Sorry, but I don't think the American Civil War is that complicated

[Liberal]

Thanks to Robert Lehnert and Spavined Gelding for their excellent contributions. Until these posts, both sides had greatly oversimplified the issue like people who sum up the Gospels by saying that the Jews killed Christ.

I see that Buck cited the standard fare but like so many who do, apparently didn’t read his cites. Mississippi’s declaration, for example, does not stop at the “thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery” phrase, and in fact lifting that part of the sentence changes its meaning. Lehnert nailed it with his analysis by not ignoring the dependent clause that followed. And Gelding captured the underlying current of nearly every military conflict: lust for property owned by others.

[David_Simmons]

*Originally posted by Libertarian *
**… the underlying current of nearly every military conflict: lust for property owned by others. **

In the Civil War case, what was the “property” for which there was “lust” and who was doing the lusting?

[xenophon41]

originally posted by Lib:

I see that Buck cited the standard fare but like so many who do, apparently didn’t read his cites. Mississippi’s declaration, for example, does not stop at the “thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery” phrase, and in fact lifting that part of the sentence changes its meaning.

Well, gosh; I’m now left wondering what grievous change to the meaning of the Mississippi declaration was wrought by MEBuckner’s selection of that phrase. The sentence, in its entirety, is as follows:

(from Buckner’s cite):

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.

ISTM that the concluding phrase, rather than mitigating in any way the importance of slavery to the people and state of Mississippi which precipitated their secession from the Union, merely confirms the mercenary nature of that attachment to human bondage. In fact, the document as a whole quite thoroughly summarizes the vital economic importance of slavery to the state of Mississippi, and solidifies the underlying reasons why their position was so deeply “identified with the institution of slavery”, without once identifying any other cause but the protection of that institution to justify their secession.

So do tell me, Lib, what is it about MEBuckner’s position, or the position of the OP, that is gainsayed by a complete reading of the passage so wickedly abridged by MEB?

[tomndebb]

The right to leave the union was not questioned by anyone at that time and there are a number of sites which identify the States that joined the union while still reserving the right to withdraw.

This statement, of course, carefully ignores the fact that when the New England states considered withdrawing from the Union over the South’s War of 1812, the Southern leaders cried treachery and treason and threatened to use force to compel New England to remain in the union. (Most of the armies that fought in the Northern battles in Michigan, western New York, and Ontario had been raised from among the Virginia and Kentucky volunteers.)

Given that among the three states who included “escape clauses”*, Virginia was the first to threaten war to enforce the union, I find such rhetoric silly.

*A reading of Virginia’s “escape clause” does not allow Virginia to withdraw, but only to allow the entire nation to dissolve itself when mutually agreed upon. The statement is not that Virginia may withdraw, but that “being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them”–all the people of the United States, not the Sovereign Commonwealth of Virginia.

[MEBuckner]

*Originally posted by laigle *
All right, I’m bowing out of the thread. It’s clear that it’s a lot more fun to attack me than to discuss the thread now, and I really have nothing more to say about it. Good night all.

*Originally posted by astro *
A confident 100 years + after the fact hindsight assertion about the simplicity of root causes and contexts of the Civil War all tied up with a big red bow … and a moderator is going along for the ride… M’kaaay… this should be better than the Oft Beaten Tiger Thread in the Pit.

*Originally posted by Libertarian *
Thanks to Robert Lehnert and Spavined Gelding for their excellent contributions. Until these posts, both sides had greatly oversimplified the issue like people who sum up the Gospels by saying that the Jews killed Christ.

I see that Buck cited the standard fare but like so many who do, apparently didn’t read his cites. Mississippi’s declaration, for example, does not stop at the “thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery” phrase, and in fact lifting that part of the sentence changes its meaning. Lehnert nailed it with his analysis by not ignoring the dependent clause that followed. And Gelding captured the underlying current of nearly every military conflict: lust for property owned by others.

