Main cause of the Civil War

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Joined
Jul 4, 2008
Location
Arlington
there are many reasons that people have come up with to think how the civil war had started. the two main reasons are slavary and preserve the union.

the main cause is that Congress passed a law that said to start the war to preserve the Union. Slavary was never mentioned.
along with the war, Lincoln came up to free the slaves with the Emancipation Proclamtion. this changed the course of thw whole war.
your thoughts please?
 

Scribe

Cadet
Joined
May 9, 2008
Location
St. Louis, Mo
there are many reasons that people have come up with to think how the civil war had started. the two main reasons are slavary and preserve the union.

the main cause is that Congress passed a law that said to start the war to preserve the Union.
I'm not familiar with that legislation. Could you quote it or cite it for me?


Slavary was never mentioned.
along with the war, Lincoln came up to free the slaves with the Emancipation Proclamtion. this changed the course of thw whole war.
your thoughts please?
The problem with that is that the Union did not start the war. The slave south started the war with secession, and the slave south seceded in order to preserve and protect slavery.
 
Joined
Jul 4, 2008
Location
Arlington
The problem with that is that the Union did not start the war. The slave south started the war with secession, and the slave south seceded in order to preserve and protect slavery.[/quote]

yes i agree. the south did start the war with secession. they indeed wanted to protect slavary, i agree. but what in the Union view? i've read about the law, but i forgot what book. i'll go back and check.
but what did the union want to do? perserve the union. yes, some people think that slavary is the main reason. but it was to perseve the union.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Beowulf

Banned
Joined
Jan 24, 2008
Location
Virginia
Jefferson Davis answers this question nicely in Chapter X of THE RISE AND FALL OF THE CONFEDERATE GOVERNMENT; (Project Gutenberg on line for free).

He states that the original United States was being threatened, and the South wished to go on living as it had lived...

The election of the country's first sectionally Northern Left Wing president, who, as Davis says, claimed the country could not exist as half slave and half free meant that the country could not continue to exist under the circumstances under which it had been formed...

He also explains how the federal government never had any right to interfere with slavery, at all, and how the denial of slave property in the territories would devalue Southern slaves still in the South to such a degree that many in the South would be bankrupted...

Three replies and the responder swings into his favorite diatribe. Off topic comments editited out. Heeee's baaaack. ole

Very good. You left Davis. Could I but ask for anything more? :wink:

Beowulf
 

M E Wolf

Colonel
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 9, 2008
Location
Virginia
Dear Captain Steinhaur,

From what I have found thus far, by reading the Official Records of the Rebellion and other documents, participants of the Civil War; the struggle of States Rights had been an issue in President James Buchanan's administration and those prior presidents. The issue of self government on the state/commonwealth level and the Federal Governmental powers; was a tug-of-war.

However, those in the southern states, impatient -- put into motion the wheels to secession; yet--the 'Cotton States' had not exhausted the judicial or legislative branch as to cause a remedy; which would develop into the 14 and 15th Ammendment of the Constitution after the conclusion of the Civil War. Although the legal test had been available to argue before the US Surpreme Court and the US Government, e.g. Legislature; e.g. the peaceful secession of Alexandria County from the Federal City, which had been annexed as to create the 10 mile square of the proposed Federal City; back to Fairfax and Alexandria; to which would become "Arlington County."

The secession of southern states was well timed as to fall in between the terms of President Buchanan and President Lincoln. Being charged with the duties and responsibilities of the US Constitution; Buchanan was too frail to do anything and some of his cabniet were setting in motion the ability to secession by theft of funds and property of the US Government. By time Lincoln came to power; his cabniet sworn in; the secession had a huge head start. Ft. Sumter had already been an issue.
The Confederacy had taken off with passionate fever; the call to arms and such took on a life of its own, due to impatience.

President Lincoln having sworn to defend the Nation against enemies foreign or domestic; the Confederacy as well as actions that were criminal from the beginning; did not leave Lincoln much choice--as his office charged him with the duty to Defend the Nation--all of it; not just some of it. To preserve the Union was the vehicle as to defend it as well.

Lincoln had no commitment to the slavery issue in his early terms. However, the course of the war changed the attitude about slavery; to which economic issues were tied to such. With human dignity as an issue as well as human rights; it was difficult to argue for the lack of human rights of the institution of slavery. With state's rights, it was also difficult to argue the lack of state's rights at the expense of the other state's rights. The equality of all states was what I am seeing Lincoln had in mind as to enforce; to which allowed all states to be equal in standing in the eyes of the Federal Government; regardless of their economic status.

Just some thoughts.

Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf
 

Hanny

Banned
Joined
Jul 20, 2006
there are many reasons that people have come up with to think how the civil war had started. the two main reasons are slavary and preserve the union.[/;quote]

slavery, niether side went to war over slavery, one side to win, had to end it militarily as it was preventing them winning the mil conflict.

