Amer. Civil War: Was It About Slavery or States' Rights?

During the Civil War (1861-1865), and even today, Americans are divided on what the reasons were for its causes. Many felt, of course, that it was about slavery but many others disagreed then and still do so today (Libertarians, for example). In those days, almost everyone in the Confederacy believed that the civil war was about states' rights and that the federal government had no business trying to tell the slave owning South how to run its business in anything, including slavery. And that the decision to maintain or abolish slavery was exclusively under the authority of the states.

What do you think the American Civil War was about? Please vote.

You can add your own reason in the poll.

Abraham Lincoln had no illusions about the reason for the Civil War. Many times, in many places, I've read his statement to the effect that his aim was that the union prevail, and if he could achieve this by freeing all the slaves, he'd do it; if he could achieve it by freeing none of them, he'd do it; and if he could achieve it by freeing some and not others, he'd do that. Which shows decisively that he had no concern for slavery or even for basic equality of treatment. So my vote is that the Civil War was about empire-building, which continues to this day.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:

During the Civil War (1861-1865), Americans were divided on what the reasons were for its causes. Many felt, of course, that it was about slavery but many others disagreed then and still do so today (Libertarians, for example). In those days, almost everyone in the Confederacy believed that the civil war was about states' rights and that the federal government had no business trying to tell the slave owning South how to run its business in anything, including slavery. And that the decision to maintain or abolish slavery was exclusively under the authority of the states.

What do you think the American Civil War was about? Please vote.

You can add your own reason in the poll.

---

Those two issues are not separate. Slavery was the basis of the economy in the slave states. To eliminate slavery was to destroy the economy of those states.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:

During the Civil War (1861-1865), Americans were divided on what the reasons were for its causes. Many felt, of course, that it was about slavery but many others disagreed then and still do so today (Libertarians, for example). In those days, almost everyone in the Confederacy believed that the civil war was about states' rights and that the federal government had no business trying to tell the slave owning South how to run its business in anything, including slavery. And that the decision to maintain or abolish slavery was exclusively under the authority of the states.

What do you think the American Civil War was about? Please vote.

You can add your own reason in the poll.

---

According to historian Doris Brin Walker, Lincoln wanted to free the slaves, but believed he had no constitutional right to do so. Later, during the later stages of the Civil War, he needed more troops, so he freed the slaves in those states which were in rebellion under his war powers.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by comodin:

Abraham Lincoln had no illusions about the reason for the Civil War. Many times, in many places, I've read his statement to the effect that his aim was that the union prevail, and if he could achieve this by freeing all the slaves, he'd do it; if he could achieve it by freeing none of them, he'd do it; and if he could achieve it by freeing some and not others, he'd do that. Which shows decisively that he had no concern for slavery or even for basic equality of treatment. So my vote is that the Civil War was about empire-building, which continues to this day.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by comodin:

. So my vote is that the Civil War was about empire-building, which continues to this day.

---

course it's not "choose one", it's "check every box that applies".

Lincoln wanted to preserve the union. The south wanted an economy based on slavery to persist. Neither is debatable. Bring in other reasons if you like, there are plenty. The above two are the clearest and had the most support. Lincoln did not go to war to free the slaves, true - but the south sure as hell went to war to keep them.

>>> Which shows decisively that he had no concern for slavery or even for basic equality of treatment. So my vote is that the Civil War was about empire-building, which continues to this day.

In his debates with Douglas and in many many writings, he expressed strong feelings against slavery. Enough, at least, that the South certainly believed him: his election started the war, after all, and it wasn't because they saw him as an "empire-builder." Had he proclaimed at the outset that he intended to end slavery, it was seen likely that border states that were essential to the Union would join the South — that's why the Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves only in the states that were in revolt, and it required later Congressional action after the war to free the rest.

I understand the desire to cut icons down to size, even spit on them, and sometimes I feel the same. But there's a vast difference between ideological purity and the necessary compromises of politics. The only ideological purists I know of have been the Hitlers and the Pol Pots. Politics in a democracy is a juggling act that'd challenge the Flying Karamazov Brothers: the sins of even our best Presidents would fill hefty volumes, and I doubt very much that America holds the record in that department. And then too, good things are done.

If holding the Union together was "empire-building," then I guess to that extent I'm in favor of empire-building. Bolivar's vision for a South America free of the Spanish was for a united South America: that failed him. The consequence was the subsequent history of oligarchies, tin-pot dictators, foreign exploitation and poverty. Some very eloquent people made the case for the Sovereign Rights of the People of South Carolina, etc., but in the long run I'm glad they lost. YMMV.

