What mainly caused the Civil War?

[SPC]

Alas, how many people are historically ignorant.

[SPC]

Why would we be jealous of your slave system?

Northern industry wanted to capitalize it in order to dominate the southern economy for their own interest.

Capitalism > slavery

Republicanism > Plutocracy

The Gilded Age came about a great deal because of the Civil War.

Decentralism > Centralism

The latter ideology was used by mass murders such as Hitler and Stalin.

[SPC]

The role of slavery in the Civil War is vastly overrated. Fewer than 3% of Southerners owned slaves. A vast majority were Yeoman Farmers who had two thing they loved: a farm and a family. When these were threshed by Northern invasion, they fought for their homes. They fought for their way of life, a way of life that Yankee Republicans and industrialists threatened. 

The Civil War was a war was caused because the two regions of the nation were very different:

1) The North which had industry but lacked tight families and tradition.
2) The South was a close knit, agricultural community.

People so different could never get along, which is why war came. It would have happened whether or not there were slaves. The crisis over tariffs in the 1830s and state's rights were far more responsible for the war than 100,000 or so slaves in the South. 

Simply to cement my point further there is a story I'm very fond of. In 1862, soon after the Battle of Shiloh, a Union brigade surrounded a single ragged Confederate solider. This Confederate was a middle aged, Yeoman farmer who couldn't have cared much about slavery or the Constitution. "What are you fighting for reb?" the Union commander asked. "I'm fighting 'cause your down here," was the response. That was the Southern spirit, keep out of our homes. The South saw the North ever since the tariff probelms in the 1830s as a group of people who wanted to destroy their agricultural, close knit way of life and replace it with cold city life.

In conclusion, slavery was not the Southern way of life. Slavery was just a part of a larger North-South divide: differing ways of life. The South's Yeoman Farmers were going to protect their homes, farms, families and property from Northern aggression, and the war came.   

 

Interesting. I largely agree with you that that is why southerners fought and joined regiments and such but I meant the government's views and why the state government seceeded.

If the war was to end slavery, then how come every other nation in the world ended slavery peacefully?

[SPC]

The Confederate states were not an independent nation as they had no right to secede in the first place.

Could you point to exactly where in the Constitution it says that states have no right to secede?

[SPC]

The Confederate states were not an independent nation as they had no right to secede in the first place.

Could you point to exactly where in the Constitution it says that states have no right to secede?

It doesn't say it in the Consitituion but I really don't care because America would be a fragmented piece of sh**t if we gave states the right to do that and it would make the world worse off.(It probably does say it in the Constitution but I am too lazy to look for it and will let somebody else)

Would you also oppose the American Revolution on the grounds that the British Empire's North American possesions would be a fragmented piece of sh**t if we gave the colonies the right to declare independence?

The Confederate states were not an independent nation as they had no right to secede in the first place.

Could you point to exactly where in the Constitution it says that states have no right to secede?

It doesn't say that there is not a right to secede, but the document's legal status makes it so secession is illegal.  The Constitution, like any other legal contract between multiple parties, cannot be voided by a singular party without that expressed right being specifically written into the contract.  Nowhere in the Constitution does it say any participating party can secede and thus void the contract that is the Constitution.  If you don't believe me, I refer you to the Supreme Court.  They ruled on several occasions that secession was unconstitutional.

First of all, if secession were unconstitutional, the U.S. government would be barred from recognizing the state of West Virginia, since if would have had to go through the proper constitutional process for becoming a state if Virginia were part of the Union. Second, the 10th Amendment grants all powers not granted to the federal government to the states and people, respectively, and since the Constitution gives no mention of secession, the power to secede rests with the states. Anyone with a basic understanding of logic could come to this conclusion through deduction. Third, since the Constitution does not grant the federal government any power to stop secession, any attempt for the federal government to do so, such as the "Civil" War, would be a breach of contract, and thusly the Confederate states would have no legal obligation to stick to their part of the contract. Thus, even if you completely ignore the 10th Amendment, the Confederate states' secession would have been justified as soon as the "Civil" War started, as it was for Tennessee, Virginia, Arkansas, and North Carolina. Fourth, if you grant all rights to interpret a contract to an entity within a party of that contract, namely the Supreme Court, then the legal obligations of that party, the U.S. federal government, will be largely ignored at the expense of the other parties in the contract, the states. Giving the Supreme Court a monopoly on constitutional interpretation makes about as much sense as allowing you and me to enter a contract, but giving me sole interpretation of the contract. Thus, the only fair way to interpret the Constitution would be to give the states and the Supreme Court equal say in interpreting the Constitution.

