# 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:** 8
**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, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/141 "2011-11-04T22:24:54Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > 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. > > 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. The soldiers fighting for the South were by and large fighting to uphold their sovereignty. Everything can’t be explained as good vs. evil. This isn’t a superman comic. ---
**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, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/142 "2011-11-04T22:27:10Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > 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. > > No. For reasons outlined above. But what says that the _states_ get the right to secede, versus the people? ---
**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, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/143 "2011-11-04T22:28:22Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > The soldiers fighting for the South were by and large fighting to uphold their sovereignty. Everything can’t be explained as good vs. evil. This isn’t a superman comic. It’s true, not everything can be explained as good vs evil. Some things can, though. Fighting the Nazis was one such thing. So was fighting over slavery. ---
**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, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/144 "2011-11-04T22:31:30Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > But what says that the _states_ get the right to secede, versus the people? The states did at their various conventions. ---
**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, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/145 "2011-11-04T22:33:30Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > It’s true, not everything can be explained as good vs evil. Some things can, though. Fighting the Nazis was one such thing. So was fighting over slavery. Too bad Lincoln and the rest of the United States government never saw it as that. Neither did the union soldiers. Neither did impartial observers such as Detocqueville or the Cherokee nation. ---
**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, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/146 "2011-11-04T22:33:56Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > The states did at their various conventions. _All_ the states said that? That’s news to me. I’m not even aware of _any_ state’s constitution currently containing the right to secede. If I understand your reasoning about the tenth amendment properly, if the power is not claimed by the Federal govt, and not claimed by the states, than it resides in the people. Where am I wrong on this? ---
**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, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/147 "2011-11-04T22:38:21Z")
Too late to edit: just curious. What side did William Sherman fall on? Good or Evil? ---
**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, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/148 "2011-11-04T22:39:26Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > The soldiers fighting for the South were by and large fighting to uphold their sovereignty. Which was created and existed for the sole purpose of preserving slavery. > [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Everything can’t be explained as good vs. evil. This isn’t a superman comic. True. This however can be. Perhaps the North wasn’t “good”; certainly not Superman level good. But the Old South was monstrously evil; if anything _much more_ evil than most comic book villains. ---
**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, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/149 "2011-11-04T22:40:14Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > _All_ the states said that? That’s news to me. I’m not even aware of _any_ state’s constitution currently containing the right to secede. If I understand your reasoning about the tenth amendment properly, if the power is not claimed by the Federal govt, and not claimed by the states, than it resides in the people. Where am I wrong on this? By having a convention on the issue they effectively amended their constitutions. They claimed the right to do it at that moment. ---
**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, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/150 "2011-11-04T22:43:59Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Too late to edit: just curious. What side did William Sherman fall on? Good or Evil? I suppose he was on the good side, but he did some evil stuff. Just like I imagine that there were southern soldiers who were good men fighting for an evil cause. ---
**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, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/151 "2011-11-04T22:45:01Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > By having a convention on the issue they effectively amended their constitutions. They claimed the right to do it at that moment. Which states? I thought we were talking about the right for an individual to secede from Indiana? ---
**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, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/152 "2011-11-04T22:48:36Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > By having a convention on the issue they effectively amended their constitutions. They claimed the right to do it at that moment. They claimed it… from who? Did they just magic that right up out of thin air? How about governments deriving their power from the consent of the governed? If the states didn’t have the right to secede in, say, 1840, and the people have never had it (according to you), where does the right come from? ---
**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, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/153 "2011-11-04T23:15:39Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Too bad Lincoln and the rest of the United States government never saw it as that. Neither did the union soldiers. Neither did impartial observers such as Detocqueville or the Cherokee nation. Detocqueville? The man’s name was de Tocqueville. Considering that the whole foundation of your argument here appears to be you claiming that you know more about political theory than anyone else, you might try to show some evidence that you’ve at least learned the basics. No doubt you’ll be citing Lock and Russo next to show off your expertise. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2011, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/154 "2011-11-05T00:55:10Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > > > It’s true, not everything can be explained as good vs evil. Some things can, though. Fighting the Nazis was one such thing. So was fighting over slavery. > > Too bad Lincoln and the rest of the United States government never saw it as that. Neither did the union soldiers. Neither did impartial observers such as Detocqueville or the Cherokee nation. Exactly what statement by de Tocqueville did you have in mind here? Is there something he said to indicate that…well, what, exactly? That slavery was _not_ evil, or that the Union was not fighting against slavery? (The latter observation, though true enough at the start of the war, would have been a remarkably prescient thing for a man who died in 1859 to have said.) As to the Cherokee, they–or at any rate, the faction which aligned itself with the C.S.A.–[proclaimed](http://www.cherokee.org/AboutTheNation/History/Events/24564/Information.aspx) that the “war now raging is a war of Northern cupidity and fanaticism against the institution of African servitude; against the commercial freedom of the South, and against the political freedom of the States, and its objects are to annihilate the sovereignty of those States and utterly change the nature of the General Government”. So they seem to have thought the North _was_ fighting against slavery, it’s just that they thought that fighting to end slavery was a wicked and “fanatical” thing to do. Of course the pro-Confederate tribes of the Indian Territory were hardly impartial, being themselves owners of black slaves. ---
**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 5, 2011, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/155 "2011-11-05T00:58:35Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > They claimed it… from who? Did they just magic that right up out of thin air? How about governments deriving their power from the consent of the governed? If the states didn’t have the right to secede in, say, 1840, and the people have never had it (according to you), where does the right come from? The federal government didn’t have the power to stop them from seceding because it wasn’t in the Constitution. The right comes from the tenth amendment. ---
**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 5, 2011, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/156 "2011-11-05T01:00:35Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Detocqueville? The man’s name was de Tocqueville. > > Considering that the whole foundation of your argument here appears to be you claiming that you know more about political theory than anyone else, you might try to show some evidence that you’ve at least learned the basics. > > No doubt you’ll be citing Lock and Russo next to show off your expertise. A typo was worth a post of its own? Lol ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2011, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/157 "2011-11-05T01:03:06Z")
> [@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. Secession is not a power; it is an abrogation of a contract. You are attempting to make a silly claim based on a misuse of words. > [@WillFarnaby](#): > > When you refute either 1 or 2 I will change my mind, until then my argument stands. No, you won’t. You’ll just find a different way to redefine the language to find some way to support your odd claims. ---
**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 5, 2011, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/158 "2011-11-05T01:13:55Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Secession is not a power; it is an abrogation of a contract. And the ability to do that is a power. Hm. Which one of us is mincing words now? > [@tomndebb](#): > > No, you won’t. You’ll just find a different way to redefine the language to find some way to support your odd claims. Refute either 1 or 2 and I will change my mind. I am growing weary from the redundancy of arguments in this thread. I have been forced to repeat the same shit over and over. When someone refutes either 1 or 2 we can have our kumbaya moment, until then I will be unconvinced. ---
**Author:** ![Naxos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/50afbb/32.png) [@Naxos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Naxos)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2011, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/159 "2011-11-05T01:26:19Z")
> [@Jinx](#): > > I’ve heard it said that the American Civil War was NOT about slavery. It was about uniting the nation. That’s a common deflection from conservative ideologists that still support the right of a State to discriminate against anyone they want. > [@](#): > > What supporting evidence is there today that this was indeed the premise… None. It was well understood and acknowledged by all parties at that time that they were fighting about the “god given” right of the Southern States to own slaves. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2011, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/160 "2011-11-05T01:39:32Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > And the ability to do that is a power. > > Hm. Which one of us is mincing words now? You are. I would love to see a citation to a serious philosopher of law or jurist that enumerates abrogation of a compact as a “power” of government. > [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Refute either 1 or 2 and I will change my mind. Unlikely. > [@WillFarnaby](#): > > I am growing weary from the redundancy of arguments in this thread. I have been forced to repeat the same shit over and over. Well, if you are growing weary, you can always knock it off. And no one is compelling you to repeat the same nonsense over and over; you are doing it because you enjoy it. > [@WillFarnaby](#): > > When someone refutes either 1 or 2 we can have our kumbaya moment, until then I will be unconvinced. True Believers are rarely convinced regardless of facts. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779.md?page=9)