# Which of the following best describes the Confederate cause? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [December 1, 2018, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-of-the-following-best-describes-the-confederate-cause/825374 "2018-12-01T04:40:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2018, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-of-the-following-best-describes-the-confederate-cause/825374/141 "2018-12-05T17:11:51Z")
> [@postpic200](#): > > It wasn’t only about slavery, Lincoln wasn’t worried about slavery, it was also about taxes. Well, I think Lincoln was [worried _some_ about slavery:](http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/slavery.htm) > [@Abraham Lincoln](#): > > Slavery is founded in the selfishness of man’s nature – opposition to it is in his love of justice. --October 16, 1854, Speech at Peoria > > You know I dislike slavery; and you fully admit the abstract wrong of it. --August 24, 1855, Letter to Joshua Speed > > I believe this Government cannot endure, permanently half _slave_ and half _free_. I do not expect the Union to be _dissolved_ – I do not expect the house to fall – but I do expect it will cease to be divided. --June 16, 1858, House Divided Speech > > I have always hated slavery, I think as much as any Abolitionist. --July 10, 1858, Speech at Chicago > > Now I confess myself as belonging to that class in the country who contemplate slavery as a moral, social and political evil. --October 7, 1858, Debate at Galesburg, Illinois > > You think slavery is _right_ and ought to be extended; while we think it is _wrong_ and ought to be restricted. That I suppose is the rub. It certainly is the only substantial difference between us. --December 22, 1860, Letter to Alexander Stephens > > I have here stated my purpose according to my view of _official_ duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed _personal_ wish that all men everywhere could be free. --August 22, 1862, Letter to Horace Greeley > > I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel. And yet I have never understood that the Presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act officially upon this judgment and feeling. --April 4, 1864, Letter to Albert Hodges > > I will say now, however, I approve the declaration in favor of so amending the Constitution as to prohibit slavery throughout the nation. --June 9, 1864, Reply to Committee Notifying Lincoln of his Renomination ---
**Author:** ![Just\_Asking\_Questions](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba9def/32.png) [@Just\_Asking\_Questions](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Just_Asking_Questions)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2018, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-of-the-following-best-describes-the-confederate-cause/825374/142 "2018-12-05T17:44:06Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > No, they would’ve been secessful. Ah, so, if they had succeeded in seceding, their secession would have been successful? or secessful. ---
**Author:** ![ftg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ftg/32/2801_2.png) [@ftg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ftg)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2018, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-of-the-following-best-describes-the-confederate-cause/825374/143 "2018-12-05T17:49:44Z")
> [@postpic200](#): > > It wasn’t only about slavery, Lincoln wasn’t worried about slavery, it was also about taxes. Quite a few problems with this. Why weren’t Missouri, Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin, California, Minnesota and Oregon seceding? Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine didn’t have a ton of industries either. These were “agrarian” states just like the South. The South never identified itself with these states in the least. To them it was _always_ a black-and-white distinction: Slave or free? I checked some secession statements. As noted before, SC does _not_ mention tariffs. Texas does _not_ mention tariffs. Virginia (quite short but to the point: slavery) does _not_ mention tariffs. Georgia does. But Georgia is an oddity given the conflicted attitude within the state about slavery. They needed something more than slavery to sway people. But it was clearly so secondary that it didn’t need to be mentioned a lot of the time. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2018, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-of-the-following-best-describes-the-confederate-cause/825374/144 "2018-12-05T17:55:09Z")
> [@Darren\_Garrison](#): > > Would you say the same thing for the large number of other cultures throughout history that used slaves? Pure evil? Name another movement or putative state that was created and took up arms against their country _solely_ for the purpose of preserving a brutal system of slavery. That one might also be pure evil. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2018, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-of-the-following-best-describes-the-confederate-cause/825374/145 "2018-12-05T19:50:05Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > That’s pretty messed up. … But at the same time were considered subhuman… Still are in much of Europe. I’m part Roma (if that is even possible, since it is as much culture as race, and I have none of the culture) and here in the United States lost one friend over it - she was Irish (as in born, raised, and lived there most of her life) and just had some really deep seated prejudices that she couldn’t get over once she found out. ---
