# Was the America Civil War fought over slavery? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 21, 2016, 10:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-america-civil-war-fought-over-slavery/743766 "2016-01-21T10:03:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2016, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-america-civil-war-fought-over-slavery/743766/161 "2016-01-27T17:20:46Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > You mean "… and the western states generally chose to be\* free\* states… "? oops. yes, of course you are right.:smack: ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2016, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-america-civil-war-fought-over-slavery/743766/162 "2016-01-27T17:22:10Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > What’s not so simple? US soldiers at a less secure fort were worried, so they moved to Sumter. Southern states (or, more accurately, the rich white people in charge of them) seceded because they, probably correctly, anticipated that slavery was unsustainable if they stayed in the USA. Days after those soldiers moved to Sumter, a resupply mission was sent, and Southern assholes fired on that supply mission, preventing them from resupplying Fort Sumter. > > Perhaps it was inevitable, but if so, it’s because the rich white assholes in charge of Southern states couldn’t conceive of a future without slavery, and they were willing to cause lots of death and destruction to try to avoid it. In every sense, those Southern rich white assholes were responsible for starting the Civil War. Putting morality aside, neither side was willing to accommodate the other over the long term. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2016, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-america-civil-war-fought-over-slavery/743766/163 "2016-01-27T17:29:23Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > There was no lease. South Carolina deeded the property in full to the federal government in 1836. > > [Cite.](https://books.google.com/books?id=fc4DAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA376&lpg=PA376&dq=Resolved+that+this+state+do+cede+to+the+United+States+all+the+right+title+and+claim+of+South+Carolina+to+the+site+of+Fort+Sumter&source=bl&ots=eKxeVmgeX_&sig=9Y0xdlkvNAmkrvnkgF6iE80OcDI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=j2BjUffbO_Ot0AGG5oEw#v=onepage&q=Resolved%20that%20this%20state%20do%20cede%20to%20the%20United%20States%20all%20the%20right%20title%20and%20claim%20of%20South%20Carolina%20to%20the%20site%20of%20Fort%20Sumter&f=false) Thanks for the cite. So this would be like China asking the Brits to vacate Hong Kong before the expiry of the lease and the Brits responding by pointing cannons at China from Hong Kong and China responding by shelling Hong Kong. ---
**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:** [January 27, 2016, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-america-civil-war-fought-over-slavery/743766/164 "2016-01-27T17:33:40Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Putting morality aside, neither side was willing to accommodate the other over the long term. Bullshit. The Union was willing to allow slavery to continue. The Confederacy had no such comparable accommodation they were willing to do. The Confederacy wasn’t content with things continuing as they had been – they demanded that slavery spread (as new states were admitted), and that Northern states subsidize Southern slavery (i.e. the Fugitive Slave Act). And they demanded that slavery be acknowledged as just and moral and a “positive good” and be guaranteed for all time. One side wanted things to pretty much continue as they had so far. That’s not comparable to what the Confederacy was willing to do. Why must the two sides be equally culpable? They’re not. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2016, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-america-civil-war-fought-over-slavery/743766/165 "2016-01-27T17:34:47Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Thanks for the cite. > > So this would be like China asking the Brits to vacate Hong Kong before the expiry of the lease and the Brits responding by pointing cannons at China from Hong Kong and China responding by shelling Hong Kong. Except without the imperialist overtones; South Carolina freely joined a union of equals, whereas Hong Kong was ceded as part of the treaty that ended the First Opium War. That mars the analogy badly. Perhaps Scotland unilaterally seceding from the UK, and demanding that British military bases in Scotland be vacated, would be closer to the mark? ---
**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:** [January 27, 2016, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-america-civil-war-fought-over-slavery/743766/166 "2016-01-27T17:36:43Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Thanks for the cite. > > So this would be like China asking the Brits to vacate Hong Kong before the expiry of the lease and the Brits responding by pointing cannons at China from Hong Kong and China responding by shelling Hong Kong. Still waiting for a cite for the “pointing cannons”. It’s more like this: This would be like China asking the Brits to vacate Hong Kong before the expiry of the lease, **along with vague threats and reports of armed Chinese ‘rebels’ ready to attack** , and the Brits responding by moving to a different fort that is more defensible (but still on their own property), and China responding by **attacking the British resupply mission** , then **attacking the fort in force.** ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2016, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-america-civil-war-fought-over-slavery/743766/167 "2016-01-27T17:47:25Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Thanks for the cite. > > So this would be like China asking the Brits to vacate Hong Kong before the expiry of the lease and the Brits responding by pointing cannons at China from Hong Kong and China responding by shelling Hong Kong. Except the “responding by pointing canons.” And the lease, as opposed to ownership. And the fact that the Brits only ever held Hong Kong because of superior force in the first place, as opposed to South Carolina spending years actively campaigning for the construction of Fort Sumter. And the fact that we’re talking about a fort, not a city. But other than those niggling details, yeah, it’s _exactly_ like that. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2016, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-america-civil-war-fought-over-slavery/743766/168 "2016-01-27T18:03:44Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > “Pointing its cannons at Charleston”? Cite? Do you just mean that Fort Sumter had cannons, and some of them incidentally might have been pointing in that direction? That’s not anything close to a justification. “On December 26, 1860, six days after South Carolina seceded from the Union, U.S. Army Major Robert Anderson abandoned the indefensible Fort Moultrie, spiking its large guns, burning its gun carriages, and taking its smaller cannon with him to be trained on the city.” I read “trained on the city” to mean aimed at Charleston. [quote] Bullshit on this “point a gun…” analogy. There’s no way to see the situation as the US troops threatening Charleston. There’s no way to see their stationing there as _anything_ but a defensive posture.{/quote] What if they were aiming guns at Charleston? > [@](#): > > Forgive me for injecting some opinion. It’s my opinion that guys who shoot at federal troops because they (or those who manipulated them) can’t see a future together without slavery are assholes. The US troops might have been assholes as well, but nothing you’ve presented gives any evidence of that for me. Does your opinion change if the troops were threatening the civilians of charleston or is that OK because they supported slavery too? > [@](#): > > So what? It was a US fort, occupied by US troops, under pretty reasonable threat of attack, especially _considering that they were just fucking attacked!!!_ The first attack by the cadets was on that supply ship. were they attacked before the attack by the cadets? > [@](#): > > You’re aware of the age of most soldiers, right? They’re about college aged folks. My point is not their age but their status. > [@](#): > > “Told to vacate”… by who? Vacate what? How were they “told”? When were they “told”? By the governor of south carolina in january of 1861 and several times in the following months by the government of south carolina and finally by the confederate general beauregard before they open fired on fort sumter. > [@](#): > > It’s a bullshit analogy. The troops at Fort Sumter posed no threat to Charleston whatsoever. Their position was purely defensive and they had no ability to attack. How do you figure they had no ability to attack? > [@](#): > > There are lots of sides to the story. None of them present any reasonable evidence that the war should be blamed on anyone but the rich Southern assholes who demanded secession because they couldn’t see a future without slavery. How could anyone else be at fault? Where do I say that anyone other than the south was at fault for the war? I agree that moral blame for the war lies with the south. Where do you get the impression that I am trying to place the blame elsewhere? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2016, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-america-civil-war-fought-over-slavery/743766/169 "2016-01-27T18:11:28Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > In my opinionslavery would not have existed much longer if the South was permitted to secede. . In mine, we’d still have it around today. Look at the fight for Civil Rights, look at the Jim Crow Laws (which are coming back, in the guise of “voter fraud prevention”). The moronic inbred bigots in the South need to have someone to feel superior to. True, it would be more limited, but still around. People talk how un-economic it is, but look at Migrant farm workers, who the farmers would be happy to exploit. ---
**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:** [January 27, 2016, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-america-civil-war-fought-over-slavery/743766/170 "2016-01-27T18:19:20Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > “On December 26, 1860, six days after South Carolina seceded from the Union, U.S. Army Major Robert Anderson abandoned the indefensible Fort Moultrie, spiking its large guns, burning its gun carriages, and taking its smaller cannon with him to be trained on the city.” > > I read “trained on the city” to mean aimed at Charleston. > > What if they were aiming guns at Charleston? > > Does your opinion change if the troops were threatening the civilians of charleston or is that OK because they supported slavery too? That Wikipedia source link is circular – taking us to another Wikipedia page that doesn’t mention “training” or “aiming” guns in any way. Even if it’s true, no, this doesn’t change my opinion, since training cannons towards a possible direction of attack is not “threatening the civilians of Charleston”. Further – there’s proof of this. On January 9th, 1861, days after the US troops moved to Fort Sumter, the supply ship was fired upon by Charleston shore batteries (operated by the aforementioned college students), stopping the resupply mission. So Charleston (Southern) cannons fired upon Fort Sumter’s supply ship, and _Fort Sumter didn’t fire back_. That’s as solid evidence as could possibly be provided that Fort Sumter wasn’t threatening Charleston (especially the civilians!) in any way whatsoever. This continues to be a bullshit analogy. > [@](#): > > The first attack by the cadets was on that supply ship. were they attacked before the attack by the cadets? Their supply ship was attacked by Charleston cannons, and Fort Sumter did not fire back. There was no threat whatsoever to Charleston from the troops in Fort Sumter. > [@](#): > > My point is not their age but their status. Armed military cadets who operated shore batteries and fired at US forces who presented no threat to them. > [@](#): > > By the governor of south carolina in january of 1861 You mean the month that Fort Sumter’s supply mission was attacked? If it was before this attack, it was days before at most… and was it even before the attack? > [@](#): > > and several times in the following months by the government of south carolina and finally by the confederate general beauregard before they open fired on fort sumter. Yes, _after_ Fort Sumter’s resupply mission was attacked, a Confederate General demanded surrender. So what? They had started the war, attacking forces that posed no threat whatsoever to them. > [@](#): > > How do you figure they had no ability to attack? For one thing, since _they didn’t fucking attack when their resupply mission was fired upon by Charleston cannons_; for another, since attacking a populated mainland from a small coastal fort would be suicidal. > [@](#): > > Where do I say that anyone other than the south was at fault for the war? I agree that moral blame for the war lies with the south. Where do you get the impression that I am trying to place the blame elsewhere? Then what on earth are you trying to say? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2016, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-america-civil-war-fought-over-slavery/743766/171 "2016-01-27T18:19:56Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > In mine, we’d still have it around today. Nah, slavery would be long gone by now if we’d never fought the Civil War and just let the South go. But the phrase “Never Again” would refer to what happened in camps outside of Birmingham, not Auschwitz. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2016, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-america-civil-war-fought-over-slavery/743766/172 "2016-01-27T18:23:35Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > No. Governments are immoral. The confederacy was immoral. And what about the union that defeated them. Were they immoral too? Was it a battle between two immoral forces? > [@](#): > > Kidnapping and slavery is always immoral. And what does that have to do with conscription? > [@](#): > > Yes it an abortion of a theory in some hands and a propaganda tool in yours. So you think that social contract theory is propaganda? Wow. It almost sounds like you are more of an anarchist than a libertarian. > [@](#): > > The social contract doesn’t permit anything because it is simply a hodgepodge magic words. > **[Social contract](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract)** > > In moral and political philosophy, the social contract is an idea, theory or model that usually, although not always, concerns the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual. Conceptualized in the Age of Enlightenment, it is a core concept of constitutionalism, while not necessarily convened and written down in a constituent assembly and constitution. > Social contract arguments typically are that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of