# The Civil War was not about states' rights **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 12, 2019, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085 "2019-09-12T02:14:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2019, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085/101 "2019-09-15T00:30:51Z")
> [@Corry\_El](#): > > But the seceding states must have been protecting slavery from something, unless the whole thing was a big misunderstanding. > > Unless the SC secessionists were suffering a paranoid delusion they saw a serious trend toward abolitionism in the election of Lincoln. And seems in the simplistic terms you might prefer, the SC secessionists have to be judged correct in their claim: slavery was abolished under “that party” (see quote above) within a few years. In today’s still not quite as divisive US politics, does one side take the soft ‘general election’ type rhetoric of the other about its more controversial positions at face value? Are they necessarily delusional if they don’t? > > … But at the big picture level there’s a logical limit to how much we can de-emphasize hostility to slavery on Union side and still say ‘protecting slavery’ didn’t just mean ‘paranoid delusion’ on the Southern side. The secessionists were protecting slavery from a real threat, an anti-slavery sentiment which gradually revealed itself as a significant factor sustaining the war effort to victory on the Northern side. IOW it’s not as simple as you say. It was paranoia. Yeah, that was because the South lost the war and slaveholders were pretty much out of politics during the period. The North had no plans to outlaw slavery. None. Not in that generation or more. Fugitive slave act? Gone, sure. There was no real threat in their lifetimes. ---
**Author:** ![kirkrapine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/7ea924/32.png) [@kirkrapine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kirkrapine)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2019, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085/102 "2019-09-15T02:33:51Z")
> [@Sunny\_Daze](#): > > The North didn’t need to start a war to end slavery. Slavery was ending without one. I see no historical signs of that. Southern slavery was not an anachronistic holdover from the 18th Century, it was a product of 19th-Century industrialism. Cotton production became a major industry, and slave labor made it more profitable. ---
**Author:** ![kirkrapine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/7ea924/32.png) [@kirkrapine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kirkrapine)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2019, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085/103 "2019-09-15T02:35:20Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > So you’re an Australian? No – that’s why I said “landmass” instead of “continent.” ---
**Author:** ![kirkrapine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/7ea924/32.png) [@kirkrapine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kirkrapine)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2019, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085/104 "2019-09-15T02:37:50Z")
> [@Dale\_Sams](#): > > The Facebook litmus test as to whether or not Lincoln or Twain actually said something is: Can you immediatly understand it without reading the sentence twice? Then they didn’t say it. “The problem with things you read on the Internet is, you never know if they’re true or not.” – Abraham Lincoln ---
**Author:** ![kirkrapine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/7ea924/32.png) [@kirkrapine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kirkrapine)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2019, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085/105 "2019-09-15T02:43:10Z")
Interesting historical trivia: As the Union forces advanced into Confederate territory, many slaves ran away and sought asylum with them. This put the officers in a quandary: This was before the Emancipation Proclamation, emancipation was not yet policy, and the laws of war required them to respect the enemy’s private property. However, the laws of war also allowed them to confiscate enemy property classed as “contraband of war.” Usually that meant weapons, but it could be construed broadly enough to encompass anything helpful to the enemy war effort – which slave labor certainly was. So they called the runaways “contrabands” and set them to doing camp chores, and eventually started paying them, and recruiting the men into the U.S. Army, where they fought very well. ---
**Author:** ![kirkrapine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/7ea924/32.png) [@kirkrapine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kirkrapine)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2019, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085/106 "2019-09-15T03:01:26Z")
> [@Corry\_El](#): > > Again, for the individual racing to volunteer after Sumter . . . . . . he expected his own side to win the war in a few weeks. The problem was, each side underestimated the other side’s determination to win. ---
**Author:** ![kirkrapine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/7ea924/32.png) [@kirkrapine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kirkrapine)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2019, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085/107 "2019-09-15T03:06:16Z")
The most tragic thing about the Civil War was, 620,000 Americans, north and south, died – and only one-third of them died of combat injuries. The rest died of disease. You take a bunch of farmboys who have never lived in cities, never had a chance to build up immunity to contagious diseases, and you herd them into an army camp with 19th- Century sanitary standards, and that’s what happens. God help you if you were wounded. The surgeons would go from one patient to the next without even washing their instruments. Why not? It would be decades before the germ theory of disease was discovered. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2019, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085/108 "2019-09-15T04:09:14Z")