Cheers--
Conrad

Russell, in between the lines of what you are trying to say, I get the strong impression that you perceive President Lincoln as having been a "tyrant."

Am I wrong?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by comodin:

Abraham Lincoln had no illusions about the reason for the Civil War. Many times, in many places, I've read his statement to the effect that his aim was that the union prevail, and if he could achieve this by freeing all the slaves, he'd do it; if he could achieve it by freeing none of them, he'd do it; and if he could achieve it by freeing some and not others, he'd do that. Which shows decisively that he had no concern for slavery or even for basic equality of treatment. So my vote is that the Civil War was about empire-building, which continues to this day.

---

"These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

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."

(This from Confederate States of America succession statement picked up by each state)

There was no doubt Southern States wanted to preserve slavery. Yes Lincoln wanted to keep the Country together but if he didn't believe strongly that slavery was wrong, there would have been no Civil war. The history of slavery and abolitionism is well established. The Dred Scott decision, Harper's Ferry, history of both English and American abolitionism, creation of Mason-Dixon line are a few examples. Lincoln tried to get Southerners to quit the war in 1864 which lead to "Forty Acres and a Mule" for former slaves (rescinded after his assassination). Plenty of black people fought for the Union. The only 'division' after Ft. Sumner was North vs. South. The "States Rights" issue still goes on today and there is a reason why mostly Southern states have this as a battle cry.

Those who argue that the Civil War was about States' Rights, and not about slavery, ignore the passions and ferver of the anti-slavery movement and how deeply committed the abolitionists were. They were a single issue constituency. They were religiously motivated to the extent that they were willing to subvert both local and federal laws to further their cause. Over decades of movement building the feelings had become only more and more intense. No doubt other factors lead to the Civil War, including economic, sociological, and States' Rights had its place. But the driving force in terms of passionate and righteous commitment was found among the abolitionists.

I've always thought the Civil War was initially begun because of the argument over States' Rights, but that Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union. However, as the war dragged on and the North grew weary of it, Lincoln realized he needed an issue that would engage Northerners emotionally, hence the Emancipation Proclamation.

I've like this statement by Mick LaSalle, the SF Chronicle movie critic (believe it or not). I rarely agree with his reviews but I like what he said about the Civil War:

“The treatment of the Civil War in our popular culture has been fairly peculiar. For reasons that are understandable, the North has felt it necessary to act the way you do when you win an argument with your spouse: “No, honey, you weren’t completely wrong; you had a point.” After all, if you win completely, it’s always smart to make the other party feel as good as possible. And so our national culture has turned itself inside out ignoring that the Confederacy was a disgrace – that the leaders who brought it about were uncomfortably close to Nazis, willing to ruin the Earth’s last best hope for the sake of perpetuating an absolutely evil institution, which they not only wanted to maintain but also to extend all the way to the Pacific and into Central and South America. For all their noble cavalier posturing, they were greedy, cruel, power-driven and yet somehow convinced of their own superior honor and virtue, and they came closer to obliterating this great country than Adolf Hitler ever did in his wildest dreams.
“Honestly, I find it astounding that schoolchildren are still taught about the Civil War as though it were a misunderstanding between two equally worthy sides. Such misinformation helps to perpetuate and give sanction to much residual psychosis in American life.”
--Mick La Salle

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

course it's not "choose one", it's "check every box that applies".

Lincoln wanted to preserve the union. The south wanted an economy based on slavery to persist. Neither is debatable. Bring in other reasons if you like, there are plenty. The above two are the clearest and had the most support. Lincoln did not go to war to free the slaves, true - but the south sure as hell went to war to keep them.

---

(I have edited this post several times. Please re-read)

The States' Rights argument used by the Confederacy was legally incorrect. And it was morally wrong as well.

The Constitution never limited the Federal government's powers on the issue of slavery, as Southerners insisted back then and still continue to argue today. Libertarians, many Republicans, KKK members, Nazis, racists, and many other crackpots today insist that the Constitution protected the states' rights to exclusively decide the legality or abolition of slavery. This is a HUGE lie.

Up until today, the old Confederate argument of Federal government overreach and "intrusion" into states' authority has been and still is used to defend grossly unjust policies on voting rights for Afro-Americans, the marriage of people from different races (Loving v. Virginia), gay marriage, terminating employees and evicting tenants based solely on their status, etc, etc, etc.

