Did Lincoln Start the Civil War?

[2nd Kentucky]

As to your first point, you rest on the incorrect assumption that South Carolina by its act of "secession" became a sovereign entity. Yes, in their minds they separated from the rest of the country, but what makes that legitimate anywhere else? I can just as easily argue, and I think rightly, that South Carolina was in an act of rebellion on territory that was still part of the United States of America. Your comparison to post-Revolutionary War America is inapposite; the 1783 Treaty of Paris recognized the colonies as sovereign entities.

I was talking of America during the Revolution. Not after they gained soverienty in the Treaty of Paris, but before, when the War was still in the making. For a time, America was not seen as an Independent Nation anywhere also. But did that stop them from claiming what was in their territory, most notabley the colonies and the supplies that were in said land? No, it did not. Youa re right n saying that our opinions are our opinions and not many people are gonna change them. But just as you can easily say the southern states were in rebellion, I can easily say that the states were not in rebellion, they were seceding. Big difference. But anywho...

As to your second point, I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say, but I can understand why the South felt threatened by Lincoln's proposal to contain slavery in the territory where it already existed. This only further serves my earlier point that slavery was the predominant root cause of the war.

Not so, I believe the root cause of the Civil War was over money and power. The example I gave in my first post I hoped would be good enough to explain my position. I have failed in that some place, so I will try to write it out again.

Abraham Lincoln used slavery as an issue to gain more power for the Republican Party. It was the youngest party, not very distinguished. So if Lincoln won, he would implement his plan to "stop slavery from spreading" which on the tip seems great, but once you look down into the niddygritty I have found that this will just give the North and more importantly, the Republicans (the anti-slavery party) much more power to do business, for one sole reason, the southern slave holding politicans and public servatns would be fenced into the already slave holding states, while new states which were bound to form from the vast amounts of territory in the west, would automatically be free states. This would not only cripple the south, but strengthed the Republicans to no end.

[charlesobscure]

I was talking of America during the Revolution. Not after they gained soverienty in the Treaty of Paris, but before, when the War was still in the making. For a time, America was not seen as an Independent Nation anywhere also. But did that stop them from claiming what was in their territory, most notabley the colonies and the supplies that were in said land? No, it did not. Youa re right n saying that our opinions are our opinions and not many people are gonna change them. But just as you can easily say the southern states were in rebellion, I can easily say that the states were not in rebellion, they were seceding. Big difference. But anywho...

First, if I may quote your original post: "America really didn't give much back much of the British property once they won the American Revolution now did they?" I don't know how else to read that except as referring to post-war events. Regardless, it would not be valid to say that the American colonies were sovereign states simply because they declared themselves to be. If Britain had quashed our revolution, it would be preposterous to say that an American nation existed for a short while before the British re-assumed control of the territory. Rather, it would be defined as a rebellion within British colonies that was put down. Yes, the American colonists could define their territory and property any way they so desired, but there was no legal basis for asserting that they were sovereign states until they fought the British to a standstill.

In the same vein, if I were to declare my own home and the property that it lies on as a sovereign nation, it hardly makes it so. The act of South Carolina and the rest of the Confederate states in declaring themselves independent did not in and of itself make them sovereign states. What legal authority did they have in asserting such a proposition? Simply put, South Carolina was in a state of rebellion.

This is not to denigrate the importance of the Declaration of Independence. That document served to assert that this nation would now treat itself as independent; it provided legitimacy for the Revolution and elaborated the principles upon which this country was founded. But as a legal matter, that document did not make independence a fact until we won it through the blood and sweat of those noble patriots.

Not so, I believe the root cause of the Civil War was over money and power. The example I gave in my first post I hoped would be good enough to explain my position. I have failed in that some place, so I will try to write it out again.

Abraham Lincoln used slavery as an issue to gain more power for the Republican Party. It was the youngest party, not very distinguished. So if Lincoln won, he would implement his plan to "stop slavery from spreading" which on the tip seems great, but once you look down into the niddygritty I have found that this will just give the North and more importantly, the Republicans (the anti-slavery party) much more power to do business, for one sole reason, the southern slave holding politicans and public servatns would be fenced into the already slave holding states, while new states which were bound to form from the vast amounts of territory in the west, would automatically be free states. This would not only cripple the south, but strengthed the Republicans to no end.