On a personal note, it is say to see that you have become a centralist, Fezzy.

[SPC]

The Confederate states were not an independent nation as they had no right to secede in the first place.

Could you point to exactly where in the Constitution it says that states have no right to secede?

It doesn't say that there is not a right to secede, but the document's legal status makes it so secession is illegal.  The Constitution, like any other legal contract between multiple parties, cannot be voided by a singular party without that expressed right being specifically written into the contract.  Nowhere in the Constitution does it say any participating party can secede and thus void the contract that is the Constitution.  If you don't believe me, I refer you to the Supreme Court.  They ruled on several occasions that secession was unconstitutional.

If secession were not legal why did the southern states have to be readmitted to the Union?

Speaking from a legal standpoint, just because something is illegal doesn't mean people don't do it. The southern states DID secede, legal or not, so to handle it as if they didn't would be quite idiotic, don't you think?

Precisely. However, the entire basis for the "Civil" War was that the Southern states had not seceded. Therefore, to have to readmit the states into the Union was an concession that the Southern states' secession had been legitimate, meaning the entire "Civil" War was a waste.

[SPC]

The Confederate states were not an independent nation as they had no right to secede in the first place.

Could you point to exactly where in the Constitution it says that states have no right to secede?

It doesn't say that there is not a right to secede, but the document's legal status makes it so secession is illegal.  The Constitution, like any other legal contract between multiple parties, cannot be voided by a singular party without that expressed right being specifically written into the contract.  Nowhere in the Constitution does it say any participating party can secede and thus void the contract that is the Constitution.  If you don't believe me, I refer you to the Supreme Court.  They ruled on several occasions that secession was unconstitutional.

If secession were not legal why did the southern states have to be readmitted to the Union?

Speaking from a legal standpoint, just because something is illegal doesn't mean people don't do it. The southern states DID secede, legal or not, so to handle it as if they didn't would be quite idiotic, don't you think?

Precisely. However, the entire basis for the "Civil" War was that the Southern states had not seceded. Therefore, to have to readmit the states into the Union was an concession that the Southern states' secession had been legitimate, meaning the entire "Civil" War was a waste.

Except that the Southern states blatantly attacked the Union when they fired on Ft Sumter.  The Northern states attacked to defend themselves.

No, because what was a Union fort doing on Confederate soil in the first place? Having Ft. Sumter in South Carolina was implying that the Confederate states had not seceded.

[SPC]

I don't see any point in arguing over the Civil War.  It happened 150 years ago....All arguing does is make people hate people from other parts of the country.

The main reason it's being argued is because EMD made a thread cause he thought "OMG I am so smart and DWTL is an idiot", only to get major egg on his face

Nope. 80-90% of the forum agreed with me that Slavery was the main cause of the war. I never said it was the ONLY cause did I?

You need to read about Karl Popper and epistemology. Just because 80-90% of people think that something is right doesn't validate it. Does the fact that most people in the Middle Ages thought that world was flat make it so?

I don't see any point in arguing over the Civil War.  It happened 150 years ago....All arguing does is make people hate people from other parts of the country.

The main reason it's being argued is because EMD made a thread cause he thought "OMG I am so smart and DWTL is an idiot", only to get major egg on his face

Not really.  Surprisingly this whole thread is not about you!  Most of us were having an intelligent, thought-inspired debate that benefited the content of the forum.  Then you two come along and turn it right back into middle school.

Would you be willing to either concede or respond to my refutations, Fezzy?

