# Civil War Was Not Over Slavery? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 3, 2011, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779 "2011-11-03T20:40:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2011, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/121 "2011-11-04T18:48:52Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > 2 the tenth amendment reserves all powers not granted to he federal government to the states. Does the tenth amendment allow the states to mishmo bep the fargul? Can they jai sisgh for vigbubn? Are they allowed to do anything and everything anyone can ever think of that is not specifically given to the federal government in the Constitution? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2011, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/122 "2011-11-04T18:49:45Z")
The Constitution also nowhere reserves the powers of time travel or perpetual motion to the federal government. Does that mean that the states have those powers? ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2011, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/123 "2011-11-04T18:57:01Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > You can laugh at it all you want. My argument lies directly in the Constitution. > > 1 The Constitution doesn’t prohibit secession, nor does it allow the federal government to deny secession > > 2 the tenth amendment reserves all powers not granted to he federal government to the states. > > When you refute either 1 or 2 I will change my mind Well, that’s easy. “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 people” voted for Lincoln. That’s historical fact. Secession was a _direct_ response, the purpose of which was to nullify the effect of Lincoln’s election. IF the Tenth Amendment somehow grants a right to secession (I’m humoring you here), _“the people” have it_, and South Carolina thwarted their constitutional right by acting in defiance of their expressed will. Hey, it reflects reality at least as well as your theories! ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2011, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/124 "2011-11-04T18:58:05Z")
> [@bup](#): > > You enter into a contract. You don’t have the right to get out of that contract unilaterally. It’s binding. Agreed. However, you are able to get out if you pay some damages. A contract doesn’t bind you to specific performance for all of eternity. The South viewed the Constitution as a compact among states. Your analogy would be like signing up for Sam’s Club and 10 years later when I decide I don’t like it, Sam’s Club employees come to my house and take my dues by force and make my wife shop there. As 13 colonies who had JUST THEN seceded from England, it would be unthinkable that they didn’t believe in the right of secession. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2011, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/125 "2011-11-04T19:24:00Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Does the tenth amendment allow the states to mishmo bep the fargul? Can they jai sisgh for vigbubn? Are they allowed to do anything and everything anyone can ever think of that is not specifically given to the federal government in the Constitution? > [@Chronos](#): > > The Constitution also nowhere reserves the powers of time travel or perpetual motion to the federal government. Does that mean that the states have those powers? Yes because secession is similar to gibberish and science fiction. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2011, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/126 "2011-11-04T19:40:56Z")
The legal power of secession _is_ similar to perpetual motion, in that neither one exists. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2011, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/127 "2011-11-04T19:49:06Z")
> [@bup](#): > > I don’t need to - SCOTUS agrees with me. Didn’t you hear? [The Supreme Court isn’t allowed to do that.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14375549&postcount=25) ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2011, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/128 "2011-11-04T20:00:17Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > You can laugh at it all you want. My argument lies directly in the Constitution. > > 1 The Constitution doesn’t prohibit secession, nor does it allow the federal government to deny secession The Constitution doesn’t prohibit a private individual from seceding from their state, either. Is that legal? > [@](#): > > 2 the tenth amendment reserves all powers not granted to he federal government to the states. It absolutely does not. It grants them to the states or the people. So do invididuals have the right to secede? If Jim owns a house in Indiana, can he secede from Indiana? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2011, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/129 "2011-11-04T20:08:34Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Agreed. However, you are able to get out if you pay some damages. A contract doesn’t bind you to specific performance for all of eternity. > > The South viewed the Constitution as a compact among states. Your analogy would be like signing up for Sam’s Club and 10 years later when I decide I don’t like it, Sam’s Club employees come to my house and take my dues by force and make my wife shop there. But like a contract, it’s bilateral. Once both sides agree to the contract, one side cannot withdraw from the agreement unless both sides agree. > [@jtgain](#): > > As 13 colonies who had JUST THEN seceded from England, it would be unthinkable that they didn’t believe in the right of secession. History didn’t happen in a weekend. The Constitution was written eleven years after independence was declared. And the reason it was enacted was because people had seen the problems of trying to run a country with thirteen separate governments. The Constitution was written to turn thirteen states into a single country. The anti-federalists of the time argued against this. They said that adopting the Constitution would eliminate the sovereignty of the states which was why they didn’t want it adopted. But they lost the argument. The Constitution was adopted and the states surrendered their sovereignty to the national government. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2011, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/130 "2011-11-04T20:20:30Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > The Constitution doesn’t prohibit a private individual from seceding from their state, either. Is that legal? > It absolutely does not. It grants them to the states or the people. > > So do invididuals have the right to secede? If Jim owns a house in Indiana, can he secede from Indiana? You would have to consult the Indiana Comstitution for that one. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2011, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/131 "2011-11-04T20:26:14Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > But like a contract, it’s bilateral. Once both sides agree to the contract, one side cannot withdraw from the agreement unless both sides agree. > History didn’t happen in a weekend. The Constitution was written eleven years after independence was declared. And the reason it was enacted was because people had seen the problems of trying to run a country with thirteen separate governments. The Constitution was written to turn thirteen states into a single country. > > The anti-federalists of the time argued against this. They said that adopting the Constitution would eliminate the sovereignty of the states which was why they didn’t want it adopted. But they lost the argument. The Constitution was adopted and the states surrendered their sovereignty to the national government. Sovereignty isn’t an all or nothing proposition. Yes they surrendered some of their sovereignty, specifically those powers enumerated in the Constitution, but they kept some of their sovereignty, specifically all powers not enumerated in the Constitution. If they surrendered all of their sovereignty, all of the states would have exactly the same laws. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2011, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/132 "2011-11-04T20:32:50Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > You would have to consult the Indiana Comstitution for that one. I can’t seem to find anything in the Indiana Constitution that says he can’t, so your position on this question is…? ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2011, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/133 "2011-11-04T20:44:06Z")