The United States has always suffered from a long, pathetic, and tragic history of bigotry, racism, discrimination, sexism and repression in many topics, and all of this filthy and shameless conduct is protected by the completely false rhetoric of states' rights; it has been nothing but a destructive force in US history since its inception in 1776.

The Libertarian Party, the majority of the Republican Party, and many other groups and individuals continue to delude themselves and others with the logic that they can deny fundamental human rights to anyone and any group. And to justify corporations' "rights" to destroy the environment, not pay taxes, ruin the economy, and to do whatever they please no matter how much damage and devastation they cause socially, economically, and politically. The South today, as a whole, is still in the economic backwaters of the nation with the exception of Florida and Texas. They are too proud to learn and grow up and become civilized.

The true masters in our society, the business community and the wealthy (Koch bros., Hobby Lobby, and many, many other entities and individuals) use the Libertarian Party, the Tea Party, and other stooges, to further their interests. By exploiting racist, sexist, regionalist, tribalist, jingoist, states' rights and other attitudes, private power is able to significantly bolster its political success for every public office, including the presidency.

The Two Biggest Lies of the "States' Rights" Argument:

A couple of the biggest lies regarding states' rights is that the states are the greatest expression of: 1) Liberty, and 2) Democracy. Nothing could be further from the truth. The idea that arbitrary jurisdictions (state boundaries and state governments) for some magical reasons (historical? slavery? linguistic?) provide greater personal and social freedom and democracy is totally baseless and untrue.

If anyone wants to make an argument in favor of decentralized democracy and self administration, then there would be far more success if citizens at the local level (cities, townships, and counties) participated directly in their own government. State governments, contrarily, are centralized, unitarian organizations of government that overrule local governments. Hence, this is the thoroughly contradictory and enormous deception about supposed democracy and self-rule based on state jurisdictions, as opposed to people taking part directly in the administration of their own municipal and county governments (or potentially even smaller jurisdictions).

But yet another colossal hole in the dream of absolute democracy and liberty is the complete lack of guarantee of human rights at the local community level. What if a neighborhood or city or county (besides the state) vote democratically to exclude black people, homosexuals, Jews, Muslims, Pagans, atheists, women, gypsies, handicapped, etc, from any aspect of participating and benefitting equally in society??? Quite frankly, if you are a minority in one of these pipe dream "democracies" that are supposed to be full of freedom and individual liberty, then you are totally fucked! And it's necessary to observe the gargantuan contradiction that the democratic rights and freedoms are stripped away from minorities. Consequently, the principle of states' rights and local-government-rule contradicts itself entirely.

There have to be limitations, protections, and guarantees to people's rights, freedoms, and democracy. Guarantees and protections of fundamental human rights and equal protection under law must and will be at the national level, not left to the retrograde whims and ignorance of a local rural population of 300 or even a community of 3 million. A dictatorship of the majority is not democracy at all, it is a tyrannical state of affairs, nothing more. Don't fall for the lie of states' rights.

I am skeptical of the idea that individual rights are safer at the federal level than they are at the state or even local level. I would have to see that demonstrated rather than simply stated. The article is articulate about how a smaller unit of governance can be oppressive -- that is true. But I don't see that it makes a case that a larger unit of government is, somehow, inclined to be more attentive to individual rights. For example, there are instances in history where national polities elected individuals and groups hostile to those rights. And when that happens at the national level there is little that the local governing units can do to oppose it.

The argument for stronger local units (such as states or even lesser units, such as counties) is that even if a tyranny comes into office at a local level, its negative effects remain relatively confined to the local level, rather than becoming national policy. And, in addition, experimenting with policies at the local level gives other communities a chance to observe how the new policy works. A good example of this kind of evolution is gay marriage. Because it has been enacted on a state by state basis (for the most part), people could see that civilization did not collapse when gay marriage was allowed. This is what has allowed gay marriage to move forward with the prospect of a national pro-gay marriage policy coming fairly soon. It is an example of a local to national transformation.

Reformers often want instant and total change. I get it; I feel that way myself at times. But perhaps a more local, region by region, state by state, approach is, in the long run, more secure. I am not stating this as an absolute principle -- there will be occasions when things need to be resolved at the national level. But I wonder if that should be the default position? Again, in the long run, a bottom-up change will, I suspect, have a better chance of lasting into the future.

