Was the American Civil War inevitable?

[Musicat]

Originally Posted by Oldeb

It works fine if you're creating new countries from scratch, although ideologically opposed countries sharing a border are a recipe for war.

Which may explain the American Civil War. Remember the 3/5s compromise, slaves not allowed the vote, etc.? There was an ideological rift from the start; they could compromise then, but not 75 years later.

[WillFarnaby]

Originally Posted by Oldeb

They hadn't been since the Articles of Confederation, not really anyway. It just took a while for the idea that they weren't to sink in. The aftermath of the Civil War did not involve any new language being added to the Constitution about who had more power, the States or the Federal government.

woah there. The 14th amendment has been used to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. Does this not signify a drastic change in favor of the federal government? I don't mean to sidetrack here but you're way off.

[MEBuckner]

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby

woah there. The 14th amendment has been used to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. Does this not signify a drastic change in favor of the federal government? I don't mean to sidetrack here but you're way off.

Or you might say it signifies a drastic change in favor of the individual rights of the people, as against governments local, state, and federal.

[WillFarnaby]

Originally Posted by MEBuckner

Or you might say it signifies a drastic change in favor of the individual rights of the people, as against governments local, state, and federal.

They were already protected from the federal government. Either way it gives the federal government more power over the states.

[WillFarnaby]

Originally Posted by Steve MB

Nonsense. By this "logic", every supply delivery to Gitmo is a rejection of the legitimacy of the Cuban government.

Let's flesh this scenario out a bit, shall we?

If the Cuban government told the U.S. government, " We consider your occupation of Guantanamo Bay to be compromising our sovereignty. We wish you to vacate. Any attempts to supply will be met with force."

Then the U.S. government attempts to supply Gitmo. According to your "logic" the Cubans wouldn't be justified in attacking Gitmo. They would be starting a war. Is that a correct assessment of your opinion?

[MEBuckner]

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby

Let's flesh this scenario out a bit, shall we?

If the Cuban government told the U.S. government, " We consider your occupation of Guantanamo Bay to be compromising our sovereignty. We wish you to vacate. Any attempts to supply will be met with force."

Then the U.S. government attempts to supply Gitmo. According to your "logic" the Cubans wouldn't be justified in attacking Gitmo. They would be starting a war. Is that a correct assessment of your opinion?

I can't speak for Steve MB but--of course the Cubans would be starting a war. I mean, we aren't at war with Cuba--relations between the two countries are (to put it mildly) not great, but we aren't actually shooting at each other--so if they started shooting at us, boom! They started a war!

(Strictly speaking, the two statements "the Cubans wouldn't be justified in attacking Gitmo" and "They would be starting a war" are distinct. Traditionally one could argue that a country is starting a war, but that they are justified in doing so. Modern international law tends to presume that self-defense is the only proper justification for waging war, and thus no law-abiding country should ever start a war. But that wasn't necessarily how people thought in 1861.)

[Dissonance]

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby

Reapplying a fort in foreign territory was perceived as a hostile action and the South took necessary defensive action.

1) It wasn't foreign territory
2) It wasn't a hostile action
3) Shelling a fort and starting a war isn't a defensive action, it's an offensive one.

The kind of convoluted logic needed to claim that the North started the war is as bad as that used to claim Britain started World War 2. Britain guaranteed Poland's independence. Germany felt that Danzig belonged to them. Poland's refusal to give up the city forced Hitler to invade Poland, thus Britain started WW2.*


*I didn't make this up; it's the actual belief and logic of Pat Buchannan.

[Steve MB]

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby

Let's flesh this scenario out a bit, shall we?

If the Cuban government told the U.S. government, " We consider your occupation of Guantanamo Bay to be compromising our sovereignty. We wish you to vacate. Any attempts to supply will be met with force."

Then the U.S. government attempts to supply Gitmo. According to your "logic" the Cubans wouldn't be justified in attacking Gitmo. They would be starting a war. Is that a correct assessment of your opinion?

