# U.S. Civil War question **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 24, 2014, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-civil-war-question/684477 "2014-03-24T20:44:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2014, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-civil-war-question/684477/61 "2014-03-27T16:52:08Z")
> [@elbowj](#): > > There were actually votes on secession in some states. Texas, Virginia, and Tennessee all held referendums on the issue. In all three states the referendums were held **after** they had seceded, making them rather pointless; though it is notable that Tennessee was only 2-1 in favor of it’s [secession after the fact for example](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinance_of_Secession). The referendum in Virginia hardly even matters since a large number of Virginians weren’t voting - that is, aside from those Virginians of a different skin color who weren’t allowed to vote regardless. Most of the delegates of Virginia west of the Allegheny Mountains voted against signing the Ordinance of Secession, and refusing orders from Richmond they seceded to form West Virginia and remain in the Union. Virginia, of course, was having none of that and dispatched troops who only got as far as Philippi before they were routed in the first organized land battle of the war, which also got the Union commander much attention in the press, a Major General by the name of George McClellan. Oh wait: > [@ombre12](#): > > The real fighting started when the North invaded. Oops. I guess you meant the real fighting started when Virginia tried to put down the secession of Virginians back to the Union since shelling Fort Sumter for 36 hours doesn’t seem to count as “real fighting” for you. ---
**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:** [March 27, 2014, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-civil-war-question/684477/62 "2014-03-27T19:19:37Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > In one narrow sense the South had a point: if an overwhelming majority of its citizens didn’t want to be part of the United States anymore, how could a government claiming to stand for democracy and freedom force them at gun point to remain? Libertarians loath Lincoln because in their eyes he adopted a policy of “above all else, uphold the State, by force and conquest if necessary”. Libertarians are deluded on this issue as they are on most others. The southern secessionists were not rejecting the system of government the United States had. In fact, they claimed they were breaking away in order to restore the true version of that government. The Confederate Constitution pretty much mirrored the United States Constitution. The CSA was no more libertarian than the USA was. ---
**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:** [March 27, 2014, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-civil-war-question/684477/63 "2014-03-27T20:11:10Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > The CSA was no more libertarian than the USA was. Considering the major difference between the two sides, it’s pretty easy to argue that the CSA was far less libertarian than the USA. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2014, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-civil-war-question/684477/64 "2014-03-27T20:41:36Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > IIRC WillFarnaby leans highly libertarian. I really don’t understand the hatred that libertarians have for Lincoln. No one is more responsible for the end of slavery than Lincoln and you’d think he’d be celebrated for that fact and yet they pillory him. One extreme libertarian I knew on another message board celebrated John Wilkes Booth Day. Often libertarians defend the Confederacy. Does slavery not matter to these people? Let’s be honest. Many libertarians are just Republicans who are trying to sound cool. They have similar values and beliefs and if the GOP label weren’t so toxic, they would be proudly Republican. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2014, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-civil-war-question/684477/65 "2014-03-28T01:29:24Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Let’s be honest. Many libertarians are just Republicans who are trying to sound cool. They have similar values and beliefs and if the GOP label weren’t so toxic, they would be proudly Republican. Well if you mean “many Republicans are calling themselves libertarians because it sounds cool”, then yeah. Most conservatives seem to have no problem with legislating morality, which doesn’t sound very libertarian to me. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2014, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-civil-war-question/684477/66 "2014-03-29T02:12:51Z")
> [@elbowj](#): > > There were actually votes on secession in some states. Texas, Virginia, and Tennessee all held referendums on the issue. Georgia didn’t have a direct referendum, but did have a secession convention, to which delegates were elected. Citizens voted for either a “secessionist” or “co-operationist” delegate. Interestingly, although secession carried the day at the convention, it appears that a [majority of citizens voted for “co-operationist” delegates](http://www.aboutnorthgeorgia.com/ang/Secession!). > [@](#): > > The final vote on January\_2, 1861 was 42,744 in favor of co-operation and 41,717 in favor of immediate secession. However, the geographic distribution of those votes prevented a “co-operationist” majority at the convention. (Sort of like how Al Gore won the majority of votes in 2000 but lost in the Electoral College.) Interesting to contemplate, though, that if Georgia had held a pure plebiscite on the issue of secession, the secessionists might have lost. That would have made the Civil War a LOT more complicated. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2014, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-civil-war-question/684477/67 "2014-03-29T02:35:47Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Let’s be honest. Many libertarians are just Republicans who are trying to sound cool. Well, not quite exactly; Libertarians are Republicans who smoke pot. ---
**Author:** ![HistoricLincoln](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ccd318/32.png) [@HistoricLincoln](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HistoricLincoln)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2014, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-civil-war-question/684477/68 "2014-04-07T15:30:49Z")
Because Lincoln’s number one goal was to preserve the Union. That’s it. ---
