Why did the North fight the civil war?

[Belz...]

That is my question. I don't know the answer.

Well the answer is no. It's still about babies slavery.

How could you not know the answer? You can think by yourself, can't you?

 

[Spindrift]

Well stated.

Consider yourself spited.

Okay, I understand your point but I still think its weak. I think slavery was the only 'state's right' they were willing to go to war over.

If Lincoln had been a member of a party in favor of keeping slavery do you think the south would have seceded? Every other states right grievance they had would still be there.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Well the answer is no. It's still about babies slavery.

How could you not know the answer? You can think by yourself, can't you?

That doesn't mean I have the tools to reach an answer that I think is adequate.

Philosophically speaking, what does "about" mean?

 

[Spindrift]

That doesn't mean I have the tools to reach an answer that I think is adequate.

Philosophically speaking, what does "about" mean?

The same thing it means etymologically.

 

[Craig B]

In the south, you had to buy your labor force and then provide for it re food, housing, clothes, etc. Hardly a cheap proposition.

While in the minority, my view has always been it was more over states rights, being fairly represented in the Government, and essentially seized assets/property. Many in the south did not own slaves...but fought based on the public opinion they were not being given a fair deal; ie. "who is Washington to tell me I can't do this?"

Could the war have been prevented, maybe. If the Government had offered compensation to those whose assets were being seized that would have off-set the economic blow and made the case for being more fairly represented in the Government swaying public opinion (in the south).

If slavery consisted of providing food, housing and clothes which weren't cheap, why were slaves an "asset"? Were the slaves giving something to their owners in return for the clothes and food, which in fact more than paid for these provisions? Did the fact of their being an asset completely extinguish the fact of their being human? In a country founded on the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, one might think they would as human beings have been entitled, without qualification or impediment, to release from personal servitude, rather than be evaluated as an "asset being seized".

 

[TraneWreck]

While in the minority, my view has always been it was more over states rights, being fairly represented in the Government, and essentially seized assets/property. Many in the south did not own slaves...but fought based on the public opinion they were not being given a fair deal; ie. "who is Washington to tell me I can't do this?"

States' right to do what, exactly? It's not a minority view, it's a deeply misleading and incorrect one.

First, there is no mystery, each of the States that seceded offered Declarations. Mississippi's was perhaps the most direct, but read through them. Slavery was THE issue:

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html

Second, the population of people directly owning slaves is incredibly misleading. At that time, in the South, large families lived together. One person may have been said to "own" the slaves on a plantation, but parents, children, siblings, cousins...often depended on the income from that plantation or lived directly in it. About 31% of families in the Confederacy owned slaves: https://deadconfederates.com/2011/0...xas-confederate-soldiers-never-owned-a-slave/

Furthermore, slavery was the fundamental value in the economy, so professions that weren't directly engaged in the slave trade still depended on the institution - bankers generating loans to buy/sell, lawyers drawing up contracts, doctors keeping the slaves capable of working...

The entire Southern economy depended on slavery.

Could the war have been prevented, maybe. If the Government had offered compensation to those whose assets were being seized that would have off-set the economic blow and made the case for being more fairly represented in the Government swaying public opinion (in the south).

This is not a realistic possibility:

https://www.theatlantic.com/nationa...coln-could-not-have-bought-the-slaves/277073/

I borrowed a graph from this article earlier. Here are a couple key points:

1) Lincoln tried compensating people for slaves in Delaware and was rebuffed.

2)

Claudia Goldin estimates that the cost of having the government buy all the slaves in the United States in 1860, would be about $2.7 billion (1973: 85, Table 1). Obviously, such a large sum could not be paid all at once. Yet even if the payments were spread over 25 years, the annual costs of such a scheme would involve a tripling of federal government outlays (Ransom and Sutch 1990: 39-42)!

3) That assumes a market value for slaves. Why would plantation owners accept that valuation? The price would be much higher than what was already impossible to pay.

4) The whole point of purchasing slaves or reimbursing plantation owners is to avoid violence. Absent use of violence, how do you impose those terms?

 

[BobTheCoward]

States' right to do what, exactly? It's not a minority view, it's a deeply misleading and incorrect one.

First, there is no mystery, each of the States that seceded offered Declarations. Mississippi's was perhaps the most direct, but read through them. Slavery was THE issue:


Furthermore, slavery was the fundamental value in the economy, so professions that weren't directly engaged in the slave trade still depended on the institution - bankers generating loans to buy/sell, lawyers drawing up contracts, doctors keeping the slaves capable of working...

The entire Southern economy depended on slavery.