The Cubans of 2012 or the traitors of 1861 can fart any wordlike noises out of their mouths they like, but that doesn't change the fact that the place is US Government property. Ergo, their utterance or non-utterance of insane illogic doesn't change the fact that the attack is unjustified aggression.

[silenus]

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby

Let's flesh this scenario out a bit, shall we?

If the Cuban government told the U.S. government, " We consider your occupation of Guantanamo Bay to be compromising our sovereignty. We wish you to vacate. Any attempts to supply will be met with force."

Then the U.S. government attempts to supply Gitmo. According to your "logic" the Cubans wouldn't be justified in attacking Gitmo. They would be starting a war. Is that a correct assessment of your opinion?

Cuba is an independent, sovereign nation. The CSA never was nor ever will be. Traitors they remain.

[Tristan]

I declare my house, with it's lands, a sovreign nation. I print some money, pass some laws, etc.

A meter reader attempts to come into my nation and I am forced to shoot him.

According to some posters logic here, it seems I am fully justified in doing so, and also that my nation (I'm thinking Tristania) is as legit as the US itself.

[Trinopus]

Originally Posted by Tristan

I declare my house, with it's lands, a sovreign nation. . . .

Well, you and your house aren't a state, and, according to some (Jefferson Davis writes about this) the states are the basic units of sovereignty. The states created the Constitution, etc.

So, no, a city (or part of a state) can't secede from the state (according to this logic; I want to say, up front, I don't agree with it!) But a state may secede from any collection of states, abrogate any treaty that obliges it, etc.

I think the Confederacy was chock full of poop, but, to be scrupulously fair, your analogy isn't completely apt. You, representing your house, never were recognized as part of the U.S.A. to begin with.

(Meanwhile, I break into your kitchen and sub-secede from your house-nation. "Kitchenonia" is now at war with "Tristan's House." Figure Great Britain will recognize me?)

[Lumpy]

Originally Posted by Tristan

I declare my house, with it's lands, a sovreign nation. I print some money, pass some laws, etc.

A meter reader attempts to come into my nation and I am forced to shoot him.

According to some posters logic here, it seems I am fully justified in doing so, and also that my nation (I'm thinking Tristania) is as legit as the US itself.

Your sovereign nation gets unjustly invaded and conquered by the local S.W.A.T. team. Tristania thus fails the basic test of sovereignty: the ability to defend itself.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Trinopus

Well, you and your house aren't a state, and, according to some (Jefferson Davis writes about this) the states are the basic units of sovereignty. The states created the Constitution, etc.

So, no, a city (or part of a state) can't secede from the state (according to this logic; I want to say, up front, I don't agree with it!) But a state may secede from any collection of states, abrogate any treaty that obliges it, etc.

And what authority did Davis possess to make any claims? He wasn't the governor of a state so he didn't represent any sovereign power.

[Tristan]

Originally Posted by Lumpy

Your sovereign nation gets unjustly invaded and conquered by the local S.W.A.T. team. Tristania thus fails the basic test of sovereignty: the ability to defend itself.

Bingo. And the CSA failed the exact same test. In essence, that is the acid test of a nation-state. Anyone can declare themselves a nation, but can they make it stick? Either through their own means, or through political maneuvers, or other means.

In my upper example, I fail. Like the CSA. Sucks to be me, and I have learned my lesson. Luckily, as my nation wasn't built on slavery, reconstruction shouldn't be an issue.

example #2: Quebec has tried to separate itself a few times. It has tried to do so via legal means, at the ballot box. It has not succeeded, and it seems the desire to do so has settled down.

example #3 South Sudan broke away from Sudan, and after a long and bloody civil war, managed to get legal recognition from nations and org's (the UN) that can make it stick.

example #4 : South Ossetia has tried to break away from Georgia and succeeded through the military intervention of the Russian Federation. While legally questionable, it cannot be denied that right now, South Ossetia is functioning as a separate and independent nation from Georgia. They may remain so, or they may become part of Russia. If that is voluntary, then no problem, but if being absorbed by Russia is done via force of arms, then South Ossetia fails the test. (note: I expect option 2, within the next 10 years or so).

