Author Topic: Who started the Civil War?  (Read 12235 times)

Offline BILLY Defiant

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4668
  • Gender: Male
  • In harms way of the furies at a reasonable price
Re: Who started the Civil War?
« Reply #15 on: February 11, 2012, 05:17:34 PM »
Politicans and hots head on both sides started it.

My guess would be the North, urged by Abolionists had the greater onus.


Billy
Evil operates best when it is disguised for what it truly is.

elmerfudd

  • Guest
Re: Who started the Civil War?
« Reply #16 on: February 11, 2012, 06:16:22 PM »
The Confederacy may have fired the first shot at Sumter, but the Yankees started the war. Slavery, in spite of the antagonism of the abolitionists, did not become a major issue until two years later and the Emancipation Proclamation was designed to freeze any support that may have been forthcoming from the Europeans who were appalled at the bloodshed. Slavery, a terrible institution and practice, of course was a cause or reason, but not the main cause or reason. Tariffs, of which the Southern agrarians paid an unequal share of, both on exported crops and imported goods, was a huge part of the problem. Most of the money, even dating back to Hamilton and his cohorts, was used for improvements in the North, to the detriment of the South. It was also understood, by the South, they still had dominion over their own governments, i.e. states rights were still very much a part of the fabric of constitutional law, which, BTW, protected slavery. It was also understood when a Compact no longer served the needs of a party, that party had an obligation and duty to withdraw from said Compact.

My second Great grandfather, out of Homer, Tx, ( now Huntington, Tx ) in Angelina County, fought with Hoods Brigade. His father before him fought with Andy Jackson at New Orleans, and his grandfather before him fought at King's Mountain during the Revolution. They were all Americans, fighting for their homes and kin. I defy anyone to prove neither was a patriot to his home and his family.   

Slavery wss the sine qua non of secession, and secession was the main cause of the civil war.  Both sides were equally responsible, but absent the existence of slavery, there would have been no secession.  Tariffs simply were not a big enough issue to cause secession.  And one reason for the problem with tariffs was, ironically, the existence of slavery.  Absent slavery, there quite likely would have been no big issue with respect to tariffs. 

Offline hokiewoodchuck

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 638
  • Gender: Male
Re: Who started the Civil War?
« Reply #17 on: February 12, 2012, 02:00:34 AM »
Slavery wss the sine qua non of secession, and secession was the main cause of the civil war.  Both sides were equally responsible, but absent the existence of slavery, there would have been no secession.  Tariffs simply were not a big enough issue to cause secession.  And one reason for the problem with tariffs was, ironically, the existence of slavery.  Absent slavery, there quite likely would have been no big issue with respect to tariffs.

You are sooo full of shit.

It started due to States Rights and self determination without a centralized government. The northern aggressors wanted to control everything in your life. Slavery was an issue that got rolled into the Agressors' first major victory.

IF slavery was the major point of the War between the States then it should have been brought to the forefront of every discussion and speech. It was not.
I thought I was wrong one time but I was mistaken.

elmerfudd

  • Guest
Re: Who started the Civil War?
« Reply #18 on: February 12, 2012, 06:22:12 AM »
You are sooo full of shit.

It started due to States Rights and self determination without a centralized government. The northern aggressors wanted to control everything in your life. Slavery was an issue that got rolled into the Agressors' first major victory.

IF slavery was the major point of the War between the States then it should have been brought to the forefront of every discussion and speech. It was not.

Well, genius, read the secession speeches made at the time.  For example, the one made in Mississipi says, regarding secession, that slavery was the ONLY cause of secession.  Preseving slavery was not the major focus of the war. Restoring the union was.  But what divided the union?  Read the speeches, genius, and then get back to me. 

Offline hokiewoodchuck

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 638
  • Gender: Male
Re: Who started the Civil War?
« Reply #19 on: February 12, 2012, 07:41:34 AM »
You mean the discussion where one of Lincoln's Sec suggested to Lincoln himself NOT to speak of it(slavery) until they have had a victory.......certainly.
Therefore it was a reason of the war but not THE reason for it. And to only speak of it if it looks like when can win....and only then.
I thought I was wrong one time but I was mistaken.

Offline Shooterman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2813
  • Gender: Male
  • Draft Jan Morgan for President
Re: Who started the Civil War?
« Reply #20 on: February 12, 2012, 08:00:38 AM »
Well, genius, read the secession speeches made at the time.  For example, the one made in Mississipi says, regarding secession, that slavery was the ONLY cause of secession.  Preseving slavery was not the major focus of the war. Restoring the union was.  But what divided the union?  Read the speeches, genius, and then get back to me. 