**Author:** ![postpic200](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/54ee81/32.png) [@postpic200](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/postpic200)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2018, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-of-the-following-best-describes-the-confederate-cause/825374/146 "2018-12-05T21:00:41Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > Well, I think Lincoln was [worried _some_ about slavery:](http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/slavery.htm) [http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm](http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm) "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. " You’ll notice Lincoln didn’t free all the slaves just some of them. His goal was to keep the union, and the taxes the south generated. Really the tax structure at the time hurt the south much more than the north. With the south paying for the bulk of the taxes. Remember no personal or corporate tax at that time. So if you imported good you paid a tax, and given the south imported more good than the north, they paid more tax. But the whole point was, it wasn’t just about slavery, it was much more complex then south = slavery bad, north anti-slavery - good. ---
**Author:** ![postpic200](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/54ee81/32.png) [@postpic200](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/postpic200)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2018, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-of-the-following-best-describes-the-confederate-cause/825374/147 "2018-12-05T21:16:00Z")
> [@ftg](#): > > Quite a few problems with this. Why weren’t Missouri, Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin, California, Minnesota and Oregon seceding? Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine didn’t have a ton of industries either. These were “agrarian” states just like the South. The South never identified itself with these states in the least. To them it was _always_ a black-and-white distinction: Slave or free? > > I checked some secession statements. As noted before, SC does _not_ mention tariffs. Texas does _not_ mention tariffs. Virginia (quite short but to the point: slavery) does _not_ mention tariffs. Georgia does. But Georgia is an oddity given the conflicted attitude within the state about slavery. They needed something more than slavery to sway people. But it was clearly so secondary that it didn’t need to be mentioned a lot of the time. While the states you listed, were part of the Missouri Compromise and didn’t have slaves. Notice I didn’t saw slavery wasn’t an issue, but it wasn’t the only issue. With the Morrill Tariff of 1861 it would have raised the tariffs in the south. Notice that the states you mentioned, didn’t rely on cotton, and the south exported cotton, while at the same time importing a lot the goods they needed, that’s where the taxes came in. Again to imply this was a one issue war, is nonsense, it WAS part of a much more complex issue. It would be like saying the ONLY reason WW1 started was because of the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary. There were many issues, and that assassination happen to set it off. Slavery was an issue, but the picture was much more complex than that. ---
**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:** [December 5, 2018, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-of-the-following-best-describes-the-confederate-cause/825374/148 "2018-12-05T21:19:34Z")
> [@postpic200](#): > > But the whole point was, it wasn’t just about slavery, it was much more complex then south = slavery bad, north anti-slavery - good. The Union’s motivations at the beginning were not entirely about slavery. But the Confederacy’s motives were entirely (or so close to entirely to render the difference meaningless) about slavery, which can be gleaned from the Articles of Secession from various states. Further, Southern politicians and leaders had been pushing anti-states-rights legislation like the [Fugitive Slave Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1850) for many years, thus demonstrating that they had no interest in any genuine concept of “States Rights” except those that protected the institution of slavery. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2018, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-of-the-following-best-describes-the-confederate-cause/825374/149 "2018-12-05T21:26:00Z")
> [@postpic200](#): > > [Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley](http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm) > > “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.” Yes, that’s from the same letter as this quote (already quoted above): > [@](#): > > I have here stated my purpose according to my view of _official_ duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed _personal_ wish that all men everywhere could be free. Lincoln did not believe that _as President of the United States_ he could simply abolish slavery by executive fiat. The Constitution, as it then existed, clearly protected slavery (the [three-fifths compromise](http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_2_3.html) and the [fugitive slave clause](http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a4_2_3.html)). As Lincoln noted, he considered his paramount duty as President to be _saving the Union_; the idea that “saving the Union” boiled down merely to keeping the revenue generated by taxing the South is a conspiracy theory. > [@postpic200](#): > > You’ll notice Lincoln didn’t free all the slaves just some of them. Lincoln declared the emancipation of a large proportion of the slaves (at least three-quarters), which he believed he had the authority to do as a war measure under the powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief; note, though, that the proclamation did not simply confiscate the “property” of the rebels (and perhaps re-sell that “property” to help fund the war effort); the slaves were declared to be _“forever free”_. As also previously noted, he did (by the end of the war) come around to supporting total abolition of slavery, not by executive fiat, but by constitutional amendment: > [@](#): > > I will say now, however, I approve the declaration in favor of so amending the Constitution as to prohibit slavery throughout the nation. --June 9, 1864, Reply to Committee Notifying Lincoln of his Renomination And, finally, none of this discussion of the motivations of President Lincoln has anything to do with the _Confederate_ cause, which [pretty overwhelmingly boiled down to slavery](http://www.confederate-cause.com/). ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2018, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-of-the-following-best-describes-the-confederate-cause/825374/150 "2018-12-05T22:26:31Z")
