat them here:
I obviously disagree (and I believe most scholars would also) with Mr. Block regarding the application of the law of free association to our Union. That is not how this country was founded. Tell me, could any state just join the Union or must it have the approval of the other states to join? If it must have the approval of other states to join, why can it just leave on its own without the approval of the other states?
The South never understood the importance of the Union as a whole. Even when two of their own, George Washington and Andrew Jackson spelled it out quite clearly.
I can see now why libertarianism will never be anything but a fringe philosophy. Advocating free association? That means I can choose out of my own free will not to have to pay taxes and still stay put where I am? Talk about the anarchy that would ensue!
Yes, we are slaves on this planet. We really aren’t free. Then again the United States is not really a democracy, but a representative republic. We abrogate our political duty to others, hoping they would represent us correctly. It is not I who goes into the Senate room to vote on the latest bills. Also, I am bound by the vote there, even if it is against my wishes, because that is what I’ve signed on to.
On this planet there is no such thing as a real independence. It is an illusion. There is no such thing as free association. It does not exist. It is a sham. We are too interconnected, especially in today’s world. Perhaps Mr. Block’s ideal world could have been possible back in the days of agrarian societies where you had to get your own food, but not in today’s world. It is impossible.
Comment by Daniel— May 21, 2007 #
See The Right of Secession by Gene H. Kizer, Jr., and Do States Have a Right of Secession? by Walter A. Williams.
From the first link above:
“The revolutionary right of secession is based on the Declaration of Independence and the philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and John Locke, that
These words come directly from the Declaration of Independence. This passage was also used, verbatim, in South Carolina’s Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union. A similar sentiment was expressed by Abraham Lincoln in 1847 on the floor of the United States House of Representatives:
Horace Greely’s New York Daily Tribune published a long, emotional editorial on December 17, 1860, the day South Carolina’s Secession Convention began, strongly supporting the right of secession on the revolutionary basis. The Tribune used the exact same passage used in South Carolina’s Declaration of Immediate Causes, which comes from the Declaration of Independence, reiterating that the “just powers” of government come from the “consent of the governed” and “‘whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and institute a new government,’ &c., &c.”, adding that
The Tribune goes on to say it “could not stand up for coercion, for subjugation,” because “We hold the right of self-government sacred,” and if the Southern States want out, “we shall feel constrained by our devotion to Human Liberty to say, Let Them Go!”, because self-government is one of the “Rights of Man.”
Comment by Mark N.— May 21, 2007 #
Mark,
the issues of secession are one thing, but the laws of free association are wholly another, and the two are not related. There is no such thing as free association (except at a very low level of group participation). The reason being that there are very strong consequences for leaving a certain organization, group, institution, and/or state.
Now, as far as whether or not the South was Constitutionally right in seceding, I hearken back to the words of George Washington himself, a Southerner, and our first president.
You quote John Locke and Thomas Jefferson who wrote:
But that is not the reason why the South left the Union. They left specifically because they did not like the direction things were heading in regards to slavery and the West. It was not an issue of the Union becoming destructive of the ends for which it was established. In fact, the South, by stubbornly refusing to let go of slavery, fought against the very principles of freedom for blacks that was flourishing all over the world except in places like Georgia.
The South was not standing for some noble principle, Mark. Their desires were completely selfish, wholly to keep their way of life going on, even though the world around them progressed to something better. Just what was the South fighting for?
Comment by Daniel— May 21, 2007 #
It doesn’t matter what the motives of the South were; the fact is that the Constitution did not prohibit secession, and the rights not spelled out in the Constitution were reserved to the states.
One could even make the argument that the result of the War in Heaven was that Satan was given the desire of his heart, which was that he wanted to exercise his own freedom of association and leave. The results for him weren’t at all favorable, but it was what he wanted (just as those who differ with the General Authorities on major points of doctrine are basically asking to secede from the Church), and even God recognized that there was no point in coercing him to remain a part of the heavenly family.