Hey, **Will** , what do you think of [_No Treason_](http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/No_Treason/6)? I quote: > [@](#): > > **The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation.** It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And **it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago.** [quite a bit longer now, of course] And it can be supposed to have been a contract then **only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts.** Furthermore, we know, historically, that **only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now.** Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. And the Constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. **They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children.** It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. **That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but “the people” then existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind any body but themselves.** So, aside from the fact it sounds like an old gospel song, what do you think? Is the Constitution heritable, like original sin and property liens? Or is it only binding on adults who reached majority and passed on long ago? ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2011, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/134 "2011-11-04T20:52:41Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > Hey, **Will** , what do you think of [_No Treason_](http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/No_Treason/6)? > > I quote:So, aside from the fact it sounds like an old gospel song, what do you think? Is the Constitution heritable, like original sin and property liens? Or is it only binding on adults who reached majority and passed on long ago? Sounds like it was written by someone who was an annoying asshole. Aside from that, why don’t they go even further and address the problem of identity? Am I the same entity that occupied my physical frame ten days ago? What is I? ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2011, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/135 "2011-11-04T21:03:06Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Sounds like it was written by someone who was an annoying asshole. So you seem to agree constitutions are binding. I can say with fair certainty that no state constitution claims the right of the state to secede. Therefore, by your Tenth Amendment argument, individuals must have the right to secede, as it is not claimed by any other sovereign entity. But you claim constitutions are binding. That, my friend, is a contradiction. QED. ∎ ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2011, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/136 "2011-11-04T21:17:57Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Sovereignty isn’t an all or nothing proposition. Yes they surrendered some of their sovereignty, specifically those powers enumerated in the Constitution, but they kept some of their sovereignty, specifically all powers not enumerated in the Constitution. > > If they surrendered all of their sovereignty, all of the states would have exactly the same laws. But if South Carolina has the power to secede despite the opposition of the United States to that secession, then you’re claiming that South Carolina’s sovereignty is superior to the United States’. And that’s not true and it wasn’t true in 1860. The states acknowledged the superior sovereignty of the national government by ratifying the Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2011, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/137 "2011-11-04T21:42:39Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > You would have to consult the Indiana Comstitution for that one. I don’t have to; the Tenth Amendment you keep quoting gives powers to the states AND the people. Your literal interpretation of the 10th means people have the same powers as states. So why can’t they secede? But as has bene pointed out, the Constitution of Indiana does’t say you can’t secede. So can an individual secede from the State of Indiana? Yes or no? ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2011, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/138 "2011-11-04T22:11:32Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > So you seem to agree constitutions are binding. I can say with fair certainty that no state constitution claims the right of the state to secede. Therefore, by your Tenth Amendment argument, individuals must have the right to secede, as it is not claimed by any other sovereign entity. But you claim constitutions are binding. > > That, my friend, is a contradiction. QED. ∎ This is the argument I’ve been waiting to hear because it is based on the assumption that if the states had enumerated the right to secede in their respective constitutions, they would have the ability to do so. Every state that seceded held a secession convention, in essence amending their state constitutions, and declaring the right to secede. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2011, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/139 "2011-11-04T22:14:24Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > [QUOTE=Der Trihs] > You are defending the right of the South to secede in order for them to preserve slavery. And by implication upholding the position that the slaves had no right to an opinion on the matter. And you are holding the North responsible for “aggression”, while absolving the South of responsibility for considering slavery more important than avoiding “the deadliest conflict in US history”. It has been proven in this thread that the Union was not at war to prevent slavery. Lincoln said so himself. [/quote] Irrelevant. The South was the cause of the war, they were willing to break up the country in order to preserve slavery. You might as well blame World War II on the Allies because they defended themselves instead of just letting themselves be conquered and massacred by the Axis. And yes; I _do_ think the Old South was at least as evil as Nazi Germany. They were monsters. > [@WillFarnaby](#): > > [QUOTE=Der Trihs] > If you defend the right of the South to secede, then you are defending slavery. That’s why they seceded, that’s the only purpose the Confederacy had. Nope. People have, over the years, convinced themselves that such an egregious conflict was necessary for the end of slavery. This makes them feel better about so many people dying. They also ridicule anyone who says that the war was avoidable as a racist buffoon. How pacifism equates to racism I do not understand. [/QUOTE] Anyone who supported the Confederacy or lifted a hand in defense of it _deserved_ death; I have no sympathy for slavers. They were rapists and torturers and tyrants and bigots; some of the most vile people who ever existed. [Hostis humani generis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostis_humani_generis), the enemies of all humanity. The Union people and innocent bystanders who died in the process are a pity, but they died because of the rabidly evil nature of the Old South; its desire to support slavery, its willingness to do so at any cost. And given that the South was willing to go to war over even the mere possibility of it ending, of course war was necessary to end it. The South itself proved that by going to war to preserve it. And opposing the war and thus supporting slavery does not make you a pacifist; the slaves were kept in line by the constant threat and application of violence. All you are doing is saying that violence is OK, as long as they were the victims. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2011, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/140 "2011-11-04T22:19:08Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > I don’t have to; the Tenth Amendment you keep quoting gives powers to the states AND the people. Your literal interpretation of the 10th means people have the same powers as states. So why can’t they secede? Wrong. It gives powers to the states OR the people. This is important because it signifies that the state and the individual do not share powers, such as that to secede. > [@RickJay](#): > > But as has bene pointed out, the Constitution of Indiana does’t say you can’t secede. So can an individual secede from the State of Indiana? Yes or no? No. For reasons outlined above. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779.md?page=8)