Top Five Causes of the Civil War

[massadvj]

It may be of interest that even Lincoln did not challenge the southern states' right to secede.  He maintained the pretense that he had to defend federal forts, armories and installations, and he insisted that the union was entitled to compensation for owned property in the seceding states.  Granted, it was a pretense, but it underscores the fact that the right of secession was accepted by most people in the 19th century.

[MACVSOG68]

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!

Actually the preamble does not say "the people of individual free states".  It says "We the people of the United States".  It's interesting that the committee removed the earlier wording which did say "We the people of the states of New Hampshire, etc".  Perhaps for simplicity, or perhaps to emphasize the words "united states".

As for divorce, try to simply walk away from a marriage and see how many laws cover it and the consequences even today under no-fault laws.  But divorce has always been highly regulated even in the colonies.

Patrick Henry an antifederalist spoke at length over his concerns.  At the beginning of one speech he said:

Mr. Chairman ... I rose yesterday to ask a question which arose in my own mind. When I asked that question, I thought the meaning of my interrogation was obvious: The fate of this question and of America may depend on this: Have they said, we, the States? Have they made a proposal of a compact between states? If they had, this would be a confederation: It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, Sir, on that poor little thing-the expression, We, the people, instead of the States, of America. I need not take much pains to show that the principles of this system are extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous.

Some of those who were absolutely against ratification realized there was a front door but no back door.

[MACVSOG68]

It may be of interest that even Lincoln did not challenge the southern states' right to secede.  He maintained the pretense that he had to defend federal forts, armories and installations, and he insisted that the union was entitled to compensation for owned property in the seceding states.  Granted, it was a pretense, but it underscores the fact that the right of secession was accepted by most people in the 19th century.

This is from Lincoln's first inaugural address:

I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.
 
  Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?

  Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union." 14
  But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.

  It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.
 
  I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and I shall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.

[Bigun]

It may be of interest that even Lincoln did not challenge the southern states' right to secede.  He maintained the pretense that he had to defend federal forts, armories and installations, and he insisted that the union was entitled to compensation for owned property in the seceding states.  Granted, it was a pretense, but it underscores the fact that the right of secession was accepted by most people in the 19th century.

Absolutely right Victor!

[massadvj]

This is from Lincoln's first inaugural address:

Notice that he did say it could be unmade by all the parties.  Presumably, congressional approval. 

[Luis Gonzalez]

It may be of interest that even Lincoln did not challenge the southern states' right to secede.  He maintained the pretense that he had to defend federal forts, armories and installations, and he insisted that the union was entitled to compensation for owned property in the seceding states.  Granted, it was a pretense, but it underscores the fact that the right of secession was accepted by most people in the 19th century.

The fact that multitudes were wrong together doesn't make them right.

[Luis Gonzalez]

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!

The Union was created by the Articles of Confederation, and by the text of the article signed by all involved, it was a perpetual Union. The definition of "perpetual is "never ending or changing". The Articles of Confederation do not say "perpetual until someone decides to leave".

The Constitution did not create the Union, the Union preexisted the Constitution and nothing in the Constitution dissolves the existing Union to create a "new" Union, it simply makes the already existing Union a "more perfect Union". The fact that "We the people" created a Constitution to make for a "more perfect Union" clearly indicates that the Constitution was created to improve, not dissolve and recreate, the already existing perpetual Union.

To wit, the Constitution did not create a Union. It further clarified the rules governing that Union.

Some would say that it created the Federal government.

[MACVSOG68]

Notice that he did say it could be unmade by all the parties.  Presumably, congressional approval.

I agree Victor, and that method was IMHO spelled out in Article V, which reflected  that even a convention of the states could be convened to undo it. 

[Bigun]

The Union was created by the Articles of Confederation, and by the text of the article signed by all involved, it was a perpetual Union. The definition of "perpetual is "never ending or changing". The Articles of Confederation do not say "perpetual until someone decides to leave".

The Constitution did not create the Union, the Union preexisted the Constitution and nothing in the Constitution dissolves the existing Union to create a "new" Union, it simply makes the already existing Union a "more perfect Union". The fact that "We the people" created a Constitution to make for a "more perfect Union" clearly indicates that the Constitution was created to improve, not dissolve and recreate, the already existing perpetual Union.

To wit, the Constitution did not create a Union. It further clarified the rules governing that Union.