Is there a difference between saying it is "about slavery" and it is about "about the economy" that in this case happen to be slaves?

 

[TraneWreck]

Is there a difference between saying it is "about slavery" and it is about "about the economy" that in this case happen to be slaves?

Do you?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Do you?

I think you mean "do I think there is a difference?"

I don't know, that is why I am asking.

 

[TraneWreck]

I don't know, that is why I am asking.

I genuinely trust your ability to work that one out.

 

[Loss Leader]

A SCOTUS ruling against the slave states triggers secession

I don't agree. It was a SCOTUS ruling in favor of slavery that pushed the US towards civil war. Dred Scott (which Buchanan interfered in to get a unanimous decision) ruled that not only was slavery legal, but that all laws in all states restricting slavery were illegal.

This turned the wait-and-see anti-slave people into a full-on abolitionist movement. Political change became the only way to end slavery. The SCt. certainly wasn't going to do it. When the abolitionists took a hard stand, the South (including southerners who otherwise didn't much care) hardened their position as well.

In Kansas, the two groups formed competing governments and started terrorist wars against each other. Buchanan chose: 1) to recognize the pro-slavery government; and 2) to do nothing whatsoever about the violence even when people begged him to.

TL;DR version: Buchanan sucked, war became inevitable within his first 100 days.

 

[Locknar]

Okay, I understand your point but I still think its weak. I think slavery was the only 'state's right' they were willing to go to war over.

If Lincoln had been a member of a party in favor of keeping slavery do you think the south would have seceded? Every other states right grievance they had would still be there.

Would the south have attempted to secede then, unknown; would it have eventually happened, likely IMO. There was talk of succession as early as the late 1830s, over tariff disputes, movements to annex Texas and start a war with Mexico.

The Federal Govt was dominated by the north, a Government that was asserting its authority through federal law abolishing state laws they disagreed with. Lincoln was the icing on the cake so to speak, elected as President without a single southern electoral vote.

If slavery consisted of providing food, housing and clothes which weren't cheap, why were slaves an "asset"? Were the slaves giving something to their owners in return for the clothes and food, which in fact more than paid for these provisions? Did the fact of their being an asset completely extinguish the fact of their being human? In a country founded on the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, one might think they would as human beings have been entitled, without qualification or impediment, to release from personal servitude, rather than be evaluated as an "asset being seized".

Slaves were a "asset" as in property, the same as a horse was; they were bought, sold, traded.

That the Federal Govt., dominated by the north, could abolish state law and take away someones property was, IMO galvanizing of the states rights (or lack there of) issue.

That it did not resonate as a reprehensible practice, due to economics or simply because "that's the way it's always been", in the south...beats me.

States' right to do what, exactly? It's not a minority view, it's a deeply misleading and incorrect one.

See above.

Essentially the rest of what you stated ties to economics, which while slavery is part of that discussion, it is not the entirety of it. Southern states that felt disenfranchised and dominated by the union they participated in, run by a President they didn't vote for, and saw no chance of growing their economic base through expansion....expansion that would have been dominated by the north and its industrial base.

I agree that compensation was not possible; my comment was more hypothetical as southern states were likely never to agree to a compensation value set by the Government (which was dominated by the north).

 

[Belz...]

That doesn't mean I have the tools to reach an answer that I think is adequate.

Philosophically speaking, what does "about" mean?

Philosophically speaking? What are you talking "about"?

 

[TraneWreck]

I don't agree. It was a SCOTUS ruling in favor of slavery that pushed the US towards civil war. Dred Scott (which Buchanan interfered in to get a unanimous decision) ruled that not only was slavery legal, but that all laws in all states restricting slavery were illegal.

If Dred Scott went the other way, the South would have seceded as they did a mere 3 years later. At best, it would have bought you maybe another decade. War would have been inevitable over expansion and subsequent moves by the North based on an anti-slavery Scott ruling.

This turned the wait-and-see anti-slave people into a full-on abolitionist movement. Political change became the only way to end slavery. The SCt. certainly wasn't going to do it. When the abolitionists took a hard stand, the South (including southerners who otherwise didn't much care) hardened their position as well.

But again, if the SCOTUS had ended it, there would have been immediate secession. The South had been threatening on and off since the Nullification Crisis.

Answer me this: assume the SC rules slavery unconsitutional. How is that enforced absent war?

In Kansas, the two groups formed competing governments and started terrorist wars against each other. Buchanan chose: 1) to recognize the pro-slavery government; and 2) to do nothing whatsoever about the violence even when people begged him to.

TL;DR version: Buchanan sucked, war became inevitable within his first 100 days.

