"Civil War" or "War of Northern Aggression"

[Timjoebillybob]

But when we consider the totality of the circumstances, the fact is that it was a direct result and stated primary cause of the war that between 3.5 and 4 million men, women, and children, who otherwise would have remained enslaved with absolutely zero legally recognized rights, were liberated.

I'll have to disagree with you a bit. Eliminating slavery was not the stated primary cause, at least not until it became politically expedient to do so to sway foreign opinion against the Confederacy to deny them allies. The cause of the war was to stop the southern states from succeeding. To quote Lincoln "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."

 

[MinuteManMike]

Similarly, when the States delegated power to the Union, the right to demand that power back wasn't something separate that they maintained. They couldn't give powers away while separately actually not giving those powers away because they're really maintaining the right to take those powers back if they want.

So you maintain that 13 colonies that just broke the covenant with GB, would not reserve the right to break out of a NEW covenant with a federal government they found tyrannical? Despite those colonies signing a declaration of independence vs the biggest power in the world at the time and fighting them off in a war just a few years prior?

That's too nonsensical to even address. It's (REDACTED) absurd.

People like you are why Patrick Henry said he smelled a rat.

 

[BigRed]

I often wonder where is Henry of this day.

https://academyatthelakes.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/PatrickHenryGiveMeLibertyAddressExcerptsFinal-rev-1-25-16.pdf

 

[BigRed]

Patrick Henry said he smelled a rat.

Yet another piece of history folks want erased.

 

[JettaKnight]

I'll have to disagree with you a bit. Eliminating slavery was not the stated primary cause, at least not until it became politically expedient to do so to sway foreign opinion against the Confederacy to deny them allies. The cause of the war was to stop the southern states from succeeding. To quote Lincoln "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."

When was that Lincoln quote? What was the context? (serious question)

 

[Timjoebillybob]

When was that Lincoln quote? What was the context? (serious question)

August of 1862 in a reply to Horace Greeley published in the New York Tribune.

Abraham Lincoln papers: Series 2. General Correspondence. 1858-1864: Abraham Lincoln to Horace Greeley, Friday, August 22, 1862 (Clipping from Aug. 23, 1862 Daily National Intelligencer, Washington, D.C.)

www.loc.gov

DEAR SIR: I have just read yours of the 19th, addressed to myself through the New York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not now and here controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here argue against them. If there be perceptible in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend whose heart I have always supposed to be right.


As to the policy I “seem to be pursuing,” as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.


I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.” If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. 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. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save thise Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.


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 every where could be free. Yours,

A. LINCOLN.

Here is the editorial he was responding to.

Horace Greeley, "A Prayer for Twenty Millions," New York Tribune, August 20, 1862

americanantiquarian.org

 

[Dean C.]

I'll have to disagree with you a bit. Eliminating slavery was not the stated primary cause, at least not until it became politically expedient to do so to sway foreign opinion against the Confederacy to deny them allies. The cause of the war was to stop the southern states from succeeding. To quote Lincoln "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."

Slavery was the stated cause of the South however , maybe not the North initially but a primary motivating factor for the civil war was Slavery, and any attempt to divert from that fact is disingenuous at very best.

One of the single greatest failings of this country was how severely bungled Reconstruction was. The south should have been under the boot of the north for a significant period of time after the war, I would have hanged Lee myself.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Slavery was the stated cause of the South however , maybe not the North initially but a primary motivating factor for the civil war was Slavery, and any attempt to divert from that fact is disingenuous at very best.

One of the single greatest failings of this country was how severely bungled Reconstruction was. The south should have been under the boot of the north for a significant period of time after the war, I would have hanged Lee myself.

Slavery was the stated cause for the southern states seceding, it was not the cause for the war. The war was to stop them from seceding, there is a difference. To again quote Lincoln from well over a year after the war started "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery".

For your second paragraph, I can mostly agree with the first sentence not much after that though.

