Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame. - Page 3 - TigerDroppings.com

Posted byMessage
DallasTiger11
UCLA Fan
Los Angeles
Member since Mar 2004
2056 posts
 Online 

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


Not this shite again.

Can we all agree that slavery obviously played a part in the Civil War, but that there were many other factors that were playing an important role as well?






Back to top
theunknownknight
LSU Fan
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2005
26851 posts
 Online 

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:

And why had those Southern states left the Union?


Leaving Union legally and peacefully, for WHATEVER reason, does not equal war.

The IMMEDIATE and ACTUAL cause of the war was the North invading and not allowing the South to legally secede.

That's why it is call the "War of Northern Aggression"



This post was edited on 11/21 at 11:43 am


Back to top
Tom288
Florida Fan
Member since Apr 2009
17836 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:

At the end of the day the emancipation proclamation was issued by the executive branch of the government. That might give you a clue as to how Lincoln felt on the issue. Do you think that he would have drug the country into war if it weren't something as serious as slavery?


Lincoln's own words might also give you a clue as to how he felt on the issue.

quote:

The IMMEDIATE and ACTUAL cause of the war was the North invading and not allowing the South to legally secede.


I completely agree. AND I'm glad they did it.



This post was edited on 11/21 at 11:44 am


Back to top
RollTide1987
Alabama Fan
Pensacola, Florida
Member since Nov 2009
23961 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:

In case people forget...again...SLAVERY as an actual institution was ending anyway.



The most critical flaw with your reasoning is that most people in 1860 did not believe slavery was on its way out. In fact, they thought it was booming.

They saw slavery as profitable and prosperous, with a bright future. White southerners wanted to expand it into places where they knew cotton agriculture would not be dominant. However, there were mining and construction opportunities, and many white southerners cast covetous eyes upon the Caribbean as a place where America’s manifest destiny would expand the slaveholders’ paradise.

Slavery had proven prosperous in the 1850s. The plantation economy had thrived while the rest of the nation suffered during the Panic of 1857. The peculiar institution had also received renewed political protection. The Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 gave the federal government new ways of enforcing the fugitive slave clause of the Constitution, while advocates of slavery’s expansion rejoiced when the Supreme Court removed restrictions to the expansion of slavery into the territories with the Dred Scott decision of 1857.






Back to top
L.A.
New Orleans Saints Fan
Los Angeles
Member since Aug 2003
37397 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:

That's why it is call the "War of Northern Aggression"
I believe that's what Jed Clampett used to call it. Or was it Granny Clampett?






Back to top
RollTide1987
Alabama Fan
Pensacola, Florida
Member since Nov 2009
23961 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:

Leaving Union legally and peacefully, for WHATEVER reason, does not equal war.



There's the problem right there. Lincoln and the U.S. Government viewed what the South was doing as completely and totally illegal.

That, combined with the fact that they were branded as states in rebellion instead of recognized as an official nation, equates to war.




This post was edited on 11/21 at 11:49 am


Back to top
Baloo
LSU Fan
Formerly MDGeaux
Member since Sep 2003
43590 posts
 Online 

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:

Freed Blacks were around 8 times more likely to own slaves than whites.

Of all of the made up statistics on the internet, this is perhaps the most ridiculous. While Louisiana is a lot different than the rest of the south in that there was an existing black aristocracy who owned slaves, the idea that "freed blacks" were likely to own slaves is absurd given that they were in abject property and had no land.

And why did you put "white supremacy" in quotes. People proudly believed in the supremacy of the white race in 1860. Hell, Lincoln was a white supremacist as well.






Back to top
PillageUrVillage
LSU Fan
Mordor
Member since Mar 2011
3014 posts
 Online 

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:

Money and power


Ding!

ETA: That's what pretty much every war is about.



This post was edited on 11/21 at 11:56 am


Back to top
Wolfhound45
LSU Fan
Member since Nov 2009
14158 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


Whether you agree or not, the Southern states did view this as the second Revolutionary War. You only have to look to the wording of the Declaration of Independence to understand why...

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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.


Lots of parallels to Southern sentiments of the time, even though that the "political bands" were being dissolved due to the issue of slavery.






Back to top
doubleb
LSU Fan
Baton Rouge
Member since Aug 2006
5967 posts
 Online 

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


South Carolina fired on Fort Sumpter not because of slavery, but to run the Federals out of their state.

The Federals weren't there to abolish slavery, they were there because the Federal Govt. still considered SC as a state in the union.






Back to top
RollTide1987
Alabama Fan
Pensacola, Florida
Member since Nov 2009
23961 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:

South Carolina fired on Fort Sumpter not because of slavery, but to run the Federals out of their state.



But why did South Carolina secede from the Union?






