Top Five Causes of the Civil War

[MACVSOG68]

Here are a few quotes from those I have collected over the space of many years of studying this subject. Please note that not a single one of them is from a Southern source!

Interesting, though not unusual.  Most newspapers at the time were either joined at the hip with Democrats or during the latter half of the 1850s joined with Republicans.  You did mention the NY Tribune, Horace Greeley's paper, and to be sure throughout the 1850s he supported a peaceful solution to the secession question.  By January of 1861 though he believed such talk was treasonous.  From that point on he called for keeping the Union together by whatever means necessary.  But there were a lot of editors that sided with the notion that secession was probably going to happen, and supported the South in that.  Most of them though were linked to Democrats and weren't opposed to slavery, the New York Herald for example.  At least reading the NY Herald, you got to see what was going on in the South...and their perspective.

[MACVSOG68]

The South had been resisting  punitive tariffs imposed by the North since at least 1832 and knew that Lincoln's election would bring an even higher and more punitive version. But you go ahead and continue to delude yourself!

The nullification crisis based on tariff in 1832 ended when the tariffs were dramatically lowered.  And the talk was how to refuse to pay the tariff, not to secede.  From 1850 when the compromise took place, the debates centered on the issue of slavery, the handling of fugitive slaves and the ability of new states to make their own decisions on slavery.  As those debates grew, the open discussions of secession began in both the North and the South, and by the time South Carolina seceded, creating the Confederacy, it was all about states' rights and slavery.  And (if only to delude myself), the Confederacy was formed, states were seceding and war was imminent when President Buchanan signed into law the Morrill tariff.  And if tariffs were the "chief cause" of secession, it's strange the Confederacy put one into place quickly to pay for the war efforts.

[MACVSOG68]

Didn't think anyone would catch it, lol!

[massadvj]

Let's assume that the Civil War was about slavery.  Since the Dred Scott decision held that slaves were property, if slavery were to be abolished, wouldn't the Constitution have required the US to pay just compensation to slave holders for fair value?  I wonder if anyone has ever calculated what it would have cost the country to abolish slavery and compensate slave holders, and then compared that cost to the ultimate cost of the Civil War? 

Edit: I googled it and ran across this very interesting article:

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/06/no-lincoln-could-not-have-bought-the-slaves/277073/

[rangerrebew]

Baloney! 100% USDA Grade A!

If anyone in authority had told Union Soldiers that they were fighting  to end slavery the vast majority of them would have gone home immediately!

That is true, and many did after the Emancipation Proclamation.

[rangerrebew]

We see how it is!

(Actually, I look forward to your comments.)

After 38 years of marriage, I know what is right - as far as she is concerned, anyway.

[rangerrebew]

Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union:

The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

The declaration continued to talk about violations of what was considered "states' rights", as the Northern states were refusing to send back the property of the slave states, and were in fact making them citizens! 

It was all about the ability of the South to continue to maintain the institution of slavery, require the North to recognize and respect its property rights, and to agree to allow territories not yet states to have the option to organize as slave states, referred to as popular sovereignty 

It wasn't going to happen and the South knew it.  Remaining in the Union would only assure that eventually free states would be able to have their way with the issue of slavery, as the various compromises, especially the 1850 Compromise were essentially falling apart.  That was certainly true of the Fugitive Slave Act, even with the Dred Scott decision.

The increased tariff didn't particularly help, but it wasn't even passed until months after South Carolina seceded.  By that time, even Lincoln's promise If you like your slaves, you can keep your slaves didn't influence the Southern states.

I was referring to the average southern soldier who had little knowledge of such things as States' rights.

[rangerrebew]

Baloney! 100% USDA Grade A!

If anyone in authority had told Union Soldiers that they were fighting  to end slavery the vast majority of them would have gone home immediately!

To the south, to which I was referring, it was all about slavery, the wealthy losing their elitist way of life and the poor losing the "respect" they got from slaves.  For the north, slavery had to be treated as a non-issue since Lincoln had said he had no right to interfere with the institution where it already existed.

[MACVSOG68]

That is true, and many did after the Emancipation Proclamation.

They weren't fighting to end slavery, but to hold the Union together.  Even after the Proclamation in January 1863, slavery was only made illegal in the secessionist states and only to foment action from within, and because of the importance of it to the South.  The goal was still to keep the Union together. 

[Luis Gonzalez]

The Union that was created by the mutual consent of all involved could only be dissolved by the exact opposite action... the mutual consent of all involved.

The Confederate States lacked the power to dissolve the Union, so the actual fight was over the permanence of the Union.

It's telling that while one side called itself the Confederacy, the opposing side called itself the Union.

[Bigun]

Would you be so kind as to point out the word or phrase in the Constitution that prevents any state from leaving the union by the same method they entered it? I.E.  Just exactly they way those states of the Confederacy left!