In this thread, I’m seeing a number of people thoughtfully discuss the causes of the Civil War. As in any thoughtful discussion, there are somewhat different points of view, and people are correcting or revising or expanding on each other’s remarks.

And then we have a number of people who are just blustering and making vague insinuations about “oversimplification” and “well, the dependent clause harumph harumph harumph…” What, did the State of Mississippi say “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery–NOT!”? Was this the “Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union” as written by Wayne and Garth?

Here’s the link again: A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.

Read the whole bloody thing, all six-hundred and eighty-odd words of it, dependent clauses and all. Then you tell me what Mississippi’s reason for seceding from the Union was.
[Corrected link. – MEB]

[dropzone]

*Originally posted by Dogface *
Not in WWI. In that war, what happened was that both “sides” began mobilization simultaneously as hardcore diplomatic brinksmanship.

Except in their case the German mobilization plans included invading Belgium, providing themselves an easy launching point into France and threatening Britain’s economic interests by occupying Belgium’s ports and risking control of the sealanes.

[Liberal]

Buck

Read the whole bloody thing, all six-hundred and eighty-odd words of it, dependent clauses and all. Then you tell me what Mississippi’s reason for seceding from the Union was.

I have indeed read the whole thing. In fact, so far as I know, I was the first person to reference the various articles of secession from the Southern states in an SDMB debate, sometime back in '99 or '00, I think. Before the Big Crash.

It was the dependent clause that — as dependent clauses tend to do — gave meaning and context to the clause upon which it depends: “[which is] the greatest material interest of the world”. That’s the part that underlies Lehnert and Gelding’s analysis. It is a matter of slavery, not as a moral principle (the way Texas presented it), but of slavery as an economic institution.

But Mississippi did give other reasons as well, and concluded by declaring that their causes were greater than the causes used to justify a break with England. Among them are:

…that the Union deprived the South of more than half the land acquired in the Louisiana purchase

…that the Union dismembered Texas and usurped territory it seized from Mexico

…that the Union no longer recognizes the South as equal to the North

…that the Union advocates social and political equality for negroes [not just an end to slavery]

…that the Union has inflamed its citizenry against the South with propoganda in its press, schools, and churches

…that the Union has invaded a sovereign state

…that the Union has broken all its promises and commitments

…that the Union is unrelenting and aggressive, thus forcing the hand of Mississippi

…that the Union has taken control of the government by unscrupulous means

…that continued subjugation to the Union’s control will result in the loss of $4 billion dollars

Maybe you, too, should read “the whole bloody thing”.

[MEBuckner]

*Originally posted by Libertarian *
It was the dependent clause that — as dependent clauses tend to do — gave meaning and context to the clause upon which it depends: “[which is] the greatest material interest of the world”. That’s the part that underlies Lehnert and Gelding’s analysis. It is a matter of slavery, not as a moral principle (the way Texas presented it), but of slavery as an economic institution.

A completely pointless quibble. All I ever said was that Mississippi gave slavery as its reason for secession. Which is entirely correct.

But Mississippi did give other reasons as well, and concluded by declaring that their causes were greater than the causes used to justify a break with England.

Their “other reasons” are all the same reason:

From the Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union
That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The “list of facts” are all, according to Mississippi, proofs of the danger to the institution of slavery.

…that the Union deprived the South of more than half the land acquired in the Louisiana purchase

How was the South “deprived” of land acquired in the Louisiana purchase? By the exclusion of slavery from those areas as part of the Missouri Compromise.

…that the Union dismembered Texas and usurped territory it seized from Mexico

…that the Union no longer recognizes the South as equal to the North

The actual words in context:

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.

The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

Once again, we’re talking about the exclusion of slavery from the territories. A reference to the Compromise of 1850.

…that the Union advocates social and political equality for negroes [not just an end to slavery]

In other words, your claim that the position of Mississippi is somehow different from that of Texas is false. Slavery is both an economic interest and central to the social and political institutions of Mississippi.

