Author Topic: Why the War was fought  (Read 8190 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ga.windbreak

  • Trade Count: (22)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 846
  • Gender: Male
Why the War was fought
« on: June 11, 2008, 07:28:53 AM »
In all the years of study of why we pulled out of the union I never once really thought thru the Claim of Slavery being the main issue/reason for seperating ourselves from the USA. Reading the following:

 http://www.plpow.com/WhyTheWarWasStarted.htm

the answer to the slavery question was there but it was buried in plain sight.

Quote
So when the 1860 election-returns came in, it turned out that the Republicans had won the White House, and substantial majorities in the House and the Senate. When that message sank in, Southern states began seceding from the Union--beginning with South Carolina on 20 December 1860.

Several of them said that the main issue was the protection of slavery, but that was strictly for local consumption by people who did their thinking solely in terms of simple slogans. The Southern legislators could do their math; thus they knew full well that the only truly-safe way to protect the institution of slavery would be for the Southern states to remain in the Union and simply refuse to ratify any proposed constitutional-amendment to emancipate the slaves. For slavery was specifically protected by the Constitution, and that protection could be removed only by an amendment ratified by three-quarters of the states. In 1860 there were 15 slave states and 18 free states. Had the number of slave states remained constant, 27 more free states would have had to be admitted into the Union--for a total of 60 states--before an abolition amendment could be ratified. That was not likely to occur anytime soon. But with the Southern states seceding, the issue of slavery could then be settled by force of arms at any time.

The whole article is a wonderful read, enjoy.
"Men do not differ about what
Things they will call evils;
They differ enormously about what evils
They will call excusable." - G.K. Chesterton

"It starts when you begin to overlook bad manners. Anytime you quit hearing "sir" and "ma'am", the end is pretty much in sight."-Tommy Lee Jones in No Country for Old Men

Private John Walker Roberts CSA 19th Battalion Georgia Cavalry - Loyalty is a most precious trait - RIP

Offline Ga.windbreak

  • Trade Count: (22)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 846
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why the War was fought
« Reply #1 on: June 11, 2008, 08:46:17 PM »
Allowing for the fact that slavery was legal in the US in 1860 and had been going on in the Americas since the 1600's. Lincoln was still trying to hold on to the Southern states by whatever means he could he offered a 13th amendment to the Congress right after taking office that would make it impossible for any new amendment to change the fact that Slavery was the law of the land. It is, in Fact, the ONLY amendment ever signed by a President of these United States.

The missing 13th:

http://www.w3f.com/patriots/13/13th-13.html

Quote
Later in 1861, another proposed amendment, also numbered thirteen, was signed by President Lincoln. This was the only proposed amendment that was ever signed by a president. That resolve to amend read: "ARTICLE THIRTEEN, No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." (In other words, President Lincoln had signed a resolve that would have permitted slavery, and upheld states' rights.) Only one State, Illinois, ratified this proposed amendment before the Civil War broke out in 1861.
"Men do not differ about what
Things they will call evils;
They differ enormously about what evils
They will call excusable." - G.K. Chesterton

"It starts when you begin to overlook bad manners. Anytime you quit hearing "sir" and "ma'am", the end is pretty much in sight."-Tommy Lee Jones in No Country for Old Men

Private John Walker Roberts CSA 19th Battalion Georgia Cavalry - Loyalty is a most precious trait - RIP

Offline Ga.windbreak

  • Trade Count: (22)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 846
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why the War was fought
« Reply #2 on: June 12, 2008, 03:36:03 PM »
ironfoot here is something else to chew on plus the real reason the South pulled out. When the republicans took over both houses of congress after they and Lincoln took office was to raise the3 Tarrif from 18.8% to 40%.
 
THATS the reason we pulled out. No more No less!!
"Men do not differ about what
Things they will call evils;
They differ enormously about what evils
They will call excusable." - G.K. Chesterton

"It starts when you begin to overlook bad manners. Anytime you quit hearing "sir" and "ma'am", the end is pretty much in sight."-Tommy Lee Jones in No Country for Old Men

Private John Walker Roberts CSA 19th Battalion Georgia Cavalry - Loyalty is a most precious trait - RIP

Offline ironfoot

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 547
Re: Why the War was fought
« Reply #3 on: June 12, 2008, 04:55:32 PM »
It was a rebellion to preserve slavery.
Lincoln was elected on an anti slavery Republican platform.
The southern states seceded before Lincoln ever took office.
Lincoln hadn't enacted any tarriffs, he wasn't even in office yet.
Lincoln knew he couldn't eliminate slavery, unilaterally, where is already existed, but he was motivated by the Dred Scott decision to reenter politics to stop the expansion of slavery.
The southern states seceded to preserve slavery, and said so in their decalartions of cause for secession.


http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#South%20Carolina

From the Georgia declaration:
The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party.