[New Deal Democrat]

Four men ran for president in 1860. Abraham Lincoln only won 39.8 percent of the vote. He ran on a platform of opposing the extension of slavery to free slaves and the territories, but he also said that he was opposed to freeing the slaves in slave states. Even if he wanted to free the slaves, with less than 40 percent of the vote he lacked the power to do so.

Under the circumstances the South was foolish to secede. If calmer heads had prevailed slave owners would have been able to keep their "peculiar institution" until or unless they decided to free the slaves on their own.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

Under the circumstances the South was foolish to secede. If calmer heads had prevailed slave owners would have been able to keep their "peculiar institution" until or unless they decided to free the slaves on their own.

Or until they pushed the North too far and were finally told "No," and wound up seceding and starting a war. By 1860 the situation was probably untenetable since the South was evidently not satisfied with the existing compromises and the Fugutive Slave Act.

[New Deal Democrat]

Originally Posted by Marley23

Or until they pushed the North too far and were finally told "No," and wound up seceding and starting a war. By 1860 the situation was probably untenetable since the South was evidently not satisfied with the existing compromises and the Fugutive Slave Act.

In a number of his speeches Lincoln warned about the possibility of "a second Dred Scott decision." This would have been a Supreme Court decision overturning state laws against slavery. Many who voted for Lincoln opposed the legalization of slavery in their states because they wanted to keep blacks out of their states. These same voters for that same reason did not want to outlaw slavery where it was legal.

[Marley23]

I'm sure there were voters in the North as well as the South who wanted to keep things as they were, but I doubt they could have stayed that way very long no matter how much they might have wanted it to. The future CSA wanted more and more assurances that slavery would be protected, and their demands seemed to be increasing because economic and demographic factors were working against them.

[Lumpy]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

Four men ran for president in 1860. Abraham Lincoln only won 39.8 percent of the vote. He ran on a platform of opposing the extension of slavery to free slaves and the territories, but he also said that he was opposed to freeing the slaves in slave states. Even if he wanted to free the slaves, with less than 40 percent of the vote he lacked the power to do so.

Under the circumstances the South was foolish to secede. If calmer heads had prevailed slave owners would have been able to keep their "peculiar institution" until or unless they decided to free the slaves on their own.

IIRC, the slave states refused to even allow Lincoln's name on their ballots; thus, although it took the split vote mentioned above, Lincoln became president on a platform of limiting (and hoping for the eventual abolition of) slavery despite that fact that not one single southern man voted for him. That that could happen was the immediate cause of the break.

[Trinopus]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

And what authority did Davis possess to make any claims? He wasn't the governor of a state so he didn't represent any sovereign power.

??? Only the governor of a state can state an opinion regarding constitutional law?

Hey, everyone: we all have to drop out of the SDMB now! Only governors can post opinions!

More seriously, Jefferson Davis was writing this in his memoirs, and was stating his opinion on the constitutionality of the secession. He holds that the states are the "atoms" of sovereignty. I thought it was relevant ("goes to state of mind.")

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

Under the circumstances the South was foolish to secede. If calmer heads had prevailed slave owners would have been able to keep their "peculiar institution" until or unless they decided to free the slaves on their own.

Not really. Cotton and tobacco are bad crops. They really wear out the soil. And plantation owners were notoriously bad farmers so their land was in terrible shape. What kept the plantations afloat was the breeding and selling of slaves. And that meant that the slave owners needed new markets. This was the reason the south initially supported westward expansion. (It also incidentally explains why the slave owners joined with the abolitionists on a single issue - ending the African slave trade. They had no desire to allow foreign competition for their "product".)

But expansion ended up biting them in the ass. It worked out fine at first in places like Alabama and Mississippi and East Texas. But it turned out that most of the western territory wasn't suited for a slave-based agricultural system. The southern states pushed for slavery as hard as they could but it never took root in the west. And that meant that places like California, Oregon, and Kansas entered the Union as free states. Politically, the balance of slave and free states was tipping away from the south and economically the lack of a western market made slavery a dead-end.