> [@postpic200](#): > > … > > You’ll notice Lincoln didn’t free all the slaves just some of them… > . The Emancipation Proclamation was stretching his Executive authority as it was. Lincoln had no authority to free all the slaves- however, he pushed the 13th amendment. So Lincoln was very much in favor of freeing all the slaves- it is just that he’d rather have the Union now, and end slavery later. I will also point out that in 1863 Lincoln also issued a _“Proclamation for Amnesty and Reconstruction”_, which offered Southern states a chance to peacefully rejoin the Union if they abolished slavery. So this idea that Lincoln wasnt in favor of ending slavery is totally bogus. He was 100% unequivalently in favor of ending slavery. Just that protecting the Union has higher importance at that time. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2018, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-of-the-following-best-describes-the-confederate-cause/825374/151 "2018-12-05T22:26:32Z")
I hope my position does not get misrepresented as I abhor the very idea of slavery and cannot believe that reasonable people actually argued that it should be legal, both in this country and from our British ancestors. Yet it was. It was a position that was advocated and accommodated at the Constitutional Convention and the southern states acquiesced to the Union on the idea that the new government would protect the institution of slavery and not try to chip away at it. The idea was that if you guys up in Vermont and other states that do not depend on large plantations and slave labor as part of your economy, you can abolish the institution, but don’t screw with us, and if some runaway slaves come up there, you have to return them. That understanding was nearly immediately challenged. The abolitionist movement gained steam and the Missouri Compromise was passed, in a compromise that the south understood should not have been necessary as slavery should have been a neutral position of the national government. The so called “personal liberty laws” wherein the northern states basically said that they were not going to return runaway slaves were more evidence of this supposed bad faith. Lincoln’s election was the final straw. Again, looking at it from 2018, me and all reasonable people see the absolute evil of slavery, and all politicians in the south were objectively wrong in advocating for it. That is and was a moral evil. But from the morals of the times, it was not unreasonable for those states to insist on the benefit of the bargain which they had negotiated. Even Lincoln, in 1857, did not support the rights of free blacks to vote, serve on juries, or to marry white people. New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland had legal slavery. It was not a clear cut case of right vs. wrong, and we certainly cannot judge a historical conflict based upon modern morality. ---
**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:** [December 5, 2018, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-of-the-following-best-describes-the-confederate-cause/825374/152 "2018-12-05T22:41:25Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I hope my position does not get misrepresented as I abhor the very idea of slavery and cannot believe that reasonable people actually argued that it should be legal, both in this country and from our British ancestors. > > Yet it was. It was a position that was advocated and accommodated at the Constitutional Convention and the southern states acquiesced to the Union on the idea that the new government would protect the institution of slavery and not try to chip away at it. The idea was that if you guys up in Vermont and other states that do not depend on large plantations and slave labor as part of your economy, you can abolish the institution, but don’t screw with us, and if some runaway slaves come up there, you have to return them. > > That understanding was nearly immediately challenged. The abolitionist movement gained steam and the Missouri Compromise was passed, in a compromise that the south understood should not have been necessary as slavery should have been a neutral position of the national government. The so called “personal liberty laws” wherein the northern states basically said that they were not going to return runaway slaves were more evidence of this supposed bad faith. Lincoln’s election was the final straw. > > Again, looking at it from 2018, me and all reasonable people see the absolute evil of slavery, and all politicians in the south were objectively wrong in advocating for it. That is and was a moral evil. But from the morals of the times, it was not unreasonable for those states to insist on the benefit of the bargain which they had negotiated. > > Even Lincoln, in 1857, did not support the rights of free blacks to vote, serve on juries, or to marry white people. New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland had legal slavery. It was not a clear cut case of right vs. wrong, and we certainly cannot judge a historical conflict based upon modern morality. Many Americans recognized the evil of slavery at the time. Because it wasn’t just about economics – it was a system that allowed powerful white men to rape and brutalize at will, with no consequences. Tell me – how many wealthy and hormonal teenage sons of plantation owners would have resisted the temptation to rape and abuse slaves, considering that _there were virtually zero consequences for a white man/teenager raping and abusing slaves?