Did Lincoln Start the Civil War?

[Ephrum]

Braxton Bragg wrote:

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!

I think your looking at it backwords Bragg. Those other issues were direct results of slavery. Slavery was the fuel of the Southern economy. And that was an economy that only favored the privilged few. To defend that kind of economy, one must defend slavery.

[Braxton Bragg]

Yes also the greater population didnt own slaves and went to war for other reasons

Braxton Bragg

[Ephrum]

Braxton Bragg wrote:

Yes also the greater population didnt own slaves and went to war for other reasons

Braxton Bragg

Oh yeah, I forgot about that states rights thing (mainly the right to protect slavery) that the southern elite duped the greater population into going to war for, so that the elite could keep their slaves and their wealth.

And from the personal diaries and journals of the Confederate Officers and soldiers, they were most certainly fighting to keep the institution of slavery. Yes, even those soldiers who did not own any.

[Armchair General]

In the 1830s, when John C Calhoun was threatening secession over the Nullification Cris, Andrew Jackson stood up at dinner where Calhoun was present, raised his glass and said, "This Union, it must be preserved."

The same mind-set existed 30 years ago. The whole saying, "These United States," may have been used by people who liked each-state being its own kingdom unto itself, but to Unionists, it has, and has always been, "The United States." They knew that if the US was separated, it would be weaker and more prone to becoming Europe's rag doll again. There were people close to the Prime Minister and Napoleon III who believed that they should intervene for the Confederacy because if they did, then it would open the door to slowly regaining lands lost at the turn of the 19th Century. Divide and Conquer.

[charlesobscure]

Armchair General wrote:

In the 1830s, when John C Calhoun was threatening secession over the Nullification Cris, Andrew Jackson stood up at dinner where Calhoun was present, raised his glass and said, "This Union, it must be preserved."

The same mind-set existed 30 years ago. The whole saying, "These United States," may have been used by people who liked each-state being its own kingdom unto itself, but to Unionists, it has, and has always been, "The United States." They knew that if the US was separated, it would be weaker and more prone to becoming Europe's rag doll again. There were people close to the Prime Minister and Napoleon III who believed that they should intervene for the Confederacy because if they did, then it would open the door to slowly regaining lands lost at the turn of the 19th Century. Divide and Conquer.

A prime example is Napoleon III's intervention in Mexico.

[Cleaburn]

Norb, you almost started the war all over again. I guess we can battle it out in mp player, anyway I want to challenge Every person who has not read this book to read it, even though many of you will not like it, It is highly documented with tons of resoures to back this very subject, very well written! http://www.amazon.com/Real-Lincoln-Abra ... 0761536418

[Armchair General]

Cleaburn wrote:

Norb, you almost started the war all over again. I guess we can battle it out in mp player, anyway I want to challenge Every person who has not read this book to read it, even though many of you will not like it, It is highly documented with tons of resoures to back this very subject, very well written! http://www.amazon.com/Real-Lincoln-Abra ... 0761536418

Just the title tells me that the book is no-good. An unnecessary war? Of course it was necessary because it ended once and for all a problem that had plagued the United States since the writing of the Constitution.

[Braxton Bragg]

Your biased Ac, your on that side of the fence

I think Norb likes to see if opinions change, not only that, it is good to debate dangerous issues, and this thread is one of those.

Even though we disagree, and we all do, that does not mean that we are not friends on here, we just dont always see things from the same position Im as guilty as anyone else


Braxton Bragg

[charlesobscure]

It's certainly understandable why Lincoln enrages certain scholars like DiLorenzo. The Civil War marked the beginning of the modern America, in the sense that the federal structure is now dominated largely by the federal government with a diminished role for the states. This fundamental shift was cemented by FDR and the New Deal, and it is no surprise that DiLorenzo has been critical of that as well. In the end, we have not escaped a basic political question that has plagued this nation since the Founding: strong, centralized national government v. decentralized national government deferring to the states. This is an oversimplification, I admit, but it lies at the heart of the development of this country. In the case of the Civil War, slavery was the root cause which exacerbated the debate to such an extent that this nation resorted to fraternal violence.

[2nd Kentucky]

Well, it's been awhile since I have visited this forum, but I would like to throw in my two cents.

I want to address two subjects that have been touched upon in the first page or so of this thread. The first would be the issue with Fort. Sumter; I am sure AC knows these arguments by heart now from the MMG forum. Abraham Lincoln sent a resupply ship to Fort Sumter, correct. Were there any reinforcements on the resupply ship, No. So many would say that the South would be at fault for firing upon the ship first if no reinforcements were on it. I see this froma different angle. Fort Sumter was in the waters controlled by South Carolina, therefore once the state seceded, property of the State. America really didn't give much back much of the British property once they won the American Revolution now did they? Well anyways, Lincoln sent a resupply ship to Fort Sumter, why? To continue to have a Federal presence in South Carolina. So, when Lincoln sent a ship to resupply the Fort, he was attempting to keep a permanent presence of federal Troops in a foriegn Country. No country would stand for foriegn troops inside their country. Remember, there are two sides in a game of tug-o-war. Lincoln could not do nothing when the South seceded, but the South also could not tolerate a federal presence in what they considered their land.

Now I want to mention the Lincoln campaign promise of "preventing slavery from spreading". By taking a glance, many would say that this was a good thing, Lincoln didn't want slavery to spread into the other territories. But not so, lets look at the political makeup of Congress in 1860. Because of the population advantage in the House of Representatives, the North had control of that house. But in the Senate, the states were generally still equal with two Senators each, the North still held a small advantage over the Southern and Border states. By promising to stop slavery from spreading, Lincoln effectively said that he would stop pro-southern representatives and senators from entering Congress via, stopping slavery from spreading. By making the new states free states, they are keeping the slave holding states in the borders of the states that already had slavery. The South would not gain anymore seats in the Senate and very little support in the House, the North would have domination over both houses of Congress, eventually stopping slavery, but crippling the South in the process.