thei... Just because you don’t understand it doesn’t make it magic. > [@](#): > > “We” shouldn’t have done anything because “we” don’t act, individuals act. The govt should have stayed out of those issues. By acting on them, the govt hampered prosperity and peaceful society. Wow. So you think that we should have just left segregation at the lunch counter and kids working in coal mines and monopolies alone? Are you familiar with the concept of market failures? > [@](#): > > Thousands of people could have been murdered and years of wealth destroyed if there had been an intervention. Oh wait… Are you familiar with just war theory of is that just another hodgepodge of magic words? The idea is that sometimes you can justify war and going to war to end something as immoral and destructive as slavery seems like it might fit, even if you think that slavery might collapse under its own weight at some point in the future. > [@](#): > > Spontaneous movements happen all the time, and I know that there were thousands of years of slavery and it has been virtually given up in the span of a few centuries. And the civil war was instrumental in that virtual elimination of slavery. And are you seriously saying that we should have just waited for some spontaneous epiphany from the south to give up slavery? > [@](#): > > As the cost of keeping slaves increased due to runaways, productivity issues, and other economic factors, slavery would have become a poor business model. And that will lead people to abandon a cornerstone of their culture? Really? > [@](#): > > Yes but folks insist slavery wouldn’t have ended without the war. It would have. They justify mass slaughter and conscription because of this reason alone. How can you tolerate actual overt slavery and be pissed off about conscription? Are you fucking kidding me? Slavery for life and the lives of all my descendants is INFINITELY more destructive of human freedom and dignity than being forced to fight in the interest of the nation from which I derive the benefits of citizenship. > [@](#): > > Reason-left libertarian, Cato-left libertarian, Rothbardians-reparations. There are no other libertarians really. Not even if Rachel Maddow calls them libertarian. Can you define these terms because AFAICT anyone that doesn’t like some aspect of government might be inclined to call themselves libertarians and there is no supreme libertarian council to say that they are wrong. What I see is a lot of true scottsman arguments when I point out how inconsistent libertarians are with each other depending on what end result they want. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2016, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-america-civil-war-fought-over-slavery/743766/173 "2016-01-27T18:26:50Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Bullshit. The Union was willing to allow slavery to continue. Bullshit. They were not willing to permit it over the long term. And why should they. > [@](#): > > One side wanted things to pretty much continue as they had so far. That’s not comparable to what the Confederacy was willing to do. The way things had been so far was to have a slave nation. That was not going to continue. > [@](#): > > Why must the two sides be equally culpable? They’re not. I never said they were. ---
**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:** [January 27, 2016, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-america-civil-war-fought-over-slavery/743766/174 "2016-01-27T18:26:51Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Where do I say that anyone other than the south was at fault for the war? I agree that moral blame for the war lies with the south. Where do you get the impression that I am trying to place the blame elsewhere? In the post below, you seem to pretty strongly indicate that you believe the Union was the aggressor, and the Confederacy was “reacting, not attacking”. I hold that these views are bullshit. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Was that US property in one of the Confederate States? > > Were the US soldiers inside the Confederate States? > > If so, then from their perspective, they were reacting, not attacking. > > If the Brits came here claiming dominion of some piece of land here and we attacked them, who was the aggressor? > > Sure they didn’t offer to take debt with them. Is THAT why we fought to keep them in the union? To force them to take their part of the debt? of course not. > > I thought this was what I said in my post. Sorry if I wasn’t clear enough. > > Is THAT why we fought that war? The moral outrage of slavery? If so then why did they wait so FUCKING LONG!!! ---
**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:** [January 27, 2016, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-america-civil-war-fought-over-slavery/743766/175 "2016-01-27T18:30:30Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Bullshit. They were not willing to permit it over the long term. And why should they. This manipulates the facts – Lincoln and the Union government, in general, were absolutely fine with the Southern states retaining slavery. Lincoln, and most of Congress, had no plans, had the war not occurred, to restrict or end slavery. > [@](#): > > The way things had been so far was to have a slave nation. That was not going to continue. In the long term, slavery probably would have ended when enough slavery-opposing states were admitted into the Union. But that would have taken quite a while, so yes, it was going to continue, just not for as long as the rich white assholes in the South who started the war wanted (which was, essentially, for all time). > [@](#): > > I never said they were. The post I quoted above pretty heavily implies that you think the Union was _more responsible_ for the war than the South. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2016, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-america-civil-war-fought-over-slavery/743766/176 "2016-01-27T19:04:29Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > That Wikipedia source link is circular – taking us to another Wikipedia page that doesn’t mention “training” or “aiming” guns in any way. > > Even if it’s true, no, this doesn’t change my opinion, since training cannons towards a possible direction of attack is not “threatening the civilians of Charleston”. > > Further – there’s proof of this. On January 9th, 1861, days after the US troops moved to Fort Sumter, the supply ship was fired upon by Charleston shore batteries (operated by the aforementioned college students), stopping the resupply mission. So Charleston (Southern) cannons fired upon Fort Sumter’s supply ship, and _Fort Sumter didn’t fire back_. That’s as solid evidence as could possibly be provided that Fort Sumter wasn’t threatening Charleston (especially the civilians!) in any way whatsoever. IIRC they didn’t have the cannonballs unless they got resupplied. You know, by those supply ships that the cadets attacked to prevent resupply. > [@](#): > > This continues to be a bullshit analogy. Only because you can’t conceive of any way that any at of the confederacy could be propelled by anything but evil. > [@](#): > > Their supply ship was attacked by Charleston cannons, and Fort Sumter did not fire back. There was no threat whatsoever to Charleston from the troops in Fort Sumter. Like I said, I thought that was because they didn’t have the cannonballs. Heck they didn’t return fire during the battle of fort sumter because they didn’t have the ammo. > [@](#): > > Armed military cadets who operated shore batteries and fired at US forces who presented no threat to them. So you don’t see how a supply ship carrying cannonballs might be a threat to them? > [@](#): > > You mean the month that Fort Sumter’s supply mission was attacked? If it was before this attack, it was days before at most… and was it even before the attack? I guess my point is that the resupply of a fort in Charleston harbor might be considered a hostile act despite the fact that the supply ship didn’t fire at anyone. > [@](#): > > Yes, _after_ Fort Sumter’s resupply mission was attacked, a Confederate General demanded surrender. So what? They had started the war, attacking forces that posed no threat whatsoever to them. How do you figure that a guy with a bunch of cannons that is about to get more cannonballs poses no threat at all? > [@](#): > > For one thing, since _they didn’t fucking attack when their resupply mission was fired upon by Charleston cannons_; for another, since attacking a populated mainland from a small coastal fort would be suicidal. because they couldn’t attack, the resupply ship had the fucking cannonballs. You really think that Fort Sumter waited over 2 hours to return fire because they were holding out hope for peace? They didn’t have the fucking cannonballs until they were resupplied. "No attempt was made to return the fire for more than two hours. The fort’s supply of ammunition was not suited for the task; also, there were no fuses for their explosive shells, which means that they could not explode. Only solid iron balls could be used against the Rebel batteries. " From the wiki article > [@](#): > > Then what on earth are you trying to say? Originally I was trying to dial back the rhetoric of one of the posters. Then it devolved into details about Fort Sumter and who was at fault for the battle of fort sumter (I mostly think it doesn’t matter because the civil war was going to happen. It HAD to happen because the south would not and could not give up slavery). Then at some point people started to act like I was defending the institution of slavery. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2016, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-america-civil-war-fought-over-slavery/743766/177 "2016-01-27T19:22:10Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > In the post below, you seem to pretty strongly indicate that you believe the Union was the aggressor, and the Confederacy was “reacting, not attacking”. I hold that these views are bullshit. I am referring solely to fort sumter and I am referring solely to the confederate perspective. I do this because people are saying that there is no reasonable basis to justify the actions of the confederacy at Fort Sumter. I am also saying that it is not unreasonable to see the resupply of a military fort as an aggressive action. But most importantly I am saying, who gives a fuck. If the Union army had swept through all the secessionist states as soon as they seceded and freed all the slaves would that move the moral compass perceptibly? Probably not. So then what does it matter if South Carolina was responding to perceived threats or if South Carolina was engaging in unprovoked attacks? Persoanlly I think that if you remove the moral issues (which I agree are 90% of the aargument) then I could see how having a military force in charleston harbor could reasonably be seen as a threat. Pantastic was making it sound like the battle of fort sumter started with an unprovoked surprise attack on the fort. The attack on fort sumter was triggered by union attempts to resupply the fort, they had more than fair warning that something could happen. ---
**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:** [January 27, 2016, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-america-civil-war-fought-over-slavery/743766/178 "2016-01-27T19:24:15Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > IIRC they didn’t have the cannonballs unless they got resupplied. You know, by those supply ships that the cadets attacked to prevent resupply. [This is incorrect](http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-fort-sumter) – they may have been low on ammunition, but they did (eventually) return fire on 12 or 13 April: "As news of the relief expedition percolated through the Confederate government, Beauregard was instructed to demand the fort’s surrender and fire on it if surrender was refused. Beauregard began moving men and artillery into place and on April 11 and sent envoys to Fort Sumter to demand surrender. Anderson, after polling his men, once again refused. Following the refusal, Beauregard was asked to assess how long it would be before Anderson would run out of food and be forced to surrender, so just after midnight on April 12, the envoys arrived back at the Fort. Hoping the relief expedition would arrive before then, Anderson said he would surrender at noon on April 15. He was informed that was not soon enough, firing would began at 4:30 a.m. After a signal gun was fired, Virginia fire-eater Edmund Ruffin, who had campaigned relentlessly through the 1850s for states’ rights, slavery, and secession, was given the honor of firing the first shot at Fort Sumter. Anderson, to reduce his casualties and conserve ammunition, did not return fire until just before 7:00 a.m. when Captain Abner Doubleday fired the first return shot." So they could have fired at Charleston when Charleston cannons opened fire at the supply mission, but they chose not to. > [@](#): > > Only because you can’t conceive of any way that any at of the confederacy could be propelled by anything but evil. This is as bullshit of an accusation as saying that you are defending slavery. > [@](#): > > Like I said, I thought that was because they didn’t have the cannonballs. Heck they didn’t return fire during the battle of fort sumter because they didn’t have the ammo. What you thought was wrong, per the above link. They could have returned fire, but chose not to. > [@](#): > > So you don’t see how a supply ship carrying cannonballs might be a threat to them? No. But even if it seemed to be a threat to them, after they attacked the resupply mission and Fort Sumter didn’t respond, then there’s no possible justification for the second attack (the actual Battle of Fort Sumter) as a reaction to a threat. > [@](#): > > I guess my point is that the resupply of a fort in Charleston harbor might be considered a hostile act despite the fact that the supply ship didn’t fire at anyone. I think that’s a bad and weak point. The hostility was entirely one-sided. > [@](#): > > How do you figure that a guy with a bunch of cannons that is about to get more cannonballs poses no threat at all? Because of his position and his actions. He could have fired in response to an attack, and he didn’t. And because of his position, which was extremely weak (since the Fort was designed to protect the coast from a seaborne attack, not a mainland attack). > [@](#): > > because they couldn’t attack, the resupply ship had the fucking cannonballs. You really think that Fort Sumter waited over 2 hours to return fire because they were holding out hope for peace? They didn’t have the fucking cannonballs until they were resupplied. Factually incorrect; see above. They had ammunition, just not a whole lot of it. > [@](#): > > "No attempt was made to return the fire for more than two hours. The fort’s supply of ammunition was not suited for the task; also, there were no fuses for their explosive shells, which means that they could not explode. Only solid iron balls could be used against the Rebel batteries. " > > From the wiki article So you