Although it may seem contradictory because of my previous post, I strongly believe in decentralized democracy and direct participation on the part of ALL citizens in their own local governments.

What I do NOT believe in is the local populations making decisions over fundamental human rights. That needs to be served and protected by the Constitution, the courts, and the federal government. That is where the rub is.

If it was up to me, I would eliminate the federal system of government and the states and replace it with a unitary system, as it is with almost all other countries around the world, except for Russia, Germany (whose constitution was written by Americans after occupying it when WWII ended), and just a few others. Federalism is a lousy system of government. The supposed advantage is administrative because countries with large territories are difficult to manage. That is why the Roman Empire was split into Western and Eastern jurisdictions. But other countries, such as our closest ally, the UK, and France, Italy, Poland, China, Japan, and almost all other nations around the world have unitary systems of govt.

The states are the stubborn problem and have been in all issues ever since the foundation of the United States of America. It's time for a new constitution to be written. The current one is obsolete and over two centuries old. We are overdue for big change, a major institutional reform on many levels of our society.

Our nation, nor any other, can allow for fundamental human rights to be left to local populations. Period. Almost everything else can be taken care of by people participating directly in their local governments and running things the way they know best because they are the ones who live and work there.

The national, unitary government will still have enormous responsibilities and budgets to take care of, such as large public works that local governments and private enterprises cannot afford to construct or cannot receive a profit from. The military must be a national organization, as it is now (technically, the armed forces are supposed to be, to some measure, an affair of the states as well but whatever application this has had, has been ignored out of practical need). The coinage of the nation can be only one coinage and under strict control, as it is now, by the national government. So on, and so on, and so on.

The death penalty should be abolished but if we still are going to continue this barbaric practice then it should be shifted to the national government because it touches upon fundamental human rights. And I argue that our current constitution prohibits the death penalty because of the clause of "cruel and unusual punishment" clause.

And I disagree with your arguments about a tyrannical federal government. It just is not true. Name the historical events, please. There are few, yes, such as the concentration camps for Japanese American citizens during WWII, COINTELPRO, etc. And some others? Remember that even today there are Southerners who refer to the Civil War as the War of Northern Aggression, which is based on the popular fallacy of the national/federal government becoming a dictatorship. Please look at how our 239 year history has disproven your assertions. Most of your concerns are based on ideological myths about a despotic central government, which go all the way back to the framers of our Constitution. History has not only proven them wrong but also has demonstrated that the faith that people like Thomas Jefferson put in his utopic dreamworld of small agrarian farmers and strong state governments is completely mistaken.

Just count the enormous number of events that have taken place in our country for the last 239 years, which have repeatedly shaped and redefined the USA, its people, its politics, and more. The Civil Rights movement, Jim Crow laws, Separate But Equal, slavery, women's right to vote, gay marriage, and the list goes on. On all of these counts, the philosophy of states' rights has failed miserably and shamefully. Because of slavery, the federal government (after Southern forces threw the first punch by shelling Fort Sumter) had to go down south and kick some Confederate ass, all of them loud mouthing about states' rights--that is the real tyranny!

Open up your eyes to reality and history and realize that the states' rights myth is just that and has been debunked time and again and continues to be to this day and onward. It's time to let go of dogma, because that is all what the states' rights theory is about. The fanaticism of states' rights is just like a religion; there is nothing to back it up and people put their faith in it simply because they want to and because that is what they were taught.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Jim Wilson:

I am skeptical of the idea that individual rights are safer at the federal level than they are at the state or even local level. I would have to see that demonstrated rather than simply stated. The article is articulate about how a smaller unit of governance can be oppressive -- that is true. But ...

---

Good Morning:

I want to express caution regarding a new constitution. I can't see any reason why, given the electoral profile of our country today, a new constitution would be superior to the one that we have at the moment. Even if I agree with your view of a unitary system, is there any reason to think that the structure of a new constitution would result in effective reform along the lines you have outlined? My feeling is that, again given the electoral profile of the U.S. at this time, it wouldn't.

The negative effects of federal reform are notable in the experiment in prohibition; a constitutional amendment was passed prohibiting the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages. It lasted about a decade. Then the amendment was repealed. The negative effects of prohibition were immediate and pervasive; and we are still living with some of those consequences as organized crime built a strong foundation during the prohibition era.