_ How many young black women in the South do you think got through their teenage and young adult years without having been raped and abused? Modern DNA analysis gives us a pretty clear statistical idea – and the answer was “most, if not all of them were raped”. When they talked about their “way of life”, this was what they were talking about – a system that allowed them to rape without compunction, lord over land and property and all those that lived on it like little gods, and worse. It wasn’t reasonable based upon the morals of the time – the morals of the time recognized that rape and brutalization were abominable, aside from those relatively few (not even a plurality, almost certainly, if all adults of all races’ views were counted) who supported slavery. And it wasn’t about states’ rights, as the hypocrisy of the Fugitive Slave Act showed. It was just about desperately trying to maintain a system that allowed wealthy men to live their lives like little gods. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2018, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-of-the-following-best-describes-the-confederate-cause/825374/153 "2018-12-05T22:49:27Z")
Abraham Lincoln, the man, opposed slavery. But Abraham Lincoln, the President, viewed the preservation of the Union as his paramount duty. And he considered his duties to take precedence over his desires. Of course, once it became apparent that he could do both, he did so, to the extent that he was legally capable: First for the slaves in the treasonous states, under his wartime powers as Commander in Chief, and then for all of them, through the 13th Amendment (which he didn’t live to see passed, but did support). ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2018, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-of-the-following-best-describes-the-confederate-cause/825374/154 "2018-12-06T00:02:41Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > It was not a clear cut case of right vs. wrong, and we certainly cannot judge a historical conflict based upon modern morality. Fortunately we need not rely solely on our modern historical judgments, we can assess the objective historical fact that half the country declared that the south’s moral reasoning was garbage. This is not presentist or ahistorical; people in that time actually fought and died to underscore that point. And of course we can judge the motives of slavers from 1860. Of course we can. Otherwise, how do we oppose slavery in 2060 when someone says that extraordinary contemporary circumstances permit it? We have to say that slavery is always wrong, that fighting for slavery is always wrong, and history shows that it has calamitous consequences. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2018, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-of-the-following-best-describes-the-confederate-cause/825374/155 "2018-12-06T00:14:37Z")
> [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > Fortunately we need not rely solely on our modern historical judgments, we can assess the objective historical fact that half the country declared that the south’s moral reasoning was garbage. This is not presentist or ahistorical; people in that time actually fought and died to underscore that point. And also the opinion of most of the other nations on earth. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2018, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-of-the-following-best-describes-the-confederate-cause/825374/156 "2018-12-06T00:19:38Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > It was not a clear cut case of right vs. wrong, and we certainly cannot judge a historical conflict based upon modern morality. What if we judge it by 18th century morality? “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” [1776](https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript) Or 19th century morality: “Slavery is founded in the selfishness of man’s nature – opposition to it is in his love of justice.” [Abraham Lincoln, 1854](http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/slavery.htm) ---
**Author:** ![That\_Don\_Guy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/that_don_guy/32/538_2.png) [@That\_Don\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/That_Don_Guy)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2018, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-of-the-following-best-describes-the-confederate-cause/825374/157 "2018-12-06T00:20:55Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > The south was a war fought by rich people trying to protect their property and lower class racists trying to protect an evil social system. > > The north should’ve maintained reconstruction for 50+ years. The south never reformed after the war like Germany did after fighting for an evil cause. “The version I heard was,” the Democrats in 1876 wanted to end Reconstruction, which is why they chose Tilden, and part of the deal that let Hayes win the contested elected was that he would end it, which he did. ---
**Author:** ![BeepKillBeep](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9e8a1a/32.png) [@BeepKillBeep](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BeepKillBeep)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2018, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-of-the-following-best-describes-the-confederate-cause/825374/158 "2018-12-06T00:54:06Z")
I love that there is one vote for the Southern States were justified. One would hope it is a joke vote, but sadly it probably isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2018, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-of-the-following-best-describes-the-confederate-cause/825374/159 "2018-12-06T01:13:42Z")
