Why slavery was not the cause of the War (final chapter and last word).

[Zeeboe]

If slavery was not an issue, then why did South Carolina and several other slave states declare Lincoln as hostile towards slavery?

"Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

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."

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

Mississippi's Declaration.

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

Georgia:

"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. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state."

Texas:

"Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as neg-ro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?"

Furthermore -

Unlike the Founding Fathers of the U.S. Constitution, who were too embarrassed to mention slavery by name in their document, the Founding Fathers of the C.S. Constitution refer to slavery explicitly throughout.

Consider a few such places, beginning with Article I, Section 9, Clause 4, which prohibited the Confederate government from restricting slavery in any way:

"No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in ***** slaves shall be passed."

Article IV, Section 2 also prohibited states from interfering with slavery"

"The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired."

(So much for States Rights.)

Perhaps the most menacing provision of the Confederate Constitution was the explicit protection Article IV, Section 3, Clause 3 offered to slavery in all future territories conquered or acquired by the Confederacy:

"The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of ***** slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States."

This provision ensured the perpetuation of slavery as long and as far as the Confederate States could extend it's political reach, and more then a few Confederates had there eyes fixed on Cuba and Central and South America as objects of future conquest.

[Zeeboe]

If the Southern states possessed the legal and constitutional right to secede peacefully, then indeed virtually all of President Lincoln's actions in defense of the United States of America were constitutionally illegitimate. However, secession cannot be squared with either the conditions necessary for constitutional government (free elections, majority rule, government by consent, equal protection of equal rights) or the textual provisions of the United States Constitution. What some Southerners called *secession* was, in light of the U.S. Constitution and the social contract principles of the American Founding, a *rebellion.*

If the purpose of secession is to protect a minority from an oppressive majority, then any argument for a state to secede legally and peacefully from the Union must be an argument for counties to secede from states. And any argument for counties to secede from states must be an argument for towns to secede from counties, neighborhoods from towns, families from neighborhoods. The ultimate and irreducible minority is the individual citizen. Again, if the purpose of secession is to protect a minority against the majority, why may not a individual citizen secede whenever he or she is displeased by the laws or policies under which he or she lives? And after individuals become convinced that they have a legal right to secede, that each individual has the legal right to reject the outcome of any election with which he or she happens to disagree with, does not civil society under law become impossible?

In principle, secession implies that no law can be truly binding, that anyone who dislikes a law has the right to declare himself or herself exempt from it's reach. This is why President Lincoln argued in his first inaugural address that "the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy."

A state of anarchy, or a state of lawlessness is characterized by the rule of might, or brute force. President Lincoln understood clearly that secession represents nothing less then a movement away fro civil society back wards the state of nature and anarchy, a movement away from freedom under law toward slavery without law.

Once it is agreed that the states did not possess a legal right of secession, the questions becomes very different: if the states had waged an armed rebellion against the Federal Government, to what extent under the U.S. Constitution, could the Federal Government use it's power to suppress it?

In the case of the American Civil War, the Confederate strategy for victory differed from that of the U.S.A. For the Confederacy, it was mainly a war of attrition. In principle, the C.S.A. did not need to win a single battle to secure victory: it needed only for the U.S. Army to tire and go home.

For the U.S.A., victory, that is, complete suppression of the rebellion, required nothing less then completely vanquishing the hostile rebel forces. How far would the Union go--how far *should* they go--to accomplish this goal?

Many Southerners, those who remained, were numb and incoherent by the war's end in April of 1865, filled with terror, anxiety, hatred, gloom and depression, Yet, as commander in chief, President Lincoln had a duty to ask hard questions of war strategy. What must the Union Army do to win?

Consider also the precedent being set. If a nation of people agrees to settle their political disputes through free elections and ballots, and then some who cannot win decide to resort instead to bullets in order to achieve the results they desire, may a president use bullets to vindicate free elections and ballots?

If a president does not defend the results of a free election, does that not set the precedent that whatever cannot be attained through free elections may be attained by threats and physical violence?

And if that becomes the accepted standard for settling political disputes, why will anyone place any stock in importance or value elections? If physical violence becomes the standard, is it not wiser to invest in bullets and pay no attention to ballots?