From the South Carolina declaration:
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.

Act the way you would like to be, and soon you will be the way you act.

Offline Ga.windbreak

  • Trade Count: (22)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 846
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why the War was fought
« Reply #4 on: June 13, 2008, 12:46:35 AM »
It was a rebellion to preserve slavery.
Lincoln was elected on an anti slavery Republican platform.
The southern states seceded before Lincoln ever took office.
Lincoln hadn't enacted any tarriffs, he wasn't even in office yet.
Lincoln knew he couldn't eliminate slavery, unilaterally, where is already existed, but he was motivated by the Dred Scott decision to reenter politics to stop the expansion of slavery.
The southern states seceded to preserve slavery, and said so in their decalartions of cause for secession.


http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#South%20Carolina

From the Georgia declaration:
The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party.

From the South Carolina declaration:
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.



Oh, come on now, you didn't read my links.  :o

Several of them said that the main issue was the protection of slavery, but that was strictly for local consumption by people who did their thinking solely in terms of simple slogans. The Southern legislators could do their math; thus they knew full well that the only truly-safe way to protect the institution of slavery would be for the Southern states to remain in the Union and simply refuse to ratify any proposed constitutional-amendment

Look at your dates They won in Nov. 60 and between then and when they took office is when the Southern states started to leave.

Lincoln could run on anything he wanted to it means squat once in office. He put forth "his" 13th before all of the Southern states left and before the first shot was fired. Ill. was the only state to vote on the amendment before the first shot was fired.

LINCOLN signed that 13th he summited in 1861 so your whole deck of cards just came crashing down. You can say its not so all you want its not the truth. The earth is not flat, the moon is not made of green cheese, and the boogy man is out there somewhere.

The facts are there for you to see. See them or not; thats not up to me.

Nice try though.
"Men do not differ about what
Things they will call evils;
They differ enormously about what evils
They will call excusable." - G.K. Chesterton

"It starts when you begin to overlook bad manners. Anytime you quit hearing "sir" and "ma'am", the end is pretty much in sight."-Tommy Lee Jones in No Country for Old Men

Private John Walker Roberts CSA 19th Battalion Georgia Cavalry - Loyalty is a most precious trait - RIP

Offline ironfoot

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 547
Re: Why the War was fought
« Reply #5 on: July 29, 2008, 05:24:31 PM »
Lincoln won the Republican nomination on a platform opposing extending slavery into the territorries.



http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/repub.html
Act the way you would like to be, and soon you will be the way you act.

Offline Ga.windbreak

  • Trade Count: (22)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 846
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why the War was fought
« Reply #6 on: July 29, 2008, 10:28:46 PM »
Lincoln won the Republican nomination on a platform opposing extending slavery into the territorries.



http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/repub.html

As I said in my other post I'll answer no more of your comments about slavery. I've said many times that it was an issue but not the only issue so until you can expand your comments to something more I will only talk about the things I'm learning about and you are more than welcome to jump in anytime but know this I will not be drawn into the slavery issue anymore. So sad, we could have had a very lively debate but no, oh well.
"Men do not differ about what
Things they will call evils;
They differ enormously about what evils
They will call excusable." - G.K. Chesterton

"It starts when you begin to overlook bad manners. Anytime you quit hearing "sir" and "ma'am", the end is pretty much in sight."-Tommy Lee Jones in No Country for Old Men

Private John Walker Roberts CSA 19th Battalion Georgia Cavalry - Loyalty is a most precious trait - RIP

Offline wncchester

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3856
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why the War was fought
« Reply #7 on: July 30, 2008, 09:59:51 AM »
Ga - "... the real reason the South pulled out. When the republicans took over both houses of congress after they and Lincoln took office was to raise the3 Tarrif from 18.8% to 40%."

Exactly.  The wealty eletists of the North had beed working for domination of the Souths agricultiral production since the birth of the nation and Tarrif taxes were their method of choice, that's why the agricultrial tarrifs were so high at the time, far higher than any such taxes on manufactored goods in the North. 