Some would say that it created the Federal government.

We've already plowed this ground!  Read the thread!

[Bigun]

This is from Lincoln's first inaugural address:

And thereby turning on it's head the Compact theory of the of the Constitution which had been almost universally endorsed for a very long time!

[Luis Gonzalez]

And thereby turning on it's head the Compact theory of the of the Constitution which had been almost universally endorsed for a very long time!

Presidential speeches carry weight of law Bigun?

[Bigun]

Presidential speeches carry weight of law Bigun?

Absolutely not!

[MACVSOG68]

And thereby turning on it's head the Compact theory of the of the Constitution which had been almost universally endorsed for a very long time!

Again, this from Patrick Henry in 1788:

Have they made a proposal of a compact between states? If they had, this would be a confederation: It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government.

But I can't argue that the compact theory was around.  Was it universally endorsed?  Not even close.  South Carolina used it during the nullification crisis which actually went nowhere, and of course during the secession.  There is much more history on the theory that the Constitution was created by the people and not by the states.

The southern states always fearing the loss of their labor, relied on the compact theory as a protective measure.

But I doubt we'll ever agree on that, any more than we do the meaning of "natural born citizen", lol.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Absolutely not!

So what difference does Lincoln's speech make?

This however,carries weight of law:

"The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?" - Texas v. White, April 12, 1869 Chief Justice Salmon Chase writing for the majority

[Luis Gonzalez]

We've already plowed this ground!  Read the thread!

So then, why are we still discussing the topic?

[Bigun]

So what difference does Lincoln's speech make?

This however,carries weight of law:

And I have already addressed that as well upthread.

[Bigun]

Again, this from Patrick Henry in 1788:

But I can't argue that the compact theory was around.  Was it universally endorsed?  Not even close.  South Carolina used it during the nullification crisis which actually went nowhere, and of course during the secession.  There is much more history on the theory that the Constitution was created by the people and not by the states.

The southern states always fearing the loss of their labor, relied on the compact theory as a protective measure.

But I doubt we'll ever agree on that, any more than we do the meaning of "natural born citizen", lol.

Well the Compact theory was certainly the MOST widely accepted (I know you will disagree with that as well).

It wasn't just the Southern States that agreed with the Compact theory! Many in the North did as well!

No will will not agree on that!

[Bigun]

So then, why are we still discussing the topic?

I don't know and especially on a thread where we were supposed to be discussing the Cause(es) of the war between the states!

[massadvj]

The fact that multitudes were wrong together doesn't make them right.

I didn't say they were right.  I am merely pointing out it is historically inaccurate to assume that people held the same view on secession that we hold today.  Jefferson wrote at length on the subject and it was discussed many times in many different contexts between the founding and the Civil War.  It would be wrong to suggest that everyone who formed the original confederation was under the impression it could not be dissolved, or individual states could not opt out.  Here is an interesting article on the subject from Walter Williams.

http://capitalismmagazine.com/2002/04/do-states-have-a-right-of-secession/

[rangerrebew]

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!

The same way as they entered meant by popular vote if they wanted to leave.  Lincoln saw the secession by political action nothing more than states in revolt and admitted if they had done it by popular vote, he would have had no leg to stand on to stop it.

[rangerrebew]

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.

The Kansas/Nebraska Act pushed through by democrats effectively did away with the Missouri Compromise which limited the extension of slavery by the southern states.  This, in fact, was what brought Lincoln in to the political arena once more.

[Bigun]

The same way as they entered meant by popular vote if they wanted to leave.  Lincoln saw the secession by political action nothing more than states in revolt and admitted if they had done it by popular vote, he would have had no leg to stand on to stop it.

"We, the People of the State of Texas, by Delegates in Convention assembled, do declare and ordain, that the Ordinance adopted by our Convention of Delegates, on the Fourth day of July, A.D. 1845, and afterwards ratified by us, under which the Republic of Texas was admitted into Union with other States and became a party to the compact styled "The Constitution of the United States of America" be, and is hereby repealed and annulled; That all the powers, which by said compact were delegated by Texas to the Federal Government, are revoked and resumed; That Texas is of right absolved from all restraints and obligations incurred by said compact, and is a separate Sovereign State, and that her citizens and people are absolved from all allegiance to the United States, or the Government thereof."

