Did Lincoln Start the Civil War?

[charlesobscure]

I don't deny that the South had a good argument on some levels, but let me qualify. I respect the argument for secession. As I have said, I believe there is a right of revolution; I just don't believe the South raised it in an appropriate circumstance. In that respect, and in that respect only, do I believe that the South had a respectable argument. However, I cannot countenance any justification for the war that rests on the basis of slavery. I find it hard to separate any social, political, or economic argument put forward by the South from the issue of slavery. Hence, I do not believe that any of those arguments were "good."

[2nd Kentucky]

I also find myself at that conclusion sometimes. But I always try to rationalize for the South and the North. I have some experiences that reflect my views, plus, I am just a little young rebel at heart.

[charlesobscure]

I think the constitutional issue is an extremely significant one. Was this country designed for a strong central government, or was power supposed to naturally defer to the states? That's a question that we have never been able to resolve legally. Even today we still struggle with it.

[2nd Kentucky]

What are your political affiliations Charles? I hope you don't mind I ask, but I find more liberal minded people take the side of the North on most occasions and vice versa for the South. I myself am a non-party affiliated Conservative, though when it comes to social issues, I am quite liberal.

[Ephrum]

I had lots more to say, but you Lost Cause boys give up too easy.

Let me know when your ready for another round, cause I was just getting warmed up.

[2nd Kentucky]

Well then... :laugh:

First, I am not a "lost cause" follower. I am a student of history, I am defending a side that seems to suffer from a severe lack of support. I think the South was Right, but I am glad they failed.

But other than that... :whistle:

Do you think is I bashed the South, I would get a better karma rating?

[Ephrum]

2nd Kentucky, I do enjoy the debates with you because your the only person on either Forum who can make a decent argument on the subject. We disagree, but I still like reading your points of view.

I was born in the south, raised to believe in the Cause, and spent a good many years trying to defend the Confederacy. But as the saying goes, you live and you learn. My opinion on the subject has turned 180 degrees from what it used to be, because after reading all the ACW history that I could get my hands on, it became impossible for me to continue to defend the Confederacy.

I suppose I am a modern day abolitionist. I will always put Human Rights before States Rights.



As for your Karma, I bumped you from -5 to -4, but some little weasel has knocked you back down again. Negative Karma indeed....the people who excercise that button are the same kind of people who would shout insults at you, while they're running away from you. It ought to be called the "Yellow Belly Button".

[2nd Kentucky]

Well thanks for that Ephrum. I also enjoy listening to your points of view, I joined MMG when Red Harvest was on his rampages, even though him and I disagreed on almost everything, he made a point in my mind, that if I post in a debate, I actaully have to add something logical to the debate, otherwise, I won't be taken seriously.

I actaully never took you for the debating, choose sides kind of person until the last couple of weeks and months. A great addition to an already awsesome personality.

[charlesobscure]

'Twas not me who brought down your karma rating, or anyone else's for that matter. In response to your earlier query, I am of the liberal mindset on the majority of issues, if things can be so easily classified. However it really depends on the issue. I can see what you are getting at though. On the constitutional aspects, at least ostensibly more liberal minded people are going to support the North and a strong federal government, and vice versa for conservatives.

[X Navy Seal]

Something about the start of the War from a history class. I wrote it a long time ago and it was an in-class essay so please excuse me if it sucks…

The Civil War could not have been avoided because the issue of slavery become more dominant and divisive than the political parties were capable of handling. Quite simply, they were not up to the task of addressing the issue. Until 1860, the whole system was built around compromise – as epitomized by the political figure of Stephen A. Douglas. In the end, however, the issue split and destroyed his party (the Democrats) and embroiled the young nation in violent conflict.
The Wilmot Proviso of the late 1840s brought the issue of slavery to the forefront. By positing the claim that the Federal government had the “right” and even the obligation of regulating the institution, and its expansion. Understandably, Wilmot caused outrage in the South. Southerners viewed it as a condemnation of their way of life and an offense to their honor. As a result, it became a question of all or nothing. Either their peculiar institution would continue uninhibited or they themselves would become slaves to the Federal govt. Broad stereotypes and accusations of conspiracy, on both sides, substituted the previous spirit of compromise, and skirting around the issue.
In response, three respected Senators – Clay, Webster, Calhoun – came forth from retirement to forge the compromise of 1850. In what was promised to resolve the issue once and for all, California was accepted into the Union in exchange for a more stringent Fugitive Slave law. The “supposed” Compromise, however, did not solve anything. The Fugitive Slave law provoked controversy in the North by making citizens residing there complicit in an institution that they viewed as evil. Likewise, Southerners were upset by the personal liberty laws that many Northern states passed. These local laws, in many instances, made regulations passed by Congress obsolete. The Fugitive slave law is also notable because for the first time Northerners were confronted firsthand and up close with the horrors and oppression of slavery. This was especially the case in border states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania but also occurred as far north as Massachusetts – where supposed runaways were removed by ship for passage from freedom back to servitude.
The next attempt at compromise was spearheaded by Douglas in 1854. In the infamous Kansas – Nebraska Act, Douglas bowed to Southern pressures and passed legislation that legalized slavery above the 36 30 parallel – thus repealing the demarcation that had been in existence since the Missouri Compromise of 1820. Though the ambitious Senator knew that it would “raise hell” he needed the Southern votes to further expansion of the railroads and other industries in this territory. For the North it was further proof of a Slave Power conspiracy oppressing the will of the majority for the interests of a select few. Effigies of Douglas were hanged along the rail lines as he made his way back to Chicago. The Republican party also formed in the North in response to the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Its main platform being to contain the institution and stop the spread of slavery wherever it should crop up.
As a result of Douglas’ somewhat bold initiative “bleeding Kansas” would dominate politics for the next two years. The state became an important and unyielding symbol for both North and South. Violence broke out as both sides, free and slave, rushed constituents into the state due to Douglas’ proposed popular sovereignty on determining the controversial issue. Violence broke out – with J. Brown leading one side of rabid abolitionists into combat against the Southern squatters. Likewise, “border ruffians” crossed over into Kansas from Missouri and terrorized the anti-slavery population residing in Lawrence. Fraudulent elections and voting ensured a fraudulent Lecompton Constitution. A document with draconian slave provisions inherently built in. The whole issue came to a head on the floor of the Senate – when Massachusetts Senator C. Sumner was repeatedly “caned” by an outraged nephew of Senator Andrew Butler of South Carolina – for a three hour speech he had made attacking Butler and his state. Along with Douglas, Butler had authored the Kansas-Nebraska Act. The North and South were further divided by the incident; with one section of the country heartily approving and the other voicing its profound disdain. In short, there was bleeding in Kansas and bleeding on the floor of the Senate.
The final straw came, however, with the Dred Scott decision in 1857. In a notoriously racist opinion, Supreme Court Justice R. Taney declared outright that slaves were no more than property and therefore could be taken anywhere in the nation. This decision increased Northern sentiment to a near boiling point. As referenced by A. Lincoln in the Senatorial campaign of 1858, it was the final indicator of a Slave Power conspiracy that could only be stopped by firmness and determination.
To close, compromise was tried time and again in regard to the issue of slavery. For the most part, however, these political compromises could not adequately address the issue and in the end only added complication and a sense that something urgent must be done. The idea of “cooler heads” epitomized by Douglas and his maneuvers shattered to the ground with the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860.