Presuming the secession statements of the various states were more than just political expediency, ( as was the DOI ) so what? The Constitution speaks not to secession, but did protect slavery in the union. A state, once it has determined the union does not serve it's needs any longer, can and should secede. Reasons given matters little. Secession is either legal or not. If legal, then the reason can be anything.
There's no ticks like Polyticks-bloodsuckers all Davy Crockett 1786-1836

Yankees are like castor oil. Even a small dose is bad.
[IMG]

elmerfudd

  • Guest
Re: Who started the Civil War?
« Reply #21 on: February 12, 2012, 10:33:35 AM »
Presuming the secession statements of the various states were more than just political expediency, ( as was the DOI ) so what? The Constitution speaks not to secession, but did protect slavery in the union. A state, once it has determined the union does not serve it's needs any longer, can and should secede. Reasons given matters little. Secession is either legal or not. If legal, then the reason can be anything.

But the topic is who started the war, and that always becomes a question of what caused it.  Secession caused it.  The perceived threat to slavery caused secession.  Ergo, slavery is the root cause of the war.  Well, I guess the root cause is the failure of both sides to deal with it in a more rational matter. But it still boils down to slavery. 

I agree that under the Constitution secession probably was constitutional.  But that really din't matter once the war began.  As Roger Taney said (I read this somewhere, I don't have a link), "The issue is now being settled on the field of battle."  But I believe he believed it was constitutional.  So do I.  I am glad it didn't work, though. 

elmerfudd

  • Guest
Re: Who started the Civil War?
« Reply #22 on: February 12, 2012, 10:47:55 AM »
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/Mississippi_causes.htm

Speaks for itself, as do all other secession speeches.  I find it odd that anyone would assert tariffs were a primary cause when slavery is mentioned so prominently.  Why is that?

And notice the reference to slavery being the greatest material interest in the world.  That equals money.  As Solar says, it's always about the money. 

Offline mdgiles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9431
  • Gender: Male
Re: Who started the Civil War?
« Reply #23 on: February 12, 2012, 08:02:44 PM »
It depends on who you ask.
The battle at Fort Sumter, South Carolina was the beginning of the Civil war.
The soldiers in the Confederate Union fired the first shots by trying to defend the Fort from the federal government. It was the Union States vs. the Confederate states from that day forth.
Wonder if it will ever happen again?
The Island the Fort Sumter sat on had been ceded by the State of South Carolina to the Federal government. Because there were no suitable materials locally, the very stones that the fort was made of, had been quarried and brought from New England. South Carolina, and  The Confederacy had no right to that fort - or any federal property. Just because you claim the right to walk out of a house, doesn't mean you can help yourself to all the neat stuff on the way out.
"LIBERALS: their willful ignorance is rivaled only by their catastrophic stupidity"!

Offline Eyesabide

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 357
  • Gender: Male
Re: Who started the Civil War?
« Reply #24 on: May 16, 2012, 04:37:22 AM »
"For want of a nail,"

The Webster - Haynes debates of 1830 might be considered a good place to look for "who" started the civil war, and it might be a good starting place to throw in a third contender for the states rights Vs. slavery as the reasoning for the war. Federal power was not the reason the debates started on, but is what the debate evolved into.
Muskets High!

Offline Eyesabide

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 357
  • Gender: Male
Re: Who started the Civil War?
« Reply #25 on: May 16, 2012, 04:54:38 AM »
Daniel Webster provided the nail that started the civil war in his "Second reply to Haynes" during the Webster Haynes debates of 1830.

This is interesting in that It is making me curious to dig a little deeper into the western land rights /states rights/slavery issues that most focus on during the what caused the civil war. The federal power issue looms over all of it, and might give a clue to what is going on in the current government.

That whole "History repeating itself thing."
Muskets High!

tbone0106

  • Guest
Re: Who started the Civil War?
« Reply #26 on: May 16, 2012, 08:49:46 AM »
But the topic is who started the war, and that always becomes a question of what caused it.  Secession caused it.  The perceived threat to slavery caused secession.  Ergo, slavery is the root cause of the war.  Well, I guess the root cause is the failure of both sides to deal with it in a more rational matter. But it still boils down to slavery. 