If the southerners had been able to face reality, they'd have seen the writing on the wall. Rather than trying to artificially preserve a dying system, they should have cut a deal with the abolitionists and agreed to a program of gradual emancipation with a government buy-out of their slaves.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Trinopus

??? Only the governor of a state can state an opinion regarding constitutional law?

Hey, everyone: we all have to drop out of the SDMB now! Only governors can post opinions!

More seriously, Jefferson Davis was writing this in his memoirs, and was stating his opinion on the constitutionality of the secession. He holds that the states are the "atoms" of sovereignty. I thought it was relevant ("goes to state of mind.")

No, that was called a joke but I'll close caption it for the humor-impaired.

Davis might have paid lip service to state sovereignty, but he did nothing to support it in actual practice. In fact, he opposed state sovereignty when he was in office. He was the president of a national union and he wanted a strong central government with no resistance from the governors in the country he was running.

You can't judge people solely by the claims they made - especially when those claims were made decades after the fact. You judge them best by what they did at the time that decisions were being made.

[Rucksinator]

I'm kinda late to this party. I'll break these up into different posts, and try to get my quote attributes correct. First:

Originally Posted by Oldeb

... are you really incapable of understanding that some people see the USA as a single entity? ....

Originally Posted by Musicat

You can have a democracy just fine at the state level. Remember, back then, state levels were more important than federal, which caused the Civil War in the first place.....

It was my understanding that back then the US was more like the European Union is today. That is, people were loyal to their state first, and the country second. Robert E. Lee wasn’t fighting for slavery or the confederacy, he fought for Virginia.
So why are people arguing that Northerners were fighting to preserve the Union? Am I wrong about the states-first attitude of the time? Or was this attitude less prevalent in the North?

[Rucksinator]

Originally Posted by TonySinclair

Well, it couldn't, because land can't walk. And as long as you have a slave country sharing a very long border with a free country, and the free country refuses to return escaped slaves (and it would be reprehensible not to refuse), it looks like they'll go to war sooner or later anyway.

So the south tightens up its borders. I’m not saying that having an Iron Curtain between the CSA and the USA would be preferable, but it’s possible to have this situation and not have a war start every time someone manages to make it across.

[Rucksinator]

Originally Posted by Lumpy

Because in a democracy it's indispensable that when a free and fair vote has been cast and tallied, the losing side gracefully concedes. If the losing side revolts every time it doesn't get it's way, how can you have a democracy?

It wasn’t every time. It was once, over a pretty big issue.

Originally Posted by Oldeb

Not possible if the USA wanted to remain a country. Letting States in and out as they wanted destroys any power the Federal government has. It can't negotiate with other nations, because resources available one day may not be there the next. It can't promise any action, because there's no guarantee someone won't leave rather than do it. It can't promise to stop anything, because it can't enforce it.

Letting States back in afterwards is even messier. Can they pop in, grab some quick Federal grants, and pop out on the next contrived pretext? Do they owe back taxes? It's way too messy.. .

Well then, we can’t allow anybody to get divorced, because that would destroy the institution of marriage. At the very least, no divorced person could ever get married again. Who would marry someone who just ups and leaves after every disagreement?

Could a divorced man pop back in, grab some quick sex, the pop out on the next contrived pretext? Would have have to pay alimony? It's just too messy. Nope, we can't ever allow divorce.

[Rucksinator]

Originally Posted by Oldeb

Letting the southern states leave was basically the biggest loss the North was ever going to take...

Perhaps I am taking this out of context, or misinterpreting this, but this seems to support WillFarnaby’s assertion that the North was more concerned about the financial loss.

[MEBuckner]

Originally Posted by Rucksinator

It was my understanding that back then the US was more like the European Union is today. That is, people were loyal to their state first, and the country second. Robert E. Lee wasn’t fighting for slavery or the confederacy, he fought for Virginia.
So why are people arguing that Northerners were fighting to preserve the Union? Am I wrong about the states-first attitude of the time? Or was this attitude less prevalent in the North?