The problem with the money/power argument is that the South's political prowess and economy rested almost entirely on slavery! If you take slavery out of the equation, what does the South have left to complain about? Whether your characterization of the use of slavery as a political tool is correct or not, the fact that the South viewed the restriction of slavery in the western territories as a threat simply demonstrates how intricately involved slavery was with this matter. The unity of the Southern bloc in Congress was based on their commonality in slavery. Any threat to the expansion of that institution meant that they would lose considerable political influence in the future. If you take out slavery, then you take out Southern political power. In light of that, I don't know how you can say that slavery was not the root cause of the war. If A (restriction of slavery) leads to B (loss of Southern political power), and B leads to C (war), then A is the root cause of C.

[2nd Kentucky]

First, if I may quote your original post: "America really didn't give much back much of the British property once they won the American Revolution now did they?" I don't know how else to read that except as referring to post-war events.

You are quite right, and that was my mistake, I kinda get fast when I get heated about a topic.

In the same vein, if I were to declare my own home and the property that it lies on as a sovereign nation, it hardly makes it so. The act of South Carolina and the rest of the Confederate states in declaring themselves independent did not in and of itself make them sovereign states. What legal authority did they have in asserting such a proposition? Simply put, South Carolina was in a state of rebellion.

Let's see what it takes to make a state; the four key characteristics of a state would be Population, Territory, Government, and Sovereignty.

1. By population, this definition would be a permanent residence of a sort. It must be a large body according to Dr. Clayton Thyne (Univ. of Kentucky), which he gives a rough requirement of 500,000 people. The south's population was somewhere in the ballpark of 9 million. So the Confederacy most definitely made the population mark.
2. The Confederacy had Territory which was totally legal (I'll explain in a minute). So this requirement is also easy to mark off.
3. The Confederacy had a Constitution, a Congress, a President that was democratically elected by the populace. The majority of people in the South recognized the legitimacy of the Confederate Government. I am sure that some did not, but seeing that we have people today that don't see the Federal Government as legitimate, I don't consider that a great issue.
4. The final piece of the puzzle is sovereignty. This is where you are right my friend. The South was not officially sovereign by any nation on Earth. But there is a clear and logical explanation to that. Before the bombardment of Fort Sumter, the Confederacy sent delegates to Washington D.C. to work out a Peace Treaty, and to offer to pay for all federal property that was in the South. Lincoln and the Northern Congress refused to accept the delegations because they did not consider the South a sovereign nation. You stop right there and say that Lincoln said the Confederacy was not sovereign and leave it as that.

But many don't see the political gains Lincoln now had under his control. The United States were the only major nation to accept the Confederacy as sovereign because Europe did not want to jump into a situation that could go either way. So by denying the delegates, Lincoln basically made it impossible for the Confederacy to be recognized. This gave him the option to call the War, just as you have, a rebellion. This would give the Northern population something to fight for, their government was being rebelled against. The government that they elected, representatives of them, were being threatened. But we can all see how that was just a political decision to gain favor for the war. So by refusing the Confederacy the sovereignty they wanted, it gave him the leverage to call this war a rebellion, throwing it in with Bacon's rebellion and the Whiskey rebellion. Both of which had little in common with the Confederacy seceding. The fact was that the Southern States left, they did not a fight, hint the peace treaty. The Confederacy wanted to live by the notion of live and let live. Lincoln would not allow that. Lincoln chose to fight, Lincoln chose to deny peace, chose war and started the war.


Now, the Southern States had a legal right to secede. This is protected by the Constitution by not being in the Constitution. The word secession is not in the United States Constitution, the theory of secession is not in the US Constitution. But the 10th Amendment does give the South the right to secede because it says and I quote:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The idea of secession was not within the Constitution, therefore the right to secession is reserved for the States or the People, and seeing as how the People seceded, it is still legal.