…that the Union has inflamed its citizenry against the South with propoganda in its press, schools, and churches

And what do you think this is referring to? Jokes about Southerners marrying their sisters? This is referring to abolitionist propaganda. Agitation against slavery.

…that the Union has invaded a sovereign state

Speaking of leaving out the dependent clauses:

It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.

John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry–An attempt by a radical abolitionist to incite a slave insurrection.

…that the Union has broken all its promises and commitments

Its pretty damned clear if you actually read the document that Mississippi is saying the North has broken its promises and commitments on the issue of slavery.

…that the Union is unrelenting and aggressive, thus forcing the hand of Mississippi

Again, if you actually read the document, Mississippi is proclaiming the North is unrelenting and aggressive against “slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world”.

…that the Union has taken control of the government by unscrupulous means

Once again, here’s what the document actually says:

It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.

The power that has recently obtained control of the Government is, according to Mississippi, anti-slavery.

…that continued subjugation to the Union’s control will result in the loss of $4 billion dollars

What fucking $4 billion?!? $4 billion dollars worth of “Negro slaves”. $4 billion worth of human lives.

[MEBuckner]

I have re-analyzed the Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union and discovered the shocking truth about the Civil War:

Our position is…abolition…negro equality, socially and politically…emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists…We…submit to…the Crown of England.

Yes, that’s right: Mississippi was in fact so ardently opposed to slavery and the injustices of racism in general that in 1860 it sought to secede from the United States (whose Constitution protected slavery) and to join the British Empire (which had outlawed slavery back in the 1830’s)!

Here at last is the truth about the Glorious and Noble Lost Cause, so long suppressed by the wicked Yankees! They don’t teach you this in school, no sir!

Remember, you read it here first.

[dropzone]

We could run it through the Bible Code algorithm if you’d like, Bucky. Maybe it’ll prove that Hillary Clinton had something to do with it.

It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.

John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry–An attempt by a radical abolitionist to incite a slave insurrection.

So what you are saying is that Brown and his men were NOT acting as agents of the Federal Government? Next thing you will say is that the government brutally suppressed Brown’s rebellion and strung the man up. :rolleyes:

[Liberal]

Buck

A completely pointless quibble. All I ever said was that Mississippi gave slavery as its reason for secession. Which is entirely correct.

Actually, you’ve said a lot of stuff in this thread. In fact, as of this writing, you have the most posts in here. But there was a reason that Mississippi used “reasons” in the plural when it said, “it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course”. It’s because they had more than one.

Their “other reasons” are all the same reason

Is that like all your posts are all the same statement?

The “list of facts” are all, according to Mississippi, proofs of the danger to the institution of slavery.

The Libertarian Party is thoroughly identified with the principle of noncoercion, but its platform is more complex than that. When it addresses immigration, for example, it advocates opening the borders. It doesn’t just repeatedly restate its party’s underlying principle.

Same same with Mississippi’s declaration. The institution of slavery identifies its position, but there are many reasons that are born of that position. As I said originally, before your first snit, you had oversimplified those reasons. At that time, I used the anology of the Gospels and pointed out (as Zev has pointed out elsewhere) that reducing it all to “the Jews killed Christ” is a gross oversimplification.

You’ve applied a “Jews killed Christ” and a “the LP is all about noncoercion” type argument to Mississippi’s reasons for secession. You haven’t differentiated between what identifies its position and what its reasons were.

How was the South “deprived” of land acquired in the Louisiana purchase? By the exclusion of slavery from those areas as part of the Missouri Compromise.

Now, you’re even oversimplifying the Missouri Compromise. Tallmadge did not propose his amendment simply because he opposed slavery. He proposed it because he feared that the South would have “a representational advantage” over the North. His concern was political, not moral. The MC was a two-part compromise that did not reduce slavery, but rather maintained its balance — with 12 slave states and 12 free states. But even the Louisiana Territory portion did not prohibit slavery altogether in free states, and it provided that fugitive slaves escaping to north of 36 degrees and 30 minutes could be lawfully reclaimed by their owners.