I agree that under the Constitution secession probably was constitutional.  But that really din't matter once the war began.  As Roger Taney said (I read this somewhere, I don't have a link), "The issue is now being settled on the field of battle."  But I believe he believed it was constitutional.  So do I.  I am glad it didn't work, though.

I never thought I'd find myself agreeing with you, Elmer, but in this case... you're close. Slavery was the central issue all right, but only because it was the sine qua non of the unmechanized agriculture-based Southern economy. Even back then, it was all about money. The Missouri Compromise told the southern states that the line had been drawn and the abolitionists were gaining the upper hand. That meant economic doom for the South. THAT was worth seceding and going to war.

Offline mdgiles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9431
  • Gender: Male
Re: Who started the Civil War?
« Reply #27 on: June 24, 2012, 08:14:11 PM »
You are sooo full of shit.

It started due to States Rights and self determination without a centralized government. The northern aggressors wanted to control everything in your life. Slavery was an issue that got rolled into the Agressors' first major victory.

IF slavery was the major point of the War between the States then it should have been brought to the forefront of every discussion and speech. It was not.
Oh Bull, I've said it before ,but I'll say it once more; the South dominated the Union up to Lincoln's election. Most of the Presidents had been Southerners and the entire Union bent over backwards to please the South. the 3/5 Compromise meant that a Southern White's vote was worth more than a Northern white's. And I am sick and tired of hearing the region that pushed the Fugitive Slave Act, talk about their defense of States Rights. The Fugitive Slave Act made the Slave Law of Mississippi superior to the Free Law of Massachusetts - IN MASSACHUSETTS So you can put that States Rights Defense where the sun don't shine. Whenever States Rights or Tariffs appears in the argument, that's a sign that the person making the argument doesn't want to face up to reality. as it had been since the founding of the country, it was all about slavery.
"LIBERALS: their willful ignorance is rivaled only by their catastrophic stupidity"!

elmerfudd

  • Guest
Re: Who started the Civil War?
« Reply #28 on: June 25, 2012, 02:08:25 PM »
Oh Bull, I've said it before ,but I'll say it once more; the South dominated the Union up to Lincoln's election. Most of the Presidents had been Southerners and the entire Union bent over backwards to please the South. the 3/5 Compromise meant that a Southern White's vote was worth more than a Northern white's. And I am sick and tired of hearing the region that pushed the Fugitive Slave Act, talk about their defense of States Rights. The Fugitive Slave Act made the Slave Law of Mississippi superior to the Free Law of Massachusetts - IN MASSACHUSETTS So you can put that States Rights Defense where the sun don't shine. Whenever States Rights or Tariffs appears in the argument, that's a sign that the person making the argument doesn't want to face up to reality. as it had been since the founding of the country, it was all about slavery.

what he said.

tbone0106

  • Guest
Re: Who started the Civil War?
« Reply #29 on: June 25, 2012, 10:24:50 PM »
what he said.
Heh, heh. Hoo boy. "What he said." Such eloquence.

What Giles should have said and didn't probably because he was a bit upset was "It was all about slavery because the South could not survive economically without it." Giles has said the equivalent of those words several times elsewhere on this board.

The historic argument over the cause of the war is sprinkled with this phrase: "it was all about slavery." And every time, the writer is partly correct, as you are. For some, and in a rather obscure way, the issue was purely the existence of slavery and slaves; the lowest of low whites and other minorities were protected, you might say, by the existence of the black slave underclass below all. But those who were so protected had no say in how things got done. By definition, the only people who could benefit by the mere existence of a class of people who were ALWAYS at the bottom of the food chain are those who are just one step up from there, and they didn't call the shots.

The folks who called the shots in the South were slave-owners to a man, and heavily invested in the economic value of slave labor. They were estate owners, plantation owners, lumber barons, sugar cane and cotton millionaires, all of whom depended on the availability of slave labor, not for their souls or their dignity, but for their fortunes. States' rights was a rallying cry, but a weak one.

Secession wasn't quite like divorce. It meant crazy nation-building stuff like printing your own money (and finding something to back it up). It meant creating your own navy to protect your thousands of miles of shoreline. It meant finding folks overseas to replace the manufacturing capacity of the North that had just been seceded from. it meant finding a place to sell all that cotton and sugar cane and lumber that slaves produced -- other than the North. Secession was serious business, and was based, in the end, on business.

Yeah, it was all about slavery, because the agriculturally-centered southern economy was based on the existence of slavery.

 

Powered by EzPortal