Did Lincoln Start the Civil War?

[PatCleburne]

If you look at what states like South Carolina said @ the time of secession, its clear that slavery was a main impetus.

[charlesobscure]

I think the experience of General Cleburne illustrates this point. His suggestion to utilize slaves in the Confederate Army was met with much disapproval, one of the rationales being that if slaves were to be emancipated to further the war effort, it would at once contravene what the South was fighting for.

[Cleaburn]

The Question is did Lincoln and the Northern political Machine start the War my answer is absolutely, YES! However was the War necessary NO, was Slavery the cause yes and no, what was this war about basically different political philosophies based on two founders concepts of government which has and does still divide this nation even today, One adhered to Strong federal government the other was based on strong states rights. Lincoln leaned toward federalism as well as much of the northeast where this concept of Government was centered, but the other the states rights crowd was based in the southern states among the southern Governors and legislatures and political leaders and the people as well. Two different ideas of how America should exist and thereby how people should live. One Guided by government the other by the individual. Slavery which was used and became a stigma on the south thus became a point of contention of this conflict. the reason was not because the north in mass carried about slavery per say even though there were groups who were making a lot a noise against slavery. Slavery was a dieing institution and was dieing and if left alone would have died out as knew technology came that were more efficient ways to deal with cotton production and other agricultural labor intensive work. Slaves were very expensive and costly to maintain. And by necessity would have changed in time with far more efficient ways of doing things. And frankly if this was the issue for the north to send troops into the southern states to free the slaves it would have been a far less expense to simply buy the slaves out right and free them. Than to wage a total war against southern slave holders. Now did Lincoln start the war know he allowed the war and those he represented the south was provoked to succeed yes because the strong individualist where being told what to do by the strong government fellows along with ridiculous taxes being imposed upon the southern planters . Well this did not fly with the Southern people and sad to say this did not fly with the northerner’s that states would pull out from under there governments control. Thusly two different ideologies’ of life reach the boiling point and then exploding! Back to Lincoln because of his ideology and much of the north’s he knew that in order for there to be a strong centralized government to prevail he would not allow these disgruntled states to leave the union he could not because of his view of government. They would not stay because of there’s and so there it was conflict and war. The blast that set all this of was FT Sumter Lincoln used it as a a excuse to invade and he did and the south responded and on and on it went till over 600,000 thousand men had been made casualties’ of this war. Did Lincoln start the war indirectly yes in the sense he waited for the excuse to send in troops, why so his view of government would prevail and whether you like it or not it did and now we are here again the very same issue but with different excuses but the very same root causes ideas of how government should work.

[Braxton Bragg]

Well seems to me that the North wanted to Free the slaves, but inslave the southeren states to keep them in the Union by force, hypocrisy or what!

Braxton Bragg

[Willard]

Cleaburn wrote:

The Question is did Lincoln and the Northern political Machine start the War my answer is absolutely, YES!

I didn't quote your entire piece, but your assertions are completely without merit and not supported by historical facts.

Lincoln is quoted ad naueseum here and in other forums covering this same topic that his primary goal was to preserve the Union. To paraphrase if he could preserve the Union and keep slavery, he would have done it and if he could preserve the Union and free the slaves he would do it. Slavery and the economic system of the South which it fueled, was the primary reason for the war plain and simple. The institution of slavery drove the states rights issues - not the other way around - and that is plain to see in reading the speeches of those states rights proponents at the time. Only once the delicate political balance between the South and the North was finally tipped by into Northern favor by the 1860 election, did the South cry and decide it wanted to leave the Union. Why? Because Southern political dominance of the Union had finally come to an end.

This was not the policy of a North hell bent on a war of invasion and aggression, but one with the perspective that the Southern states were in rebellion. The Federal government went to great lengths to avoid a shooting war. The first shots were clearly initiated by the South in their attempts to illegally appropriate Federal property. A majority of Southern states seceded BEFORE Lincoln was even inaugurated. The legal arguments for secession are weak at best and basically moot as the question was ultimately settled by force of arms. That being said, the ONLY states with a basic legal argument for secession were those of the 13 original colonies. The remaining states and the land they occupied were admitted into/annexed/purchased BY the federal government. Why would the Federal government allow the Southern states to secede with land that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT - operating on the collective basis of all the states - had absorbed into the Union? Was the Louisiana Purchase funded by just the Southern states? No it was funded by the Federal government. What about the Gadsen Purchase and the treaties with Mexico with the Federal government, etc?

The President of the US has a duty to uphold and defend the Constitution. Any President, when challenged in such a fashion, would need to act in such a way. The fact of the matter is that Lincoln exercised an enormous amount of restraint despite tremendous pressure from Northern papers and citizens to act quickly. The idea that you put forth that Lincoln was foaming at the mouth is nothing more than Southern revisionist history.