> [@kirkrapine](#): > > The most tragic thing about the Civil War was, 620,000 Americans, north and south, died – and only one-third of them died of combat injuries. The rest died of disease. > > You take a bunch of farmboys who have never lived in cities, never had a chance to build up immunity to contagious diseases, and you herd them into an army camp with 19th- > Century sanitary standards, and that’s what happens. > > God help you if you were wounded. The surgeons would go from one patient to the next without even washing their instruments. Why not? It would be decades before the germ theory of disease was discovered. Ignaz Semmelweis proposed it in 1847 and this led to some cleaning with chlorinated lime water,carbolic acid and so forth. Louis Pasteur discovered it in 1864. Lister published in 1867. However, America was perhaps slow in adopting it, not until the 1880’s. [https://watermark.silverchair.com/17.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW\_Ercy7Dm3ZL\_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAAlgwggJUBgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggJFMIICQQIBADCCAjoGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMBL9Ap76beda6Pzh7AgEQgIICCxswlq5Ld5dZgRcd5UhHocuq4Cb01QAgiWHGxu9MHGEhvqR0fp3OLtXgauUOOoFVNIcFOzGr8qf4r5zuPfEDjGDoyhF4Le5iWREhv3HDFMAnfvai6PD6892q\_Z\_IUDoXcxHhb7421ldx9iFf8NDG8vtwgUvZQIwn\_\_MQTEIX96rNlRIW4q5KCCPV3fDuqjXp-2p0WqywQv\_60LA912RDmXmkbDOPKgGGkEnDvRtTVudaYh0NkqzEZ92xCMrPY71NnnJRw6faYcVo\_yGiOxwj1gVAj6Xxeq-rWlQGRkSbIeSvIPvH5nKUDtdddZD7cmf5mqcCNH24ig-9Ueg4i-RXi0djr-ErI5jglYEYfM0Dnk0dQIj3WTU8IT2IMYqQB58ybSEoqMK\_y6TtgAA7nDLGhKXqPu6HYhfTwsPAFpaXYBfdtKZa-CgxtqO1mKVmoLTv0su08AqSnwoF3j\_cocYysCg-wKGK4auoQThDoemw-Y9xmvrDwGsPJINpUv-tfRW17XmED3syCXtgCavoWO5\_e7gAFTJBqnYkYapOD2tvwhmdk7YdqfQxuO3CZKRCumqp4otBTaDaL5iTdIMo8ytBTwZ6ft7fOMW\_bPwj7c8Jg6KTxqlRnePtIcvrTLGfc0lmQ-5H3krUmxdebGpc4CpHdjyNTFvAazXIkuFdgszzQAz0wbiSCjFAelQSpQ0](https://watermark.silverchair.com/17.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAAlgwggJUBgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggJFMIICQQIBADCCAjoGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMBL9Ap76beda6Pzh7AgEQgIICCxswlq5Ld5dZgRcd5UhHocuq4Cb01QAgiWHGxu9MHGEhvqR0fp3OLtXgauUOOoFVNIcFOzGr8qf4r5zuPfEDjGDoyhF4Le5iWREhv3HDFMAnfvai6PD6892q_Z_IUDoXcxHhb7421ldx9iFf8NDG8vtwgUvZQIwn__MQTEIX96rNlRIW4q5KCCPV3fDuqjXp-2p0WqywQv_60LA912RDmXmkbDOPKgGGkEnDvRtTVudaYh0NkqzEZ92xCMrPY71NnnJRw6faYcVo_yGiOxwj1gVAj6Xxeq-rWlQGRkSbIeSvIPvH5nKUDtdddZD7cmf5mqcCNH24ig-9Ueg4i-RXi0djr-ErI5jglYEYfM0Dnk0dQIj3WTU8IT2IMYqQB58ybSEoqMK_y6TtgAA7nDLGhKXqPu6HYhfTwsPAFpaXYBfdtKZa-CgxtqO1mKVmoLTv0su08AqSnwoF3j_cocYysCg-wKGK4auoQThDoemw-Y9xmvrDwGsPJINpUv-tfRW17XmED3syCXtgCavoWO5_e7gAFTJBqnYkYapOD2tvwhmdk7YdqfQxuO3CZKRCumqp4otBTaDaL5iTdIMo8ytBTwZ6ft7fOMW_bPwj7c8Jg6KTxqlRnePtIcvrTLGfc0lmQ-5H3krUmxdebGpc4CpHdjyNTFvAazXIkuFdgszzQAz0wbiSCjFAelQSpQ0) ---
**Author:** ![kirkrapine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/7ea924/32.png) [@kirkrapine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kirkrapine)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2019, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085/109 "2019-09-15T04:40:51Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Ignaz Semmelweis . . . Well, he was a Jew, and most physicians of his time would not believe they had anything to learn from the likes of him. ---
**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:** [September 15, 2019, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085/110 "2019-09-15T06:48:54Z")
The general Republican belief was the slavery required expansion and support to remain profitable. They felt that if they prevented slavery from expanding into the territories and allowed states to prohibit slavery if they wished then slavery would become unprofitable. As this happened, states that still had slavery would be encouraged to voluntarily enact laws which would abolish it. So the Republicans did have a goal of ending slavery but they thought they could do it without forced abolition. ---
**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:** [September 15, 2019, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085/111 "2019-09-15T06:53:44Z")
> [@kirkrapine](#): > > Interesting historical trivia: As the Union forces advanced into Confederate territory, many slaves ran away and sought asylum with them. This put the officers in a quandary: This was before the Emancipation Proclamation, emancipation was not yet policy, and the laws of war required them to respect the enemy’s private property. However, the laws of war also allowed them to confiscate enemy property classed as “contraband of war.” Usually that meant weapons, but it could be construed broadly enough to encompass anything helpful to the enemy war effort – which slave labor certainly was. So they called the runaways “contrabands” and set them to doing camp chores, and eventually started paying them, and recruiting the men into the U.S. Army, where they fought very well. You’ll hear some people claiming that the Emancipation Proclamation didn’t actually free any slaves as it only applied to areas that didn’t recognize the authority of the United States government. But as you note, there were many people who were immediately freed by the proclamation. Any runaway slave whose owner was in the unoccupied parts of the CSA was covered by the proclamation and was freed the moment it went into effect. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2019, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085/112 "2019-09-15T14:23:07Z")