I think you're way overstating the case here. Yes, localist attitudes were probably a lot more prevalent in the first half of the 19th century than they are now. But look at Lincoln's first inaugural address: "The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature." This is an appeal to patriotism, on behalf of the entire United States. Look at the famous letter from Sullivan Ballou to his wife before First Bull Run; he clearly has a deep emotional connection to his "country"; that is, the entire Union.

Even on the Southern side, L.Q.C. Lamar didn't say "Thank God, we have seven countries at last, united in a loose league for their common defense"--he said "Thank God, we have a country at last: to live for, to pray for, and if need be, to die for."

[Oldeb]

Originally Posted by Rucksinator

It was my understanding that back then the US was more like the European Union is today. That is, people were loyal to their state first, and the country second. Robert E. Lee wasn’t fighting for slavery or the confederacy, he fought for Virginia.
So why are people arguing that Northerners were fighting to preserve the Union? Am I wrong about the states-first attitude of the time? Or was this attitude less prevalent in the North?

Like MEBuckner said, the while it wasn't universal, in general the nation was seen as one and not a group of separate nations. In fact the southern states didn't object when the Federal government placed itself above the northern states with decisions like the Fugitive Slave Laws and the Dred Scott case. If it was strictly about state rights those should have been unpopular in the south as well as the north. They weren't.

In addition I meant that comment in a more contemporary context. Willfarnaby does not seem capable of seeing the USA as a single country now, let alone in a context of Union views during the Civil War.

Originally Posted by Rucksinator

So the south tightens up its borders. I’m not saying that having an Iron Curtain between the CSA and the USA would be preferable, but it’s possible to have this situation and not have a war start every time someone manages to make it across.

Not possible. You're talking about a potential border stretching over 4,000 miles. Hard to do now let alone in 1861. And every escaped slave is just one more match to light the flame. War would have been the likely outcome no matter what.
Incidentally if the South could have done this they would. They were fighting a defensive war and they knew it. The goal was to hold out long enough that the Union gave up and let them go. What happened during the Civil War was their best attempt at digging in and tightening their borders.

Originally Posted by Rucksinator

It wasn’t every time. It was once, over a pretty big issue.

It was only one time because there's a pretty big precedent for what happens when you try.

Well then, we can’t allow anybody to get divorced, because that would destroy the institution of marriage.

If the marriage was a group marriage involving 50 partners (or 36 in 1861) who jointly controlled and managed resources worth trillions, you'd almost have a decent analogy going here. Trying to compare a contract between two people to the Constitution is just not going to work.

Originally Posted by Rucksinator

Perhaps I am taking this out of context, or misinterpreting this, but this seems to support WillFarnaby’s assertion that the North was more concerned about the financial loss.

The loss was in Federal power and status as a nation on the world state, not financial. Of the two the Union could easily have survived the loss of the South financially. The South was doomed trying to maintain an agrarian plantation lifestyle in the face of the Industrial Revolution.

What would have happened is that the next time Illinois didn't like a Federal decision, it left. Then maybe Maine. Followed by a few more. The USA no longer exists. The Federal government either had to step up and show that the Union between states was permanent or the USA ceases to exist. Now they could have let the South go and then used the military on Illinois for example, but then we'd be arguing about how the Federal government trampled Illinois's rights. The biggest problem with WillFarnaby's view that it was all financial is that you'd have to show that the Union made more off those tariffs than it spent on four years of war with over a million of it's citizens dead. It's not like they were collecting money from the South those four years. Plus they spent additional money during the Reconstruction. It makes very little sense to say they did it for the money, since the costs in both human lives and money were staggering. It makes plenty of sense if the Union was fighting to preserve itself as a nation.

[Rucksinator]

Originally Posted by MEBuckner

I think you're way overstating the case here. Yes, localist attitudes were probably a lot more prevalent in the first half of the 19th century than they are now. But look at Lincoln's first inaugural address: "The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature." This is an appeal to patriotism, on behalf of the entire United States. Look at the famous letter from Sullivan Ballou to his wife before First Bull Run; he clearly has a deep emotional connection to his "country"; that is, the entire Union.

