# 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:** 9
**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 5, 2011, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/161 "2011-11-05T02:01:33Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > And the ability to do that is a power. > > Hm. Which one of us is mincing words now? > > 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. 2 was already refuted, I think. All powers are NOT reserved to the states- they are reserved to the states OR to the people. And I don’t think you’ve refuted that a citizen of any state that does not currently contain the right to secede in their constitution (which I think counts all 50 states) can individually secede, because that power, not being reserved by the state of residence, must therefore lie with the people. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2011, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/162 "2011-11-05T02:01:54Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > And the ability to do that is a power. If you’re going to go that route, I should remind you the North won, utterly broke the old South, and remade it anew. So if it comes down to powers, the new Union is correct, hands down. ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2011, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/163 "2011-11-05T02:08:53Z")
> [@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. de Tocqueville wrote his book about America 25 years before the Civil War began, and died before the war began so I doubt he expressed any opinions on the matter. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2011, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/164 "2011-11-05T02:12:28Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > 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. You can’t even read 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, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/165 "2011-11-05T02:24:18Z")
> [@Andy\_L](#): > > de Tocqueville wrote his book about America 25 years before the Civil War began, and died before the war began so I doubt he expressed any opinions on the matter. > **[Alexis de Tocqueville on Secession](http://wtsaid.blogspot.com/2010/05/alexis-de-tocqueville-on-secession.html)** > > "The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; in uniting together they have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they... I confused in my memory a quote from someone else as his. The quote cited above is on secession not the reasons for war. I apologize for the error. ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2011, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/166 "2011-11-05T02:28:17Z")
Never mind ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2011, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/167 "2011-11-05T03:02:04Z")
Now that’s I’ve weighed in (briefly, as I didn’t see much need for more) on the side of almost everyoen except WillFarnaby, let me then step in again to him. I have no particular love of the South (with a capital S). I came from Indiana, and my own ancestors in living memory were attacked by the KKK. I live in East Tennessee, in area which went wildly against Seccession, was none too keen on slaveholders, and actively supported rebellion _against the South_ and provided many soldiers for the Union, and paid the price when Richmond responded brutally. Yet, I have never been able to bring myself to hate the South, not even the historical Old South, not even for a moment. I cannot condemn good and honorable men like Lee or Johnston. I cannot bring myself to condemn the soldiers - for most of them, it wasn’t an ideological struggle. Their state was invaded and they fought back, and many never cared for the ideology or slavery beyond that. Many, many people who deserved better died or suffered terribly. I do not - would never - could not ignore the sins of the South. But I can neither condemn them as exclusively, and not always predominantly, Southern sins. I know these people, because I have lived among them. You will never find a more generous or warm-hearted people. You will not find men more courageous in the face of danger, and I dare you to locate anywhere in the world a people more honest and trustworthy. I would rather trust a random man picked from the phonebook in Georgia with a hundred dollars than someone from my home city in Indiana. Was the obsession with slavery wrong? Yes. Was their defense of a bad institution terrible? Yes. But _Evil_ is a strong word, and men do much evil out of ignorance and habit. I am loathe to set out such a judgement, knowing I could probably do no better, and neither could many men. The South made many mistakes. But foremost was a crisis of leadership, because the men who led the South into rebellion were bitter and had shame and humiliation in their hearts. And as such men so often do, they unleashed forces they could not control, so that those who would not agree paid the price. ---
**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, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/168 "2011-11-05T03:07:30Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > I would rather trust a random man picked from the phonebook in Georgia with a hundred dollars than someone from my home city in Indiana. Wait till your random person from Georgia starts showing the Confederate Flag that stands for support of discrimination and slavery. Your skin may not be undesirable for the Confederates, but we do know what they stood for and what they represented and what they represent. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2011, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/169 "2011-11-05T03:47:13Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > [What They Said: Alexis de Tocqueville on Secession](http://wtsaid.blogspot.com/2010/05/alexis-de-tocqueville-on-secession.html) > > I confused in my memory a quote from someone else as his. The quote cited above is on secession not the reasons for war. I apologize for the error. How about citing any passage where he justifies sucession on the basis of the 10th Amendment? 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2011, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/170 "2011-11-05T04:06:16Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > . . . Yet, I have never been able to bring myself to hate the South, not even the historical Old South, not even for a moment. I cannot condemn good and honorable men like Lee or Johnston. I cannot bring myself to condemn the soldiers - for most of them, it wasn’t an ideological struggle. Their state was invaded and they fought back, and many never cared for the ideology or slavery beyond that. Many, many people who deserved better died or suffered terribly. . . . This is one of the best and kindest and gentlest and most balanced posts on the subject that I have ever seen. I very much wish I agreed with it more, but, alas, my judgements are more harsh, more one-way. I admire your view more than I admire my own! You’re a better man than I am! (I loved the epic movie (originally made for tv as a miniseries) Gettysburg. Best war movie I’ve ever seen, and I admired the way the filmmakers gave both sides their best justifications. I thought it was a remarkably even-handed treatment, and, withal, a hell of a good war flick. It is, to this date, the only war movie I have ever seen that depicted lateral maneuvering! All other war movies are simplistically one-dimensional. Troops either go toward each other, or away. Gettysburg showed troops breaking away to one side, extending a line for a flanking maneuver. Unique!) Trinopus ---
**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 5, 2011, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/171 "2011-11-05T04:11:52Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > A typo was worth a post of its own? Lol No but the fact that you didn’t know his name is indicative of the poor arguments you’re making here. My guess is you heard de Tocqueville’s name somewhere and you figured you’d throw it out there because you thought it would sound impressive. But the fact that you didn’t know how to spell his name, much less the fact that he visited the United States decades before the period we’re discussing, is evidence that you were just bluffing. ---
**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, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/172 "2011-11-05T06:06:53Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > No but the fact that you didn’t know his name is indicative of the poor arguments you’re making here. > > My guess is you heard de Tocqueville’s name somewhere and you figured you’d throw it out there because you thought it would sound impressive. But the fact that you didn’t know how to spell his name, much less the fact that he visited the United States decades before the period we’re discussing, is evidence that you were just bluffing. I put it out there because he supported my argument. The same reason you mention anything in a debate. I must resort to furnishing evidence of my claims because I don’t believe an effective argument can be waged by overzealos pedantry, condescension, and snobbery. Yet another idea we disagree on. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2011, 8:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/173 "2011-11-05T08:20:30Z")
> [@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. As **Little Nemo** pointed out, things didn’t move that quickly. But in fact we have very good reason to believe that the former colonies did want an unbreakable union. When they appointed the committee to write the Declaration of Independence they also appointed one to draft rules governing the new ediface to replace the Crown. There was a lot of wrangling so that a proposal was not submitted to the states until late the following year and ratification delayed even longer but by the spring of 1781 all 13 states had agreed to the **Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union**. If the name isn’t hint enough, it clearly states in the final Article that the union was perpetual. The fact that our current constitution does not do so is due to the fact that while the Framers had big balls, their balls weren’t quite so big that they would proclaim a new eternal union in the very document that was replacing the “eternal” union they were then living in. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2011, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/174 "2011-11-05T15:11:37Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > As **Little Nemo** pointed out, things didn’t move that quickly. But in fact we have very good reason to believe that the former colonies did want an unbreakable union. When they appointed the committee to write the Declaration of Independence they also appointed one to draft rules governing the new ediface to replace the Crown. There was a lot of wrangling so that a proposal was not submitted to the states until late the following year and ratification delayed even longer but by the spring of 1781 all 13 states had agreed to the **Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union**. If the name isn’t hint enough, it clearly states in the final Article that the union was perpetual. > > The fact that our current constitution does not do so is due to the fact that while the Framers had big balls, their balls weren’t quite so big that they would proclaim a new eternal union in the very document that was replacing the “eternal” union they were then living in. Ah, but the “Perpetual Union” **was**. (See, e.g., Texas v. White.) They didn’t say that the degree of affederating or the mechanisms of governing were perrpetual – only the Union itself, which self-evidently has endured. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2011, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/175 "2011-11-05T18:10:25Z")
> [@Spoke](#): > > That’s not entirely true. They also talked about tariffs on foreign manufactured goods, which was a legitimate non-slavery regional issue. (The Tariff, the South argued, was being used not as a neutral revenue-raising measure, but as a way to enrich Northern manufacturers by forcing Southerners to buy from them when they could have otherwise purchased less expensive English goods.) > > But slavery was first and foremost the issue of the day, and you really get the feeling that the Tariff issue was hauled out as an afterthought, in an effort to bring along the non-slave-holding yeoman farmers. Are you saying that some of the secession declarations did not mention slavery at all, or that some of them had other reasons listed? I’ve read a couple of them, and those I’ve read list a number of reasons, but the way they are written it is clear that the reasons other than slavery are there to round it out and be complete, the bulk of them is spent discussing the slavery issue and its ramifications. [http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html](http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html) ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2011, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/176 "2011-11-05T18:19:14Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > Are you saying that some of the secession declarations did not mention slavery at all, or that some of them had other reasons listed? You said “They all talk about one subject: slavery.” I was pointing out that they talk about more than one subject. For example, they also talk about the tariff. I understood you to be saying the secession documents talked _only_ about slavery. Did I misunderstand your meaning? ---
**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, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/177 "2011-11-05T21:54:33Z")
> [@Spoke](#): > > You said “They all talk about one subject: slavery.” > > I was pointing out that they talk about more than one subject. For example, they also talk about the tariff. > > I understood you to be saying the secession documents talked _only_ about slavery. Did I misunderstand your meaning? I took it to mean that his intent was to say that regardless of any other issues, slavery was one issue that they all addressed. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2011, 8:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/178 "2011-11-06T08:55:31Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > Ah, but the “Perpetual Union” **was**. (See, e.g., Texas v. White.) They didn’t say that the degree of affederating or the mechanisms of governing were perrpetual – only the Union itself, which self-evidently has endured. It’s only self-evident if you assume that we can trace our current union in an unbroken line back to the one that was originally created. Obviously that’s fallacious. _Texas v White_ provides no evidence that this is so. It merely repeats (prepeats?) your error. I would argue that the opposite is true. But I wouldn’t want to hijack this thread to do so and in any case even if I am wrong it does nothing to undermine my point that **jtgain** ’s claim was demonstrably off base. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2011, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/179 "2011-11-06T23:03:42Z")
> [@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, until then my argument stands. 1. The Constitution guarantees that each state shall have a republican form of government. 2. The Constitution gives the federal government the exercise of those powers which are necessary and proper to uphold the Constitution. 3. Obviously, it is not possible for the federal government to guarantee a state’s republican form of government if a state can just up and say “screw you, I’m outta here”. 4. Ergo, the Federal government has the power to prohibit states from leaving. QED. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2011, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/180 "2011-11-06T23:15:06Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > I would rather trust a random man picked from the phonebook in Georgia with a hundred dollars than someone from my home city in Indiana. You might want to rethink that – a [quick bit of Google-fu](http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/US_States_Rate_Ranking.html) put Georgia at 9th highest in crime versus 14th/15th (depending on year) for Indiana… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779.md?page=10)