Agree Buchanan sucked; disagree that there was any realistic path to avoiding war. The only way to avoid war was for one side or the other to capitulate on slavery. The South sure as hell wasn't going to by Buchanan's administration.

 

[TraneWreck]

The Federal Govt was dominated by the north, a Government that was asserting its authority through federal law abolishing state laws they disagreed with. Lincoln was the icing on the cake so to speak, elected as President without a single southern electoral vote.

Interestingly, that wasn't true until a few elections before Lincoln. The North dominated the economy, but because of the combination of the Senate, the Electoral College, and the 3/5ths Clause, the South had massively disproportionate government power. That's why so many presidents and SCOTUS justices were from the South.

This was a dynamic that would change - unless slave states could expand west. By 1860, the South had pretty much lost that disproportionate advantage.

Essentially the rest of what you stated ties to economics, which while slavery is part of that discussion, it is not the entirety of it. Southern states that felt disenfranchised and dominated by the union they participated in, run by a President they didn't vote for, and saw no chance of growing their economic base through expansion....expansion that would have been dominated by the north and its industrial base.

Look, these are all different ways of describing slavery. Why, for example, was there an economic rivalry between the North and South? Why was there no similar economic rivalry between, say New York and Pennsylvania or South Carolina and Kentucky? What was the feature of the South that made it different from the North and made them worry about increased power in the North? Why wasn't Connecticut terrified about their state sovereignty?

Slavery.

Northerners had been elected president before. Why was the South upset about a president representing the newly-formed Republican Party? What was different about him and the Party?

Slavery.

The more you study the war the more you realize that it was entirely about slavery. Every other issue is a subset of the slavery issue - like the economy or states rights. They didn't secede when Buchanan, from Pennsylvania, was elected.

I agree that compensation was not possible; my comment was more hypothetical as southern states were likely never to agree to a compensation value set by the Government (which was dominated by the north).

Which is one of the many reasons why war was inevitable.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Philosophically speaking? What are you talking "about"?

Is there a difference between saying it is "about slavery" and it is about "about the economy" that in this case happen to be slaves?

 

[TraneWreck]

Is there a difference between saying it is "about slavery" and it is about "about the economy" that in this case happen to be slaves?

Seriously, Bob?

Yes, it's very different both substantively and rhetorically.

Rhetorically it serves to whitewash the reasons for the war, hiding the fact that South thought holding humans in involuntary servitude was worth dying for. That dynamic, the desire to make hazy the reason for war, is part of the Lost Cause playbook:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy

They are probably the most malicious, destructive propagandists in American history.

Substantively it's wrong because the economic impact of slavery was not the only aspect of slavery that drove the rebellion. The inability of the South to make its own rules, the fear of the Federal Government banning their beloved humanitarian disaster, was also a major reason that is not conveyed by only referring to the economy. It was not "about the economy," it was about slavery, and the economic impact of slavery was a major element.

 

[ddt]

If slavery consisted of providing food, housing and clothes which weren't cheap, why were slaves an "asset"? Were the slaves giving something to their owners in return for the clothes and food, which in fact more than paid for these provisions? Did the fact of their being an asset completely extinguish the fact of their being human? In a country founded on the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, one might think they would as human beings have been entitled, without qualification or impediment, to release from personal servitude, rather than be evaluated as an "asset being seized".

Oh yes, slaves gave their owners their labor and, let's not forget, they gave them also baby slaves, i.e., either more potential slave labor or merchandise. And yes, slaves were seen as objects, things, not as humans; see the Dred Scott decision, in which SCOTUS ruled that Scott had no standing to sue. Let's all be glad that these views belong solidly to the past (well, at least among a great majority of people).

This whole "states rights" thing is a giant red herring, a propaganda ruse. Let's look at the one crucial right that the whole Civil War was about: the right for states to allow or to outlaw slavery on its territory. In the Union, the individual states had the right to allow or outlaw slavery. The Mason-Dixon line and the Missouri Compromise were based on the pre-existing positions of the existing states with respect to slavery. After the secession, the Confederacy drew up a constitution which was for 99% a verbatim copy of the US Constitution. The most important change was that it forbade its states to outlaw slavery.

So, if the war, for the South, was at all about "states rights", it was about restricting states rights, on this crucial issue.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Seriously, Bob?

Yes, it's very different both substantively and rhetorically.

I thought you were going to leave it up to me. My answer I came to was no.

 

[TraneWreck]

I thought you were going to leave it up to me. My answer I came to was no.

You kept asking. Seems I should have answered earlier.