But, as noted truthfully but out of the context of the time,  the 40% was only a proposed tarrif which they expected to accomplish with the incoming new president and congress.  Had it passed, the South's economy would have been impoverished by tax law rather than by force of arms.  Understanding this and knowing things would never change, the South withdrew from the Union and stayed that way until the North conquered it.  After four years, only two years after the South ran out of powder, arms and much food except for what they took from the North.  And the South was only out numbered by about 4 to 1 so I guess it was a fair fight, right?

1861 to 1865 was a War of Secession by a moderate segment of the United States, it was not a Civil War.   Words have meanings and civil war does not apply in this case.   In civil wars two or more groups seek to control the government of the state or nation.  England and Spain and France and Hati have had civil wars, we did not.  The South had no interest in becoming the rulers of the nation, they just wanted to be left alone.  The North would not allow thay, too much money was at stake.

The War of Secession, just as with our Revelolution, was a war from independance over a central government that didn't care for a portion of its people and used taxes as a means of controlling them.  In the first instance, we, the rebellous American states, won ( in the South, not in the North) and in the second rebellion, the South lost to the more powerful Northerners who were determined to maintain their financial control no matter the bloody cost to themselves or the South.   

Slavery, per se, was a distant secondary issue to both sides until the North needed it as a propaganda issue in the news media of the day.   Of course, the "winners" get to write the histoy books and paste the labels where they wish.  The North never wanted to label that fight the war of conquest for the raw economics it was.

Common sense is an uncommon virtue

Offline Ga.windbreak

  • Trade Count: (22)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 846
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why the War was fought
« Reply #8 on: July 31, 2008, 12:08:11 PM »
Ga - "... the real reason the South pulled out. When the republicans took over both houses of congress after they and Lincoln took office was to raise the3 Tarrif from 18.8% to 40%."

Exactly.  The wealty eletists of the North had beed working for domination of the Souths agricultiral production since the birth of the nation and Tarrif taxes were their method of choice, that's why the agricultrial tarrifs were so high at the time, far higher than any such taxes on manufactored goods in the North. 

But, as noted truthfully but out of the context of the time,  the 40% was only a proposed tarrif which they expected to accomplish with the incoming new president and congress.  Had it passed, the South's economy would have been impoverished by tax law rather than by force of arms.  Understanding this and knowing things would never change, the South withdrew from the Union and stayed that way until the North conquered it.  After four years, only two years after the South ran out of powder, arms and much food except for what they took from the North.  And the South was only out numbered by about 4 to 1 so I guess it was a fair fight, right?

1861 to 1865 was a War of Secession by a moderate segment of the United States, it was not a Civil War.   Words have meanings and civil war does not apply in this case.   In civil wars two or more groups seek to control the government of the state or nation.  England and Spain and France and Hati have had civil wars, we did not.  The South had no interest in becoming the rulers of the nation, they just wanted to be left alone.  The North would not allow thay, too much money was at stake.

The War of Secession, just as with our Revelolution, was a war from independance over a central government that didn't care for a portion of its people and used taxes as a means of controlling them.  In the first instance, we, the rebellous American states, won ( in the South, not in the North) and in the second rebellion, the South lost to the more powerful Northerners who were determined to maintain their financial control no matter the bloody cost to themselves or the South.   

Slavery, per se, was a distant secondary issue to both sides until the North needed it as a propaganda issue in the news media of the day.   Of course, the "winners" get to write the histoy books and paste the labels where they wish.  The North never wanted to label that fight the war of conquest for the raw economics it was.

Yes, the one thing that we did wrong was "To Lose" and although had the upper hand as to equipment it still says something that they lost more men than we did. 
"Men do not differ about what
Things they will call evils;
They differ enormously about what evils
They will call excusable." - G.K. Chesterton

"It starts when you begin to overlook bad manners. Anytime you quit hearing "sir" and "ma'am", the end is pretty much in sight."-Tommy Lee Jones in No Country for Old Men

Private John Walker Roberts CSA 19th Battalion Georgia Cavalry - Loyalty is a most precious trait - RIP

Offline wncchester

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3856
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why the War was fought
« Reply #9 on: July 31, 2008, 02:09:04 PM »
"Yes, the one thing that we did wrong was "To Lose" and although (they had the) upper hand as to equipment it still says something that they lost more men than we did."

Yes. 

It is worth mentioning that the NRA was started by Union officers after the war as a means of trying to improve northern marksmanship!

Common sense is an uncommon virtue

Offline PaulS

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
Re: Why the War was fought
« Reply #10 on: July 31, 2008, 09:21:33 PM »
Slavery never entered the war until near its end. The "civil war" was fought over economics and state's rights.
The States of the South had every right to secede from the rest of the union.
Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the federal government has the power to require that States remain in the union.
on the otherhand the tenth ammendment provides that :

10th Amendment
   The powers not delegated to the United States by the
   Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved
   to the States respectively, or to the people.