It's fine, we all get carried away.  This thread is much better than most responses to personal issues.  The question is legitimate and sparked an intense discussion.  Don't feel bad about it, just move on.  It happens to all of us.  It's just that DWTL seems to be caught in these things quite regularly.  Hence my frustrated response.

You wanna debate or you want to get personal?  I don't get caught up in personal battles often (Gporter and EMD are actually the only two I can think of)

Anyway, why would the common southerner want to fight to preserve slavery when they did not own slaves?  I know the whole argument that the slaves were lower classed than the poor whites, but they still would have been even when slavery ended.  They wanted to preserve their way of life, which did not include slaves.

The average Southerner was not fighting to preserve slavery.  However, the main cause of the war was the economic differences of the North and South, and it just so happens that the entire Southern economy rested on slavery.
So although slavery wasn't "the point" of the war, it was definitely at the heart of it all.

Are you trying to justify the war? If so, then how is the North forcing capitalism onto the South at gunpoint any better than the United States forcing democracy onto Iraq at gunpoint?

The average Southerner was not fighting to preserve slavery.  However, the main cause of the war was the economic differences of the North and South, and it just so happens that the entire Southern economy rested on slavery.
So although slavery wasn't "the point" of the war, it was definitely at the heart of it all.

But while slavery was certainly a main factor in the economic differences, it was not the reason for the war.  If you made the point it was the reason for economic differences, I would buy that.  But the idea that the North started the war because it found slavery immoral is ridiculous.

Of course that idea is ridiculous.  Who actually thinks the North started a war to liberate slaves or moral grounds?
The fact remains, though, that slavery is at the root of the cause, as it was the key economic difference in the North and South.

Huh? Really the South started it because they seceded, but it really doesn't matter at all , what happened, happened.

No, the North started it when they refused to recognize the South's secession by keeping Ft. Sumter.

[SPC]

The idea that the South was somehow outside of the Capitalist system is absurd and ahistorical. What would Capitalism have been without cotton [qm]

I was referring to the pecuilar institution of slavery, which is far from capitalistic.

[SPC]

Precisely. However, the entire basis for the "Civil" War was that the Southern states had not seceded. Therefore, to have to readmit the states into the Union was an concession that the Southern states' secession had been legitimate, meaning the entire "Civil" War was a waste.

Why are you quoting "Civil" when referring to the Civil War? "Civil" in this sense means "of or relating to citizens" - in other words, a war between citizens of the same nation. This is what most wars between citizens of the same country are generally called. Now, you might argue the Confederacy was a separate nation, but really that wasn't decided in full until the end of the war. If the South won, the war would probably be called the Confederate Revolution or something like that instead of the American Civil War, much like if the American Revolution was lost if would have been called something like "Washington's Rebellion" or "The Colonial Rebellion".

The "Civil" War was about as much of a civil war as the American Revolution was. The Confederate government was fighting for independence, not control of the United States. Therefore, to call the conflict the Civil War would be an inaccuracy.

[SPC]

I am ashamed every time I see a flagpole that our state flies the symbol of traitors.

Not that I necessarily agree with the Confederate flag for unrelated reasons, but it could hardly be considered traitorous when they were defending their freedom from New Englanders.

[SPC]

Haha, no one is a centrist here.  It's called being rational and recognizing that not everything is ideologically driven.  We sometimes have to remind ourselves to look at the country the way it is and not the way we wish it was.

And how do you expect the country to become that way you wish it was if you do not fight for it?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Constitution says that Congress must approve of state secession, whereas there is no mention of national secession, which is a power given to the states by the 10th Amendment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Please point to the plase in the Constitution where is says that the federal government has the power to stop secession, because if you cannot point to that clause, then the power is given to the states by the 10th Amendment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The U.S. military had no right to have a military base on foreign soil! How can the South have been said to have broken the contract when there is no prohibition of secession in the contract?! Where in the constitution is the power given to the federal government to occupy a state through military force?! That sounds like something a dictator would do.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Constitution does not say that the Supreme Court is the final word on constitutional law. President Jackson demonstrated this in 1832.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

First of all, nooks and crannies?! Its in the 10th Amendment! If anything, you are looking in the nooks and crannies of the Constitution by trying to read an imaginary anti-secession clause into the Constitution. Also, secession was widely recognized as a right by the states prior to the "Civil" War, as demonstrated by the Northeast's flirtation with secession during the War of 1812. 

