What Was the Main Cause of the Civil War? (poll)

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

What Was the Main Cause of the Civil War?

  • Mainly About States' Rights

    Votes: 31 19.5%
  • Mainly About Slavery

    Votes: 95 59.7%
  • Both Equally

    Votes: 31 19.5%
  • Don't Know

    Votes: 2 1.3%

  • Total voters
    159

thomas aagaard

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Location
Denmark
Sir,
Well then, we will have to agree to disagree.
If you do not mind posting your supporting sources we might have an intelligent exchange of ideas.
I am not here to discuss nor defend the morality of slavery, you have the wrong cocklebur for that, although I do not think it is right.
Robert
The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 should be common knowledge to anyone studying the civil war.
A federal law that overrode state laws and state rights... and to an extreme extent violated the rights of the citizens in the free states.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Joined
Feb 9, 2018
"States' rights" to do what? Protect and promote the institution of slavery.
Yes, the protection of state's rights would indeed safeguard slavery as it is, but given that all rights not exclusively given to the central government go to the state, it would protect all manner of rights. I am going to assume, though do not quote me on this, that the right of rebellion, which effectively founded America (or the U.S.A.), would have been granted to the state. I am not going to go into the Constitutionality of secession or rebellion, but if I am not mistaken, the right of an individual state to decide whether or not to rebel lies within the decision of it's people, who according to philosopher John Locke, have the obligation to rebel against a government that they view as tyrannical or unjust. Now these fundamental ideas would be, assumingly, defended under the Constitution as a state's right, as this power is not granted to the central government of the U.S.A. Yes slavery would have been defended, but also many principles that America was founded upon.
 

39th MS. Rebel

Private
Joined
Jan 23, 2019
Location
Belden, MS.
The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 should be common knowledge to anyone studying the civil war.
A federal law that overrode state laws and state rights... and to an extreme extent violated the rights of the citizens in the free states.
Sir,
Your condescending replies to my knowledge on American history precludes a meaningful, intelligent discussion or exchanges with you.
I simply asked you to post your resources in particular to your comment.
If you are not willing, unable, or just choose not to do so without disrespect as I have given you then our conversation has ended.
Robert
 

thomas aagaard

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Location
Denmark
Iam not questioning you knowledge, but your expectation of sources being used about something that should be common knowledge.
(for someone who study the civil war... not the general population)
That said, I should have been clear in my original post, that it was the fugitive slave laws I was talking about.


The south loved the Federal government, when it did their bidding. Like when it supported their was against mexico and the annexation of Texas. And when they got the mentioned laws.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

39th MS. Rebel

Private
Joined
Jan 23, 2019
Location
Belden, MS.
I accept your explanation.
My acceptance of your explanation does not mean I accept insinuations nor disrespect from anyone.
I believe it is reasonable to ask for sources to better determine on what particular grounds a poster is making on
a counter quote and reply to me.
It allows me to give an accurate, meaningful, thoughtful response.
Robert
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Iam not questioning you knowledge, but your expectation of sources being used about something that should be common knowledge.
(for someone who study the civil war... not the general population)
That said, I should have been clear in my original post, that it was the fugitive slave laws I was talking about.


The south loved the Federal government, when it did their bidding. Like when it supported their was against mexico and the annexation of Texas. And when they got the mentioned laws.
Also when the Federal government attempted to purchase Cuba has a slave state from Spain.
Leftyhunter
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Carronade

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 4, 2011
Location
Pennsylvania
I am not saying that slavery had nothing to do with the cause of the war, but consider this. If you claim that it was solely about slavery, then considering the Corwin Amendment, which was proposed before the war broke out. It was approved and ratified by the House AND the Senate unanimously. It effectively would have protected slavery and ended any Federal attempts to end the institution. Now if this was so, why didn't the South simply decide to remain in Union and ratify the Amendment? It is because the war was not, nor ever was, about slavery.
The Corwin Amendment protected slavery in the existing slave states, but it did not preclude the federal government from preventing the expansion of slavery into the territories or the formation and admission of new slave states.

Expansion of slavery had been the key issue in the debates and compromises from 1820 onward.

It is revealing that protection of slavery was the only action Congress considered it necessary to offer the southern states. The people who actually lived through the secession crisis knew what it was about.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

wausaubob

Major
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
https://civilwartalk.com/threads/economic-aspects-of-southern-sectionalism-1840-1861-russel.153645/page-2#post-1977424
@jgoodguy started the thread mentioned.
While the paid labor states suddenly increased their population, and laid foundation for further rapid growth with a sound railroad industry, a new over production crisis was looming over the south.
It was the cotton economy that panicked under these stresses. The non cotton producing parts of the slave labor states had more diversified interests and were not as subject to secession rhetoric. The conservative pro business former Whigs were conservative about secession. Had there been more of those types of people, secession would have had more trouble in Tennessee and other places.
If they had seen US prosperity as good for cotton demand, they would have been more conservative.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

WJC

Major General
Judge Adv. Genl.
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
given that all rights not exclusively given to the central government go to the state, it would protect all manner of rights.
Thanks for your response.
From their contemporary speeches, letters and documents, it is clear that the single most important 'States' Right' that the secessionists wanted to protect was the 'right' to own slaves. They argued- rightly- that whether to allow slavery was a decision left to the States. They saw it threatened by possible Federal action. It was only following their defeat that they began using the term to mean anything other than the right to own slaves: the ambiguous term 'States' Rights' served them well for a hundred years.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top