As Alexis de Tocqueville, in Democracy in America, said (as quoted in “The Right of Secession”):
It was Lincoln who dissolved the original voluntary agreement of the States and turned the meaning of “The United States” from a plural to a singular entity.
Comment by Mark N.— May 21, 2007 #
Mark,
The Constitution doesn’t say anything in either way on secession, so you can’t argue that it did not prohibit secession. Perhaps the Founding Fathers should have put something in, because well, clearly the issue divided many, even to this day.
I do find it interesting that in a search attempt in the Federalist Papers, I get nothing on secessions.
And no it wasn’t Lincoln who dissolved the original voluntary agreement. Previously Andrew Jackson had done the same thing, compelling South Carolina to stay in the Union. His argument was an excellent one, which I’ve quoted several times. Just because you don’t like a law does not give you the right to no longer wish to be judged by that law. That’s now how nation-states work. It would spell the utter doom to the idea of a nation-state if that kind of practice were allowed to gain legitimacy.
The South never grasped the bigger picture. Further, it was prophesied that they would be the cause of much violence and death, starting with their breaking away from the Union.
Comment by Daniel— May 21, 2007 #
If Lincoln had just decided to let the South form its own nation and then set up trading treaties with them, you think that would have given a worse result than what resulted from the War Between the States?
I guess this is just one of those things we’re going to disagree on.
Comment by Mark N.— May 21, 2007 #
Just because you don’t like a law does not give you the right to no longer wish to be judged by that law.
I think seat belt “click it or ticket” laws are ridiculous and infringe upon our basic liberties. But I’m not about to try and start my own country as a result. The South, on the other hand, apparently felt oppressed enough that seemingly the only remaining remedy to the situation was secession. I don’t think it was something they did lightly.
Comment by Mark N.— May 21, 2007 #
The Constitution doesn’t say anything in either way on secession
Sure it does. That’s the whole point of the tenth amendment to the Constitution. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
If it isn’t mentioned one way or the other in the Constitution, then it’s a right reserved to the states. Covers all the bases.
Comment by Mark N.— May 21, 2007 #
“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 new government.”
You mean like overthrowing a tyrannical regime in the middle east?
Comment by knighthospitaller— May 21, 2007 #
Mark,
That of course is an excellent question. No one knows what the end result might have been. Similarly, who knows what would have happened if the South just let go of slavery and transformed their economy to better compete with the North’s industrial economy. They certainly would not have felt threatened by westward expansion of slave-free states. No secession, and no civil war.
I don’t know if I agree with that characterization, at least not for South Carolina’s case, as South Carolina had attempted at least once before to flaunt federal law. For me, secession is a pretty immature response to disliking certain laws passed. Talk about confrontational and provocative! Just how does that response get results?
Mark, can you show me some analysis from a Constitutional expert on just how the tenth amendment justifies (or not) secession. Actually I’ve done a little digging and found these three items. You ready for them? 😉
First:
The case against secession:
Secession and the constitution
Wherein I discover something I should have quoted much earlier in my piece, but which I did not know about, and that is:
Texas v White, a Supreme Court ruling, usually the final arbiter on what is the interpretation of the Constitution for the United States of America. I would note (as the commentator on the previous link noted: “I’m really surprised you haven’t gotten to Texas v. White yet, though. The question of secession has actually come before SCOTUS. While many may (and do!) disagree vehemently with that decision, it does, nonetheless, stand. Barring a new ruling from the court, there is no Constitutional right of secession.”
In any case, here is the relevant text from Texas V White Supreme Court decision:
hear hear
Comment by Daniel— May 22, 2007 #
[…] America. trackback Back in March, I wrote a post about the American Civil War. I titled it The American Civil War, Fought Over Slavery, Begun by South Carolina. This has garnered many views and plenty of comments. One point that seems to be made quite […]
Pingback by There Is No "Right of Secession" Guaranteed by the Constitution « The Good Democrat— May 22, 2007 #
Daniel,
Just to make sure we understand each other, you think that the only way the North could have been aggressive, is if the South was a nation state, and the only way for the South to become a nation state was by the North losing the war… So the only aggressive action the North could have taken was to lose the war 🙂 You have set up a nice paradox.