Clearly any powers not granted to the federal government is left to the States unless the constitution prohibits the States from having that power in which case it is left to the People. Show one place in the Constitution where it says the federal government - or any branch of it - has the power to require the States to remain a part of the union.
PaulS

Hodgdon, Lyman, Speer, Sierra, Hornady = reliable resources
so and so's pages on the internet = not reliable resources
Alway check loads you find on the internet against manuals.
NEVER exceed maximum listed loads.

Offline ms

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2442
Re: Why the War was fought
« Reply #11 on: August 01, 2008, 12:35:54 AM »
It was because of the banker.

Offline williamlayton

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15415
Re: Why the War was fought
« Reply #12 on: August 01, 2008, 01:05:40 AM »
It was a simple philosophical difference boys.
The states were formed as being united.
The South would have preferred a confederation, thus allowing more state autonomy.
An autonomy will not work in a republic.
A republic requires a central government.
The South would have allowed each state to have an army--make its own alegiances and treaties--have its own economy--in fact, be a nation unto itsownself.
Slavery was only a part of the issue--though the South's economy was based on slavery.
I don't know how you folks can justify slavery--I really don't.
Blessings
TEXAS, by GOD

Offline wncchester

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3856
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why the War was fought
« Reply #13 on: August 01, 2008, 01:49:03 AM »
"I don't know how you folks can justify slavery--I really don't.  Blessings"

I don't think anyone here has, or wishes to "justify slavery".  I am a 68 year old southerner, born and raised in the deep South.  I have family and friends across the social, racial, political and economic spectrum and I have NEVER heard anyone, not a single person, ever attempt to justify it.  We do try to explain why it happened, in the context of the times from the founding of this nation until 1865.

Slavery was wrong and the western world was rapidly coming to that realization.  In 1861, slavery was a dying institution in the South and it was time for it to die.  Had it been given a little more time, it would have died of its own immoral and economic weight.  As pure economics, slavery was inefficent and expensive.  New technology would have allowed the field workers to be replaced with oncoming farming machinery which was already on the horizon.  A peaceful transition would have been to the benefit of the North, the South, and the slaves themselves.

All that has nothing to do with correctly recognising the contemporary economic "causes" of the war, on both sides, and that was not slavery, per se, so it's a lie.  If a well-known "fact" is, in fact, known to be a lie, it should not be taught but that one still is.  As a lie, it only serves to conceal the avarice of the Northern politicians, bought and paid for by the rich, and as a continuing attempt to humiliate the South for the War of Secession.

All growing economies required a labor force.  The South's agricultral economy needed a LOT of workers that were simply not available from the white poplulation at that time northerners first began selling slaves in the South.  The North itself needed far fewer workers and that need was met by the steady influx of new (disposable) immigrants from Europe. 

The northern industrialists wanted to force the South to have a limited market for its exports (limited to the North) and tariffs was the instrument they used.  And some of them wanted to force the southern planters to switch quickly to the new machinery, but they could not afford to do so at that time AND the new machines still needed more development.

Perhaps a worse kind of economic "slavery" was reserved for those white migrants to the North who had no opportunities for feeding their families other than working in dangerous, unhealthy mills and factories.  Unlike real slaves, those people's lives and health had no value at all to the monied interests, they were expendable and easily replaced bodies.  Even so, those immigrants who got jobs were lucky, part of the story of those with out jobs was told in the movie "The Gangs of New York", only the abuses extended from Baltimore to Boston at the time.  Any worker who got sick or injured were pushed aside and replaced, the abandoned men and their familes were left destitute and exposed on the streets, there were NO government welfare programs for them.  No southern planter would have treated his valuable slaves so poorly so, in that respect, they were better treated than poor "free white men" of the North.  That's not justification of anything but it is a fact worth knowing.

Life was hard for the poor in all parts of the world at that time, read "Oliver Twist" to see how it was in England.  Southern slaves, for all their legitimate objections, were not so ill treated and a good number of them freely chose to serve in the Confederate forces.
Common sense is an uncommon virtue

Offline PaulS

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
Re: Why the War was fought
« Reply #14 on: August 01, 2008, 08:30:02 PM »
Wncchester,
What is your fixation with slavery. It doesn't exist in any real form in the U.S. today.
We are talking about State's rights - you know like the right to self determination, self protection and to separate themselves from an opressive, tyranical government.
PaulS

Hodgdon, Lyman, Speer, Sierra, Hornady = reliable resources
so and so's pages on the internet = not reliable resources
Alway check loads you find on the internet against manuals.
NEVER exceed maximum listed loads.