[SPC]

The 10th Amendment does not mean states get to do whatever the hell they want, it means they get to take care of the governmental duties the federal government doesn't.  It doesn't create any fantastic new rights to change the rules.

Secession wasn't a new right, it was a basically understood right prior to the ratification of the Constitution. The British recognized 13 independent states when they signed the Treaty of Paris, so if there was no clause in the Constitution changing that status, the states still had that right under the 10th Amendment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It was a foreign military base! They had every right to expel the Union base off their territory. You also fail to mention that not one person died on the attack of Ft. Sumter.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

South Carolina ceased to become United States territory when it seceded. Since there was no prohibition on secession in the Constitution, they had every right to secede.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is divorce also a breach of contract? How about quitting your job? If you file for divorce or quit your job, does your spouse or employer have the right to beat you senseless until you remarry them or take back the job? That is essentially what your argument is, since you think that leaving a contract is breaching it, even if there is no prohibition on it in the contract!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not making any sense? Your the one that contradicts yourself and points to imaginary clauses in the Constitution prohibiting secession! You have not disproved my arguments, you just continue to cling to the argument that secession is a breach of contract, even when I show the ridiculousness of that view!

[SPC]

I'm not making any sense? Your the one that contradicts yourself and points to imaginary clauses in the Constitution prohibiting secession! You have not disproved my arguments, you just continue to cling to the argument that secession is a breach of contract, even when I show the ridiculousness of that view!

Again, you're talking yourself in circles.  You haven't made any real points, you just say, "No!" whenever I say anything and reword your previous posts.  You've lost.

You have not shown me the place in the Constitution where it bans secession, and if you cannot show me that clause, then that right is given to the states by the 10th Amendment. Until you show me the clause banning secession, you have not won your argument.

[SPC]

I'm not making any sense? Your the one that contradicts yourself and points to imaginary clauses in the Constitution prohibiting secession! You have not disproved my arguments, you just continue to cling to the argument that secession is a breach of contract, even when I show the ridiculousness of that view!

Again, you're talking yourself in circles.  You haven't made any real points, you just say, "No!" whenever I say anything and reword your previous posts.  You've lost.

You have not shown me the place in the Constitution where it bans secession, and if you cannot show me that clause, then that right is given to the states by the 10th Amendment. Until you show me the clause banning secession, you have not won your argument.

Breach of contract - a legal concept in which a binding agreement or bargained-for exchange is not honored by one or more of the parties to the contract by non-performance or interference with the other party's performance.

1. The contract does not prohibit secession. Therefore, the Southern states' secession can not be considered to be a breach of contract.
2. What happens of the federal government breaches the contract by violating the Constitution. Surely you will recognize then that, since the federal government didn't honor the contract, the states have no obligation to do so either.
3. As I have pointed out before, though you ignored it, by your absurd definition of 'breach of contract', divorce and job quitting would both be illegal, since the wife/worker would be 'breaching the contract'. Your definition, if applied to civil contracts, would not be accepted anywhere short of totalitarian societies.

[SPC]

It's like talking to a brick wall.  Done.  I've proved my point.  Most rational people will see it as valid.

You still have not answered question #3. It would seem that you cannot rationally answer that question without conceding your point, so you choode to ignore it instead. I only ask of you to tell me how a social contract is different from any other contract, and if one can leave a marital contract or a labor contract, why can't one leave a social contract?

[SPC]

If the war really was all about slavery, then how come the South's general, Robert E. Lee, opposed slavery?

[SPC]

After considering it very carefully, and reading a few propaganda books, it may very well have been a Jewish conspiracy

I hope you're joking. TO my knowledge, Judah Benjamin was the highest ranking Jew of the war.