Comment by knightstemplar— May 22, 2007 #
exactly. The South was a rebellion. Their actions were aggressive. The North merely responded as any nation would to keep its Union strong, and that is to put the rebellion in its place.
Comment by Daniel— May 23, 2007 #
Take a look at my new post on There is no right of secession guaranteed by the Constitution
Comment by Daniel— May 23, 2007 #
Daniel,
You said that it was unconstitutional for the South to succeed from the union.
You a flat out wrong. You need to read the “Draft of the Kentucky Resolutions” ( Written by President Jefferson, October, 1798). The Drafts explain how the states hove the power to review federal laws and actions and deem them unconstitutional if need be. This role of the states has diminished since 1803 when the Supreme court finally discovered that they too had the power of “review”.
To take this argument a step further, I say to you that since these states left the union constitutionally and had their own government, that the South was a Nation state.
Comment by knighthospitaller— May 24, 2007 #
I also pose a question to you. What if the roles would have been reversed? What if the North would have succeeded from the union because the South was pro-slavery? Would it still be okay for the North to invade the South after fort Sumter?
Comment by knighthospitaller— May 24, 2007 #
hospitaller,
The North would not have seceded, you see. They’ve been far smarter than the South. They used the Constitutional tools at their disposal to ensure future states would be slave-free, and as such, there was no need to secede from a system that worked. The South never understood that they had the power under the Constitution to keep slavery for as long as they wanted.
Comment by Daniel— May 25, 2007 #
Daniel
I am curious, if the South had not fired the first shots, would you still maintain that the North was not the aggresive party? (Assuming the rest of the war remained the same)
You still have not answered…
The reason I ask, is because in your original post you wrote, “However, let’s not revise history and portray the North as aggressors, when clearly the South began the conflict” The way I read it, that sentence implies that the South was the aggressive party becuase they fired first.
It would seem to me that your position has changed in this debate. At the beggining you were arguing that the North was not aggresive becuase they were attacked first. Now though, it seems you argue that the North was not aggressive becuase the South seceded. Maybe you can clarify this for me.
Comment by knightstemplar— May 25, 2007 #
Templar,
The South was the aggressor when the seceded. The North merely responded in defense of the Constitution and the Union. 🙂
Comment by Daniel— May 25, 2007 #
I will concede to you that the South withdrew unconstitutionally, I found the relevant info in the “State’s rights” section of the Constitution…
Anyway, it all comes back to me trying to make the point that the North fought an AGRESSIVE war in order to preserve the union. An agressive war that was justified. Do you agree?
Comment by knighthospitaller— May 25, 2007 #
No, because the aggression was the South’s secession, not the North’s attempts to hold the Union together. The aggressive act was the South leaving the Union.
Comment by Daniel— May 25, 2007 #
So what aggressive act between Japan and the United States led to World War II?
Was it the attack on Pearl Harbor by Japan in December of 1941, or was it the oil embargo imposed upon Japan by the United States in July of 1941?
If 80% of your oil comes from a country that suddenly decides to cut you off, haven’t they just declared economic war on you?
Comment by Mark N.— May 26, 2007 #
I will concede to you that the South withdrew unconstitutionally,
I don’t. If Congress passes a law requiring all citizens to burn all books by Mark Twain, does that suddenly mean you have no right to read the works of Mark Twain?
Or does it mean that Congress has overstepped its bounds?
Even if secession were unconstitutional (and it wasn’t, because the individual states made it clear that they still retained all sovereign rights they held by them as separate states even after they joined the Union), it would be a form of slavery.
There was more than one form of slavery being fought over in the War Between the States.
Comment by Mark N.— May 26, 2007 #
Those are some good points Mark.
Comment by knighthospitaller— May 26, 2007 #
Daniel,
“The South was the aggressor when they seceded.”