It is a hard truth for many modern critics to accept, but in the face of violent rebellion, violent force on the part of the Federal Government may be the necessary response. As President Lincoln's law partner, William Herndon, asked rhetorically, "Does Lincoln suppose he can crush--squelch out this huge rebellion by pop guns filled with rose water?"

[Natty]

The fact is that some Union states still had slavery after all the slaves in the Confederate states were free.

[Zeeboe]

Rome was not built in a day.

[Natty]

Rome was not built in a day.

Indeed, The North had slavery for 200 years.

[Zeeboe]

Does that make slavery in the South okay?

[Natty]

Does that make slavery in the South okay?

No, it was the United States Supreme Court that made slavery OK.

[Natty]

No but some of it was.

What Natty refered to mwas that slaves were free by the EP and Amendment, but in the North, they had been renamed as life long aprentices instead of being slaves. Same thing as slavery, but not covered by the EP.

In the Union state of New Jersey, they kept their slaves after the Emancipation Proclamation freed all the Confederate slaves, they changed their name to apprentices for life.

But in the Union states of Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky and Missouri and West Virginia, they kept slavery and still called them slaves.

[Zeeboe]

Unlike the Confederate Constitution, the U.S. Constitution freely permitted states to abolish slavery. If the day ever came when slavery was eliminated voluntarily throughout the United States, not one word of the U.S. Constitution would need to be changed, whereas slavery could never lawfully be abolished under the Confederate Constitution.

Both Frederick Douglas and Abraham Lincoln would probably be shocked to learn that modern academics use theoretical economics to argue that the Confederate Constitution offered greater protection for freedom then the U.S. Constitution.

Yeah, greater freedom for native born, straight white Protestant Conservative Christian men with short hair is more like it.


The reason why President Lincoln did not free all the slaves is because it could have caused great controversy. Lincoln waited until the Union won a great victory before issuing the Emancipation Proclamation so that way the majority of Northern's would not think the war was about slavery. After Antietam, when Lincoln did free the slaves in the South, it had later played a big role in the New York Draft Riots. So Lincoln had to wait before freeing all of them.

I don't think some of you realize the significance of the Emancipation Proclamation. It set a precedence, a higher goal, and gave the moral ground to the North. Once the Union marched in and retook the south the promise of the Proclamation was fulfilled, slavery as an institution was abolished. To simply write it off by pointing out it only applied to the southern states is missing the point completely. It gave the Union something to stand for, and in the end its ideals were set in stone.


Defenders of secession, then and now, stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the difference between secession (a legal separation) and revolution (a illegal separation, or more accurately, a violation of unjust human law sanctioned by natural law). This lead some critics to accuse Lincoln of being caught in a contradiction because he opposed Southern secession in 1861 but, allegedly, he had defended secession in his earlier political career as you pointed out Nick.

Lincoln did indeed speak those words while voicing his concerns about the Mexican War in a speech before the House of Representatives in 1848. But most who quote that fail to quote what Lincoln said next.

The right that is "most valuable," according to Lincoln, is a "most sacred" right--implying it is a nature given right, not a legal one--which Lincoln identified as the right to "revolutionize". After invoking America's "own revolution", Lincoln goes on to explain that the "sacred" right to "revolutionize" cannot be a right granted by positive law or by government because "it is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws, but to break up both, and make new ones."

The sacred right of revolution, in other words, is not the same as a legal right of secession and therefore, Lincoln's 1848 speech defending revolution did not contradict his later opposition to Southern secession which was illegal.


Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution places important restrictions on powers states might otherwise exercise. The third paragraph of that section in particular commands that "no state shall, without the consent of Congress...enter into any agreement or compact with another state."

In other words, states may enter into an "agreement" or a "compact" the other states, but only with the consent of Congress.

Some states may find it useful, economically, socially, or otherwise, to make certain agreements with others regarding the use of a common river or mineral rights for adjacent lands, but the requirement that Congress consent to such agreements ensures that they are not designed to injure the common good or the integrity of the Union.

Any agreement between individual states must be authorized by a constitutional majority of Americans as represented in Congress.