The exact same way they entered the union and it was the same for all the others as well!

[Luis Gonzalez]

"We, the People of the State of Texas, by Delegates in Convention assembled, do declare and ordain, that the Ordinance adopted by our Convention of Delegates, on the Fourth day of July, A.D. 1845, and afterwards ratified by us, under which the Republic of Texas was admitted into Union with other States and became a party to the compact styled "The Constitution of the United States of America" be, and is hereby repealed and annulled; That all the powers, which by said compact were delegated by Texas to the Federal Government, are revoked and resumed; That Texas is of right absolved from all restraints and obligations incurred by said compact, and is a separate Sovereign State, and that her citizens and people are absolved from all allegiance to the United States, or the Government thereof."

The exact same way they entered the union and it was the same for all the others as well!

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. - The Supremacy Clause

The Constitution was the restatement of the Articles of Confederation. The Union was/is perpetual and indissoluble.

If Texans thought they could enter the Union at will and leave it in the same fashion, they were wrong.

If they think they can still do it today, they are still wrong.

U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2:

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party."

The United States was a party in Texas v. White.

"The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?" - Texas v. White, April 12, 1869 Chief Justice Salmon Chase writing for the majority

Secession, whatever anyone else believed then or believes today to the contrary, was/is unconstitutional.

The Union can be only dissolved by the will of all its members, but no member shall establish an independent nation within the boundaries of the United States.

Period.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I didn't say they were right.  I am merely pointing out it is historically inaccurate to assume that people held the same view on secession that we hold today.  Jefferson wrote at length on the subject and it was discussed many times in many different contexts between the founding and the Civil War.  It would be wrong to suggest that everyone who formed the original confederation was under the impression it could not be dissolved, or individual states could not opt out.  Here is an interesting article on the subject from Walter Williams.

http://capitalismmagazine.com/2002/04/do-states-have-a-right-of-secession/

This is the original cover of the document as distributed to the people:

These are the first two sentences of the document:

To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting.

Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.

These people weren't illiterate to the point that they did not understand the meaning of the word "perpetual".

[Bigun]

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. - The Supremacy Clause

The Constitution was the restatement of the Articles of Confederation. The Union was/is perpetual and indissoluble.

If Texans thought they could enter the Union at will and leave it in the same fashion, they were wrong.

If they think they can still do it today, they are still wrong.

U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2:

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party."

The United States was a party in Texas v. White.

Secession, whatever anyone else believed then or believes today to the contrary, was/is unconstitutional.

The Union can be only dissolved by the will of all its members, but no member shall establish an independent nation within the boundaries of the United States.

Period.

So you say! 

I don;t think that is correct!

[DCPatriot]

So you say! 

I don;t think that is correct!

You are one 'pit-bull', Bigun!   

[MACVSOG68]

I didn't say they were right.  I am merely pointing out it is historically inaccurate to assume that people held the same view on secession that we hold today.  Jefferson wrote at length on the subject and it was discussed many times in many different contexts between the founding and the Civil War.  It would be wrong to suggest that everyone who formed the original confederation was under the impression it could not be dissolved, or individual states could not opt out.  Here is an interesting article on the subject from Walter Williams.

http://capitalismmagazine.com/2002/04/do-states-have-a-right-of-secession/

With all due respect to Walter Williams who's commentaries I enjoy, he's cherry-picking to make his point.  Thomas Jefferson, who was not a delegate said what he believed as a Virginian and he certainly wasn't by himself.  Williams quotes James Madison which is a surprise given Madison's absolute opposition to secession outside of the means established within the Constitution.  Even some quoted by Williams as favoring secession were actually opposed to violence as a means of settling the question.  He again cherry-picks the NY Tribune as Greeley was opposed to a war and wanted a peaceful settlement of the question, though later turned his paper into a proponent of Radical Republican ideas on war with the South.  He seems to ignore the many voices speaking out against secession while concluding that the 9th and 10th Amendments meant the framers wanted the states to have the right of secession.

Even the handful of Federalists who proposed secession after Jefferson's election knew it wasn't going anywhere as it simply wasn't a popular notion. 

But I do agree, in spite of the logic of moving from a perpetual confederation to a more perfect union, and providing the means to change the Constitution, everyone didn't agree.  But then, there was nothing in that convention and subsequent ratification debates that everyone agreed to. 