 

[foszoe]

When was that Lincoln quote? What was the context? (serious question)

After Lincoln had issued the Emancipation Proclamation. So after he had already committed to option 3 from what I read. If that is true then it simply lists alternatives,but since a path was already chosen, it's not as prophetic or earth shattering to me.

 

[Dean C.]

Slavery was the stated cause for the southern states seceding, it was not the cause for the war. The war was to stop them from seceding, there is a difference. To again quote Lincoln from well over a year after the war started "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery".

For your second paragraph, I can mostly agree with the first sentence not much after that though.

The South needed the boot obviously , Sherman was definitely not allowed to burn enough cities to the ground. Jim Crow and the Civil Rights movement are proof enough of that without even touching on the KKK and other organizations activities.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

The South needed the boot obviously , Sherman was definitely not allowed to burn enough cities to the ground. Jim Crow and the Civil Rights movement are proof enough of that without even touching on the KKK and other organizations activities.

Once again I think I'll have to disagree.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

After Lincoln had issued the Emancipation Proclamation. So after he had already committed to option 3 from what I read. If that is true then it simply lists alternatives,but since a path was already chosen, it's not as prophetic or earth shattering to me.

Not quite. The Emancipation Proclamation was issued in Jan 1863, that quote comes from a letter in Aug of 1862.

 

[BigRed]

Slavery was the stated cause for the southern states seceding, it was not the cause for the war. The war was to stop them from seceding, there is a difference. To again quote Lincoln from well over a year after the war started "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery".

For your second paragraph, I can mostly agree with the first sentence not much after that though.

Indeed.

 

[foszoe]

Not quite. The Emancipation Proclamation was issued in Jan 1863, that quote comes from a letter in Aug of 1862.

You are correct.

I should have used the word written instead of issued.

The Proclamation was written before the letter where the quote you cited appears.

With that correction, I reissue my preliminary statement!

 

[Knight Rider]

Probably a horrible comparison given that sport is trivial in comparison to true war, but I see parallels in arguments for secession in golfers leaving the PGA for LIV. They voluntarily joined the PGA to reap the benefits of membership and agreed to operate within the PGA rules and submit to their discipline while members. When some players decided the PGA no longer met their needs, they left and joined(created) LIV.

Similarly it would seem silly to say that several NFL teams could not leave the league and form their own. Would you expect the NFL could force those teams to show up on Sunday and keep playing?

Again, weak analogies but I can somewhat wrap my brain around how States can choose to participate and be bound by the conditions set forth in the Constitution, but then decide to withdraw their participation to form a “league of their own”.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

I'll have to disagree with you a bit. Eliminating slavery was not the stated primary cause, at least not until it became politically expedient to do so to sway foreign opinion against the Confederacy to deny them allies. The cause of the war was to stop the southern states from succeeding. To quote Lincoln "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."

The South started the war; therefore what they stated as their cause I count as the cause of the war.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

So you maintain that 13 colonies that just broke the covenant with GB, would not reserve the right to break out of a NEW covenant with a federal government they found tyrannical? Despite those colonies signing a declaration of independence vs the biggest power in the world at the time and fighting them off in a war just a few years prior?

That's too nonsensical to even address. It's (REDACTED) absurd.

People like you are why Patrick Henry said he smelled a rat.

I was only addressing the fact that I find it illogical to read the text of the 10th Amendment, specifically, as indicating a right to secession.

However, and the question of whether or not secession was legal, I am not entirely convinced one way or another. I must admit that I am struggling to understand why you find the answer so obvious, even to the point where you think the opposite position is completely ridiculous. If secession was so incredibly important to the States, why was there absolutely nowhere any kind of written indication of what, explicitly, the process for secession would look like? And also, where does this absolute right to secession stop? Can counties secede from States whenever they want, or cities from counties, etc, etc?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

You are correct.

I should have used the word written instead of issued.

The Proclamation was written before the letter where the quote you cited appears.

With that correction, I reissue my preliminary statement!