> [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > Fortunately we need not rely solely on our modern historical judgments, we can assess the objective historical fact that half the country declared that the south’s moral reasoning was garbage. This is not presentist or ahistorical; people in that time actually fought and died to underscore that point. > > And of course we can judge the motives of slavers from 1860. Of course we can. Otherwise, how do we oppose slavery in 2060 when someone says that extraordinary contemporary circumstances permit it? We have to say that slavery is always wrong, that fighting for slavery is always wrong, and history shows that it has calamitous consequences. That’s an overstatement. Half of the country was not willing to die over slavery. The issue is far more complex than that and without writing a treatise, then I cannot adequately explain it except to say that in 1860, far fewer than a majority of even the northern states supported the abolition of slavery; the war was not fought, initially, to eradicate slavery, and some northern states had legal slavery during and after the end of the war and did not ratify the 13th amendment until much later (Delaware not until 1901 for example). Can we say that the Delaware troops were fighting to end slavery? As to your second point, I have always agreed in absolute morality and not selective morality. What is troubling about the Civil War is not slavery, but that the national government has demonstrated the power to use force to outlaw X, when X was a privilege afforded to the states under the deal the states previously had to allow X. In this case, it was slavery and very bad. What if next time it is something objectively good, or at least subjectively good to a large number of people? Imagine a hypothetical where states secede from the union because the national government won’t permit them to have legal abortion or legal same sex marriage and they are subjugated by force. A national government powerful enough to use force for good is powerful enough to do it for evil. That was a major breakdown in constitutional rule in accordance with the agreed upon terms. That’s a major concern. > [@MEBuckner](#): > > What if we judge it by 18th century morality? > > “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” [1776](https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript) > > Or 19th century morality: > > “Slavery is founded in the selfishness of man’s nature – opposition to it is in his love of justice.” [Abraham Lincoln, 1854](http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/slavery.htm) First quote, by Jefferson, who owned slaves and sired a child with one. Although he was a complicated and interesting guy, he clearly did not mean what he said there. Eleven years later, the Constitution was ratified and permitted slavery. That was the deal. Second quote; that was Lincoln who was the proximate cause of the Civil War because of his seeming willingness to break the deal that was struck in 1787. I look at this from abstract principles. If you and I agree that we will live together in harmony and that you are permitted to do X, I cannot come back years later and say that I believe that X is highly immoral and that I am unilaterally telling you that you can no longer do X. That’s not fair. I don’t care if one hundred people in the neighborhood agree with me that X is immoral and that you shouldn’t do X. WE had a deal, and it is not proper for me to break it without going through the proper, legal channels (which in the case of slavery was a constitutional amendment, one not done through conquest and by force). ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2018, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-of-the-following-best-describes-the-confederate-cause/825374/160 "2018-12-06T01:37:44Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I look at this from abstract principles. If you and I agree that we will live together in harmony and that you are permitted to do X, I cannot come back years later and say that I believe that X is highly immoral and that I am unilaterally telling you that you can no longer do X. That’s not fair. Except the “deal” DID have a means for future modification as you yourself state next, and nobody in the North was legally capable to unilaterally force a change, until they had the numbers to pass such an amendment. > [@](#): > > I don’t care if one hundred people in the neighborhood agree with me that X is immoral and that you shouldn’t do X. WE had a deal, and it is not proper for me to break it without going through the proper, legal channels (which in the case of slavery was a constitutional amendment, one not done through conquest and by force). But that’s the thing: the Southern states were not willing to risk letting the proper legal channel to change the deal take its course. Nobody was trying to suppress slavery “through conquest and force” on election day 1860. The most the Republicans were realistically expecting was for it to not spread any further than where it was right then. The South saw that as a slippery slope and decided that rather than risk one day losing that “proper legal process” – they feared that eventually the day would come when they would – they’d rather quit the deal. The only good and righteous thing for the South to have done in 1860 was to accept that at some point in the next generation they would become a political minority and slavery would come to an end, and begin arranging for how would they, in the jargon of 150 years later, reinvent themselves. Instead they chose poorly. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-of-the-following-best-describes-the-confederate-cause/825374.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-of-the-following-best-describes-the-confederate-cause/825374.md?page=9)