Even the majority opinion in Texas v White concluded there was a proper means of achieving a dissolution, and Texas did not meet that standard.  But the debate continues, and like a few other constitutional issues will always have two sides.

[Bigun]

You are one 'pit-bull', Bigun!   

Thanks DC! I'll take that as a compliment!

[DCPatriot]

Thanks DC! I'll take that as a compliment!

 

[Lando Lincoln]

I am not worthy on this thread!  You guys are great.

[DCPatriot]

I am not worthy on this thread!  You guys are great.

Exactly....learned a lot just lurking and reading the back and forth.

We've got some amazing people here!   

[Bigun]

I am not worthy on this thread!  You guys are great.

 

[MACVSOG68]

I am not worthy on this thread!  You guys are great.

Hey wait a minute...you started it!

Here's to all the participants*   



*even if you're all full of beans! 

[Lando Lincoln]

Hey wait a minute...you started it!

Oooops...

I may jump in... just to provide the correct answers...

[MACVSOG68]

Oooops...

I may jump in... just to provide the correct answers...

Thank goodness!  But give me the answers before the test next time...

[Bigun]

Hey wait a minute...you started it!

Here's to all the participants*   



*even if you're all full of beans! 

I'll second that! And all with resorting to fisticuffs!

[Lando Lincoln]

Guys - I started to compose a post getting back to the "cause(s)" of the Civil War.  Because of too many starts and stops, I failed.  Carry-on.   

[MACVSOG68]

Guys - I started to compose a post getting back to the "cause(s)" of the Civil War.  Because of too many starts and stops, I failed.  Carry-on.   

I guess we did sorta get away from the causes and on to the legality of secession.  My bad.  The devil made me do it.   

[Lando Lincoln]

I guess we did sorta get away from the causes and on to the legality of secession.  My bad.  The devil made me do it.   

Oh man... I wasn't admonishing you or anyone. You guys have been terrific. I just can't find time to complete a sentence, let alone a complete thought.

[MACVSOG68]

Oh man... I wasn't admonishing you or anyone. You guys have been terrific. I just can't find time to complete a sentence, let alone a complete thought.

We're nothing if not patient.  Get writing NOW Mister!   

just kiddin'

[Luis Gonzalez]

Maybe I'm dense but I've always seen the attempted dissolution of the Union and the Confederacy's creation of a second nation on US soil as a major cause of the war.

[DCPatriot]

Maybe I'm dense but I've always seen the attempted dissolution of the Union and the Confederacy's creation of a second nation on US soil as a major cause of the war.

That's what the Jesuits taught me, anyway!   

[MACVSOG68]

Maybe I'm dense but I've always seen the attempted dissolution of the Union and the Confederacy's creation of a second nation on US soil as a major cause of the war.

Well yeah, though it was really the attack on federal government property that was the proximate cause.  However, the real debate has always been what led to the attempted dissolution.  The secession had become reality four months before hostilities began. 

[Bigun]

Well yeah, though it was really the attack on federal government property that was the proximate cause.  However, the real debate has always been what led to the attempted dissolution.  The secession had become reality four months before hostilities began.

That is generally true and we could argue over the Ft. Sumter incident all day long as well but I'm not in the arguing mood today!

[DCPatriot]

That is generally true and we could argue over the Ft. Sumter incident all day long as well but I'm not in the arguing mood today!

May I suggest you see a doctor right away?   

[MACVSOG68]

That is generally true and we could argue over the Ft. Sumter incident all day long as well but I'm not in the arguing mood today!

Yeah, I'm kinda busy looking for an alternative to Microsoft Outlook.

[Lando Lincoln]

The American Civil War: Every Day


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBr3QeVPv2M#t=299

[MACVSOG68]

The American Civil War: Every Day


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBr3QeVPv2M#t=299

Thanks Lando.  Really interesting to see so many volumes condensed into a visual like that.

[musiclady]

The American Civil War: Every Day

That's one of the most fascinating things I've EVER seen!

THANKS, Lando!

(As a Yankee and an Ohioan, I particularly enjoyed the U.S. Grant part.  ^-^)

Edited to add........ no offense to my wonderful southern patriot friends here!

[Luis Gonzalez]

At this point in time in the history of these United States, perhaps we should begin settling on the top five causes for the upcoming Civil War.