Did Lincoln Start the Civil War?

[Little Powell]

Armchair General wrote:

norb wrote:

So had lincoln not won the election, there would not have been a civil war?

and he said the Civil War had to happen sometime for the South to finally get rid of slavery and to settle the sectional crisis that had been going on for centuries.

I agree that if it took a civil war to free the slaves, then it was worth it. However, the war had nothing to do with slavery until Lincoln realized that it was the only way to win. He wanted to save the Union with or without freeing the slaves. But when the North was losing morale and other countries were close to becoming allies with the South, he wrote the Emancipation Proclamation. After that, the North had something to fight for again, and no other countries wanted to support a Confederacy that was pro-slavery. Even though in reality; to Southerners, the war had little to do with slavery. It was about states rights and being against federalism. To them, it was a second war of independence.

[Armchair General]

Little Powell wrote:

Armchair General wrote:

norb wrote:

So had lincoln not won the election, there would not have been a civil war?

and he said the Civil War had to happen sometime for the South to finally get rid of slavery and to settle the sectional crisis that had been going on for centuries.

Even though in reality; to Southerners, the war had little to do with slavery. It was about states rights and being against federalism. To them, it was a second war of independence.

When formed, the Confederate government was based on the Federal branches, so it couldn't have been too terrible. They shot themselves in their foot when they gave too much power to the states, and Davis couldn't get anything done, just like with the Articles of Confederation, thus the Constitution.

And a question, what exactly did the Federal government do that was so horrible the only other option the states saw was secession because they felt like their rights were trample? The government was only trying to stem the flow of slavery, and they were trying to do it slowly, and the south states passed a Gag rule in Congress, banning any mention of the institution.

[norb]

Cool idea asking your teacher

So without Lincoln, without slavery, the Civil War was still bound to happen?

I wonder what the one issue was, the one that brought them over the edge and turned a heated debate into killing. Seems like there were lots of issues, but what was the one thing where they decided that this had to come to war or rather the one thing that told them they had to leave the Union.

[estabu2]

I believe without slavery, there would have been to civil war. The rest of the issues could have been worked out through legislation. Slavery was property ownership for the South. Any economic issue could have been dealt with, but slavery was taking property away from the south. That is why "states rights" was the hot topic. I don't think anyone would like the government to regulate what they own. The rest could have been worked out.

No slavery = no Civil War.

[dale]

Was there a way for Lincoln to stare down the South without a call for volunteers? I know that in Rockbridge County, Virginia (T. Jackson's home) prior to Lincoln's call up the residents were in favor of staying in the Union. Virginia, in fact, had a Unionist governor. After Lincoln's call-up the tide swung dramatically in favor of joining the secessionists. North Carolina was waiting to see what Virginia was going to do.

Virginia was the key to the South. If Lincoln could have somehow kept Virginia from joining the cotton states then the stakes change. The South was divided, it was not a monolithic structure. Could Lincoln have exploited the regional differences within the South to create its own demise?

A sidebar: the Southern leaders prior to the Civil War could see from the map of western territories that would at some point be admitted to the Union that the power or the South would be diminished in the Federal government. The South looked at the Carribean as their natural area of expansion. Cuba was seen as the next state to be added with possibly some of the Central American countries down the line. If the US followed the line of admitting a western state only when a Carribean state was added in tandem would this compromise have worked?

[dale]

Another note about the beginning of the Civil War. If Lincoln had been able to seize the Norfolk Naval Shipyard and keep it for a few days then the Civil War would have been greatly changed. There was an ancient US Navy Superintendent in place at the Shipyard in Norfolk who failed to act upon Welles' orders to destroy everything in the event Virgina seceeded. The result--the Merrimac (the newest class of warship planned for the US Navy was only partially burned and of course was salvageable), and equally as important, 1500 naval cannon were captured. These cannon were used to fortify all of the forts in the South. Had the engineers had another day to destroy the below waterline structure of the Merrimac the ironclad Virginia would have to have been built from scratch and would not have been present to delay McClellan's drive to Richmond. This gave weeks to the Confederate government to pull its army from northern Virginia to Richmond itself. McClellan probably would have made it into the seigeworks around Richmond. Who knows--McClellan may have been the President who followed Lincoln. Thus a force of only 100 men judiciously used could have saved untold bloody years of conflict.

[norb]

With Virginia the north would have also had Lee & Jackson to say the least. Would have been a very different war. It would be interesting to see if there was any way Lincoln could have gone about preventing the split without amassing the forces.

I don't know how the slavery issue could have been solved without war. In the south point of view it was the destruction of their economy by taking away their free labor, not to mention overstepping federal bounds. It's a no brainer today, but back then it was the workforce behind the farms. Like removing the migrant workers of today, not sure how well that would go down. Not from the humanity point of view, just in that it would be very hard to replace that workforce at the same price. But from what I read here, it was not a starter of the war, it was something clung onto later. So can't really be considered a cause.

[Gfran64]

As far as I'm concerned, two things directly caused the American Civil War. Many others were contributory but I think these 2 main parties are to blame the most.