admit they had ammunition, and could have returned fire, but chose not to? Yeah, they were absolutely no threat. The only hostile actors were the assholes who attacked the resupply mission and Fort Sumter. Every action by the Union, in the case of Fort Sumter, was a defensive action. > [@](#): > > Originally I was trying to dial back the rhetoric of one of the posters. Then it devolved into details about Fort Sumter and who was at fault for the battle of fort sumter (I mostly think it doesn’t matter because the civil war was going to happen. It HAD to happen because the south would not and could not give up slavery). Then at some point people started to act like I was defending the institution of slavery. It “HAD to happen” because the rich white assholes in charge of many Southern states (not “the South” at large – there’s no way to know exactly how many Southerners supported secession, but based on the demographics it may not have been any more than a plurality, if that) couldn’t see a future without slavery. You’re not defending slavery, but you’re defending those assholes who couldn’t see a future without it. Further, you say the South “could not give up slavery”. Yes they could-- they chose not too. It would have been very difficult and costly, but it was possible. Why do you defend these assholes, and why do you believe such nonsense that the South “could not give up slavery”? ---
**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:** [January 27, 2016, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-america-civil-war-fought-over-slavery/743766/179 "2016-01-27T19:27:37Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I am referring solely to fort sumter and I am referring solely to the confederate perspective. I do this because people are saying that there is no reasonable basis to justify the actions of the confederacy at Fort Sumter. I am also saying that it is not unreasonable to see the resupply of a military fort as an aggressive action. But most importantly I am saying, who gives a fuck. If the Union army had swept through all the secessionist states as soon as they seceded and freed all the slaves would that move the moral compass perceptibly? Probably not. So then what does it matter if South Carolina was responding to perceived threats or if South Carolina was engaging in unprovoked attacks? > > Persoanlly I think that if you remove the moral issues (which I agree are 90% of the aargument) then I could see how having a military force in charleston harbor could reasonably be seen as a threat. Pantastic was making it sound like the battle of fort sumter started with an unprovoked surprise attack on the fort. The attack on fort sumter was triggered by union attempts to resupply the fort, they had more than fair warning that something could happen. Yes, they knew something could happen, but that doesn’t justify, in any way, the Southern attackers actions. “Knowing something could happen” doesn’t justify the actions of the bad actors who make that “something” happen. There’s no reasonable way, except from the point of view that “slavery must be guaranteed and preserved and defended for all eternity” (which is not a reasonable position), to see Union troops moving from one Union property to another, and getting resupplied (which happens in peacetime as well), as a threat. It was a threat to nothing but the eternal protection of slavery. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2016, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-america-civil-war-fought-over-slavery/743766/180 "2016-01-27T19:33:34Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > This manipulates the facts – Lincoln and the Union government, in general, were absolutely fine with the Southern states retaining slavery. Lincoln, and most of Congress, had no plans, had the war not occurred, to restrict or end slavery. > > In the long term, slavery probably would have ended when enough slavery-opposing states were admitted into the Union. But that would have taken quite a while, so yes, it was going to continue, just not for as long as the rich white assholes in the South who started the war wanted (which was, essentially, for all time). I think we are in agreement. The North could very well have agreed to keep admitting states in pairs and only admit a free state if there was a slave state waiting for admission. > [@](#): > > The post I quoted above pretty heavily implies that you think the Union was _more responsible_ for the war than the South. The quoted text is ONLY about Fort Sumter and I am not even saying that Fort Sumter was instigated by the north. I am saying that you can’t act like the battle of fort sumter was the result of an unprovoked surprise attack by the south. Unless you think the civil war was fought over fort sumter, I don’t see why you think I blame the civil war on the north. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-america-civil-war-fought-over-slavery/743766.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-america-civil-war-fought-over-slavery/743766.md?page=10)