Even on the Southern side, L.Q.C. Lamar didn't say "Thank God, we have seven countries at last, united in a loose league for their common defense"--he said "Thank God, we have a country at last: to live for, to pray for, and if need be, to die for."

It was more of a question than a statement. And perhaps it deserves its own thread.
However, I don't find your cites to be very compelling. Lincoln was trying to hold the Union together, so of course he was going to emphasize that. Since his job was POTUS, you would expect him to emphasize the union even if they weren't on the brink of war.

I get that the Union soldiers were fighting to preserve the Union.

As for L.Q.C.L., he was clearly not a fan of the Union.

Also, in war there is going to be a tendency to band together with your allies. The battlefield is not the place to be an individual.

What were the general attitudes before things got (really) tense?

[Rucksinator]

Originally Posted by Oldeb

Like MEBuckner said, the while it wasn't universal, in general the nation was seen as one and not a group of separate nations. In fact the southern states didn't object when the Federal government placed itself above the northern states with decisions like the Fugitive Slave Laws and the Dred Scott case. If it was strictly about state rights those should have been unpopular in the south as well as the north. They weren't. .

I think you're confusing the notion that the Civil War was really about "State's Rights" with my question about how the average American, prior to the immediate build up of the Civil War viewed his/her identity. Let me ask it this way: If I had a time-machine-type device where I could pluck a random American from 1860 and bring them to the floor of Congress, mondern time, and Congress asked him "What is your name and where are you from?", would he say "I'm .... from the United States", or would he say "I'm ..... from Georgia/Virginia/Ohio/etc....." ?

If you like you can rephrase the question in a way that doesn't beg the answer so much.

The reason that I ask is because I've often wondered why southerners fought. I doubt that there were many slave-owners, or sons of slave-owners, actually going into battle. I'm guessing that most of the rebel soldiers never owned a slave, nor did their parents. So why did they fight? The best explanation that I've heard is that one captured rebel soldier, when asked, said "Because you're here." I interpreted that to mean "You're here invading my state.", not "You're here invading my newly-formed country."

Originally Posted by Oldeb

[Snipped out a lot]..... The biggest problem with WillFarnaby's view that it was all financial is that you'd have to show that the Union made more off those tariffs than it spent on four years of war with over a million of it's citizens dead. It's not like they were collecting money from the South those four years. Plus they spent additional money during the Reconstruction. It makes very little sense to say they did it for the money, since the costs in both human lives and money were staggering. It makes plenty of sense if the Union was fighting to preserve itself as a nation.

It seems to me that the biggest reason for the civil war was that nobody realized the costs. All of the costs that you just mentioned were not known at the beginning of the war, and therefore were not calculated in any cost/benefit analysis just prior to the war. It's my understanding that, in addition to the South thinking that they just had to hold out, the North thought that they only had to march down to Richmond and the whole thing would be settled. (The first battle of Bull Run, IIRC, which did not work out as well as they had hoped.)

[Oldeb]

Originally Posted by Rucksinator

Let me ask it this way: If I had a time-machine-type device where I could pluck a random American from 1860 and bring them to the floor of Congress, mondern time, and Congress asked him "What is your name and where are you from?", would he say "I'm .... from the United States", or would he say "I'm ..... from Georgia/Virginia/Ohio/etc....." ?

Well, Lee did so I can't say I'd be surprised to find others. And you can claim that Lincoln had to say the country came first, he was President. But enough people agreed with him to vote him to that office. Nobody really argued that the Federal government wasn't superior unless the issue was slavery. Even then nobody argued who was superior unless they were concerned about limits on slavery.

So it's certainly possible there was a non-insignificant minority who place themselves as a citizen of a state first and the USA second. But they were a minority based on national elections and lack of outcry every time the Federal government passed any law that affected their state.