Preservation of the Union, no where in the constition is POTUS authorised to preserve the Union, POTUS existed to uphold the law, and there was no law to prevent secesion.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

ole

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Near Kankakee
Do we have a scratched record here? There is no room in this thread to discuss the legality of secession. You want to reopen that one, go for it.

ole
 

OldGreyWolf

Banned
Joined
May 8, 2008
Location
Staunton, Virginia
....the main cause is that Congress passed a law that said to start the war to preserve the Union.
I recon the main cause of the American Civil War had to do with Greed. Plain and Simple.

We had it and they wanted it and they weren't opposed to doing anything to get it.

Real Estate, Natural Resources, Human Resources, Personal Property, Goods and Services. Everything that wasn't nailed down and could be carted off to ..... Freedom.
 

Hanny

Banned
Joined
Jul 20, 2006
Do we have a scratched record here?
No, we have questions asked and answers given, if you dont like those answers, pull the question before it gets answers.


There is no room in this thread to discuss the legality of secession. You want to reopen that one, go for it.

ole
since the right of secesion was the most single important reason for the conflict,( 5 states voted to secede in the event of a republican party win in 56, called up there militia, andnonly didnt ratify because freemont lost) id be suprised any discusion based on the cause of the WBTS should be excluded.

Cause of the war, a political party that treated that right as treason and unconstitional, the first party to do so in US history.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Hanny

Banned
Joined
Jul 20, 2006
President Lincoln having sworn to defend the Nation against enemies foreign or domestic; the Confederacy as well as actions that were criminal from the beginning; did not leave Lincoln much choice--as his office charged him with the duty to Defend the Nation--all of it; not just some of it. To preserve the Union was the vehicle as to defend it as well.


Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf
Clairification, the words and domestic were added by the republican party to the loyalty oath in 61, just after West point cadets and facilty resigned and went with their states who had a primal claim on their loyalty and fealty, no CS or civilian had ever taken an oath that included the phrase " and domestic", this new loyaty oath forced onto citizens, or punished by death by certain circamstances, and 10% of any state that took the oath was recognised as the legal body representing that state) was part of how the right of secesion was ended by makeing individuals subject to punishment, and ending the primal claim of states on its citizens by makeing all citizens of the Union.

Lincoln was upholding Republican party views, not any oath of office as it existed, except the one he replaced with republican party doctrine that included the words "and domestic", when it was pointed out that resigning and following your state was not against any law or oath by mil or civilain or federal apointed officials.
 

Baggage Handler #2

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
May 6, 2008
Location
Old Northwest Territory
I recall reading a message from president Buchanan to the governor of South Carolina, circa December 1860, stating that if Sumter were fired on it would be considered an act of war and he would have little choice in his actions afterwards.

I believe that is the substance of it, and will try to look it up later.

Anyway, I guess he (Buchanan) wasn't believed. There was precedent: the last guy before that to assault a government military facility swung for it.
 

Hanny

Banned
Joined
Jul 20, 2006
Cadets from the citadel had already fired on a US flkaged ship, and the USA AG in his written legal opion told POTUS he had no authority to act to prevent secesion.

yes J Brown was hung for inciting servile insurection, under exactly the same legilation, the EP carries the same penalty.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

ole

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Near Kankakee
No, we have questions asked and answers given, if you dont like those answers, pull the question before it gets answers.
The topic introduced essentially asked for a discussion on the "Main Cause of the Civil War." What's to pull? Secession was clearly a benchmark challenge and a prime cause. The legality of secession was not.
since the right of secesion was the most single important reason for the conflict,( 5 states voted to secede in the event of a republican party win in 56, called up there militia, and only didnt ratify because freemont lost) id be suprised any discusion based on the cause of the WBTS should be excluded.
If you want to argue that secession was the/a Main Cause, have at it, but its legality can only spin the thread off its topic. In effect, I'm pulling the question before it gets answers.
Cause of the war, a political party that treated that right as treason and unconstitional, the first party to do so in US history.
It was a government that disagreed with secession as a right. It was this disagreement that contributed to the onset of the war -- not the legality argument which is a beloved after-the-fact discussion topic which we will not get into on this thread.

ole
 

ole

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Near Kankakee
Cadets from the citadel had already fired on a US flkaged ship, and the USA AG in his written legal opion told POTUS he had no authority to act to prevent secesion.
Firing on the "Star of the West" was done during Buchanan's presidency. 'Nuff said. The AG, in his written legal opinion, advised Buchanan that secession was illegal, but the Constitution did not give the president the power to do something about it.
yes J Brown was hung for inciting servile insurection, under exactly the same legilation, the EP carries the same penalty.
By a Virginia court under Virginia law, very little of which directly applies to the subject of the thread.

ole
 

Beowulf

Banned
Joined
Jan 24, 2008
Location
Virginia
I recon the main cause of the American Civil War had to do with Greed. Plain and Simple.

We had it and they wanted it and they weren't opposed to doing anything to get it.

Real Estate, Natural Resources, Human Resources, Personal Property, Goods and Services. Everything that wasn't nailed down and could be carted off to ..... Freedom.
Jefferson Davis, again...

Aggrandizement and usurpation...

