Causes of the Civil War

[FeatheredTerror]

Lately, I've been getting very interested in the Civil War, but still am unsure as to the exact causes of it. I know slavery is often cited as the issue, but I've seen Shane mention in an old thread that the causes of the war are very complex. I would appreciate it if he or anyone else knowledgeable on the topic could enlighten me on this. If that's too much for a thread, I wouldn't mind being directed to some good sources from which I can learn more.

[dallen68]

Actually, it's a perfect thing for a thread.

And it is kinda complicated, as originally the issue was whether the states had supremacy over the law of the land or Washington did. Although the slavery issue was a central concern of the Federalists (those that thought Washington had the Supreme Rule), Abraham Lincoln himself did not give a rat's ass about it until about 1863. Ironically, although he believed the states should ultimately decide, Robert Lee himself was a life long abolitionist.

[MrBogosity]

And US Grant was a slave owner.

The proximate cause of the Civil War was over whether or not the states could secede from the union. Funny how no one doubted this before the Civil War! When Jefferson was elected president, the Federalist New England states got together and decided whether or not to secede. They decided not to, of course, but NO ONE said at the time that they COULDN'T.

Same thing during the Tariffs of Abomination in the 1840s. Southern states debated secession, but NO ONE said, "Hey, wait, states can't secede!" We would have had the Civil War right then and there if Polk hadn't got rid of the protectionist tariffs.

In 1848, regarding Texas declaring independence from Mexico, Congressman Abraham Lincoln said:

Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right—a right which, we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority was precisely the case of the Tories of our own Revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones.

(Yeah, Lincoln was a lying hypocrite, but he was a politician; what do you expect?)

Then you had abolitionist secessionists like Lysander Spooner and William Lloyd Garrison, who called for the NORTHERN states to secede from the union, creating a free state where their tax money didn't have to support slavery and slaves escaping there could remain free (instead of having to make it all the way to Canada). Again, NO ONE objected to them on the grounds that states couldn't secede.

[Travis Retriever]

Same thing during the Tariffs of Abomination in the 1840s. Southern states debated secession, but NO ONE said, "Hey, wait, states can't secede!" We would have had the Civil War right then and there if Polk hadn't got rid of the protectionist tariffs.

OT: But this explains why you like Polk.

[evensgrey]

And US Grant was a slave owner.

The proximate cause of the Civil War was over whether or not the states could secede from the union. Funny how no one doubted this before the Civil War! When Jefferson was elected president, the Federalist New England states got together and decided whether or not to secede. They decided not to, of course, but NO ONE said at the time that they COULDN'T.

Same thing during the Tariffs of Abomination in the 1840s. Southern states debated secession, but NO ONE said, "Hey, wait, states can't secede!" We would have had the Civil War right then and there if Polk hadn't got rid of the protectionist tariffs.

In 1848, regarding Texas declaring independence from Mexico, Congressman Abraham Lincoln said:

(Yeah, Lincoln was a lying hypocrite, but he was a politician; what do you expect?)

Then you had abolitionist secessionists like Lysander Spooner and William Lloyd Garrison, who called for the NORTHERN states to secede from the union, creating a free state where their tax money didn't have to support slavery and slaves escaping there could remain free (instead of having to make it all the way to Canada). Again, NO ONE objected to them on the grounds that states couldn't secede.

Don't forget the Nullification Crisis in the 1830's under Jackson.  In that instance, Jackson apparently claimed that Succession wasn't permitted, but then, he was never really one for the rule of law.  (For a stellar example of this, see his reaction to the Supreme Court's overturning the Indian Removal Act.)

[MrBogosity]

OT: But this explains why you like Polk.

One of the reasons.

[MrBogosity]

Don't forget the Nullification Crisis in the 1830's under Jackson.  In that instance, Jackson apparently claimed that Succession wasn't permitted, but then, he was never really one for the rule of law.  (For a stellar example of this, see his reaction to the Supreme Court's overturning the Indian Removal Act.)

Nullification isn't secession. This needs to be drilled into people's minds!