The problem with the money/power argument is that the South's political prowess and economy rested almost entirely on slavery! If you take slavery out of the equation, what does the South have left to complain about? Whether your characterization of the use of slavery as a political tool is correct or not, the fact that the South viewed the restriction of slavery in the western territories as a threat simply demonstrates how intricately involved slavery was with this matter. The unity of the Southern bloc in Congress was based on their commonality in slavery. Any threat to the expansion of that institution meant that they would lose considerable political influence in the future. If you take out slavery, then you take out Southern political power. In light of that, I don't know how you can say that slavery was not the root cause of the war. If A (restriction of slavery) leads to B (loss of Southern political power), and B leads to C (war), then A is the root cause of C.

Slavery was just a convenient excuse in 1863 to continue the war. The real money issue was over trade, notably imports. But I will not go into a big rant over that at this time. If you take slavery out of the equation (which I have done) what does the Confederacy have to fight for. Very simply, a more centralized government.

[Ephrum]

Slavery was just a convenient excuse in 1863 to continue the war. The real money issue was over trade, notably imports. But I will not go into a big rant over that at this time. If you take slavery out of the equation (which I have done) what does the Confederacy have to fight for. Very simply, a more centralized government.

The very fact that you had to take Slavery out of your equation to make your point, is the reason I think your argument is flawed from the start. Slavery was a factor in the equation. And it was certainly a hot social powder keg long before 1863. And it has always been and always will be morally wrong.

I don't understand how supporters of the Cause are capable of looking at the hard cold fact that the South kept almost 4 million human beings enslaved for the sake of the survival of their economy, and say that there was something good in that Cause, or that somehow Slavery should not factor into the judgment of their actions.

[charlesobscure]

Let's see what it takes to make a state; the four key characteristics of a state would be Population, Territory, Government, and Sovereignty.

1. By population, this definition would be a permanent residence of a sort. It must be a large body according to Dr. Clayton Thyne (Univ. of Kentucky), which he gives a rough requirement of 500,000 people. The south's population was somewhere in the ballpark of 9 million. So the Confederacy most definitely made the population mark.
2. The Confederacy had Territory which was totally legal (I'll explain in a minute). So this requirement is also easy to mark off.
3. The Confederacy had a Constitution, a Congress, a President that was democratically elected by the populace. The majority of people in the South recognized the legitimacy of the Confederate Government. I am sure that some did not, but seeing that we have people today that don't see the Federal Government as legitimate, I don't consider that a great issue.
4. The final piece of the puzzle is sovereignty. This is where you are right my friend. The South was not officially sovereign by any nation on Earth. But there is a clear and logical explanation to that. Before the bombardment of Fort Sumter, the Confederacy sent delegates to Washington D.C. to work out a Peace Treaty, and to offer to pay for all federal property that was in the South. Lincoln and the Northern Congress refused to accept the delegations because they did not consider the South a sovereign nation. You stop right there and say that Lincoln said the Confederacy was not sovereign and leave it as that.

But many don't see the political gains Lincoln now had under his control. The United States were the only major nation to accept the Confederacy as sovereign because Europe did not want to jump into a situation that could go either way. So by denying the delegates, Lincoln basically made it impossible for the Confederacy to be recognized. This gave him the option to call the War, just as you have, a rebellion. This would give the Northern population something to fight for, their government was being rebelled against. The government that they elected, representatives of them, were being threatened. But we can all see how that was just a political decision to gain favor for the war. So by refusing the Confederacy the sovereignty they wanted, it gave him the leverage to call this war a rebellion, throwing it in with Bacon's rebellion and the Whiskey rebellion. Both of which had little in common with the Confederacy seceding. The fact was that the Southern States left, they did not a fight, hint the peace treaty. The Confederacy wanted to live by the notion of live and let live. Lincoln would not allow that. Lincoln chose to fight, Lincoln chose to deny peace, chose war and started the war.

Fair enough that the South ideally would have chosen a "live and let live" approach. But that still does not justify their actions. Lincoln was responding to what it was, a rebellion. As President of the United States, what other course of action should he have taken? Let the country tear itself asunder because a minority, albeit a large one, could not bear that its hold on the country was gradually weakening? This was plainly not an appropriate circumstance to invoke the right of revolution. Consequently, this could be seen as nothing other than rebellion, and Lincoln acted accordingly. How is it an act of Northern aggression when the South fired on Fort Sumter because Lincoln tried to resupply a United States military post, a post that was already rightfully a part of the United States?