The reason that I ask is because I've often wondered why southerners fought. I doubt that there were many slave-owners, or sons of slave-owners, actually going into battle. I'm guessing that most of the rebel soldiers never owned a slave, nor did their parents. So why did they fight? The best explanation that I've heard is that one captured rebel soldier, when asked, said "Because you're here." I interpreted that to mean "You're here invading my state.", not "You're here invading my newly-formed country."

They fought to keep slaves. Or at least because other white people told them slaves were good. A few were probably like Lee and put state before country, but I strongly doubt they were a majority. I'll need more than a explanation you heard once.

The people who formed the KKK and went lynching weren't all slave owners or their sons.

The people who enacted the "Black Codes" weren't all slave owners or their sons.

The people who promoted segregation weren't all slave owners or their sons.

It seems to me that the biggest reason for the civil war was that nobody realized the costs. All of the costs that you just mentioned were not known at the beginning of the war, and therefore were not calculated in any cost/benefit analysis just prior to the war. It's my understanding that, in addition to the South thinking that they just had to hold out, the North thought that they only had to march down to Richmond and the whole thing would be settled. (The first battle of Bull Run, IIRC, which did not work out as well as they had hoped.)

I agree completely. But this is evidence that it had nothing to do with tariffs or taxes or money of any kind. If it was about money, why didn't the Union quit once the costs outweighed the gains?

It was about slavery for the South and the continuation of their country for the Union. To bring this back on track to the OP, the slavery issue was going to be have a lot of fallout from the beginning. It was always going to be unpleasant abolishing slavery in the US, and after the Missouri Compromise I don't see any way there wasn't going to be a war.

[New Deal Democrat]

Until the Civil War became a war to end slavery I think the South had the better argument. The Southern states no longer wanted to be part of the United States. Nothing in the Constitution said they had to stay.

This is relevant to our present condition, because the polarization of the United States may lead to a similar drive by some states to secede.

[saoirse]

Originally Posted by Oldeb

They fought to keep slaves. Or at least because other white people told them slaves were good. A few were probably like Lee and put state before country, but I strongly doubt they were a majority. I'll need more than a explanation you heard once.

The people who formed the KKK and went lynching weren't all slave owners or their sons.

The people who enacted the "Black Codes" weren't all slave owners or their sons.

The people who promoted segregation weren't all slave owners or their sons.

I think this is reductive. The privileges of white supremacy were certainly a motivation for those who were not drafted, but other motivations like loyalty to State over country and an unwillingness to be thought a coward played just as much of a role. Young men are young men and were then, too. What moves them to mass violence has always been something of a mystery, but the social elites' endorsement of the war was certainly the most important factor.

[Tristan]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

Until the Civil War became a war to end slavery I think the South had the better argument. The Southern states no longer wanted to be part of the United States. Nothing in the Constitution said they had to stay.

This is relevant to our present condition, because the polarization of the United States may lead to a similar drive by some states to secede.

But see, they can't secede. That was settled by the very thing we are discussing.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

Until the Civil War became a war to end slavery I think the South had the better argument. The Southern states no longer wanted to be part of the United States. Nothing in the Constitution said they had to stay.

This is just begging the question. The Confederate position was "Nothing in the Constitution says we have to stay. So we can leave."

And the Union position was "Nothing in the Constitution says you can leave. So you have to stay." Which is just as true as the Confederate position. For people to claim one side was "right" just reveals their own opinion on the issue.

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

This is just begging the question. The Confederate position was "Nothing in the Constitution says we have to stay. So we can leave."

And the Union position was "Nothing in the Constitution says you can leave. So you have to stay." Which is just as true as the Confederate position.

"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."

[Strassia]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

Until the Civil War became a war to end slavery I think the South had the better argument. The Southern states no longer wanted to be part of the United States. Nothing in the Constitution said they had to stay.

This is relevant to our present condition, because the polarization of the United States may lead to a similar drive by some states to secede.

No state is going to try and secede in any of our lifetimes. The polarization in the U.S. is not as bad the media makes it seem and does not fall on clear state lines. It falls more on urban/rural lines, although even that is not a clear division. The only states I can think of that have vast super majorities on one side or another have extremely small populations and could not survive on their own.