The first paragraph of Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution is even more prohibitory: "No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation."

Further, Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution authorizes the national government to "guarantee to every state in the union a republican form of government", meaning that the national government has the constitutional power to oppose any monarchial or any other non-republican form of government that one or several of the states might attempt to implement.

Nonsense, 13 colines secedded fromm the Uk, 15 states seceded from the SU, in both instances they did so legaly, and the citizens of each voted to do so.

Rebelion only exist in law against lawfull authority, so cite the law that prohibits secesion.

The American revolutionaries of 1776 understood themselves as lawbreakers. They were openly violating the laws of Britain because they believed those laws were unjust by the standard of the natural law. Every signer of the United States Declaration of Independence, including John Hancock, who famously offered his signature in large script so that King George III could read his name without spectacles, understood that he risked execution for treason if caught by the British.

Can one imagine anything more preposterous then the suggestion that the British subjects living in North America under the authority of King George III possessed a legal right of secession? Why had monarchy survived as long as it had in Europe if Europeans living under Kings had possessed a legal of secession all along?

[Zeeboe]

Respectfully, there is a difference. The Texans never consented to Mexican rule. It was imposed upon them. The laws were passed with one purpose - To keep them a subjugated state. There were never any elections. Texans were expected to follow orders with question.

The Southern states freely joined and submitted to the Union, agreeing to settle all political disputes through free elections and ballots, and how can you claim to be a country when you take the results of a legal and correct election and throw out the results simply because you don't like them?

If a nation of people agrees to settle their political disputes through free elections and ballots, and then some who cannot win decide to resort instead to bullets in order to achieve the results they desire, how is society suppose to function?

And if that becomes the accepted standard for settling political disputes, why will anyone place any stock in importance or value elections? If physical violence becomes the standard, is it not wiser to invest in bullets and pay no attention to ballots?


The rights of some can never be the legitimate object of political dispute; they cannot be put up for vote in an election because they are the very ground of free elections. Free government results from a voluntary compact between each individual, and the purpose of the government will be to protect the equal rights of all who have agreed to the compact, whether they belong to the majority, or a minority.

With the guarantee that their rights will be secure regardless of the outcome of an election, the recourse for a losing minority is the next election in which they can try to become the new majority. But the ones who do not win the election must accept it's results for the sake of peace and wait to try again.

The Southern argument for secession was/is based precisely on a refusal to accept the result of a free, legal, and legitimate election.

If a president does not defend the results of a free election, does that not set the precedent that whatever cannot be attained through free elections may be attained by threats and physical violence?

[paulisreath]

the answer is "both/and"

To me, the ultimate cause was a clash between those who wanted a powerful central federal government and those who championed State's Rights (sound familiar?). Remember, Lincoln initially fought to "preserve the Union", thereby denying a central premise in the State's Rights theory--the right to secede. The South fought to establish rights embodied in the State's Rights theory. It just so happens the main societal issue that such rights swirled around was slavery. So these to arguments are, in reality, flip sides of the same coin.

Also, please remember that the Civil War really and truly began in 1856 with the conflict between Missourians and Kansans. That fight definitely WAS over slavery and namely wether Kansas would enter the union as a free state or a slave state.

[ecobeLedFiene]

so far i like The Never War the best, then The Lost City of Faar, then the Reality Bug and then The Merchent of Death. ___

What about the rest of you?

[Pennsylvania Electricity]

It doesn't make sense at all. Slavery is part of history and for the future prediction. Every country had their own slaves, even at your own home premises.









;) :p :D

[2nd Colorado]

Remember that slaves were only freed by the Immancipation Proclamation in States that were in rebellion. It did not free slaves in Union States.

[pdbwod]

At the constitutional convention the was a gentleman's agreement that the South would end slavery over time. For the all recognized the slavery was the antithesis of what they were purposing. Unfortunately, the South broke this agreement and tried to perpetuate and expand slavery.
When Jefferson mumbled on his death bed the Madison didn't speak up. If only he was wishing him to speak of that agreement. But of course Jefferson wasn't at the convention and knew not of the agreement. And Madison never said a word when the slavery question started to become an issue in the 1820's & 30's.