It seems that you need to listen to your own words, “However, let’s not revise history and portray the North as aggressors, when clearly the South began the conflict” Are you accusing yourself of revising history? Becuase in your post the South was the aggressors becuase they fired first. Now it is becuase they seceded. Just some advice, in a debate it is good to stick to one position, or you might turn into John Kerry and have more flip flops than a house of pancackes 🙂
Comment by knightstemplar— May 26, 2007 #
Mark,
I do believe we had it coming, actually. I’ve always felt our oil embargo was very provocative. Perhaps Roosevelt didn’t think the Japanese would dare attack (after all the vast Pacific tends to keep the Japanese and Chinese at bay, as well as the Americans from quarreling too much westward—or at least it used to). Perhaps he did and this was his way of getting Americans to accept a war. If that is the case, then his actions are treasonous.
But most certainly, Japan did not attack unprovoked.
Comment by Daniel— May 29, 2007 #
Mark,
No legal right. However, you can appeal all the way to the Supreme Court, which is the final arbiter on the interpretation of the Constitution. And if that fails you, you can go to 3/4ths of the states and get them to adopt a new amendment to the Constitution allowing everyone to read mark Twain. It would, after that, be unconstitutional to ban any American (or anyone at all really) from reading Mark Twain. Like I said before the Constitution of the United States gives everyone many ways through which they can change things they don’t like. There is no reason for secession.
Comment by Daniel— May 29, 2007 #
Well, we disagree, but you knew that already. 🙂
Comment by Mark N.— May 29, 2007 #
Right. 🙂
And you didn’t need to secede. 😉
Comment by Daniel— May 29, 2007 #
You? I didn’t realize Mark was alive during the Civil War. Impressive.
Comment by Sherpa— May 29, 2007 #
Daniel,
Since, from your point of view, the secession was unconstitutional, why did the North have to be attacked first for them to be justified in preserving the Union? Was not the Union attacked by the secession itself?
Comment by knightstemplar— June 6, 2007 #
They didn’t have to be attacked. The secession, being illegal, could not go unpunished.
Comment by Daniel— June 7, 2007 #
Thanks
Comment by knightstemplar— June 7, 2007 #
🙂
Comment by knighthospitaller— June 8, 2007 #
Daniel,
I realize you have a lot of posts to keep busy with, so if you don’t have time to answer the following, no problem.
The following question has absolutely nothing to do with the Civil War, I just admire your ability to clearly argue your point of view, and knowing that we so often disagree on issues, I am asking for your point of view on another topic to see if it is likely that people will disagree with me on this issue or not.
I am a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod (ELS), and to become a member, the applicant must “unconditionally subscribe” to the teachings of the Synod. My question is, can one “unconditionally subscribe” to the teachings, if one at the same time has questions and concerns about those very teachings? Why or why not?
(For some background in case you are wondering why in the heck I would ask this, last year the President of the ELS suspended a pastor from the synod. I believe that the President was not justified, because he held a double standard on Pastor Preus. The double standard, was that the President removed the pastor for not “unconditionally subscribing” to the teachings, while ate the same time claiming that the pastor could have held questions and concerns about the teachings.)
Comment by knightstemplar— June 14, 2007 #
One cannot unconditionally subscribe to the teachings of something if one has doubts, because those doubts end up being conditions on the subscription of those teachings. One can, however “conditionally subscribe” to teachings one has doubts about. But if you are not fully converted, then you’re going to be having problems down the road when challenges to your beliefs arise.
Comment by Daniel— June 14, 2007 #
This is amazing, we actually agree on something 🙂 Thanks for responding.
Comment by knightstemplar— June 16, 2007 #
I’m sure we both agree that the sky is blue. 😀
Comment by Daniel— June 16, 2007 #
Unless its cloudy 😉
Comment by knighthospitaller— June 16, 2007 #
Thank you!!!!!!
Comment by Vanessa— September 5, 2007 #
Just a small point about “first shot”.
If SC was indeed its own nation as it declared, using the right to withdraw from the “union” as stated, and the “union” had a military force inside its (SC’s) borders, then would it not be logical to rid oneself of such infestation?