[Luis Gonzalez]

Would you be so kind as to point out the word or phrase in the Constitution that prevents any state from leaving the union by the same method they entered it? I.E.  Just exactly they way those states of the Confederacy left!

Article I, Section 10 - “No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation….”

[Luis Gonzalez]

The term “perpetual” found in the Articles of Confederation, deemed the Union indissoluble. The Constitution simply made the Union “more perfect”. It superseded the Articles of Confederation but did not change the permanent and “perpetual” nature of the Union.

[MACVSOG68]

The term “perpetual” found in the Articles of Confederation, deemed the Union indissoluble. The Constitution simply made the Union “more perfect”. It superseded the Articles of Confederation but did not change the permanent and “perpetual” nature of the Union.

Yes.  The authors of the Constitution provided for changes through the amendment process.  But without such an amendment, there was no means for a state to leave the Union peaceably.

[Bigun]

The term “perpetual” found in the Articles of Confederation, deemed the Union indissoluble. The Constitution simply made the Union “more perfect”. It superseded the Articles of Confederation but did not change the permanent and “perpetual” nature of the Union.

"We the people of the United States in order to form a more perfect union..."  Can you tell me why they included the word "form" there?

Why did every member of the N.Y delegation leave the convention (Hamilton alone later returned) when it became clear that they had no intention of working on the Articles of Confederation and were going to write a Constitution instead?

Why are the words "perpetual union" nowhere to be found in the Constitution?
   
What was the status of Rhode Island and North Carolina between the time the Constitution was ratified and the time they finally got around to ratifying it? Were they still governed by the articles of the Confederation, independent colonies again, or members union governed by the new Constitution despite the fact that they refused to ratify it?

And lastly if if the Articles of Confederation bound states to a perpetual Union how is it that we are now governed by a completely new Constitution and the articles are history?

Again recognizing that this discussion is dragging the thread off its stated topic.

[MACVSOG68]

"We the people of the United States in order to form a more perfect union..."  Can you tell me why they included the word "form" there?

More perfect from what?  That's Luis' point.  It wasn't a new country as the United States already existed, and did so under the Articles of Confederation.  And as I think everyone agrees, the purpose for many of the delegates was to improve the Articles, and it simply merged into a whole new constitution, because there were just too many changes.  In any case, one late change to the preamble put in the words "We the people" as a change to "We the people of the states of, etc."

Why did every member of the N.Y delegation leave the convention (Hamilton alone later returned) when it became clear that they had no intention of working on the Articles of Confederation and were going to write a Constitution instead?

Only a fraction of the delegates stayed for the whole convention for a variety of reasons.  But Hamilton was one of the strongest proponents of a new constitution.  A few wouldn't even sign the document at the end.  But I'm not sure that means anything. 

Why are the words "perpetual union" nowhere to be found in the Constitution?

Well, since the Union already existed, the purpose as stated was to form a more perfect one. Those words simply show that it was a transition, first off to strengthen that Union and fix some issues involving state interactions.  But it became obvious early on for a variety of reasons that there were simply too many issues to patch up the Articles.
   

What was the status of Rhode Island and North Carolina between the time the Constitution was ratified and the time they finally got around to ratifying it? Were they still governed by the articles of the Confederation, independent colonies again, or members union governed by the new Constitution despite the fact that they refused to ratify it?

Well they hadn't rejected the Articles of Confederation, and until they finally ratified the Constitution, would not have been governed by the Constitution.  Still it was a relatively mute issue as I'm not aware of any conflicts resulting from it, just one more reason why the transition was principally aimed at a stronger government (more perfect)  rather than the creation of a new Union.  A reading of Anti-Federalist Papers is proof that the delegates were anything but united in there goals. 

And lastly if if the Articles of Confederation bound states to a perpetual Union how is it that we are now governed by a completely new Constitution and the articles are history?

Asked and answered.  And the USSC in Texas v White confirmed that secession is unconstitutional.

[Bigun]

More perfect from what?  That's Luis' point.  It wasn't a new country as the United States already existed, and did so under the Articles of Confederation.  And as I think everyone agrees, the purpose for many of the delegates was to improve the Articles, and it simply merged into a whole new constitution, because there were just too many changes.  In any case, one late change to the preamble put in the words "We the people" as a change to "We the people of the states of, etc."

That's Baloney!  Those men were very careful  in what that said! If their purpose has merely been to perfect the union that is EXACTLY what they would have said!  "We the people of the United States in order to perfect the union" ...  would have been what they said! They purposefully included the word form to declare their intention to form a NEW union!

Only a fraction of the delegates stayed for the whole convention for a variety of reasons.  But Hamilton was one of the strongest proponents of a new constitution.  A few wouldn't even sign the document at the end.  But I'm not sure that means anything.