"And you have been involved in a war - waged - for the lust of power, and aggrandizement, for your subjugation, with a malignant ferocity, and utter contempt of the usages of civilization entirely unequalled in history"...

(Join with us now) "... and you will enjoy an amount of prosperity you could not obtain connected at the hand of the yankee nation of extortioners'...

... "every crime which could characterize the course of demons has marked the course of the invader..."

We just can't say it like he can!

Beowulf
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Beowulf

Banned
Joined
Jan 24, 2008
Location
Virginia
Firing on the "Star of the West" was done during Buchanan's presidency. 'Nuff said. The AG, in his written legal opinion, advised Buchanan that secession was illegal, but the Constitution did not give the president the power to do something about it.By a Virginia court under Virginia law, very little of which directly applies to the subject of the thread.

ole
Come on, Ole! Don't play dumb. You known very good and well the difference between ILLEGAL and EXTRA-LEGAL.

EXTRA-LEGAL is what Lincoln tried to drive so far into the ground that he buried it... along with himself.

EXTRA-LEGAL was SECESSION. Yankees taking offense does not justify either trespass at Sumter or the war in Manassas.

YANKEES CAN'T MAKE THINGS ILLEGAL BY BECOMING OFFENDED AT THE EXTRA-LEGAL.

And yankees can't justify the ILLEGAL with claims of
'war powers' extra-legality.

No wonder the rest of the world looks at us as if we don't have good sense.

Beowulf
 

OpnDownfall

Cadet
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Capt Steinhaur, the north did no start the war. After the attack on Ft. Sumter, the north found itself faced with an armed insurrection too powerful for the normal constituted authorities to control.
The only war aim was the restoration of Constitutional authority in area's in active rebellion against that authority.
It was evident from the very first, that since the confederacy was actively rebelling against the Constituted authority of the President and Congress and laws of the land, in order to protect the institution of chattle slavery. Then it follows that One of the means of combatting the rebellion is the elimination of The cause of the rebellion in the first place.
It was obvious from the words and actions of the southern leadership and those who followed them, that there could be no peaceful Union as long as slavery existed. So to win the war And the Peace, Emancipation was a major war goal in the effort in winning the war.
 

Beowulf

Banned
Joined
Jan 24, 2008
Location
Virginia
Capt Steinhaur, the north did no start the war. After the attack on Ft. Sumter, the north found itself faced with an armed insurrection too powerful for the normal constituted authorities to control.

That is a lie from the pits of you know where...



The only war aim was the restoration of Constitutional authority in area's in active rebellion against that authority.


No, it was to force states back into an involuntary 'Union'. Most empires call it that it is... conquest.




It was evident from the very first, that since the confederacy was actively rebelling against the Constituted authority of the President and Congress and laws of the land, in order to protect the institution of chattle slavery.

What Constituted Authority? Putting down a 'Rebellion'?
That is a power that is requested by the states. sir. Which of the Seceding states asked for Federal aid in overcoming this 'revolting' Confederacy? Which of the Unionist Cotton Whigs asked for this help? Who were they?
Which governors? Come on... back this stuff up.

Defending Charleston Harbor from a violation of an existing Armistice not to reinforce Sumter?


Defending chattel slavery IS CONSTITUTIONAL, in case you forgot in your modern-day bleeding heart history classes... And it would have been a good excuse if the South had ever indeed attacked Washington City outright, in order to over-throw this tyrant on the throne... which no one in the peacefully-seceded South was about to do, at the time those lies were told in the North, to the gullible yankee publick!



Then it follows that One of the means of combatting the rebellion is the elimination of The cause of the rebellion in the first place.


No, it doesn't. Your president does not have the power specifically granted. Fort Sumter is not a state in the Union, and to defend it is an act of conquest in violation of the armistice. Had South Carolina's Unionists officially asked the Federal government for help in rejoining the Union, there MIGHT have been a legal argument, though it would even then have taken careful wording... and it would still be seen as the Federal government assisting in the overthrow of an established state government. But Sumter would still have been an act of war on the part of Lincoln, until the armistice was lifted... officially.


It was obvious from the words and actions of the southern leadership and those who followed them, that there could be no peaceful Union as long as slavery existed.


No, there could be no peaceful Union so long as Southern property rights were denied, and Southern property in slaves devalued through Federal meddling where they have no business. This sectional nobody in the white house is trying to set up an empire of collectivists at the expense of his life-long political rivals.



So to win the war And the Peace, Emancipation was a major war goal in the effort in winning the war.

The Emancipation Proclamation was two fold; Insurrection of the slaves and Insurrection of the Southern Left Wing Unionists. It failed on both counts. Seems neither the Negroes nor the Southern left trusted this coup which had taken over the old Union... And obviously, with good cause



BEOWULF
*******************************
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

ole

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Near Kankakee
Beowulf:
Did I or did I not just say that the legality of secession would not be discussed on this thread?

ole
 

ole

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Near Kankakee
Come on... back this stuff up.
The prince of hyperbole quoting the internationally recognized historian, Jefferson Davis, has the nerve to demand back up?

ole
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top