Reading the various states’ declarations, one comes to the conclusion that although slavery was a vehicle to be driven for the purpose, it was mostly about the right of a state to do as it pleased (‘states’ rights’). The language of ‘slave states’ and ‘non-slave states’ were more of an identification with a belief about independence and a convenience of terming locality.
Comment by Brian— November 21, 2007 #
Brian,
Only if South Carolina actually had a “right” to withdraw from the union. But alas, they did not.
Comment by Daniel— November 23, 2007 #
Daniel,
The second Missouri Compromise’s proposition that persons of African descent could not be U.S. citizens, was ratified in 1857… Does this mean that African Americans didn’t have the “right” to be citizens? If so, then the North was in violation of this amendment.
Things were not quite so black and white then (pardon the pun), the south actually had some grounds for seceding that today don’t seem legitimate, but at that time were not proven entirely inaccurate. You have to keep in mind that the United States was still a very young nation, and it was still working out the bugs…
Comment by knighthospitaller— November 24, 2007 #
Hospitaller,
Huh, wasn’t slavery in the Constitution though? Didn’t the South quite easily agree that persons of African descent were no better than, in the words of the Mississippi declaration of session:
Sorry, hospitaller, but the South’s position vis a vis “persons of African descent” were abhorrent and will always be so.
Comment by Daniel— November 25, 2007 #
Why did South Carolina not have a right to secede? There is nothing in the Constitution that covered (or covers) secession. About 2/3 of the states at this point have secessionist movements (some of them for the wrong reasons, but Vermont’s and Hawaii’s arguments are fairly cogent). The Civil War settled the question from an executive standpoint (“If you want to leave, we will force you to stay.”) but the question has not been dealt with in a legislative or judicial manner at the federal level.
Did the U.S. have the right to declare independence from England? Tories would argue know, but Vermont argues, similar to Thomas Jefferson:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
If our current government today, is not fulfilling its role granted by the people the people have the right to rescind the power granted to the government and head in a different direction.
Comment by Mike W.— November 27, 2007 #
Sorry, Tories would argue “no”, not “know”.
Comment by Mike W.— November 27, 2007 #
Mike,
I believe we argued this before. I don’t want to get into it again. It’s up above in the hundred plus comments. 🙂
Comment by Daniel— December 1, 2007 #
This website must have where the civil war started. It is very important information.
Comment by Brittney— March 31, 2008 #
Comment by Al Barrs— July 5, 2008 #
holy cow dude! How much of that is your own writing?
Comment by Daniel— July 5, 2008 #
Al Barrs you did a great job! Daniel just does not have the capacity to understand that Lincoln could have started a war without firing the first shot. It is beyond his understanding apparently. To be fair though, it is more of a testament to Lincoln’s genius that people still believe he was justified in invading the south. He wasn’t joking about that fooling thing.
Comment by Joe King— July 5, 2008 #
Joe King,
It is more a testament that some people just can’t accept that they lost and move on.
Comment by Daniel— July 5, 2008 #
“It is more a testament that some people just can’t accept that they lost and move on.”
That sounds like a Republican defense of the selection of Dubya, and the resultant war in Iraq.
A week ago Sunday, our ward sang “The Star-Spangled Banner” as the closing hymn. I inwardly cringed as we sang the line from the third verse: “Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just…”.
If only the US had had a just cause to set us along in our conquering ways in recent history…
Comment by Mark N.— July 7, 2008 #
“If only the US had had a just cause to set us along in our conquering ways in recent history…”
I’m sure 3000 American’s dead in a single day was no cause to invade the country supporting the organization who launched the attack…
Comment by knighthospitaller— July 10, 2008 #
Hospitaller,
Are you referring to Afghanistan or Iraq?
Comment by Daniel— July 10, 2008 #
… or Saudi Arabia?
Comment by Mark N.— July 11, 2008 #
I said in a single “day” not a single “5 years”…
Comment by knighthospitaller— July 18, 2008 #
This post has had a 62% increase in viewership this past week. I guess school is fully in session… 🙂
Comment by Daniel— September 19, 2008 #
One question: Why didn’t the “underground railroad” end in the North or New England instead of in Canada if the North was so opposed to slavery.