But the delegates from New York made it VERY plain as to why they were leaving and none ever returned save Hamilton! I'm quite sure that it means a great deal that some refused to sign the NEW document!
 

Well, since the Union already existed, the purpose as stated was to form a more perfect one. Those words simply show that it was a transition, first off to strengthen that Union and fix some issues involving state interactions.  But it became obvious early on for a variety of reasons that there were simply too many issues to patch up the Articles.

Yep! they threw out the old Perpetual union  and FORMED a new one under the Constitution!
   

Well they hadn't rejected the Articles of Confederation, and until they finally ratified the Constitution, would not have been governed by the Constitution.  Still it was a relatively mute issue as I'm not aware of any conflicts resulting from it, just one more reason why the transition was principally aimed at a stronger government (more perfect)  rather than the creation of a new Union.  A reading of Anti-Federalist Papers is proof that the delegates were anything but united in there goals.

A very lawyerly response that completely avoids the question asked! 

Asked and answered.  And the USSC in Texas v White confirmed that secession is unconstitutional.

Yep! With Lincoln's very on former Treasury Secretary sitting as Chief Justice of a court crafted to ensure EXACTLY that result!

[MACVSOG68]

That's Baloney!  Those men were very careful  in what that said! If their purpose has merely been to perfect the union that is EXACTLY what they would have said!  "We the people of the United States in order to perfect the union" ...  would have been what they said! They purposefully included the word form to declare their intention to form a NEW union!

Well too bad they didn't say "NEW" isn't it?

But the delegates from New York made it VERY plain as to why they were leaving and none ever returned save Hamilton! I'm quite sure that it means a great deal that some refused to sign the NEW document!

Your point being?  Not one delegate was satisfied.  Some refused to sign it, and as you earlier pointed out, 2 states held out until after the First Congress was convened before ratifying it.  I simply don't follow how two dissatisfied delegates determined something other than what actually took place.  Again, look at the Anti-Federalist Papers to see how far apart the delegates were on every issue. 
 

Yep! they threw out the old Perpetual union  and FORMED a new one under the Constitution!

Again, too bad they used the term "more perfect".  But that is really an aside to whether the changes agreed to between the Articles and the Constitution meant that specifically the delegates intended that it would no longer be perpetual.  If they did, one would think they might have discussed that extremely important issue, and provided for an out.
   

A very lawyerly response that completely avoids the question asked!

A very obvious way of rejecting a point one can't argue with.

Yep! With Lincoln's very on former Treasury Secretary sitting as Chief Justice of a court crafted to ensure EXACTLY that result!

So any court decision YOU disagree with is by definition the result of some conspiratorial slight of hand?

[Bigun]

Well too bad they didn't say "NEW" isn't it?

They did! By the use of the word FORM! A union was already "formed" under the articles so if what they wanted to do was perfect that they would not have needed to FORM a new one!

Your point being?  Not one delegate was satisfied.  Some refused to sign it, and as you earlier pointed out, 2 states held out until after the First Congress was convened before ratifying it.  I simply don't follow how two dissatisfied delegates determined something other than what actually took place.  Again, look at the Anti-Federalist Papers to see how far apart the delegates were on every issue.

 

My point being that they left because they had not been authorized to participate in a runaway convention that was bound and determined to do what they had not been authorized to do and they said so!

Again, too bad they used the term "more perfect".  But that is really an aside to whether the changes agreed to between the Articles and the Constitution meant that specifically the delegates intended that it would no longer be perpetual.  If they did, one would think they might have discussed that extremely important issue, and provided for an out.

Again if they had meant for the new union under the constitution to be "perpetual" they would have said so and they definitely did not!
   

A very obvious way of rejecting a point one can't argue with.

So YOU say! I strongly disagree!

So any court decision YOU disagree with is by definition the result of some conspiratorial slight of hand?

Nope!

[MACVSOG68]

My point being that they left because they had not been authorized to participate in a runaway convention that was bound and determined to do what they had not been authorized to do and they said so!

I have no idea what that has to do with the issue of whether or not a state could secede.  The Constitution once ratified was a binding contract, and if it wasn't intended to be such, the committee of five that drafted it should have put something in to reflect that.  In its absence, a way out required a constitutional amendment, or force of arms, the latter being the reality.  Perhaps the delegates didn't intend the Union to be perpetual, none of us will ever know, but even if they didn't, they provided ways to amend it should enough states desire to do so.  And South Carolina being first of several suddenly decided that states could come and go as they pleased, and that a contract is no longer a contract if any party decides to walk away from it.

