Slavery; the root cause of Secession & War

[unionblue]

Turner Ashby,

Is your above post directed at me, by any chance?

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[hawglips]

Sigh.

I see some folks still insist on using some sort of incomprehensible illogic to arrive at the conclusion that the evil south started the war in order to further slavery.

It goes like this.

1) The South supposedly seceded over slavery.
2) The North said, please stay, you can keep your slaves.
3) The South said, up yours.
4) The North said, then we'll make you stay, because you can't leave unless we say you can.
5) The South said, we're leaving, peacefully if we can, forcibly if we must.
6) The North said, we ain't going to talk with you about it, because, we aren't going to let you leave.  Period.
7) The South said, well, we are leaving, get out of our sovereign territory.
08) The North said, we are staying in your territory, because you can't leave, and you gave us this piece of land to allow us to protect you, and we're going to protect you and make you stay whether you like it or not.
9) The South said, if you don't leave, then we're kicking you out.
10) The North said, we ain't leaving, and we ain't letting you leave us.
11) The South said, BOOM!!
12) The North said, OK, now we're going to show you the cold steel.  (Oh yeah, so they asked all the remaining slave states to join them in the fight against secession.)
 

Wait a minute? 

Where is slavery?  I thought the war was about slavery?  So why did they invite slave states to fight with them against other slave states?  And why did they say "you can keep your slaves, we just can't let you leave us?"

 

[Johan Steele]

As usual Hal the illogic is yours in saying slavery had nothing to do with Secession.  Something that can only be said in a revisionist sense; you know this as it has been shown to you on several different boards.

No slavery, no Secession... the CS mantra was KNOW Slavery and KNOW War because we're leaving and we are going to take everything we can grab with us.  If you don't like it you can taste Confederate steel.

[ole]

Glad to see that you're still alive and kicking, hawglips. We miss you.

Where is slavery?  I thought the war was about slavery?  So why did they invite slave states to fight with them against other slave states?  And why did they say "you can keep your slaves, we just can't let you leave us?"

You thought the war was about slavery? It wasn't. The war was about some serious political disagreements between sections that had divided over economic differences. Slavery was behind all those differences. Those SOBs that seceded, formed a government, and declared war on the US of A were all motivated to preserve an obsolete way of life that revolved around slavery and status quo. That, by itself, doesn't make the status quo-ites all bad, it was all just a silly reason to kick off hostilities against a section that outnumbered and outproduced by multiple degrees.

ole

[Wild Rose]

Hello gentlemen.  It‘s been a long time.  I just thought I’d drop in and see what’s new.  It seems there hasn’t been much progress made on determining “the cause of the war”.  I thought I‘d add my two cents anyway, although it really isn‘t worth that much.

Hawglips is right.  The war was caused by the Union’s refusal to allow the Southern states their freedom as was their right under a “government that derived their just powers from the consent of the governed“.  The Southern states no longer consented.  That should have been the end of the discussion.  Why did the South want out of the Union?  That is a a separate argument in and of its self, having nothing to do with the cause of the war.  Slavery is a smoke screen used in order to make the outrageous offenses and subjugation of the Southern states seem justified.  It wasn’t the right nor the duty of the Northern states to impose their morals on sovereign states of equal standing in the Union. And, to give due credit, the Union didn’t make the attempt to do so until well into the war.  Neither the South or the North went to war for or against slavery.  As Hawglips pointed out, the Union offered to allow slavery as long as the South “came to her senses” and resumed her place in the Union.

Rose

[ole]

Hawglips is right.  The war was caused by the Union’s refusal to allow the Southern states their freedom as was their right under a “government that derived their just powers from the consent of the governed“.  The Southern states no longer consented.  That should have been the end of the discussion.

Hey, Rose! Been a while. Skimming the surface here, "consent of the governed" isn't exactly how you present it: a be-all and end-all justification.

Seems that the founders figured that, once consent was given, that was the end of it: consent couldn't be quite so easily withdrawn. Given that most all of them upheld the right of revolution (having the power), all of them maintained that there had to be a darned good reason for rebelling. I don't see where "we want our own country" was a darned good reason.

If the people of the south had actually wanted their own country, there were sufficient means available to accomplish that separation through legal action, however ill-advised.

ole

[david johnson]

one group of people seldom likes another group telling it what to do.  then the subgroups kick in, everyone believes what few say about it all ... then war breaks out.

dj

[Wild Rose]

Hey there, Ole.  It's good to hear from you.

Seems that the founders figured that, once consent was given, that was the end of it: consent couldn't be quite so easily withdrawn. Given that most all of them upheld the right of revolution (having the power), all of them maintained that there had to be a darned good reason for rebelling. I don't see where "we want our own country" was a darned good reason.

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. --"

Who gets to decide what is a "darned good reason" for secession?  Regarding the Right of revolution, the Declaration of Independence suggests only that "prudence" be used in making the decision. And even then...it doesn't suggest that the federal government has any right to forbid it. 

Had the South persued other "more legal means" (and I strongly disagree that the South didn't use legal means) do you believe the Federal courts would have allowed it for any reason? I think not in a million years.  Lincoln was determined that the South would remain in the Union at all costs and he certainly would have used all the political clout he could muster with the federal courts had the Southern states foolishly chose that forum.

Rose

[tineak]

"Who gets to decide what is a "darned good reason" for secession?"

The Supreme Court.

South Carolina secedes before Lincoln even takes office. The man hadn't committed an affirmative act as President.

Fortunately, South Carolina wrote down their 'darned good reasons' for secession and its laced with the language of slavery, failure to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, etc, etc, etc.

"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."

Sorry, but that is not a good enough reason.

"Had the South persued other "more legal means" (and I strongly disagree that the South didn't use legal means) do you believe the Federal courts would have allowed it for any reason?"

They shouldn't, any rational interpretation of the Supremacy Clause should preclude any pro-secessionist opinion. But really, let's face it, with the Supreme Court you never really do know.

[ole]

Had the South persued other "more legal means" (and I strongly disagree that the South didn't use legal means) do you believe the Federal courts would have allowed it for any reason?

Let's not get into the legality of secession. That's been argued for more than a hundred years and SCOTUS has ruled on it but once -- after the war. Actually, SCOTUS at the time was fairly well leaning southern. Had the case been heard, the decision might have been 5-4 either way.

The point is, the case was not presented. This was the "more legal means." That avenue was not taken. The timing was urgent. Secession had to take place before Lincoln took office or not at all. The south did not secede. It's leaders were predominantly slave-owners and they did the seceding. Many a southern man/boy died, like his northern counterpart, because a war was started over the fear of change.

ole