Slavery a cause?

rihanna · Corporal Joined: 23 Jul 2007 Posts: 1

Was the debate over the abolition of slavery a major cause of the Civil War?
why or why not

THE5ASPECTS · Sergeant Joined: 07 Feb 2008 Posts: 15

I believe that slavery [b]was[/b] a cause of the Civil War, but it was not the only cause. The Confederate States of America left [b]because[/b] Abraham Lincoln was elected, according to some textbooks. The Republican Party did not want to [i]end[/i] slavery in the South, but the South still took it as an insult. That is why I believe what I do. Exclamation

rebelyeller · Corporal Joined: 13 Feb 2008 Posts: 1 Location: Kentucky

I think slavery was more of a side issue to a much greater struggle. Alot of it was sectional injustice and simply the attitudes expressed by congressmen in Washington. Many Northerners Senators and Representives were very argoant and drove a wedge in sectional differences. The North and the South as a people were very different and still are to this day. The South might of held the slaves but the North propegated Slavery by selling their slaves in Southern markets and be putting their vessells in the slave trade and of course by catching and returning many run aways to the South. And after all that people like Daniel Webster had the nerve to attack the South over slavery and call us basically monsters. I think the major issues of the Civil War were the Souths feelings of being pushed around, neglected, their rights being denyed so they secessed of in Maryland and Kentucky's cause attempted to secesseed but Lincoln Admin. soldiers closed the polls to Secessionist. I think it is possible that South Carolina secesseed partially due to slavery but mostly due to excess tariffs on the mainly agricultural South themselves being a state with major ports and States' Rights issues tied in with that. But the rest of the South especially the upper South only secesseed because they were appalled at the Lincoln Admin.'s denying the Constitutional Rights of South Carolina, the call for Invasion forces, and of course the firing on Fort Sumter all attempts to subjugate South Carolina. When it all boils down to it why a state secesseed was not the real issue the war itself was fought to stop subjugation and other Lincoln Admin. atrocities and to stop his invasion which other Southern or Border states not even interested much in slavery such as Kentucky could not set back and let happen and defently could not particapate in.

THE5ASPECTS · Sergeant Joined: 07 Feb 2008 Posts: 15

I agree with all that you said, but I cannot help but think there were other reasons as well. As we all agree that slavery is a side issue, we can set that aside. Secession is constitutinal, but the North would not allow the South to secede. Then, the South retaliated by attacking Fort Sumter.

bmac6446 · Corporal Joined: 10 Apr 2008 Posts: 8 Location: Georgia

We have to go further back than the 1860 election to discover the reason for the secession. There has been friction between abolitionists and plantation owners since the founding of our country.
The Missouri Compromise and Dred Scott only helped to make the fire hotter. There were radicals on both sides and in both parties. The Pseudo-Aristocracy of the south also didn't much like having their fine European imported goods heavily tariffed by the northern representatives and senators. The newspapers on both sides of the slave issue also helped to fan the flames. Violence was in the air. John Brown's show of violence at Harper's Ferry was only the steam being let out before the pot blew.
Before Abraham Lincoln took office the southern states were ready for a fight. Under cooperation from the Buchanan administration they were emptying northern garrisons and resupplying southern garrisons with arms and supplies for war.
When Lincoln took office in March, the fire eaters of the south had their way, firing upon Ft. Sumter in South Carolina, when Lincoln attempted to resupply the half starved detachment.
Albeit brief, this is a sense of what lead up to the first states seceding from the United States.

O'Bruadair · Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 9:32 pm Post subject:

“ the South retaliated by attacking Fort Sumter.”

The reduction of Fort Sumter was in no way a “retaliation”. It has been established that secession was a legal act. If we take this as fact then it must logically follow that the armed forces that occupied Sumter became those of a foreign power after South Carolina seceded. And I might add that they were armed forces of a foreign power that was demonstrably hostile and belligerent and one that had negotiated in bad faith.

South Carolina seceded on 20 December 1860. Southern forces took no hostile action against federal forces in Sumter for nearly four months (12 April 1861, How many nations would tolerate the armed forces of a hostile and aggressive foreign power on their soil for that long?) and only then after learning of the eminent arrival of an armed expedition to not only re-supply but reinforce the garrison.

Slavery was certainly one of the issues that caused secession by the original seven Southern States but secession did not mean and has not meant inevitable war (there are numerous examples in history of states seceding from “unions” without those unions resorting to war)

The War Between the States was caused by the Lincoln administration’s (and the north in general) refusal to allow a peaceful separation. Lincoln and his cronies wanted war and saw to it that they got one.

O'Bruadair · Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 9:33 pm Post subject:

“ the South retaliated by attacking Fort Sumter.”

The reduction of Fort Sumter was in no way a “retaliation”. It has been established that secession was a legal act. If we take this as fact then it must logically follow that the armed forces that occupied Sumter became those of a foreign power after South Carolina seceded. And I might add that they were armed forces of a foreign power that was demonstrably hostile and belligerent and one that had negotiated in bad faith.