Once again, we’re talking about the exclusion of slavery from the territories. A reference to the Compromise of 1850.

That compromise was hardly a gain for slaves. Thousands of them fled the country. None of them would have even the right to a trial if they were captured as fugitives, and US citizens were required to cooperate in returning slaves to their owners. And since New Mexico, Nevada, Arizon, and Utah would all be allowed to decide for themselves whether they would be free or slave, no one could predict how the outcome of the compromise would affect the South. It doesn’t make sense therefore to imply, as you have done, that Mississippi somehow precognitively tied the 1850 compromise with a decline in slavery. Mississippi was pissed off at the dismemberment of Texas by a $10 million bribe and a bully federal legislature.

In other words, your claim that the position of Mississippi is somehow different from that of Texas is false. Slavery is both an economic interest and central to the social and political institutions of Mississippi.

Once again, you conflate two things: in this case, the position of Texas and the way Texas presented its position. Texas called abolition “a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law”. It was an appeal to morality.

And what do you think this is referring to? Jokes about Southerners marrying their sisters? This is referring to abolitionist propaganda. Agitation against slavery.

It’s easier just to lump it all together under one heading, isn’t it? But it isn’t more accurate. There is actually a long history of South bashing by the North. Not just for slavery, but for its religion, its customs, and its way of life.

If the North did indeed hassle the South over racism, then it did so as a hypocrite. As a local historian writes, “Pennsylvania, though a free state, was by no means free from prejudice against African Americans – racism was rampant on both sides of the Mason-Dixon Line. With the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act came yet another way for white Americans to profit from the traffic in human life. Southern slaveowners would often pay Northerners large sums to kidnap runaway slaves and return them to the South. One of the most notorious groups of slave kidnappers, the Gap Gang, was based just a mile and a half outside of Christiana.”

Speaking of leaving out the dependent clauses

I wasn’t quoting; I was paraphrasing. When you snipped a dependent clause, you were quoting.

John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry–An attempt by a radical abolitionist to incite a slave insurrection.

That “insurrection” was recognized even by the North as an act of treason. “It seems that some fifteen or twenty misguided and desperate men engaged in a plot to bring about a revolt of the Slaves. Nor did they stop at the crime of seeking to plunge a peaceful community into the horrors of a servile insurrection. Seizing Government arms and turning them against Government officers, they intended, if they did not accomplish Treason, of the gravest sort. But as might be expected, the attempt failed to gain supporters; the entire community was thrown into a panic, and an overwhelming force of Troops, of the State and the United States, a hundred to one, crushed the riot, and either shot down the rioters or took them prisoners.” — Albany, New York, Evening Journal October 19, 1859

But like everything else you’ve discussed so far, it’s not quite so tidy as you imply.

Its pretty damned clear if you actually read the document that Mississippi is saying the North has broken its promises and commitments on the issue of slavery.

Now we’re back to more of your reductionism. Let me ask you, in your capacity as moderator, is it sufficient in your view to explain your every action and decision as “because he is a moderator”? Or might you not have various reasons, indeed stemming from your position as moderator, for doing this or that or making this or that decision? Is it fair to say that Gaudere has banned so-and-so “because she is an administrator”? Of course not. Those reasons by which you act are not reducible to that position which you hold.

Again, if you actually read the document, Mississippi is proclaiming the North is unrelenting and aggressive against “slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world”.

Frankly, your monotonous insinuations that I haven’t read the little document are tiresome. I have read it. The fact that I draw a different set of inferences than you do does not mean that I have not read it.

Once again, here’s what the document actually says

Now, that’s rich! You toss out my paraphrase and offer one of your own that spins the portion you quoted to agree with your premise. But you missed what I was pointing out: the “unhallowed schemes”. I had paraphrased them as “unscrupulous means”.

