Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
Johan, that doesn't make sense. Slavery was legal. If war was fought over slavery that means that someone was trying to deny the Southerners their Constitutional rights. That doesn't sound like the American way to me.
Regards,
Rose
The war was not 'fought over slavery' it was fought because of a rebellion of states which valued the institution of slavery above the concept of Union .
Slavery was legal as it existed. The dispute was over where that 'peculiar institution' would be perpetuated into the territories and potential new states of the Union.
Slavery was the issue which ultimately led to the war, but the immediate issue was Union, that a nation " conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal ... and that government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
That's what the war was 'fought over'.
Had the Southern oligarchs accepted the prevailing view that slavery was an abomination and should not be perpetuated, they might have lived the lush life for several more years.
__________________ -
"It was a very peculiar time." - Franklin D. Cossitt
Ancestors in USA Army: 6th IA Inf, 11th IL Cav, 1st AL Cav; 122nd NY Inf; 6th MI Cav; 35th MA Inf; 100th IL Inf; 1st CO Inf/Cav; 22nd IN Inf
There are some very interesting threats in those editorials. And here we were lead to believe "keeping the Union together" was the goal. Seems there was a little more to it than simply preserving the Union.
Regards,
Rose
Yeah, and nothing at all about slavery in those writings.
.......btw all of the cited newspapers supported Lincoln in the 1860 election.
No one argues against the idea that the North went to war with the idea of preserving the Union.
The argument gets hot and heavy over WHY the South risked war by leaving the Union.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
No matter what rules you wish to use, you are going to end up playing on the same field as the rest of us.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
The war was not 'fought over slavery' it was fought because of a rebellion of states which valued the institution of slavery above the concept of Union.
Samgrant:
What was so extraordinary about the Union that it's cause was worth far more than that of saving the lives of over 600,000 people? It seems to me that the cause of the war was the abandonment by the Federal government of the principle of government by consent of the governed.
“I told McPherson we were going to fight for our ‘liberty’. That was the view the whole South took of it. It was not for slavery but the sovereignty of the states, which is practically the right to resume self government or to secede…We had the right therefore to secede whenever we saw fit; it was truly for our liberty that we fought.” E.P. Alexander
If I may, Wild Rose has already pointed out, it takes TWO sides to have a war. Laying it all at the 'Union's' door is a bit simplistic, as it ignores the incredible chances the Southern leadership took by all of its acts of violence even before the firing on Ft. Sumter.
Newton's law, for every action, there is an equal, opposite reaction.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
What was so extraordinary about the Union that it's cause was worth far more than that of saving the lives of over 600,000 people? It seems to me that the cause of the war was the abandonment by the Federal government of the principle of government by consent of the governed.
Dawna,
Consent of the governed does not mean that each person has the right to give or revoke consent at any moment. It means that legitimacy rests on a democrat process that allows those being governed to fully participate in the political process and decision-making. Once an election is over, as in the fall of 1860, those who lost could not just take their ball and go home, crying "consent of the governed." They had participated, and lost. They had every right and ability to continue to participate in order to influence legislation, have access to the courts, and organize to try again in the next elections.
best,
marc
__________________ "It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues." - Abraham Lincoln
The war was not 'fought over slavery' it was fought because of a rebellion of states which valued the institution of slavery above the concept of Union .
Whose concept of "Union" are we talking about? The North's version? I suppose it's true the South didn't particularly value the North's version of Union where it was believed man answered to a higher power than the Constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samgrant
Slavery was legal as it existed. The dispute was over where that 'peculiar institution' would be perpetuated into the territories and potential new states of the Union.
Slavery was legal as it existed because the Constitution allowed that it was legal. There was one Constitution for ALL states. There was no seperate constitution for the states newly formed from the territories. That the North didn't want slave labor competing with that of the free white man isn't reason enough to make such unconstitutional laws. The North wishing to impose it's morals on slaveowners isn't reason enough, either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samgrant
Slavery was the issue which ultimately led to the war, but the immediate issue was Union, that a nation " conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal ... and that government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
That's what the war was 'fought over'.
A nation that was concieved in liberty should never have allowed slavery from the beginning. Slavery was no more wrong in 1860 than it was in 1776. The government "of the people" was reduced to the "government of the Northern people, by the Northern people and for the Northern people", and took place of the original Constitution. The original concept of Union did, indeed, "perish from the earth." Sectionalism demanded a seperation of the states, greed kept them together against the will of one section.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samgrant
Had the Southern oligarchs accepted the prevailing view that slavery was an abomination and should not be perpetuated, they might have lived the lush life for several more years.
The "lush life" is a Yankee myth. Less than one half of one percent of the free population of the states that seceded (actually, closer to one quarter of one percent) owned 100 slaves or more. Even then plantations did not run themselves. The lush life you refer to was all but non-existant. It certainly wasn't common enough to have the entire South fighting to maintain it.
Regards,
Rose
__________________ "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names".--J.F.K.
The War Between the States established... This principle that the Federal Government is, through its courts, this final judge of its own powers.
-- Woodrow Wilson
If I may, Wild Rose has already pointed out, it takes TWO sides to have a war. Laying it all at the 'Union's' door is a bit simplistic, as it ignores the incredible chances the Southern leadership took by all of its acts of violence even before the firing on Ft. Sumter
Actually Neil, I was responding to Samgrant's statement, "The war was not 'fought over slavery' it was fought because of a rebellion of states which valued the institution of slavery above the concept of Union." I didn't infer that the South was blameless, but I am quite certain there would not have been a war if President Lincoln had not invaded Virginia, since the South had already peacefully withdrawn from the Union.
But I would be interested to hear why you think preservation of the Union was more important than the security of over 600,000 lives.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