Back to top
doubleb
LSU Fan
Baton Rouge
Member since Aug 2006
5967 posts
 Online 

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


South Carolina felt the federal govt. was bound and determined to take away their rights as a state, one of them being slavery.

The federal govt. as it was created by the states was given limited powers. These powers are enumerated in the original Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

As the Federal Govt. was becoming more and more powerful those in the South felt their rights were in danger.

Remember the nation was less than 100 years old. Society as we know it today was just evolving.
People believed in strict construction.

States were way more important than they are today. The Federal Govt. didn't provide money for education, roads, retirment, medicine, etc.

State pride, states rights, etc. was huge.

Even in war time states fought in units furnished by each state. That in itself shows you just what a state meant to individuals in the 1860s.






Back to top
RollTide1987
Alabama Fan
Pensacola, Florida
Member since Nov 2009
23961 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:

South Carolina felt the federal govt. was bound and determined to take away their rights as a state, one of them being slavery.



Funny...as slavery figured the most prominently in their reasons for seceding that were lain out in their declaration of secession.







Back to top
Baloo
LSU Fan
Formerly MDGeaux
Member since Sep 2003
43590 posts
 Online 

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


Not just one of them. That understates it. It is PRIMARILY the right of slavery. Here's what South Carolina said in the declaration to secede:

quote:

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the *forms* [emphasis in the original] of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States. (bolding is mine)

The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.

We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.


They even self-identify as "the slave-holding states". These states clearly believed the institution of slavery to be central to their cause. It's why they kept harping on it.

LINK Carolina






Back to top
Wolfhound45
LSU Fan
Member since Nov 2009
14158 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:

South Carolina fired on Fort Sumpter not because of slavery, but to run the Federals out of their state.

The Federals weren't there to abolish slavery, they were there because the Federal Govt. still considered SC as a state in the union.


Agree. On both.

But my point is still valid. Based upon historical precedent, Southerners felt they had a right (and for many - an obligation) to secede.






Back to top
theunknownknight
LSU Fan
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2005
26851 posts
 Online 

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:

They even self-identify as "the slave-holding states". These states clearly believed the institution of slavery to be central to their cause. It's why they kept harping on it.


The ISSUE was the constitution as written and interpreted at the time was being ignored by the Federal Government run by the Northern States, thus destroying the Southern economy. I love how "slavery" is mentioned a few times and the "constitution" is referred to numerous times...yet the Civil War was not based on a constitutional disagreement? Read your own quote.

Again, how does a peaceful and LEGAL (regardless of how some viewed it, it was legal) secession = war?

War began when the Feds wouldn't "allow" the secession



This post was edited on 11/21 at 12:43 pm


Back to top
RollTide1987
Alabama Fan
Pensacola, Florida
Member since Nov 2009
23961 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:

The ISSUE was the constitution as written and interpreted at the time was being ignored by the Federal Government run by the Northern States, thus destroying the Southern economy. I love how "slavery" is mentioned a few times and the "constitution" is referred to numerous times...yet the Civil War was not based on a constitutional disagreement? Read your own quote.



Really?

quote:

A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union

In the momentous step, which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

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.


Apparently Mississippi seemed to think it was all about slavery.







Back to top
Wolfhound45
LSU Fan
Member since Nov 2009
14158 posts

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:

Apparently Mississippi seemed to think it was all about slavery.


I think most would agree the Southern states saw slavery (albeit they may have worded it differently in each of their declarations) as the issue de jour.

The Northern states saw it as preservation of the Union.

Apples and oranges (kind of).






Back to top
Baloo
LSU Fan
Formerly MDGeaux
Member since Sep 2003
43590 posts
 Online 

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


quote:

I love how "slavery" is mentioned a few times and the "constitution" is referred to numerous times...yet the Civil War was not based on a constitutional disagreement? Read your own quote.

I really don't want to play counting games, but "constitution" and its variants appears 5 times in the quote, and "slave" and its variants appear 8 times.

and let's look at the references to constitution...

"and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution" -- about slavery

"For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the *forms* [emphasis in the original] of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself" -- about an anti-slavery party winning the presidency

"This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens" -- about slavery and rights for black people


"The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy." -- about being a slave-holding state

They weren't hiding the ball. They were openly fighting for slavery. They were proud of it. there's no need to pretend they weren't.







Back to top
doubleb
LSU Fan
Baton Rouge
Member since Aug 2006
5967 posts
 Online 

re: Serious question about Lincoln and the Civil War, no flame.


The war began because the federal govt. wouldn't let the states leave.

Would they have started a war to abolish slavery? I doubt it.

The states on the other hand believed they had the right to leave just as they had elected to join the union.

They decided to exercise what they thought was their right and they started the war.






Back to top


Back to top




//