Did Lincoln Start the Civil War?

[charlesobscure]

Braxton Bragg wrote:

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

Lincoln never threatened to touch slavery in the states where it already existed. Lincoln was a threat to the South because he opposed the expansion of slavery into new territories, which in turn threatened any future maintenance of power in the federal government by the slaveholding interest.

I'm not sure what the point of your statement was. If there were no slaves in the South, then why would the Southern states choose to secede?

[charlesobscure]

Braxton Bragg wrote:

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

I'm not going to quote your entire statement, but the Supreme Court case you refer to is Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869). Practically speaking, the case is really not that critical as the major debate over the constitutionality of secession had been decided by the rifle.

However, historically speaking, the present Constitution was established as an effort to strengthen the federal government in response to the failure that was the Articles of Confederation. Speaking from a purely contractual point of view, I cannot conceive how the Framers would have inserted a provision into the Constitution (i.e. the 10th Amendment) that would allow a state to unilaterally breach the contract. It conflicts with the fundamental purpose of the Constitution.

[Braxton Bragg]

charlesobscure

the case is really not that critical as the major debate over the constitutionality of secession had been decided by the rifle.

As I thought, there was no legal reason why the South could not leave the Union :laugh:

If there were no slaves in the South, then why would the Southern states choose to secede

It was not just slavery, they may have wanted to leave because of different ways of life,
Like I said before, even if they had freed all the slaves the outcome would have been the same, coercion!

All this having been said, to get back to the thread did Lincoln start the war?
No I dont think he did, there were dark forces arranged, powerful people who had interest
in Industrial power etc, these were the guilty people, looking to see how much money they could make from a war.

Braxton Bragg

[Armchair General]

Is it true that were war-profiteers in the North? Yes, it is very true. But it is also true there were people who were looking out for the well-being of over three million people held in bondage because of the color of their skin. In the North, in sweat shops and factories, no matter how horrible life was in these places, at the end of the day, the workers could still leave if they wanted to. In the South, leaving wasn't an option.

[charlesobscure]

Braxton Bragg wrote:

charlesobscure

the case is really not that critical as the major debate over the constitutionality of secession had been decided by the rifle.

As I thought, there was no legal reason why the South could not leave the Union :laugh:

If there were no slaves in the South, then why would the Southern states choose to secede

It was not just slavery, they may have wanted to leave because of different ways of life,
Like I said before, even if they had freed all the slaves the outcome would have been the same, coercion!

All this having been said, to get back to the thread did Lincoln start the war?
No I dont think he did, there were dark forces arranged, powerful people who had interest
in Industrial power etc, these were the guilty people, looking to see how much money they could make from a war.

Braxton Bragg

I don't mean to say that the Supreme Court case lacks legal effect, just that many critics view it as a weak legal argument for the unconstitutionality of secession.

Additionally, I find it incredibly hard to believe that the South would secede and commit itself to such a drastic end as civil war merely on the grounds of variations in lifestyles. This is an oversimplification that glosses over key elements of historical fact.

My question remains, where is the minority's legal right to rebel? It is contrary to common sense that in providing for the foundation of a "a more perfect Union...and secur[ing] the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity," there would be an escape clause for states to unilaterally destroy that Union based on their political whims.

[Braxton Bragg]

Is that it? You all seem fixated on one thing Slaves! just pull the veil one side and look a little further, many issues are there! No you cant can you, the word slave has narrowed your vision. Or is it because you cannot justify the coercion used against another people, so you hide behind the word slave's

Gona have to do better than that AC

Charles I like your argument, it has some good founding

Braxton Bragg

[charlesobscure]

Armchair General wrote:

Is it true that were war-profiteers in the North? Yes, it is very true. But it is also true there were people who were looking out for the well-being of over three million people held in bondage because of the color of their skin. In the North, in sweat shops and factories, no matter how horrible life was in these places, at the end of the day, the workers could still leave if they wanted to. In the South, leaving wasn't an option.

I think it is important to note, however, that freeing the slaves was not the driving force for the North at the outset of the war. Certainly there was a strong abolitionist movement that welcomed the complete eradication of that peculiar institution from American soil. However, at the outset of the war, the North was fighting to preserve the Union, regardless of the status of slavery in the states where it had existed pre-1861. The North did not set out, at least initially, on a moral crusade.

[Braxton Bragg]

Well spoken Charles! now we are getting close to the truth

Yes I know there were hotheads in the south that wanted war
both sides are guilty of that.


Braxton Bragg

[KG_Soldier]

I think the following is a more important question: What will the union do when Texas secedes?

[Braxton Bragg]

Call for 75000 Vounters to coerce texas back in to the Union!

THE CIVIL War was the result of an irreconcilable conflict between two social systems--slavery in the South and free wage labor in the North.
Lincoln campaigned for president in 1860 as an opponent of slavery's expansion into the new territories in the Western U.S. Although morally opposed to slavery, he was not ready to immediately deprive slave owners of their property "rights" where slavery already existed.

Instead, Lincoln proposed colonization as the solution to the "Negro problem." The government would gradually purchase the freedom of slaves and then send them to Liberia in Africa, removing them from American society. and avoiding all the woes that have come from not sending them back to thier country of orgin

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it


Braxton Bragg