Did Lincoln Start the Civil War?

[Ephrum]

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.

You say that like the "facts" are subjective, and you can eaily make a logical argument for your point of view by ignoring "facts" that don't support your argument. And you are kidding yourself if you think Slavery would've died out, had the South gained their Independence. Why would it? Slavery was the means by which the Southern Elite gained their wealth and power. And the wealthy and powerful never voluntarily give up their wealth and power. As for other civilizations and empires of world history, they usually maintained Slaves for hundreds or thousands of years. And I am hard pressed to believe that the factory workers of the north would've traded places with the Slaves in the South. And if your a proponent of workers rights, you should compare the living and working conditions of the northern factory workers with the free white labor workers of the south during that period.

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.

The South had a choice whether to fire on the Fort or not. They put themselves in the aggressors role by demanding that the Fort surrender or it would be fired on. They pulled the lanyard to open fire. Lincoln didn't.

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.

This is where you lose me altogether 2K. You're trying to agree with two very different points of view, at the same time. That doesn't make sense.
And if Lincoln was to blame for the war, then his act of aggression was that he ran for President. When he won the election, the South basically said, "well if he's in charge, then we leaving". Peaceful? More like a childish tantrum. Seccession as the Southern states excercised it, was a means to maintain the wealth and power of the Southern Elite. No one else in the South was ever going to benefit from such an act.

[charlesobscure]

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 doesn't matter if it's peaceful or violent, it's still an act of rebellion. You cannot claim that Lincoln should be blamed for the war when he was simply exercising his duties as president to protect the Union in the midst of a gigantic rebellion. Beyond that, the South fired the first shots on vessels that were trying to perform a duty that they had every legal right to do!

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.

First, the Declaration of Independence has no legally binding effect. Second, although you and I are in agreement that a right of revolution exists, it was not appropriate for the South to invoke it in these circumstances. There was no real threat from Lincoln to interfere with the foundations of their way of life. All Lincoln proposed to do was to prevent the expansion of slavery. Lincoln was legitimately elected; if the future of the country was to be in a direction that would weaken the South's political power, so be it. Unless fundamental rights were violated, which was not the case here, the South should have dealt with it as a losing minority. Third, where do you find legal support for the notion that a state could unilaterally tear up the Constitution at will? It's not explicitly in the Constitution, and I cannot believe that the Founders would have intended for it to be implicitly included.

[NY Cavalry]

For whatever reason, our founding documents and their importance has been dismissed or reinterpreted . A good reading and understanding of American history will show, that what is generally assumed today is not the original understanding of our nations founding.
The Declaration of Independence is included in Codes of American Law. Until changed or annulled it is law. It is the law of the land and is by which we stated that we had the authority to declare our independence.
This was fully understood at our founding and for some reason has become obscure (like the Constitution itself) in our modern times.

[charlesobscure]

You are correct that the Declaration of Independence is in the United States Code as "organic law." However, the Supreme Court has held that it does not have the force of law and does not put forth legal rights independently. All I was stating was that the Declaration of Independence does not provide a legal basis for asserting a right of secession, although I think it elaborates on a right which does exist. The Declaration asserts basic principles upon which this country is founded, but even looking at the Declaration itself, it cites the source of those principles in natural law foundations. To claim that the Declaration itself as a document provides the legal basis for a right of revolution is incorrect. That right is more fundamental. As I mentioned before, one purpose of the Declaration was to assert the legitimacy of the Revolution. To that end, the Declaration cited these natural rights which permitted the colonies' actions.

And as I have stated before, the South was not properly invoking the right of revolution. Citing the Declaration of Independence in this scenario would not be appropriate.

[Braxton Bragg]

GOOD GOD!! you cant have it always!!! you cannot free the slaves and then enslave the 9 million white Southern population
You all go on about freedom of speech, freedom of this, freedom of that, Like I have said before time and time again the whole issue of the war and its cause has and always will be how YOU wish to interpret it and what side of the mason dixon line your on!!
Hell those Northern members on here will support the Northern stance, Southern folks the Southern stance

I cant for the life of me see why Norb started this thread :woohoo:

Braxton Bragg

Post Script
The irony of all this slavery thing, is we still have it! the poor people of this rich world, they have to work long hours and work very hard, oh yeah but they do get a small amount of cash for it :dry:

[Little Powell]

I've always said (instead of getting into these debates) that both sides had good reasons for going to war.

[Braxton Bragg]

Correct General Hill!!:)

Braxton Bragg

[Ephrum]

you cannot free the slaves and then enslave the 9 million white Southern population

I believe almost 4 million of those 9 million white southerners, were actually black, being that 9 million was the overall population of the South at that time.

And what kind of enslavement of those white southerners are you describing? And what is your comparison of that enslavement, to the actual enslavement of the Blacks, that those same white southerners fought to preserve.

Talk about wanting it both ways.:cheer:

[Braxton Bragg]

the actual enslavement of the Blacks, that those same white southerners fought to preserve

Your interpretation

Braxton Bragg

[2nd Kentucky]

Couldn't have put it better Braxton... I might as well stop while I am ahead, at this point, I would just be re-typing my points. But great information guys. I actually should stop when I look at my karma. B)