What mainly caused the Civil War?

[War on Want]

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)

[Kaine for Senate '18]

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

Wow, you and me actually agree on something.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

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.

Wow, our views are exactly the same on the issue.  I'm stunned.

[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.

[??????????]

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?

[John Dibble]

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?

[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.

[Wakie]

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.

[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.

[12th Doctor]

This is why I love talking about the Civil War... my comments which tread the middle way get totally ignored, because you are either a traitorous, Constitution burning, slavery loving, backwards redneck

or

you must be a traitorous, Constitution abusing, money grubbing, raping, pillaging, tyrannical asshole... there can be no middle ground. 

[Torie]

The slave trade had long since ceased by the time the Civil War had started.  It was banned until 1808 at the Constitutional Convention and then banned forever, punishable by death, starting January 1, 1808.  The Civil War didn't start until the 1860s.  That's 50+ years of time between when Bostonians and New Yorkers could make money on the slave trade.  Not to mention owning slaves was outlawed in nearly every Northeastern state even by the 1780s, nearly 100 years prior to the War.

The slave trade was not banned (slaves were still bought and sold as chattel); slave imports were, because Virginia and other worn out tobacco lands had a surplus (Washington used to bemoan his hoard of unproductive slaves with nothing to do), and wanted to increase the value of their chattel. The main goal at that point, other than banning imports, was to create more land for the surplusage of slaves to work, and that meant driving the Cherokee out of the deep South, which Jackson did. It was all about money, and in this case the commodity were slaves. If there is a hell, the whole lot of them reside in it.

[??????????]

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?

Agreed. The Federal Govt including Lincoln said the southern states never left the south. Hell, the US Flag throughout the war was kept with the stars of every state.

[7,052,770]

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.

[Storebought]

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.

Not quite.

Arguing over the Civil War only reveals the (undeniable) hate people have for others from different parts of the US.

[DownWithTheLeft]

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

[War on Want]

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?

[Albus Dumbledore]

This thread is basically EMD owning DWTL.

[DownWithTheLeft]

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?

The poll is not that high, and polls on this forum are almost biased toward the Union.  There are some people on this forum who I don't agree with their views, but seriously you are just an idiot.  You make no sense, your arguments are idealistic.  Please leave the forum and take your place at the kiddie table again until you grow up.

[War on Want]

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?

The poll is not that high, and polls on this forum are almost biased toward the Union.  There are some people on this forum who I don't agree with their views, but seriously you are just an idiot.  You make no sense, your arguments are idealistic.  Please leave the forum and take your place at the kiddie table again until you grow up.

Oh please, everyone hates you here. You are the one that needs to leave. I am never constantly called an idiot, only by you and a few radical Conservatives. You just chose someone to pick on and you figured you could pick on me because I am 14 and you though I wasn't smart. Don't mistake me for Gporter.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Oh please, everyone hates you here. You are the one that needs to leave. I am never constantly called an idiot, only by you and a few radical Conservatives. You just chose someone to pick on and you figured you could pick on me because I am 14 and you though I wasn't smart. Don't mistake me for Gporter.

No, Gporter is much more intelligent.  

[Albus Dumbledore]

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.

[DownWithTheLeft]

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.

Believe me, I love debating the Civil War, something I do a lot.  But freaking out little kids is great fun as well.

[War on Want]

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.

I take full blame. If you want I can just start another thread without the drama. I'm sorry I just should have ignored him.

[DownWithTheLeft]

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.

[DownWithTheLeft]

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.

We all already debated (including EMD) while you did nothing but make things personal.  Too late, pal.

There's been like two other posts since my comment on page 5.  And none of it debated what caused the Civil War, more its legality.