What [gratuitous expletive] $4 billion?!? $4 billion dollars worth of “Negro slaves”. $4 billion worth of human lives

For the record, despite that you might hold my opinion to be worthless, I do not believe that your vulgarities are appropriate here. You’ve already taunted a long line of others who have left this debate weary of your ranting and teasing, and now you can taunt me as well. If I’m going to have a Pit discussion, there is a better place to do it.

I had come back into this forum after a prolonged absence to check on the state of affairs. Okay. I’ve seen it.

[RTFirefly]

*Originally posted by Libertarian *
…that the Union deprived the South of more than half the land acquired in the Louisiana purchase

Maybe I was asleep in class, the day they talked about title to the Louisiana Purchase lands being held by an entity known as “the South” or “Dixie”. You can hardly be ‘deprived’ of something that isn’t rightfully yours to begin with.

…that the Union dismembered Texas

I also missed the part where Texas was coerced into the Union. I’d always thought they joined by agreement between shiny happy people, or whatever it is that you call 'em.

and usurped territory it seized from Mexico

“Oh no! The Union stole the land that we stole from Mexico!! Call the cops!”

…that the Union no longer recognizes the South as equal to the North

And in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College, it doesn’t recognize North Dakota as the equal of North Carolina, either. Sometimes life just sucks.

…that the Union advocates social and political equality for negroes [not just an end to slavery]

People like William Lloyd Garrison certainly did, but he and his fellow travelers were certainly in a minority, even in the North.

…that the Union has inflamed its citizenry against the South with propoganda in its press, schools, and churches

Yeah. Basically, the weight of Southern opinion was that it was rude and offensive for Northerners to keep on raising the issue. Southerners did their level best (which was pretty successful, by and large) to block a free press in their region, with respect to slavery-related issues, and would have done the same in the North if they could have.

[MMI]

*Originally posted by laigle *
**
I mean, how long after the Civil War did it take for Northerners to start taking steps to actually enforce the post-war amendments granting equal rights to all? A century. They didn’t grab their rifles again when the South reverted to sharecropping. They didn’t mount an offensive against the Klan.
**

To answer your question: approximately no time at all. They never put their rifles down.

During the period 1865-1876 (Johnson’s and Grant’s presidencies) the Federal Government did indeed suppress the Klan and ram equal rights down the throats of southerners. Passing the 14th amendment, using bluecoats to police things in the formerly rebellious states. (Remember the pictures in your history books of all the black congressmen immediately after the war?) This particular use of federal troops led to the passage of the posse comitatus act, which would prevent such things today. Only after the Florida presidential election debacle (err, the first Florida presidential election debacle ) did the Republicans ease up on the South (ending reconstruction in exchange for the presidency). At which point the hands-off approach allowed the states to do pretty much whatever they wanted with their citizens rights.

I always thought that one of the flaws in the “tariffs, not slavery” argument was that the natural split on tariff issues is not north vs. south. Its industrial north-east vs everyone else. The agrarian west favored low tariffs - they would have loved a for low or no tariffs (shipping their goods in and out via the Mississippi/New Orleans)
My only comment on the OP would be that I would reverse one of the statements - the north was pretty much united in their opposition to the expansion of slavery (for reasons varying from abolitionism (esp in the northeast) to pride (not wanting to do the same labor as the slaves next door)) but only a smaller crowd objected to slavery itself.

[ElvisL1ves]

The objections to slavery itself in the North are hard to judge now, but may have reached critical mass just before the war anyway. I had understood that the Fugitive Slave Act as well as the publication of Uncle Tom’s Cabin had influenced generaly standards of moral judgment, by bringing the effects of the “peculiar institution” home to the North as well. Or perhaps that’s revisionism.

[Jackmannii]

I’m still waiting to hear what great economic reason the United States had for taking up arms against the South (once rebels had attacked Fort Sumter and seized federal property around the region).

It should be obvious to anyone who’s studied history rather than Marxian dogma that the great reason was to preserve the Union, ending slavery being a secondary motivation.