The argument about slavery being a dying institution is just a red herring. If that was the case, then why didn't the South just accept Lincoln's multiple attempts to reimburse slaveowners for each slave and end the war? Because despite the offer price it wasn't economically profitable. Slavery was very profitable for the South at the time and as a sunk cost, southern plantation owners would never have been able to recover the labor costs associated with such a settlement. The reason why cotton was so profitable the Southern elite was because the free labor associated with slavery, not inspite of it. From an economic standpoint, it wasn't the North that was most impacted by slavery - in fact many Northern's were upset that freedmen would move north and work a lower salaries. Slavery made it economically difficult for OTHER SOUTHERNERS to compete in the market place as their competition had vast human resources with zero labor cost other then maintenance invested. The institution of slavery was only profitable to the Southern Elite - the same men who held political office and were crying about states rights. As they claimed, the war was to protect a way of life: THEIR WAY OF LIFE and ensure that they were still the top dogs in Southern society.

As for the federalism argument you throwing out as Lincoln's idealogy and primary driver for the war, that is completely absurd. Lincoln's primary objective was to preserve the Union. Of course the issue of a stronger federal government was an outgrowth of the Civil War and its aftermath because it was successful - meaning the federal government model was a more efficient war machine than the Confederate government model. However, the strong push of federalism in our country was really solidified in the 1930s with FDR's New Deal policies.

[Braxton Bragg]

Do you really think that if Mr Davis had freed all the slaves at the start, that the South would have been left alone..... Free
No the north knew it would weaken there power at home and abroad, this Union thing was all about power and prestige abroad!

Braxton Bragg

[Willard]

Braxton Bragg wrote:

Do you really think that if Mr Davis had freed all the slaves at the start, that the South would have been left alone..... Free
No the north knew it would weaken there power at home and abroad, this Union thing was all about power and prestige abroad!

Braxton Bragg

Huh?

Sorry that doesn't make any logical sense. The South rebelled to protect the institution of slavery not to get rid of it. Had that been the Southern objective, they could have stayed in the Union and achieved the same thing. Secession and the institution of slavery only benefited the Southern Elite - the same people who started the war to protect their economic and political dominance. The South had two opportunities to do what you just said. General Cleburne recommended it and was effectively prevented from higher command for just writing the memo. Lee argued for it - but it was way too late. If the South was truly interested in self-determination than they would have freed the slaves and granted immediate citizenship to those slaves who took up arms for the Southern cause. Of course, Lincoln effectively beat them to the punch in late 1862 and any chance for the South to tap the valuable manpower resource was effectively gone.

[Braxton Bragg]

I think you missed the point! If the South wanted to leave the Union, and there were no slaves
I dont think the Union would have let the South leave.
The North would have invaded the south to force those states back into Union.

If you read Lincoln's plea " Come back into the union I will leave the rest open" ( in modern parlance)

Braxton Bragg

[Armchair General]

Lincoln wasn't just going to sit back and let a major portion of his country up and leave because they felt like it. The South had no legitimate support for secession in the Constitution or any other formal document in the American government. Southern states did not even give Lincoln a chance; he was elected in November, South Carolina seceded in December.

Which leads to Fort Sumter. The US Government built Sumter, and supplied Sumter with its own provisions and men. Just because some fire-eaters in South Carolina thought they could up and leave, drawing new lines on a map did not mean they could call Sumter their own. It was not, and when the South fired on Sumter, they fired on the American government. Lincoln was responding to that specific threat.

[Braxton Bragg]

As I understand it Each state after the War of independence was classed as its own country
The Union of states was a loose agreement, I will of course stand corrected if I am wrong


A U.S. state is any one of 50 federated states of the United States of America that share sovereignty with the federal government. Because of this shared sovereignty, an American is a citizen both of the federal entity and of his or her state of domicile.[1] Four states use the official title of commonwealth rather than state. State citizenship is flexible and no government approval is required to move between states (with the exception of convicts on parole).

The United States Constitution allocates power between these two levels of government. By ratifying the Constitution, the people transferred certain limited sovereign powers to the federal government from their states. Under the Tenth Amendment, all powers not delegated to the U.S. government nor prohibited to the states are retained by the states or the people. Historically, the tasks of public safety (in the sense of controlling crime), public education, public health, transportation, and infrastructure have generally been considered primarily state responsibilities, although all of these now have significant federal funding and regulation as well (based largely upon the Commerce Clause, the Taxing and Spending Clause, and the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution).

Over time, the Constitution has been amended, and the interpretation and application of its provisions have changed. The general tendency has been toward centralization and incorporation, with the federal government playing a much larger role than it once did. There is a continuing debate over states' rights, which concerns the extent and nature of the states' powers and sovereignty in relation to the federal government as well as the rights of individual persons.

Congress may admit new states on an equal footing with existing ones; however, it has not done so since 1959. The Constitution is silent on the question of whether states have the power to unilaterally leave, or secede from, the Union, but the Supreme Court has ruled secession to be unconstitutional, a position driven in part by the outcome of the American Civil War.

It would be interesting to know when the Supreme court ruled?
But having said all of this, I dont think anyone will ever agree on this argument, the answer will always be .......depends on which side of the fence you live!


Braxton Bragg