South Carolina seceded on 20 December 1860. Southern forces took no hostile action against federal forces in Sumter for nearly four months (12 April 1861, How many nations would tolerate the armed forces of a hostile and aggressive foreign power on their soil for that long?) and only then after learning of the eminent arrival of an armed expedition to not only re-supply but reinforce the garrison.

Slavery was certainly one of the issues that caused secession by the original seven Southern States but secession did not mean and has not meant inevitable war (there are numerous examples in history of states seceding from “unions” without those unions resorting to war)

The War Between the States was caused by the Lincoln administration’s (and the north in general) refusal to allow a peaceful separation. Lincoln and his cronies wanted war and saw to it that they got one.

possum · Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 1:56 am Post subject:

I haven't been here for a wee while but its nice to see you here Major! And exactly the topic I've been musing over. I'm reading Shelby Foote's account of what exactly happened at Fort Sumter. Interesting that the garrison at Fort Sumter had originally occupied the more vulnerable Fort Moultrie on Sullivan's Island, but six days after South Carolina seceded, Anderson removed his 82 men to the stronger fortress three miles out in the harbour.

So one of the questions i have is, if the North laid proprietorial claim to Fort Sumter, did it also claim to own Moultrie also? Did it in fact lay claim to all the Forts including the Florida ones?

The other point is that Foote is kind to Lincoln(in this instance) in that he believes that it was actually Seward who got bamboozled, making ambiguous statements to the Confederates which made it look like Lincoln was the deceiver. The way Shelby Foote puts it even makes me wonder whether one can attribute much of the blame for the ensuing first shots of the war at the feet of Seward given he was misrepresenting Lincoln. Or at least he was second guessing Lincoln.
I know in the past i have happily bought into the view that Lincoln orchestrated and manipulated the situation so therefore i was surprised to read such an esteemed Southern historian as Shelby Foote letting him off the hook and placing Seward squarely on it!

O'Bruadair · Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 9:27 pm Post subject:

Hey Pos! Good to hear from you. Sorry it took me so long to reply! The older I get the less time I have! Grandkids are running the *beep* out of their Paw Paw. When are you leaving for Dixie?

“…if the North laid proprietorial claim to Fort Sumter, did it also claim to own Moultrie also? Did it in fact lay claim to all the Forts including the Florida ones?”

Yes, they claimed all federal property in the South. They had to stand by their absurd contention that the Southern States had no legal right to separate from the U.S. (BTW the Confederate government offered to pay for all Federal property seized and even offered to pay their share of the Federal debt.) Lincoln didn’t try and defend every post because this was a practical impossibility. The regular US military forces at the time were just too small in number to do so. For example I know that when Alabama State troops seized Fort Morgan, which defended Mobile Bay, the entire federal garrison was comprised of one lonely ordnance Sergeant. When they roused him from his bunk before dawn he did what any good government employee would have done. He made the officer commanding the State troops sign a receipt for the fortress before he left!

“The other point is that Foote is kind to Lincoln (in this instance)”

Foote as good as he is in some regards is one of those “professional historians” I am always railing about. I can’t take any judgement of his at face value. I once heard him speak in support of modern day “slave reparations”. Anyone who supports a nutty idea like that can’t be playing with a full deck.

possum · Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 8:11 pm Post subject:

What you actually heard him talk? He strikes me as being a bit Lee-ish. You know refined Southern gent and all that...I've the impression there aren't too many of them left to be honest...present company excluded of course. The Southern man strikes me as being aggressive and suspicious (can't say i blame them)I've been well and truly bludgeoned by Southerner and Northerner alike on the boards. The only thing i could do was bludgeon back! I guess the aristocrats are well and truly in the past. Well anyway, I will save my judgements until my experiences confirm or deny!

I'm leaving on June 28 going to New Orleans first up to look at the mess the Federal government didn't bother to clean up. Gotta thing about the Mississippi and the French quarter so i will recover myself there and then meander over to visit Pam. Then head up to Shilo and hopefully meet Billy. From what i can gather its a bit grim around Fredericksburg and most of the Virginian battlefields are cemented over and precious relics lying under the parking lot of a Pizza Hut. Shame Shame on the Virginians.

I aniticipate being mugged in Nawlins, stabbed in Memphis, bayoneted in Gettysburg and tasered at the Lincoln memorial in DC but hayle...this is America!

I'd love to meet you and your wife and your littlies O'Bruadair but i'm also fine about just chattin' on-line. I suspect i will mainly be suffering from heat exhaustion and will just want to spend two weeks in air conditioning!!! I can handle Australian heat and Indian heat...no reason to expect Suthin' heat to be any different.

What battlefields do you think i shouldn't miss...Shiloh and Anitetam I guess. Its more meaningful to go to the battles i know well. Gettysburg is a given. I was silly enought to buy tickets for the first two days and not the third which means i miss Pickett's charge (didn't think!) but i'll try and swap them when i'm there. Can't miss Pickett's Charge! One thing i DO intend to do is find a grey uniform and get in it! Even if i have to get it off a corpse!