[saoirse]

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

"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 borders of the United States of America can not be changed by any state government, or collection of state governments, having been established by properly ratified treaties.

[Mr. Miskatonic]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

Four men ran for president in 1860. Abraham Lincoln only won 39.8 percent of the vote. He ran on a platform of opposing the extension of slavery to free slaves and the territories, but he also said that he was opposed to freeing the slaves in slave states. Even if he wanted to free the slaves, with less than 40 percent of the vote he lacked the power to do so.

Under the circumstances the South was foolish to secede. If calmer heads had prevailed slave owners would have been able to keep their "peculiar institution" until or unless they decided to free the slaves on their own.

The Southerners kept pushing and pushing. They would have broken the back at some point. Remember that they lost the election because they split the party because the fire-eaters weren't happy when the Democrat party refused to force slavery on states & territories that did not want them.

These weren't rational people. These were spoiled children who weren't realizing that they didn't own all the toys anymore.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

"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 states delegated their sovereignty to the United States by enacting the Constitution.

[Little Nemo]

It's also important that the Tenth Amendment talks about powers held by the states or the people. When the Constitution was enacted it was done by conventions not be the state legislatures. It was the people who were being asked to transfer their sovereignty from the states to a national government. So states like South Carolina did not have the authority to tell its people that they were no longer part of the United States - the state hadn't made the choice and it didn't have the right to overrule the people's choice.

[StusBlues]

I do not believe the US would have had a Civil War if Zachary Taylor would have lived. In his first year of office, Taylor was pursuing a plan where most of the Mexican cession would have come into the Union as free states. Southern leaders threatened to secede. Taylor responded that he would hunt down and hang the secessionists with the same zeal as he had killed deserters in the Mexican War. Given Taylor's personal gravitas right on the heels of his signature armed conflict, I believe the South would have backed down for the most part. If there had been a war over Southern secession, it would have been very limited in scope, more like Shay's rebellion or some such.

But then Taylor died, and his bold course of action was replaced by the Compromise of 1850.

And so the career of Shelby Foote was born.

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

The states delegated their sovereignty to the United States by enacting the Constitution.

But you stated the following:

The Confederate position was "Nothing in the Constitution says we have to stay. So we can leave."

And the Union position was "Nothing in the Constitution says you can leave. So you have to stay." Which is just as true as the Confederate position.

If, as you'd put it, nothing in the Constitution says they have to stay, and nothing in the Constitution says they can leave, then it's one of those 'neither delegated nor prohibited' situations, right? I like the point in your next post -- that it's not as easy to say whether it's the states or the people who have the power to secede -- but I don't see how you can follow up the in-need-of-a-tiebreaker scenario (where both sides lead off by noting that nothing in the Constitution says they're wrong) by saying the states delegated away their sovereignty (since, as per the 10th, any powers not so delegated by the Constitution explicitly don't belong to the federal government; some powers must not have been delegated, or the sentence makes no sense).

[Mr. Miskatonic]

Originally Posted by StusBlues

I believe the South would have backed down for the most part. If there had been a war over Southern secession, it would have been very limited in scope, more like Shay's rebellion or some such.

Especially given that the Southern militia system was a horrid joke at that time. John Brown didn't do anyone any favors at Harper's Ferry.

[Lumpy]

I think a case can be made that things like tariffs, or even slavery itself, could be considered parts of a broader issue. That the North and the South were evolving into two completely different societies, with incompatible views of what form society ought to take.

The North was committed to the Industrial Revolution, a society built around commerce, mechanization, factories, finance, corporations, and wage labor. The South by contrast had many of the features of what we would today call a third-world nation: a small oligarchy of land owners, a mass of impoverished agricultural workers, and an economy based on the raising and export of cash crops. Subsidized by the demand for cotton, the South was reverting to an almost neo-feudal society, with the plantation owners taking on the airs of an aristocracy. Picture the "gentleman planter" class of the South speaking Spanish instead of English, and one can easily imagine them as grandees on their haciendas lording it over their peons.