[Bigun]

I have no idea what that has to do with the issue of whether or not a state could secede.  The Constitution once ratified was a binding contract, and if it wasn't intended to be such, the committee of five that drafted it should have put something in to reflect that.  In its absence, a way out required a constitutional amendment, or force of arms, the latter being the reality.  Perhaps the delegates didn't intend the Union to be perpetual, none of us will ever know, but even if they didn't, they provided ways to amend it should enough states desire to do so.  And South Carolina being first of several suddenly decided that states could come and go as they pleased, and that a contract is no longer a contract if any party decides to walk away from it.

The fact that you have no idea why it matters that all of the delegates for the then largest state in the union refused to participate in a convention that was bent on taking actions that it had been granted NO authority to take is not my problem but yours!


They can leave in the same manner they joined as they did in the case of the states that formed the Confederacy. And the Constitution would NEVER have been ratified had not all 13 of the states who did so not  been sure that was the case!

[MACVSOG68]

The fact that you have no idea why it matters that all of the delegates for the then largest state in the union refused to participate in a convention that was bent on taking actions that it had been granted NO authority to take is not my problem but yours!

LOL.  There were only three delegates, and Hamilton was one of them.  And since New York ratified the Constitution, your point is pretty moot.  BTW, New York wasn't even close as to size in 1787.  But I don't have a problem since I'm not trying to make a point that the Constitution isn't...well...constitutional.

They can leave in the same manner they joined as they did in the case of the states that formed the Confederacy. And the Constitution would NEVER have been ratified had not all 13 of the states who did so not  been sure that was the case!

So can you leave a contractual obligation you enter into the same way you entered into it without some language reflecting that choice?  As for the confederacy, it's interesting that while copying much of the US Constitution, they changed the preamble to include the words: each State acting in its sovereign and independent character.  It did so while removing the words: in order to form a more perfect union.  In my opinion, that was done not because they had no problem with a state leaving the confederacy, but to try to justify their actions with respect to the Union.  I noted on another thread that it's strange how they played up the "states rights" issue, yet embedded in their own constitution the inability of a confederate state to choose to make slavery illegal within its borders.     

[Bigun]

So can you leave a contractual obligation you enter into the same way you entered into it without some language reflecting that choice?

As you well know you can legally get out of a contract for any number of reasons!

In the case of the Constitution there is not one word in it that would prevent a state that had freely joined the union for leaving in the same manner!

[MACVSOG68]

So can you leave a contractual obligation you enter into the same way you entered into it without some language reflecting that choice?

As you well know you can legally get out of a contract for any number of reasons!

In the case of the Constitution there is not one word in it that would prevent a state that had freely joined the union for leaving in the same manner!

That's my point.  You can legally get out of a contract only for specified reasons, either in the contract or in law.  You cannot simply walk away from one without suffering whatever penalties are provided for.

As for the Constitution, the states didn't freely join, it was We the People.  And again, the Constitution did provide for a way out through the amendment process.  Breakaway sections of nations isn't uncommon, and the result is usually war.  Sometimes peaceful solutions are found, and even Lincoln attempted that in this case.  I do agree that it's likely not all ratifying states were on the same sheet of music on various issues, and given the communications available at the time, I also think most who already saw we were a union of states didn't give the transition anywhere near the thought people do today. 

But the early debate on the New Jersey plan to fix the Articles was objected to by Madison who preferred the Virginia plan.  Both agreed that the purpose was to preserve the Union, and to remedy the evils that existed.  Madison didn't believe the New Jersey plan could go far enough in accomplishing that.  And preservation of the Union wasn't in question, thus, forming a more perfect union could hardly have meant loosening what already existed to allow a state to simply walk if it chose to. 

[Bigun]

That's my point.  You can legally get out of a contract only for specified reasons, either in the contract or in law.  You cannot simply walk away from one without suffering whatever penalties are provided for.

As for the Constitution, the states didn't freely join, it was We the People.  And again, the Constitution did provide for a way out through the amendment process.  Breakaway sections of nations isn't uncommon, and the result is usually war.  Sometimes peaceful solutions are found, and even Lincoln attempted that in this case.  I do agree that it's likely not all ratifying states were on the same sheet of music on various issues, and given the communications available at the time, I also think most who already saw we were a union of states didn't give the transition anywhere near the thought people do today. 

But the early debate on the New Jersey plan to fix the Articles was objected to by Madison who preferred the Virginia plan.  Both agreed that the purpose was to preserve the Union, and to remedy the evils that existed.  Madison didn't believe the New Jersey plan could go far enough in accomplishing that.  And preservation of the Union wasn't in question, thus, forming a more perfect union could hardly have meant loosening what already existed to allow a state to simply walk if it chose to.

The people of individual FREE states! And that same group can leave the union at any time THEY determine that their membership in that union no longer serves their interests!

It's like a marriage  and a subsequent divorce.

Yet they didn't adopt either plan and chose instead to FORM a completely new union under the Constitution!