Offline wncchester

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3856
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why the War was fought
« Reply #15 on: August 02, 2008, 02:25:45 AM »
PaulS:  "Wncchester, What is your fixation with slavery. It doesn't exist in any real form in the U.S. today.  We are talking about State's rights "

Ahh...did you read the topic title under discussion here?  And the posts that lead to my comments?  I really think you may note that my "fixation" is history and the North's "fixation" on slavery, not mine.
Common sense is an uncommon virtue

Offline Ga.windbreak

  • Trade Count: (22)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 846
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why the War was fought
« Reply #16 on: August 02, 2008, 11:54:13 PM »
Slavery was only a part of the issue--though the South's economy was based on slavery.
I don't know how you folks can justify slavery--I really don't.
Blessings

 ;D I swear is anyone listening besides us southern boys. NO ONE IS TRYING TO JUSTIFY SLAVERY!! One doesn't justify something that is a historical FACT. Have IQs taken a sudden drop since I went to school. Fact, the last slaves to leave the North was in 1865 after they were freed. Before 1807 slavery was world wide. Saying we want to justify slavery is like saying we want to justify a baseball bat is made of wood.

Wncchester is spot on; I'm also a 67 year old Southerner that was born raised and have lived most of my life in Fla., SC, and Ga. I have very good friends of several races and we "get along" quite well thank you.

When the DOI was signed in 1776 there were slaves in every state in the Colonies, in fact, over 1/3 were in the North. Do you want to JUSTIFY that Willianlaton? ;) There were also slaves through out the rest of the world so take a stab at that, if you like. A point of fact; there were over 3000 slaves in Washington D.C. as of 1860

Both the moral and legal outlook was very different than it is today. All it takes is a realistic look at the way people really lived back then to better understand how people treated eachother. Today most look at slavery as a race thing when in truth that was no where close to the way things truly were in 1860 in the south. You had a farm ten miles from a village and you had to produce everything you had to have. Think about that; someone had to be the blacksmith, someone had to make all the clothes and grow all the food that everyone wore and ate every day of their lives. Babies were born, black and white alike, they had to be looked after. They also played together, whoelse would they play with? Old people had to be taken care of, black and white alike. All the while a crop had to be grown that was sold so that the whole process could continue next year. On Sunday they all went to church, do you really think that the owner had the time to build an extra building for the Slaves. The Owner had to get every building built people had to be taught and trained to do all these things you just didn't call your local Lowes and get it done, PLEASE! To accomplish all of this how could you be adversaries? There had to be mutual respect or nothing would get done. This is not "Gone with the Wind" or "Uncle Tom's Cabin" a movie or fairytail; if those people were to make a living and survive they had to work together as well as take care of eachother; get real. And that's my 2 cents.
"Men do not differ about what
Things they will call evils;
They differ enormously about what evils
They will call excusable." - G.K. Chesterton

"It starts when you begin to overlook bad manners. Anytime you quit hearing "sir" and "ma'am", the end is pretty much in sight."-Tommy Lee Jones in No Country for Old Men

Private John Walker Roberts CSA 19th Battalion Georgia Cavalry - Loyalty is a most precious trait - RIP

Offline ironfoot

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 547
Re: Why the War was fought
« Reply #17 on: August 04, 2008, 07:20:32 AM »
In all the years of study of why we pulled out of the union I never once really thought thru the Claim of Slavery being the main issue/reason for seperating ourselves from the USA. Reading the following:

 http://www.plpow.com/WhyTheWarWasStarted.htm

the answer to the slavery question was there but it was buried in plain sight.

Quote
So when the 1860 election-returns came in, it turned out that the Republicans had won the White House, and substantial majorities in the House and the Senate. When that message sank in, Southern states began seceding from the Union--beginning with South Carolina on 20 December 1860.

Several of them said that the main issue was the protection of slavery, but that was strictly for local consumption by people who did their thinking solely in terms of simple slogans. The Southern legislators could do their math; thus they knew full well that the only truly-safe way to protect the institution of slavery would be for the Southern states to remain in the Union and simply refuse to ratify any proposed constitutional-amendment to emancipate the slaves. For slavery was specifically protected by the Constitution, and that protection could be removed only by an amendment ratified by three-quarters of the states. In 1860 there were 15 slave states and 18 free states. Had the number of slave states remained constant, 27 more free states would have had to be admitted into the Union--for a total of 60 states--before an abolition amendment could be ratified. That was not likely to occur anytime soon. But with the Southern states seceding, the issue of slavery could then be settled by force of arms at any time.