Now, the Southern States had a legal right to secede. This is protected by the Constitution by not being in the Constitution. The word secession is not in the United States Constitution, the theory of secession is not in the US Constitution. But the 10th Amendment does give the South the right to secede because it says and I quote:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The idea of secession was not within the Constitution, therefore the right to secession is reserved for the States or the People, and seeing as how the People seceded, it is still legal.

It is contrary to all methods of textual interpretation to read something into a document that directly contravenes its entire purpose. The Constitution was meant to strengthen the federal government in light of the failures of the Articles of Confederation. There is no reason to believe that the Founders implicitly would have allowed for a method in which the minority could tear apart the country at will.

Slavery was just a convenient excuse in 1863 to continue the war. The real money issue was over trade, notably imports. But I will not go into a big rant over that at this time. If you take slavery out of the equation (which I have done) what does the Confederacy have to fight for. Very simply, a more centralized government.

This first sentence seems to imply that slavery was not a factor before 1863, an assertion which is contrary to historical fact. Beyond that, why would the South secede from the Union, inviting a calamitous engagement with the North, simply in order to achieve a more centralized government? It ignores that the landed elite felt that Lincoln endangered the future of slavery, the basis of the Southern economy and their power in the federal government.

[Shirkon]

3. The Confederacy had a Constitution, a Congress, a President that was democratically elected by the populace. The majority of people in the South recognized the legitimacy of the Confederate Government. I am sure that some did not, but seeing that we have people today that don't see the Federal Government as legitimate, I don't consider that a great issue.

Excuse me but how can you use this to justify your arguments since the Confederate government was formed AFTER the South Carolina forces fired on the Star of the West sent by Buchanan. You keep skipping over this basic fact that the first shot of the war was fired long before Lincoln even got to Washington for his inauguration and was fired by what became a Southern state on a civilian ship of Northern registry.

[Armchair General]

Now, the Southern States had a legal right to secede. This is protected by the Constitution by not being in the Constitution. The word secession is not in the United States Constitution, the theory of secession is not in the US Constitution. But the 10th Amendment does give the South the right to secede because it says and I quote:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The idea of secession was not within the Constitution, therefore the right to secession is reserved for the States or the People, and seeing as how the People seceded, it is still legal.

States do not have legal right to secede. They never did. The Supreme Court, which has absolute law of the land, ruled in the 1869 case Texas vs White "When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States." Whether you agree with that or not is irrelevant.

[2nd Kentucky]

Ah, I love a good debate, now so many posts. Lets start.

The very fact that you had to take Slavery out of your equation to make your point, is the reason I think your argument is flawed from the start. Slavery was a factor in the equation. And it was certainly a hot social powder keg long before 1863. And it has always been and always will be morally wrong.

Charlesobscureasked what would the South be fighting for if slavery was taken out of the equation. I did just that. I have never encouraged slavery, I believe it is a diabolical act that is an evil. But I try to look past the usual "facts" to try to find a different view.

I don't understand how supporters of the Cause are capable of looking at the hard cold fact that the South kept almost 4 million human beings enslaved for the sake of the survival of their economy, and say that there was something good in that Cause, or that somehow Slavery should not factor into the judgment of their actions

I am not a believer of the "cause". I am a student of history, that is an amateur if anything. But I do try to find a different point. I have found with years of reading and thinking, the South was right. THIS does not mean that slavery was good. I agree with Robert Lee when he said that slavery was a necessary evil. What would have become if the slaves were set free all at once? First the South would be in shambles. The south earned money off the backs of slaves. The southern economy would be in a total mess. But since most wouldn't be sympathetic to that fact, we can look at what happened when the slaves were freed. They had severe trouble finding jobs because when a racist belief is ingrained into (In BOTH the North and South), the whites found it hard to pay a black man for something that they were getting free a few months ago. That is human nature, not one I am proud of, but it is. The ex-slaves would be pushed into share-cropping, which they were and will stay in a perpetual state of poverty until the Civil Rights movement. But when we look at world history. Every major world power that had slaves at some point in their history have eventually let them go. They have eventually been set free to be humans. Why was the South a special case? What would have happened if slavery was aloud to die naturally? Slavery would have lasted longer, but not up until today, I think it would have ended before World War I. Blacks would more respected because the change was gradually introduced, not thrust upon an unwilling populace.