**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:** [April 7, 2014, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-civil-war-question/684477/69 "2014-04-07T16:46:13Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > He said nothing of the sort. The exact quote is: > > “The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.” > > In other words, what Lincoln is saying is that the taxes he is Constitutionally obliged to collect, he will collect. Like every other legitimate government that has ever existed in the history of the world. Some invasion. The other poster also quoted this to me as if I hadn’t read it. It was so obviously silly I felt no need to respond but I will smack it down now. Lincoln felt he was “obliged to collect” taxes from the seceding states. That would be akin to the British saying, “Don’t worry Colonies, as long as we are able to collect taxes from you unhindered, we will not invade.” What I am saying is not radical. People are acting as if I’m reinventing the wheel, I’m not. What I am saying is corollary to the accepted view, expressly, that Lincoln waged war to preserve the union. Since the state could be roughly defined as that organization which has the power of taxation over a given geographical area, when Abe was preserving the Union he was preserving its ability to tax the seceding states. It is only with a hefty dose of ideological woo that the state , or Union, morphs into anything other than the monopolist tax taker. Hence, only the indoctrinated are disturbed by a sober analysis of its actions. ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2014, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-civil-war-question/684477/70 "2014-04-07T17:49:16Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > …It is only with a hefty dose of ideological woo that the state , or Union, morphs into anything other than the monopolist tax taker. Hence, only the indoctrinated are disturbed by a sober analysis of its actions. Thanks to the rebellion of the slavemasters & their misled minions, the Union morphed into the Bringer of Freedom. Of course Lincoln went to war to save the Union–but that involved more than taxes. As the war dragged on, the Emancipation Proclamation followed–for several reasons. > [@](#): > > Hurrah! Hurrah! we bring the jubilee! > Hurrah! Hurrah! the flag that makes you free! ---
**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:** [April 7, 2014, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-civil-war-question/684477/71 "2014-04-07T17:52:41Z")
> [@Bridget\_Burke](#): > > Thanks to the rebellion of the slavemasters & their misled minions, the Union morphed into the Bringer of Freedom. Of course Lincoln went to war to save the Union–but that involved more than taxes. As the war dragged on, the Emancipation Proclamation followed–for several reasons. If this isn’t satire, I’m legitimately frightened right now. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2014, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-civil-war-question/684477/72 "2014-04-07T17:54:22Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > What I am saying is not radical. People are acting as if I’m reinventing the wheel, I’m not. What I am saying is corollary to the accepted view, expressly, that Lincoln waged war to preserve the union. Since the state could be roughly defined as that organization which has the power of taxation over a given geographical area, when Abe was preserving the Union he was preserving its ability to tax the seceding states. Emphasis matters. You did not say “here’s a corollary to what Lincoln said.” Your exact words were: [QUOTE=WillFarnaby] In his first inaugural address Lincoln promised to invade the South in order to maintain the collection of tariffs in this area. [/QUOTE] This is simply not the same thing. Lincoln did not promise to “invade the South” for any reason. To the extent he suggests he might use force if a war is started by the South (which he very, very clearly says, by the way) he does not say it’s just to collect taxes. Your statement deliberately misrepresents the meaning and emphasis of his actual words; you are saying that Lincoln specifically stated an affirmative intention to engage in war, _and_ to do so primarily to collect taxes. Neither is true. Lincoln, over and over again, states that he will not use force to do anything other than execute the functions of government he is legally entrusted with ensuring take place - which include, in his own words, far more than just collecting taxes. He cites, as other examples, delivering the mail, and yet you see fit not to make the claim that Abraham Lincoln “promised to invade the South to deliver the mail.” Why is that? > [@](#): > > It is only with a hefty dose of ideological woo that the state , or Union, morphs into anything other than the monopolist tax taker. If your belief of the nature of the nation-state is that its only function is to collect taxes. your belief is a very strange one indeed, and one not supported by the facts. ---
**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:** [April 7, 2014, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-civil-war-question/684477/73 "2014-04-07T18:40:49Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > If your belief of the nature of the nation-state is that its only function is to collect taxes. your belief is a very strange one indeed, and one not supported by the facts. That pretty much sums it up. I’ll also point out that this was 1861. There was no national income tax or sales tax or property tax. The tariff was collected at ports. So I don’t know what tax WillFarnaby thinks Lincoln was invading the South to collect. But I guess libertarians couldn’t get heated up over the theory that Lincoln was invading the South in order to resume mail delivery. ---
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2014, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-civil-war-question/684477/74 "2014-04-07T19:20:36Z")