The whole article is a wonderful read, enjoy.

So, what you are saying is that the state legislatures did not secede over slavery, but the common confederate soldier was a simpleton misled into fighting in order to preserve slavery.
Act the way you would like to be, and soon you will be the way you act.

Offline ironfoot

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 547
Re: Why the War was fought
« Reply #18 on: August 04, 2008, 07:24:16 AM »
http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#South%20Carolina

Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union
The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act.

In the year 1765, that portion of the British Empire embracing Great Britain, undertook to make laws for the government of that portion composed of the thirteen American Colonies. A struggle for the right of self-government ensued, which resulted, on the 4th of July, 1776, in a Declaration, by the Colonies, "that they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; and that, as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do."

They further solemnly declared that whenever any "form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government." Deeming the Government of Great Britain to have become destructive of these ends, they declared that the Colonies "are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved."

In pursuance of this Declaration of Independence, each of the thirteen States proceeded to exercise its separate sovereignty; adopted for itself a Constitution, and appointed officers for the administration of government in all its departments-- Legislative, Executive and Judicial. For purposes of defense, they united their arms and their counsels; and, in 1778, they entered into a League known as the Articles of Confederation, whereby they agreed to entrust the administration of their external relations to a common agent, known as the Congress of the United States, expressly declaring, in the first Article "that each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not, by this Confederation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled."

Under this Confederation the war of the Revolution was carried on, and on the 3rd of September, 1783, the contest ended, and a definite Treaty was signed by Great Britain, in which she acknowledged the independence of the Colonies in the following terms: "ARTICLE 1-- His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz: New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."

Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. And concurrent with the establishment of these principles, was the fact, that each Colony became and was recognized by the mother Country a FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATE.

In 1787, Deputies were appointed by the States to revise the Articles of Confederation, and on 17th September, 1787, these Deputies recommended for the adoption of the States, the Articles of Union, known as the Constitution of the United States.

The parties to whom this Constitution was submitted, were the several sovereign States; they were to agree or disagree, and when nine of them agreed the compact was to take effect among those concurring; and the General Government, as the common agent, was then invested with their authority.

If only nine of the thirteen States had concurred, the other four would have remained as they then were-- separate, sovereign States, independent of any of the provisions of the Constitution. In fact, two of the States did not accede to the Constitution until long after it had gone into operation among the other eleven; and during that interval, they each exercised the functions of an independent nation.

By this Constitution, certain duties were imposed upon the several States, and the exercise of certain of their powers was restrained, which necessarily implied their continued existence as sovereign States. But to remove all doubt, an amendment was added, which declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people. On the 23d May , 1788, South Carolina, by a Convention of her People, passed an Ordinance assenting to this Constitution, and afterwards altered her own Constitution, to conform herself to the obligations she had undertaken.

Thus was established, by compact between the States, a Government with definite objects and powers, limited to the express words of the grant. This limitation left the whole remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving it to the States or to the people, and rendered unnecessary any specification of reserved rights.

We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.

In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

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.

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.
This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.

We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.

Adopted December 24, 1860

Act the way you would like to be, and soon you will be the way you act.

Offline Ga.windbreak

  • Trade Count: (22)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 846
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why the War was fought
« Reply #19 on: August 06, 2008, 09:10:03 AM »
Why thank you ironfoot you just proved my point about this being a States rights issue. The part you have underlined says just exactly that, again Thank You. :o ;D
"Men do not differ about what
Things they will call evils;
They differ enormously about what evils
They will call excusable." - G.K. Chesterton

"It starts when you begin to overlook bad manners. Anytime you quit hearing "sir" and "ma'am", the end is pretty much in sight."-Tommy Lee Jones in No Country for Old Men

Private John Walker Roberts CSA 19th Battalion Georgia Cavalry - Loyalty is a most precious trait - RIP

Offline ironfoot

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 547
Re: Why the War was fought
« Reply #20 on: August 07, 2008, 06:43:04 PM »
Why thank you ironfoot you just proved my point about this being a States rights issue. The part you have underlined says just exactly that, again Thank You. :o ;D

and the states right issue was the right to promote slavery.
Act the way you would like to be, and soon you will be the way you act.

