What mainly caused the Civil War?

[7,052,770]

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.

[DownWithTheLeft]

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.

[War on Want]

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.

I actually agree with you to a point but much of the North did find slavery ridiculous and the South did fear their slaves would be taken away, and thus much of their agrarian lifestyle. Slavery was probably the main economic difference. The South had an almost Feudalist economy, while the North was into Capitalism and industralization.

[7,052,770]

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 on 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.

[War on Want]

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 seceeded, but it really doesn't matter at all , what happened, happened.

[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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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

[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.

[John Dibble]

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".

[DownWithTheLeft]

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 on 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.

Harry, that's exactly what I was arguing with EMD in the other thread and here to an extent.

[Albus Dumbledore]

The Confederate flag is the American swastika.

[Albus Dumbledore]

The difference between the two is that the nazis lost while since 1970, the south has risen again and ruined national politics and has therefore won.

[DownWithTheLeft]

The Confederate flag is the American swastika.

The Confederate flag is a symbol of state's rights turned into a bad thing by a few stupid people.

[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.

[Albus Dumbledore]

Tell that to the african-americans.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Tell that to the african-americans.

The Confederate flag?  I have actually, in fact it was quite an in depth conversation.

[7,052,770]

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

[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.

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

Dibble,

The definition of a civil war is two factions fighting over control of a government. This is not this case in the war between 61-65. The more accurate description would be what you called it the Confederate Revolution or more correctly The Second American Revolution.

[Aizen]

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

why are you still living in mississippi

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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

Well, the internal structures weren't really (although they were more "capitalistic" than what actually replaced them in the agrarian South after the war; what be sharecropping if not modern feudalism, eh), but the institution of Slavery was crucial to the development of almost all aspects of early Capitalism. Cotton fueled* the mills in Lancashire, Saxony and New England, tobacco and sugar were the great consumer goods of the age, the slave trade was important in the development of several large port cities, to say nothing of the Capital made through slavery and then invested in industry. Without Slavery, there could have been no Capitalism.

*well, strictly speaking, steam-coal and-or water did, but... well... you know what I mean...

[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. 

[CARLHAYDEN]

Uh, Fezzy, the Constitution was a compact of the sovereign states.

Essentially what happened was the north decided they wanted to reduce the south to vassalage, and the south filed for divorce.

If you look at the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions (offered by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison), it is clear that they favored nullification.  Secession is merely the logical extension where the central government was running amok.

Further, there was a movement just a couple of generations prior to the war between the states to have New England state seceed from the Union.

[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.