It is noteworthy, I think, that many of the advocates for prohibition were progressives. Some of them moved seamlessly from the women's suffrage movement into the temperance cause. The thing which has been forgotten is that many women viewed the sale of alcoholic beverages as damaging to the family, the cause of domestic violence, and a contributor to many social evils such as impoverishment. It was on this basis that the movement for a top-down reform was successful.

The experience with prohibition should, I think, make us cautious about the idea of federal reform as a solution to social problems. With prohibition repealed, each state now has its own laws controlling alcoholic beverage sales. And this diversity of approaches works far better than the uniform approach imposed through prohibition.

Good afternoon
;-)

I basically agree with you that "I can't see any reason why, given the electoral profile of our country today, a new constitution would be superior to the one that we have at the moment." That is probably the case.

Drafting a new constitution would invite millions of Americans who are very religious to want to copy/paste entire passages from the bible into the new Magna Carta. That is an example of what you are talking about, right? I agree with you.

The U.S. needs a new constitution but it may not be practical today because we could end up with a worse one written by the Koch Bros. on the one hand and then the Religious Right on the other hand. I get it.

I share the same fears and concerns as you do. But then when will the proper time ever arrive? I'm not saying that we should start working right away on a new constitution but I am saying that we should at least talk about it. And who knows, if it turns out that it does behoove us to create a new law of the land, then the only way to know it is by having a discussion. Or we might find that we have to leave it for a few years or a few decades or never. Perhaps our political institutions are too obsolete to handle the change?

You see, our Constitution is a really, really old piece of paper and it has not kept up; it has almost always lagged far behind what the American people need. It was ratified in 1788 (replacing the original Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, ratified 1781, because it was too weak). It is an old document and the fact that it is outdated has caused a lot of serious political and social problems in our country, almost since it was written. In fact, the first ten amendments, aka "The Bill of Rights," were added (essentially by Thomas Jefferson) not long after ratification because the first draft was poorly written.

Our Constitution is beyond a work in progress, despite its insufficient 27 amendments; it is obsolete and must be replaced entirely. When is this going to happen?

Can we afford to sustain the consequences of an expired Constitution, poorly written, too short and vague, with a large number of textual conflicts, contradictions, and unsolvable tensions? It is a trade off: with which path will we suffer more? Keeping that old rag with rare and deficient amendments? Or Initiating a process of reform? The answer does not come easy but it does to most people because they would rather leave things as they are.

Another consideration is that with the required 3/4 of the states approval in order to ratify an amendment, then it would not be a "top-down" reform from the federal government. A constitutional amendment has two avenues for modifying the Constitution, and the bottom-up approach I just mentioned above is only one of them. But I don't know for sure if this is the same approach legally required for a completely new contract for our democracy.

Additionally, the idea of forming a unitary system of government does not necessarily have to be a part of the new compact. There are SO MANY reforms that are essential, that with just a dozen or so in how we run our political business in America would produce the quantum leap our society and its people desperately require.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Jim Wilson:

I want to express caution regarding a new constitution. I can't see any reason why, given the electoral profile of our country today, a new constitution would be superior to the one that we have at the moment. ...

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcy7qV-BGF4

Was the Civil War About Slavery?
Prager University, August 10, 2015

What caused the Civil War? Did the North care about abolishing slavery? Did the South secede because of slavery? Or was it about something else entirely...perhaps states' rights? Colonel Ty Seidule, Professor of History at the United States Military Academy at West Point, settles the debate.

Hi All,

I haven't been following this, but thought y'all might appreciate adding this to the mix.

If memory serves me, the original Articles of Confederation were based on the Iriquois Confederacy's Great Law of Peace, which united tribes (gave our "founders" the idea of uniting the states) and provided the united tribes of the Iriquois Confederacy with 100 years of Peace. (Think of some of words and symbols that relate to Native American culture: Eagles & arrows on our money, we have "Chiefs" of all sorts also,including Police chiefs.)

When the "founders" showed it to the Iriquois, the Iriquois said something like, "Well it looks pretty good, but you've left out your women". The earlyAmerican female suffragists were also inspired and got many ideas from Native American's ways.

I did quite a bit of research about this more than 10 years ago. I remember seeing a book in SoCo Library that has the Great Law of Peace, and on 99% of the pages the women were included--no kidding!

It is a beautiful spiritually deep wisdom story, as to how the Great Law came to be,emerging from a grieving man's journey. I encourage y'all to research if you're interested.

With Kindness, dusty w (aka on WACCOas Gaiasophia)

Part 1:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY9zHNOjGrs

Part 2:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzTrKccmj_I