[evensgrey]

Nullification isn't secession. This needs to be drilled into people's minds!

No, and it's use in the Free States against the Fugitive Slave Acts was one of the things that fueled the eventual succession of the Southern States, but it was also a possibility during the Nullification Crisis had Jackson not backed down.  (Quite an uncharacteristic move for a man who appears only to not have killed anyone over the Petticoat Affair, which everything I know about him indicates he would not have seen as separate from the Nullification Crisis, only because he did not consider it proper to fight duels over someone else's wife.)

[Ibrahim90]

OT: But this explains why you like Polk.

Polk was a cunt--just ask the Mexicans

[evensgrey]

Polk was a cunt--just ask the Mexicans

Almost all of them were, even the ones who did manage to have some good points.  (Jackson committed atrocities that could get him executed today, but he was as vicious in his opposition to central banking and scandal mongering as he was to anything else.  Jefferson authored the 1st Amendment and conceived of the 'wall of separation' between church and state, but also conceived the plan by which vast swaths of Indian territory were gained by the US, in at least some instances in a manner the Indians involved found deeply humiliating.  George Washington seems to have been about as good as it gets, but he was really wishy-washy on a whole bunch of issues, since a politician appears to have been another of those things he never wanted to be and ended up deciding he had to do.)

[MrBogosity]

Polk was a cunt--just ask the Mexicans

Which Mexicans, the ones that attacked American settlers in Texas?

[dallen68]

I've just finished reading a smattering of the declarations of secession of several of the states, and they reveal that each seceding state had different, although sometimes similar reasons:

Mississippi-Slavery was apparently the central issue.
S.Carolina-Corporate Subsidies to Northern interests, and Federal over-reach were the primary issues.
Georgia-Federal over-reach, the North effectively controlling all three branches of the Federal Gov't, Protections and Subsidies to Northern industries, the establishment and empowerment of a specifically abolitionist party, and the drama of the admission of Missouri to the Union were all issues. Also, the fact the Republicans had managed to take the Presidency and both houses of Congress, while not being on the ballot in several states.
Texas-Failure of the Federal Government to uphold several provisions of the treaty that admitted Texas (including, but not exclusive to slavery), was the issue.

[MrBogosity]

I've just finished reading a smattering of the declarations of secession of several of the states, and they reveal that each seceding state had different, although sometimes similar reasons:

Mississippi-Slavery was apparently the central issue.
S.Carolina-Corporate Subsidies to Northern interests, and Federal over-reach were the primary issues.
Georgia-Federal over-reach, the North effectively controlling all three branches of the Federal Gov't, Protections and Subsidies to Northern industries, the establishment and empowerment of a specifically abolitionist party, and the drama of the admission of Missouri to the Union were all issues. Also, the fact the Republicans had managed to take the Presidency and both houses of Congress, while not being on the ballot in several states.
Texas-Failure of the Federal Government to uphold several provisions of the treaty that admitted Texas (including, but not exclusive to slavery), was the issue.

You'll find, if you research it enough, that the states further north like North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia actually had an earlier debate on secession based on the slavery issue, and decided not to. Once the northern aggression started, they debated secession on that basis, and it was that, not slavery, that caused them to secede.

[dallen68]

You'll find, if you research it enough, that the states further north like North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia actually had an earlier debate on secession based on the slavery issue, and decided not to. Once the northern aggression started, they debated secession on that basis, and it was that, not slavery, that caused them to secede.

Virginia's declaration cited nothing other than that a referendum had been held, and it was the will of the people of that State. In the process, it explains at considerable length that the ultimate decision rests with the people.

[Ibrahim90]

Which Mexicans, the ones that attacked American settlers in Texas?

among others

frankly, as you can tell by my smiley, I'm not particularly outraged over what happened to either side (i.e. between the US and Mexico): they couldn't peacefully agree on the right river to separate the two, and one was butt-hurt over Texas' breaking away. You know who I really feel sorry for? the Native Americans: the Mexicans may have been bad, but the US was worse.