Firstly, September 17, 1787, our Constitution is adopted by the Constitutional Convention. Slavery was clearly sanctioned in the Constitution, although the words slave and slavery are not found anywhere in the document. Section 2 of Article I states that apart from free persons "all other persons," meaning slaves, are each to be counted as three-fifths of a white person for the purpose of apportioning congressional representatives on the basis of population. Section 9 of Article I states that the importation of "such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit," meaning slaves, would be permitted until 1808. And Section 2 of Article IV directs that persons "held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another," meaning fugitive slaves, were to be returned to their owners.

The Bill of Rights, adopted in 1791, says nothing about slavery. But the Fifth Amendment guaranteed that no person could "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Slaves were property, and slaveholders had an absolute right to take their property with them, even into free states or territories. Thus the future of immigration is cast. Southern slavery drives new immigrants to the Northern states in a disproportionate number thus increasing the Northern representation in the House of Representatives. National Senators back then were elected by the State governments not by popular votes. So the stage was set such that in time the Northern leaning Anti-slave vote would eventually exceed a unified Southern Pro-slave vote and the 3/4ths threshold to change the Constitution would be reached and slavery would be abolished. Of course the Southern block saw this for what it was and saw 2 courses of action, secession or compromise. The latter was reached in 1820 and was called The Missouri Compromise. It worked for awhile but the writing was on the wall. In 1789 there were 8 slave states and 5 free. By 1858 there were 15 slave states and 17 free states with significantly more people living in free states. The Missouri Compromise was repealed by the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 which allowed territories to vote on whether to allow slavery within their borders. It was hoped that this legislation would ease the tensions between the North and South but the opposite occurred and the Republican Party was born to oppose the act. Thus the country was now completely polarized into 2 camps Northern Republicans and Southern Democrats. Seeing no way out and no way forward, within the Union, the Southern States began to secede. The North, seeking to preserve the Union and free the slaves, raised troops to subdue the south. The war followed.

Secondly, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, in his Dred Scott v. Sandford decision in 1857 all but propelled the nation into civil war. No doubt the Supreme Court was receiving pressure from the Buchanan Administration for a positive verdict that would placate the Southern States, highly irregular though it was. They got what they wanted and more. Taney,"Consequently, no State, since the adoption of the Constitution, can by naturalizing an alien invest him with the rights and privileges secured to a citizen of a State under the Federal Government, although, so far as the State alone was concerned, he would undoubtedly be entitled to the rights of a citizen, and clothed with all the rights and immunities which the Constitution and laws of the State attached to that character." According to the Supreme Court, African-Americans were, "beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect." Furthermore, "it would give to persons of the negro race, ...the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, ...the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went." Not only that but the Court ruled that the territorial legislatures had no power to ban slavery even though that particular matter was not before them. This nullified The Missouri Compromise and deemed unconstitutional any State provision that slavery was illegal within that State. Thus the line was drawn clearly by the Supreme Court, you are either Pro or Anti-Slave. This solidified the Republican base in the North and they eventually rallied behind a compromise candidate, Abraham Lincoln. Stephen Douglas eventually looses to Lincoln in the National election and Lincoln takes office in March of 1861 with about half the Southern States having seceded. He asks to raise 70.000 troops and the rest of the South secedes. I don't see how much of any of the the American Civil War is Abraham Lincoln's fault.

Just my thoughts,

Greg B)

[dale]

Good post, Greg. I agree completely that the Dred Scott decision left no room for political compromise. In fact, it solidified the Abolitionists, uniting them in spirit.
What Dred Scott did for the North, John Brown did for the South. John Brown was regarded as a man who gave impetus to the Abolitionist creed. However,he only became popular in the North after his death. He struck a deeper nerve in the South. The Southern apologists feared slave insurrections. Southern militias were formed as much to control the slave population within as much as drilling for foreign invaders. The fear of slave insurrection needed little stoking to inflame the passions of Southern whites. Southern newspapers would quote Northern papers in whole parts to show their readers just how much the Northern aboltionists were willing to go in order to free the slave. In the American revolution, the British targeted the slave population as a natural ally to their cause. They issued proclamations to entice the slaves to leave their masters and to join in Negro regiments. Thus the British used the slave for economic warfare as well as for recruits. This memory was very fresh in the collective Southern mind. This fear of rebellion hardened the Southern attitude toward the slave--it tamped down individual acts of manumission. It found religious leaders who justified the institution. It created a disproportionate backlash against any movement that threatened a spark against the powderkeg the South was sitting on.

The Aboltionists had to respect this fear if they were going to gain traction in their movement. The Southern leaders told them that free black men could not exist side by side with slaves in the South. Thus the solution grew to remove the black man from the South. The concept of sending the black man back to Africa was seen as the compromise that could possibly work. Forming a colony to repatriate former slaves to Africa actually came about in the guise of Liberia. John Brown threw the gauntlet down to his fellow Abolitionists and basically ended any chance of gradual compromise. He managed to instill zeal and fear with the same act.

[norb]

Great posts! Seems like the issue was a wave gathering up some force. Amazing how many different reasons people fought and what each considered important.