Offline PaulS

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
Re: Why the War was fought
« Reply #21 on: August 08, 2008, 09:45:17 PM »
ironfoot,
Slavery may have been one of several catylists but the reason for the war was State's Sovreignty.
Something that was lost to a great extent along with the unlawfully ratified ammendments that followed the end of the war.
Another cause was economic controls (prices, tariffs and taxation).
PaulS

Hodgdon, Lyman, Speer, Sierra, Hornady = reliable resources
so and so's pages on the internet = not reliable resources
Alway check loads you find on the internet against manuals.
NEVER exceed maximum listed loads.

Offline ironfoot

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 547
Re: Why the War was fought
« Reply #22 on: August 11, 2008, 04:53:11 PM »
"State's Rights" before the Civil War was just code word for the right to continue slavery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCulloch_v._Maryland

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford



The decision was a culmination of what many at that time considered a push to expand slavery. The expansion of the territories and resulting admission of new states meant that the longstanding Missouri Compromise would cause the loss of political power in the North as many of the new states would be admitted as slave states. Thus, Democratic party politicians sought repeal of the Missouri Compromise and were finally successful in 1854 with the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which naturally ended the "compromise." This act permitted each newly admitted state south of the 40th parallel to decide whether to be a slave state or free state. Now, with Dred Scott, the Supreme Court under Taney sought to permit the unhindered expansion of slavery into the territories.

Although Taney believed that the decision would settle the slavery question once and for all, it produced the opposite result. It strengthened the opposition to slavery in the North, divided the Democratic Party on sectional lines, encouraged secessionist elements among Southern supporters of slavery to make even bolder demands, and strengthened the Republican Party.

Act the way you would like to be, and soon you will be the way you act.

Offline phalanx

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2880
Re: Why the War was fought
« Reply #23 on: August 11, 2008, 06:01:28 PM »
Wow ,i see Slavery every April 15th.
In this time i Command ,That you take the Secular to Jerusalem .
There you rid the Holy City of the Scourge of Islam , Make the streets run red with the Blood of those who wish to wash Israel and Christianity from the face of the Earth.
Constantine III

Offline williamlayton

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15415
Re: Why the War was fought
« Reply #24 on: August 12, 2008, 02:48:50 AM »
If you read the entirety of the post by Ironfoot---and it is well done---you can see the conflict and contradiction of this States rights argument.
IF each state is in fact a free agent, not bound too another by other than confederation, WHY does it assume that this other state who will not return a slave too be subservient, under the confederation, too the nation who is REQUESTING or DEMANDING return of its property.
The logic falls apart.
NOW, a republic is ONE, not many, ONE.
This nation is a Republic of One nation consisting of parts called states who are subservient too the Republic---for which it stands.
Not withstanding the logic of a republic--the confederates chose too see if they could break the Republic. they tried and it was found through force of arms that the Republic stood.
I repeat, a confederation within a Republic does not work.
The rebels knew this and were very short sighted--not too mention--just plain wrong.
Blessings
TEXAS, by GOD

Offline phalanx

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2880
Re: Why the War was fought
« Reply #25 on: August 12, 2008, 06:42:07 AM »
Not to get off subject but have any of you read ( Guns of the South ) ? It was very well done and not politically correct.
Some South Africans go back and give the Confederacy some of these.



It is interesting how they approach Robert E Lee , and Stonewall Jackson , the best part of the book is what happens when the South wins the war.
When the S. Africans come back it is a totally different world.
The new world was researched very well on what events would have changed , sure it is Sci Fi ,but it is a great conversation topic.
I didn't mean to but in , you guys have a great thread going  ,but some of you would love this book.
In this time i Command ,That you take the Secular to Jerusalem .
There you rid the Holy City of the Scourge of Islam , Make the streets run red with the Blood of those who wish to wash Israel and Christianity from the face of the Earth.
Constantine III

Offline wncchester

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3856
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why the War was fought
« Reply #26 on: August 12, 2008, 10:27:01 AM »
"Some South Africans go back and give the Confederacy some of these."