Because of the Fugitive Slave Law which was part of the compromise that had been made between free states and slave states when the country was formed, and remade in 1850.
Free men always have the right to rebel against tyranny. However, there is no right to secede from a free country in order to maintain a tyranny. Even if the North had fired the first shot, they would have been right and the South would have been wrong.
Comment by Erskine Fincher— March 17, 2009 #
Daniel,
Did South Carolina start the war when they invaded Massachussettes? Or was it New York? Oh no, that’s right….they started the war when they fired upon the hostile Union army that refused to evacuate from the fort in Charleston harbor, right in their own state.
South Carolina seceded and ordered the Union army to evacuate from Sumter. Not only did the Union not evacuate but Lincoln decided to stoke the fire and send extra supplies and munitions, taking a decidedly belligerent stance, against the opinions of his advisors. South Carolina may have fired the first shot, but only in a twisted sense could anyone argue that they started the war.
Comment by Jack— March 26, 2009 #
Jack,
They started the war the moment they signed a declaration of secession. Then they compounded it by firing the first shot.
Comment by Daniel— March 26, 2009 #
The negotiations regarding the forts were ongoing. There was still a chance that secession would not stand, that time and diplomacy would allow cooler heads to prevail. Until those issues were settled, Lincoln could do nothing other than supply the forts, since not doing so would have made it a moot point. It was only a belligerent move in the eyes of belligerent men who were determined to block any effort at compromise or negotiation.
Comment by Erskine Fincher— March 26, 2009 #
Daniel,
On your blog you identify yourself as someone who is strongly against the Iraq war and tell us that you believe peace is possible on this planet, yet here you are telling us that the only justification that you need to invade a neighboring state of fellow citizens with tanks and guns is if they are so brazen as to decide to peacefully withdraw from this Union??? Since no amendments have been made to the Constitution regarding secession, you must still consider it to be unconstitutional today. Does that mean you’d be willing to go to war and invade the State of Wisconsin, for example, if they decided that this country was heading in a direction that was in serious conflict with their values and that they wanted to withdraw and be left alone?
Comment by Jack— March 27, 2009 #
Jack, Jack, Jack,
Because it was a stupid, detrimental war, and would ruin our real war against our real enemy – Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan/Pakistan.
Indeed it is.
If that action were to destroy the Union, then by golly send in the tanks! We can only be extra thankful that the North won and taught the South a lesson about what it means to be America.
peacefully withdraw from this Union?
If their actions would have succeeded, they would have destroyed the rule of law. As Andrew Jackson pointed out, if a state or an individual were granted the right to decide for themselves which laws they wish to follow and which ones they don’t, the rule of law would be destroyed.
Yep.
Though I do sometimes wish to kick out Texas and Florida from the Union. 😉
Comment by Daniel— March 28, 2009 #
Secession is an inalienable right just like all the others that the govt is put in place to protect ( no more – no less) The Declaration of Independence was a declaration of secession. Inalienable rights are rights we are born with .. Those are rights that are not given to us and cannot be taken away. So don’t give us this crap that we’re not free. It’s not like we the people put together a govt ( as the founders did ) and then THEY are in charge of us. No no no no… WE’RE Still in charge! They still answer to us. They have to protect our rights. So don’t be bashin liberatarians. Don’t be bashin liberty. I mean whats better? Being a slave as you say we all are.. Thats just absurd. I know I am not a slave to nobody lol!
The “War between the states” by the way was NOT started by the south. The North occupied Fort Sumter which was South Carolinas territory and basically didn’t get the hell out when they were asked to. So the south WAS provoked. South Carolina had a right to defend itself lol! Thomas DiLorenzo is right about what he says .. Makes total sense and is accurate. What that moron Jaffa says and what we were taught in sch0ol was bogus BS.