And sorry Lib, it was obvious to me from reading the Mississippi declaration (even before ME Buckner and RT analyzed it) that virtually the entire laundry list of justifications related to the desire to protect the slave system - which the North would have left untouched in the slave states for many years had the hotheads not resorted to violence.

Honest, the war is over. Can we be buddies now? I’ll even try some of that oversweetened (yech) iced tea.

[RTFirefly]

*Originally posted by Jackmannii *
I’m still waiting to hear what great economic reason the United States had for taking up arms against the South (once rebels had attacked Fort Sumter and seized federal property around the region).

Me too. Human irrationality can trump economic self-interest in most areas of human interaction, most definitely including wars.

It should be obvious to anyone who’s studied history rather than Marxian dogma that the great reason was to preserve the Union, ending slavery being a secondary motivation.

Only if one regards secession and the war as separate matters, though. And since AFAICT nobody during 1860, North or South, expected the North to let the South simply walk out without a fight, they’re inextricably linked IMO.

Logically, the North wanted to limit slavery even more than it wanted to preserve the Union: it was willing to risk the Union over the issue of limiting slavery’s expansion, and it was not willing to relinquish the goal of restricting slavery in order to stop the movement of Southern states towards secession.

Honest, the war is over. Can we be buddies now? I’ll even try some of that oversweetened (yech) iced tea.

I’d always heard it was over, then I moved south. Hoo-boy.

I don’t think they’ll ever stop fighting the war, down there. Being a Lost Cause supporter is the Southern equivalent of being a Cubs or Red Sox fan, I’ve decided.

[Spavined_Gelding]

Am I missing something here? Is there some contention that the American Civil War was a war mounted by the Northern States and the Federal Government for the purpose of ending slavery in North America? Is it argued someplace that there was a concerted plan to so hassle the South into secession with cutting comments about Cracker incest and ringworm and resistance to the Fugitive Slave Act so as to provide a pretext for a war of emancipation?

Of course the immediate and direct cause of the war was the forcible secession of the Southern States and the effort by the National Government to forcibly retain those states in the Union. The cause of secession, however, was (and this is beyond fair argument) chattel Negro slavery, its preservation where it was already established and its expansion into new territories.

[constantine]

*Originally posted by Spavined Gelding *
**Am I missing something here? Is there some contention that the American Civil War was a war mounted by the Northern States and the Federal Government for the purpose of ending slavery in North America? Is it argued someplace that there was a concerted plan to so hassle the South into secession with cutting comments about Cracker incest and ringworm and resistance to the Fugitive Slave Act so as to provide a pretext for a war of emancipation?

Of course the immediate and direct cause of the war was the forcible secession of the Southern States and the effort by the National Government to forcibly retain those states in the Union. The cause of secession, however, was (and this is beyond fair argument) chattel Negro slavery, its preservation where it was already established and its expansion into new territories. **

Well, ok, SG but this just takes us back to the (my) OP. I said that the South seceded in order to maintain African Slavery. I also said that the Northern States then used force to prevent the Southern States from seceding.

I also said, and said again, and still say, that the Southern States were hateful and vile because they were bent on maintaining the hateful and vile institution of African Slavery.

I then got accused of oversimplifying–apparently because I didn’t discuss the reasons that the South was dependent (or better yet, perceived itself to be dependent) on African Slavery, and because I ignored the Southern grievances over tarrifs (yeah, that’s it, we’ll give up our slaves if you just cut the tarrifs…).

I think somehow my criticism of the Southern position (which criticism was joined in by many others) got read to mean that I thought the North was beyond reproach, and that the brave boys in blue rode south to end the terrible injustice of slavery.

Somehow along the way I also got lumped in with people who argue that the Jews killed Jesus (which is not merely an oversimplification, but flat out wrong, but that, thankfully, is another GD.)

Along the way I learned some very interesting things about the war of 1812 (I did not know the Northern States threatened to secede) and about the secession proclamations.