But before we start pointing fingers at the South for having slaves, lets look at some facts of factory workers in the North. They were kept in a virtual state of slavery their whole lives. No workers protection (and I am a very conservative individual, but workers rights is where I am quite liberal). And before we talk about the South keeping the slaves, we must see that racism was rampant in the United States North AND South. It was one thing to preach of abolition and quite another to invite an ex-slave into your home to eat at your table.

Fair enough that the South ideally would have chosen a "live and let live" approach. But that still does not justify their actions. Lincoln was responding to what it was, a rebellion. As President of the United States, what other course of action should he have taken? Let the country tear itself asunder because a minority, albeit a large one, could not bear that its hold on the country was gradually weakening? This was plainly not an appropriate circumstance to invoke the right of revolution. Consequently, this could be seen as nothing other than rebellion, and Lincoln acted accordingly. How is it an act of Northern aggression when the South fired on Fort Sumter because Lincoln tried to resupply a United States military post, a post that was already rightfully a part of the United States?

When Lincoln reacted, the secession of the Confederacy was not a rebellion. No force of action was taken against the Federal Government except the peaceful secession of the South. I never said there was much Lincoln could do, I am not saying what he was doing was wrong, I am saying that it wasn't right in the sense. The original question was if Lincoln was to blame for the war, he was. I think he should of taken action, but he was morally and legally wrong to take such actions. I still think he was right to do so. I hope that makes sense. I answered that final question in my original post. Please refer to it.

It is contrary to all methods of textual interpretation to read something into a document that directly contravenes its entire purpose. The Constitution was meant to strengthen the federal government in light of the failures of the Articles of Confederation. There is no reason to believe that the Founders implicitly would have allowed for a method in which the minority could tear apart the country at will.

I am a strict constructionist. I take the words quite literal because that is what they wrote, it must have been what they meant. This argument will come down to the difference of opinions, so this part is useless. But I must say, the South followed the principles in the Declaration of Independence, no matter what we think they fought over, they still followed the DOI.

Excuse me but how can you use this to justify your arguments since the Confederate government was formed AFTER the South Carolina forces fired on the Star of the West sent by Buchanan. You keep skipping over this basic fact that the first shot of the war was fired long before Lincoln even got to Washington for his inauguration and was fired by what became a Southern state on a civilian ship of Northern registry.

I do not skip over the fact. The South fired the first shot, I mentioned the Star of the West in a post telling you I did not forget it. But war did not break out until Lincoln sent the resupply ship which did spark off the war. The firing on the Star of the West is not known as the starting point, Fort Sumter is.

States do not have legal right to secede. They never did. The Supreme Court, which has absolute law of the land, ruled in the 1869 case Texas vs White "When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States." Whether you agree with that or not is irrelevant.

It seems that you have overlooked that date. 1869? A full four years after the war ended. A full nine years after the South seceded. Secession was totally legal when the South took that action. When the 17th Amendment made Senatorial seats under popular vote, were prior senators there illegally? No, the amendment was not in place. The same with this situation. Texas vs. White was not in effect during the time of secession, making secession legal. My opinion matters little, but the fact is that the case was irrelevant because it took effect after the South seceded. That is fact whether you think dates are irrelevant or something:P

[Armchair General]

Texas was annexed by the United states in 1845; 15 years before South Carolina's secession. The state's bond with the US was indissoluble then, during the war, and after the war.

[2nd Kentucky]

Not so, if I am correct, and I believe I am, Texas did have the right to leave the Union of the United States. Texas vs White was not in place, there was nothing to say they could not leave the Union while the Constitution laid the option in their hands. The Constitution is not only the gorundwork for our Government, but I believe, as do many, that the Constitution is a work for the control of the Federal government. The Tenth Amendment clearly says that ANYTHING not given to the Federal Government by the Constitution, nor is it PROHIBITED to the states, this power and liberty is reserved to the states. Secession was legal.

Now, the case of Texas v White was decided in 1869. This was still waist deep into Reconstruction, anti-southern sympathies were rampant, particularly in Washington, they wanted to make sure that a civil war would never happen again, therefore, they look past a right of the states to achieve their goal.