Comment by RonPaulSupporter— July 14, 2009 #
And no friggin way was the Civil War over “slavery” lol .. Again thats one of the biggest myths.. What we were taught in school is false and is meant to brainwash us lol. It was over Secession. Lincoln figured “might makes right”. Also there was the issue of tariffs which Lincoln had a hard on for which really pissed off the South. Slavery was ended peacefully in like at least 7 other countries without no bloodshed and easily could have ended on its own because it wasn’t good economically. In fact when slavery did actually end it was because of that .. it wasn’t good economically. Just read Thomas DiLorenzo he tells the whole story in “the Real Lincoln” ..( He owned Jaffa in debate and rightfully so ) Jaffa talks out of his ass lol
Comment by RonPaulSupporter— July 14, 2009 #
woohoo, a Ron Paul supporter! I feel special. Alright, let’s get into it. I haven’t had to deal with the Civil War and slavery in some time.
No it isn’t.
No it isn’t.
If the Declaration of Independence was a declaration of secession, they would have called it the Declaration of Secession rather than the Declaration of Independence.
Ah, so the South DID start the war. They shot the first shot. They killed the first person of the war. Why are you so defensive about who started the war? If your side is right, that doesn’t make much of a difference, right?
LOL yes it was.
LOL and you didn’t even get an education!
Well said. Except that the South refused to “end it peacefully.” They refused to let go of slavery, because those whites really loved having blacks work for them. Those whites really loved being in that position of power over other human beings. It was insatiable. The power to order another human being around like a slave. Hard to give that up for the Southern White Man.
LOL yeah, like totally, the South’s stance on slavery wasn’t good for them economically, seeing that the entire South was destroyed over the use of slavery! LOLOLOLOLOL.
….
Just want to say, does Ron Paul really like how stupid some of his “supporters” portray themselves? Does he realize what he is breeding? Ron Paul tends to be fairly cogent and rational. But his supporters are rabid and fairly dumb. What’s with the disconnect?
Comment by Daniel— July 14, 2009 #
Secession is an inalienable right, “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,” Ha ha ha, as long as you show how the government is destroying your life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness, secession is your inalienable RIGHT! 🙂
Really Daniel, did the South kill the first person of the war? Really? Come on bro, what are you a Ron Paul supporter lol. Guess what??? the North killed the first person, and it was their own soldier :0 no way!
And do you know Jefferson Davis? He was kinda the leader of the South you know… Yeah he said he was desirous of peace at any sacrifice save that of honor and independence, and that he would meet, not wage war, and that all the South asks is to be let alone. To this Lincoln gave the command to raise a 75,o000 man militia to serve against “combinations too powerful to be surpressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings.” So you are incorrect, the South did not start the war, Lincoln did.
Why is it so important who started the war? Gee I don’t know maybe because thousands of people died, hopefully that at least gets you thinking… And that is why the South was right, because Jefferson was all about peace, the North wasn’t.
Hahaha, how can you know the South wouldn’t end slavery peacefully? Can you predict the future now or something??? You’re right though, those whites really did love being in a position of power over other human beings. In fact it was for nothing less than the insatiable desire for the power to order another person around like a slave that the North invaded the South. It was all about fricking control, which is exactly why the South had such a just cause for peacefully declaring their independence. Their liberty was being destroyed. The South was completely content to regain their liberty peacefully. Sure the North beat the South back into submission just like a slave, how are you proud of this? If its wrong to physicially abuse humans how is it right to kill them????? How you find humour in this is beyond me.
Comment by Joe King— July 23, 2009 #
Really, Joe? You wanna still hash this out? Are you really that bored? Your attempt at humor falls quite flat, let me tell you. Go on vacation dude. Take a break. Chill out.
Comment by Daniel— July 23, 2009 #
Abraham Lincoln Quote
“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”
by:
Abraham Lincoln
(1809-1865) 16th US President
Source: Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858
(The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, pp. 145-146.)
Comment by Jim— July 5, 2012 #
GIVE ‘EM HELL DANIEL!!!
Comment by Ken L— December 2, 2012 #