> [@kirkrapine](#): > > No – that’s why I said “landmass” instead of “continent.” And his is that different from France, Germany, Italy and others that control a clear “landmass”? Not getting your comment. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2019, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085/113 "2019-09-15T14:43:43Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > And his is that different from France, Germany, Italy and others that control a clear “landmass”? Not getting your comment. Should be. “And how is that different …”. Fat fingered typing. Still don’t understand what point you were trying to make with that comment …? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2019, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085/114 "2019-09-15T19:05:57Z")
The landmass discussion was based on a flip comment. It is not pertinent to this discussion and will stop, now. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2019, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085/115 "2019-09-15T19:47:16Z")
Yessir! ---
**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:** [September 16, 2019, 10:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085/116 "2019-09-16T10:57:11Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Of course. Hypocrisy is a standard human trait. Yes which is why it is bizarre to expect the Confederates to be the first, last, and only govt that has operated according to consistent abstract principles. ---
**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:** [September 16, 2019, 11:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085/117 "2019-09-16T11:04:06Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Why do you ignore the slavery stuff? Institutionalized involuntary slavery has got to be the epitome of wrongness in a libertarian society. Why is state’s right to secede so much more important than thousands of people in chains? > > Why do always ponder “If the North had allowed secession” but are never curious about “If the South had just accepted the winds of change”? The decision to disallow secession was a decision made by a small group of men. It was very much in the realm of possibility that the Union chose to negotiate the practicalities of the secession instead of suppressing the rebellion. So it is a good idea to question the decision. Can you see the difference between questioning a definite decision by a small group of men and questioning why an entire society did not want to change? ---
**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:** [September 16, 2019, 11:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085/118 "2019-09-16T11:07:12Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > If the United States had allowed other countries to declare war on it without responding there would have been no… wait no, there still would have been a war. > > Obviously two nations can exist next to each other without conflict. But when one of those nations (the Confederate States of America) declares war on another nation (the United States of America) then there’s going to be a conflict. > > That’s how wars work. Either side can start one and the other side can’t say no. Lincoln chose to not negotiate the practicalities of the secession. He also promised bloodshed to collect tariffs in his inaugural. Your line of thinking ignores historical facts about the Lincoln administration’s internal discussions on whether to make war. It was not as simple as the comic books, bud. There was a choice made. This is not in dispute. ---
**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:** [September 16, 2019, 11:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085/119 "2019-09-16T11:10:29Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > What boats? The slave trade was abolished in 1807. Slavery was getting along just fine in 1860 without any boats. Ignoring the true root cause… ---
**Author:** ![MandaJo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2019, 11:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085/120 "2019-09-16T11:57:28Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > It was paranoia. > > Yeah, that was because the South lost the war and slaveholders were pretty much out of politics during the period. > > The North had no plans to outlaw slavery. None. Not in that generation or more. > > Fugitive slave act? Gone, sure. > > There was no real threat in their lifetimes. They were not wrong in thinking that expanding slavery to the free states would effectively be the end of slavery–perhaps not in that generation, but the next. Once we stopped adding slave states, it was over. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > The general Republican belief was the slavery required expansion and support to remain profitable. They felt that if they prevented slavery from expanding into the territories and allowed states to prohibit slavery if they wished then slavery would become unprofitable. As this happened, states that still had slavery would be encouraged to voluntarily enact laws which would abolish it. > > So the Republicans did have a goal of ending slavery but they thought they could do it without forced abolition. This. Also, it was understood that slavery could only be ended by a constitutional amendment. Once 3/4 of the states were free, slavery would end. Essentially, the South saw themselves at a do-or-die moment; the longer they waited, the weaker their relative position would become, and this was their last chance. They were wrong, of course–their last chance, if they ever had one, was a generation before. They threw away half a million lives in a hopeless attempt to preserve one of the most evil institutions in history. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085.md?page=7)