With a couple thousand of those on either side, the fighting would have been over within six months.
Common sense is an uncommon virtue

Offline phalanx

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2880
Re: Why the War was fought
« Reply #27 on: August 12, 2008, 01:10:43 PM »
Yes ,It was written by Larry Turtledove , based around the time the world was forcing the Apartide  government out of existence.
They felt that the entire thing started during and after the American Civil War , and they hoped that if the South had of won they would be a good Allie to the S.Africans like Israel was.
And that the Northern States would not have the power they do today.
The funny part was approaching Lee , They almost were killed , but they finally got a meeting with him and brought out a lap top , and a CD of History on how the War went.
Along with all that happened afterwards ,Jackson went ballistic when he saw his own death.
Finally convenceing LEE when they brought out an AK47 , Grenades , RPGs , and body armor.
10,000 AKs were issued to The Army of N. Virgini,, LEE was appalled to see the Union troops fall like corn rows.
The Hunley became an actual, U Boat , the war was over in 3 weeks.
The South converged on the White house ,Lincoln sat alone ,unarmed,awaiting the Armys.
LEE ,the Gentalman he was called off the troops ,and walked in alone.
You guys are making me ruin the book for you , but the North never recovered even though the South just pulled out and left them alone.
It was sad the way the North turned out , the South tried several times to make amends  , but the North was to far gone by then.
The South never went back to Slavery ,it based its economy on industry at that point , and the westward expansion.
In this time i Command ,That you take the Secular to Jerusalem .
There you rid the Holy City of the Scourge of Islam , Make the streets run red with the Blood of those who wish to wash Israel and Christianity from the face of the Earth.
Constantine III

Offline Ga.windbreak

  • Trade Count: (22)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 846
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why the War was fought
« Reply #28 on: August 13, 2008, 12:20:27 AM »
If you read the entirety of the post by Ironfoot---and it is well done---you can see the conflict and contradiction of this States rights argument.
IF each state is in fact a free agent, not bound too another by other than confederation, WHY does it assume that this other state who will not return a slave too be subservient, under the confederation, too the nation who is REQUESTING or DEMANDING return of its property.
The logic falls apart.
NOW, a republic is ONE, not many, ONE.
This nation is a Republic of One nation consisting of parts called states who are subservient too the Republic---for which it stands.
Not withstanding the logic of a republic--the confederates chose too see if they could break the Republic. they tried and it was found through force of arms that the Republic stood.
I repeat, a confederation within a Republic does not work.
The rebels knew this and were very short sighted--not too mention--just plain wrong.
Blessings

I hate to correct you but you are the one who is so very wrong!

A Republican form of government is these things:

a political system or form of government in which people elect representatives to exercise power for them

a country or other political unit whose government or political system is that of a republic

a constituent political and territorial unit of a national federation or union

a group of people who are considered to be equals and who have a collective interest, objective, or vocation


No where will you find that the States ARE SUBSERVIENT to the Federal Government in a Republic (you just might want to bone up on the 9th and 10th Amendments) or OUR Consitution until Lincoln and the 14 (ILLEGAL, I MIGHT ADD) Amendment changed us to a Democracy:

Democratic system of government.
a system of government based on the principle of majority decision-making

And with all due respect; I feel for you if you don't realize the freedoms you've lost because of the difference.
As ironfoot is so fond of quoting Ben Franklin " Madam you have a Republic, if you can keep it" Well Mr. Lincoln blew that one clean out of the water! :o ::)

And to you too
"Men do not differ about what
Things they will call evils;
They differ enormously about what evils
They will call excusable." - G.K. Chesterton

"It starts when you begin to overlook bad manners. Anytime you quit hearing "sir" and "ma'am", the end is pretty much in sight."-Tommy Lee Jones in No Country for Old Men

Private John Walker Roberts CSA 19th Battalion Georgia Cavalry - Loyalty is a most precious trait - RIP

Offline Ga.windbreak

  • Trade Count: (22)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 846
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why the War was fought
« Reply #29 on: August 13, 2008, 12:33:15 AM »
Not to get off subject but have any of you read ( Guns of the South ) ? It was very well done and not politically correct.
Some South Africans go back and give the Confederacy some of these.



It is interesting how they approach Robert E Lee , and Stonewall Jackson , the best part of the book is what happens when the South wins the war.
When the S. Africans come back it is a totally different world.
The new world was researched very well on what events would have changed , sure it is Sci Fi ,but it is a great conversation topic.
I didn't mean to but in , you guys have a great thread going  ,but some of you would love this book.

Thanks I love to read and now that I'm retired I do that alot I give it a try. ;)
"Men do not differ about what
Things they will call evils;
They differ enormously about what evils
They will call excusable." - G.K. Chesterton

"It starts when you begin to overlook bad manners. Anytime you quit hearing "sir" and "ma'am", the end is pretty much in sight."-Tommy Lee Jones in No Country for Old Men

Private John Walker Roberts CSA 19th Battalion Georgia Cavalry - Loyalty is a most precious trait - RIP