War was inevitable from both sides. From the North: If secession was allowed to stand, the nation would become ungovernable. Every state who thought they would be better off alone would walk away. States would leave, or threaten to, in response to anything that did not benefit them. It would be a return to the mess that was the Articles of Confederation. The best Lincoln could hope for was a peaceable status quo, refusing to recognize the succession until the Confederacy started breaking apart at the seams. From the South: The biggest slavery related arguments to date were not about abolishing slavery, but rather about expansion of slavery, return of escaped slaves, and the status of slaves taken into free states. All of these issues became worse after succession. If the USA and CSA existed side by side, the USA would totally dominated by anti-slave states, the Fugitive Slave act would be repealed or at least modified so that slaves from the CSA would not be returned. The North was in a better position to expand westward, and you would have seen more agitation of the slave populations by abolitionists sneaking into the CSA, or eventually government agents if the two nations could not make peace. The CSA needed more than just to be left alone. They needed to be able to expand to new areas and agreements from the USA to at least not actively undermine the precarious slave based economy and society. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2014, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-civil-war-question/684477/75 "2014-04-07T19:33:36Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > This is simply not the same thing. Yes, it is. > [@](#): > > Lincoln did not promise to “invade the South” for any reason. To the extent he suggests he might use force if a war is started by the South (which he very, very clearly says, by the way) he does not say it’s just to collect taxes. Correct. Lincoln also says he will use force to collect tariffs, and taxes, and to hold and occupy Federal property. > [@](#): > > Your statement deliberately misrepresents the meaning and emphasis of his actual words; you are saying that Lincoln specifically stated an affirmative intention to engage in war, _and_ to do so primarily to collect taxes. His original statement said to collect tariffs, not taxes. So you might be a little less quick to accuse others of deliberately misrepresentation. Because emphasis matters. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2014, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-civil-war-question/684477/76 "2014-04-07T19:35:58Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Since they’re almost invariably white, no. No, it doesn’t. Could you please provide some kind of cite that demonstrates that libertarians don’t care about slavery? Thanks in advance. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2014, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-civil-war-question/684477/77 "2014-04-07T19:42:30Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > It is only with a hefty dose of ideological woo that the state , or Union, morphs into anything other than the monopolist tax taker. Every state/union **is** a monopolist tax taker; but that is almost never **all** it is. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2014, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-civil-war-question/684477/78 "2014-04-07T22:36:36Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Yes, it is. It simply isn’t. Consider the difference between the Chief of Police saying “I am going to send officers to invade your home” versus saying “If you were to sit inside your living room and start shooting at people outside, it might become necessary for me to have police officers enter your home by force.” You think those are equivalent statements? It is in fact absolutely the case that if pressed on the issue your local chief will admit that second statement is, by necessity, true. It’s not something he intends to do now, but something he may have to do if circumstances require it. It’s his job, and is the job of the local top police officer pretty much everywhere in the civilized world. That does not mean every chief of police plans to invade everyone’s house. That’s what Lincoln actually said. Read the Address. He goes to rather long-winded pains (by modern standards; by the standards of the time Lincoln was very succinct) to make it extremely clear. > [@](#): > > His original statement said to collect tariffs, not taxes. A tariff is a tax, you know. ---
**Author:** ![Raguleader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/258eb7/32.png) [@Raguleader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raguleader)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2014, 7:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-civil-war-question/684477/79 "2014-04-08T07:54:47Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > The other poster also quoted this to me as if I hadn’t read it. It was so obviously silly I felt no need to respond but I will smack it down now. > > Lincoln felt he was “obliged to collect” taxes from the seceding states. That would be akin to the British saying, “Don’t worry Colonies, as long as we are able to collect taxes from you unhindered, we will not invade.” The most important difference here being that in that case, we won. Got the Brits to sign a treaty to that effect and everything. The Confederates could not back it up, nor find anyone else willing to help them out. They thought they could beat Mike Tyson and it turns out they couldn’t. ---
**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:** [April 8, 2014, 10:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-civil-war-question/684477/80 "2014-04-08T10:14:28Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > IIRC WillFarnaby leans highly libertarian. I really don’t understand the hatred that libertarians have for Lincoln. No one is more responsible for the end of slavery than Lincoln and you’d think he’d be celebrated for that fact and yet they pillory him. Libertarianism has a long history of being associated with racism. As well, despite their protestations they are pretty much anarchists by another name, and Lincoln made the hold of the federal government firmer and stronger by winning. > [@Lumpy](#): > > In one narrow sense the South had a point: if an overwhelming majority of its citizens didn’t want to be part of the United States anymore, how could a government claiming to stand for democracy and freedom force them at gun point to remain? Except as slaveholders, they were by definition against democracy and freedom. They didn’t ask the slaves their opinion on the matter or allow them freedom. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-civil-war-question/684477.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-civil-war-question/684477.md?page=5)