Yep it was written and he had read a draft of it to his cabinet right at a month before he penned that letter. But I wouldn't say that his mind was made up, especially since he waited over 4 months after he wrote that letter before he issued it. But that letter also goes to prove my point that the war wasn't over the abolition of slavery, it was to "save the union" and that Lincoln would do whatever was necessary to do so. As he proved many times in IMO a tyrannical manner.

Probably a horrible comparison given that sport is trivial in comparison to true war, but I see parallels in arguments for secession in golfers leaving the PGA for LIV. They voluntarily joined the PGA to reap the benefits of membership and agreed to operate within the PGA rules and submit to their discipline while members. When some players decided the PGA no longer met their needs, they left and joined(created) LIV.

Similarly it would seem silly to say that several NFL teams could not leave the league and form their own. Would you expect the NFL could force those teams to show up on Sunday and keep playing?

Again, weak analogies but I can somewhat wrap my brain around how States can choose to participate and be bound by the conditions set forth in the Constitution, but then decide to withdraw their participation to form a “league of their own”.

I wouldn't say horrible, but IMO a better comparison is marriage. My wife's and my vows didn't include any separation clause other than death. That doesn't mean that if either of us became abusive towards the other that divorce wouldn't be an option. The south considered the north to be the "abusive spouse" and attempted to "divorce" them, the north acting like an abuser beat them until they agreed to return.

The South started the war; therefore what they stated as their cause I count as the cause of the war.

Iffy. Using my marriage analogy above the south told their "spouse" they wanted a divorce and no longer wanted them in their part of the "house", the north said heck with that and tried to move more of their buddies into that part of the house and supply them with pizza and beer. If that happened in a marriage would you fault the spouse that took a bat to the offending spouses buddies? Even if the spouse wanted a divorce for what is an abhorrent reason.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

August of 1862 in a reply to Horace Greeley published in the New York Tribune.

Abraham Lincoln papers: Series 2. General Correspondence. 1858-1864: Abraham Lincoln to Horace Greeley, Friday, August 22, 1862 (Clipping from Aug. 23, 1862 Daily National Intelligencer, Washington, D.C.)

www.loc.gov

Here is the editorial he was responding to.

Horace Greeley, "A Prayer for Twenty Millions," New York Tribune, August 20, 1862

americanantiquarian.org

It may just be me, but when I read that the impression I get is "In my official capacity as president of the US, my only goal is to preserve the Union. My personal goal of freeing the slaves hasn't changed, though."

Lincoln truly felt that, as president, he didn't have the authority to go to war for the sake of freeing slaves. It was still a personal goal of his, though, and something he ended up doing through the Emancipation proclamation, which if I'm being honest, does look sort of hypocritical given that he always maintained the line, AFAIK, that freeing the slaves was outside his authority as president.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

The South needed the boot obviously , Sherman was definitely not allowed to burn enough cities to the ground. Jim Crow and the Civil Rights movement are proof enough of that without even touching on the KKK and other organizations activities.

Woah. Now I think I can see where some of the people defending the South in the thread are coming from.

Frankly, I think you're way off base here.

Regardless of my overall view of the causes of the war, and the motivations of the ones pulling the strings at the top, I still cannot deny the fact that many, possibly the majority even, of the men who actually fought on the battle lines were not doing so with the motivation of preserving slavery, but out of a sense of loyalty to their States, whose freedom they perceived as being threatened by an oppressive and overreaching federal government. And for the most part, they fought with honor, and even people like General Morgan, who led groups of raiders behind enemy lines in the North, were famously chivalrous (as chivalrous as raiders can be, anyways) to the civilians they encountered, especially women and children.

A lot of the resentment towards blacks that brewed in the South after the War was a result of being treated too harshly, not the other way around. Despite being a moral good, freeing the slaves presented an enormous economic burden to the South, and represented the upending of their entire way of life. You don't just take people who are going through that and tell them, "Suck it up, this is all your fault anyways, you bunch of traitors." Being treated even more harshly would have made things even worse.

I would really advise looking at other wars in different time periods, and get a solid feel for just how well it works giving one's conquered enemy "the boot" as you say. For instance, the differences in how the losers were treated in WWI and WWII are very informative.