# Think Tank > History >  Was the Civil War a civil war?

## Ronin Truth

> *Was the Civil War a “civil war”?*
> 
> Michael S. Rozeff 
> 
> 
> What’s a “civil war”? I searched using Google on civil war definition. The first heading read “a war between citizens of the same country.” There was a war. That’s for sure. The war began on April 12, 1861. Seven states had seceded before the war began (South Carolina December 20, 1860, Mississippi January 9, 1861, Florida January 10, 1861, Alabama January 11, 1861, Georgia January 19, 1861, Louisiana January 26, 1861, Texas February 1, 1861.) Were their citizens in the “same country” as the other states? That’s what the war was about. Secession as a political act to form a new political entity doesn’t automatically create that entity as a separate country. Most often, secession is contested by the mother country. Force usually or very often decides the issue. In 1861, we would not know whether or not the citizens of the seceding states were in the same country until after the war had been fought and the issue decided by force of arms. Now we know. The victory of the North determined that the seceding states were in the same country. While the war was being waged, southerners may have thought they were in a different country but within a few years they found that they were not. After the war was over, it could be termed a civil war because the North made it such by making the southerners remain as citizens of the U.S.A.
> 
> As a footnote, 4 states didn’t secede until after the war began, so that for a short period they were surely involved in a civil war. In addition, 4 states in the war never seceded: Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware. They were surely involved in civil warfare.
> 
> ...




https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog...war-civil-war/

----------


## Ronin Truth

FWIW, I lean strongly to much preferring the names, "The War of Southern Independence" and "The War of Northern Aggression".

----------


## phill4paul

As many in the North did not particularly care to fight their southern brothers perhaps "The War of Federal Hedgemony?"

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

Abe Lincoln quotes below.  If Lincoln had no interest in eliminating slavery where it existed, then why insist on keeping the country together?  It's simply because Lincoln cared more about the raw materials of the South.  The North would have crumbled without a tariff to protect it.


"I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position."

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races.

"And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races  A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas

----------


## otherone

Was the Revolution a civil war?

----------


## TheTexan

I prefer "The War of Lincoln Freed the Slaves"

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Was the Revolution a civil war?


That's really stretching the meaning, but you could make a very technical argument for that.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> *Re: The Civil War as a civil war
> *
> Ryan McMaken
> 
> Thanks to Michael Rozeff for injecting some much-needed nuance into the debate over whether or not the American Civil War was, in fact, a civil war or simply a secession movement. As Rozeff notes, things were not nearly so simple as many attempt to portray them. This is immediately evident in any analysis of the border states, and in the case of Missouri and Kentucky especially, where competing regimes presented themselves as the real governments of their respective states.
> 
> Moreover, most people who write about the Civil War are easterners who have a bias for their own region and ignore the realities out west where the picture is also quite muddled. Kansas, of course, is famous for its conflicts among competing guerrilla groups even before the war began, in so-called Bleeding Kansas. 
> 
> Certainly, Kansas was in a state of civil war.
> ...




https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog...war-civil-war/

----------


## Ronin Truth

> *re: “Civil War” Terminology
> *
> Thomas DiLorenzo 
> 
> Ryan’s discussion of the “Civil War” battles in Colorado and New Mexico is correct:  The Confederates did try to take over some Union territory during the war.  This is yet another thing that apparently never entered Lincoln’s mind as a possibility when he launched an invasion of his own country in 1861 in a war that he thought would be over in a few weeks.  By that time the U.S. government had killed tens of thousands of Southerners, including thousands of civilians, and bombed numerous cities and towns into a smoldering ruin (Over 4,000 artillery shells exploded in civilian-occupied Charleston in a single day).  It should surprise no one that the Confederates would have responded to this by attempting to bring the war to the enemy, just as Stalin would later respond to Hitler’s invasion of his country by eventually invading and occupying Germany.
> 
> Of course had Lincoln not declared that he was “saving the union” by forcing the South to remain in it at gunpoint (after endorsing the Corwin Amendment in his first inaugural address, promising to never interfere with slavery) there never would have been a Confederate Army or an invasion of a tiny part of Colorado.
> 
> The South believed that the union of the founders was voluntary and that the founders would never have ratified a constitution that forced everyone to remain a part of it forever, or have their cities bombed, burned and plundered and their civilian populations massacred.  A “one-way venus fly trap,” as Murray Rothbard once sarcastically described Lincoln’s constitutional theory.  The Party of Lincoln disagreed.  This is what the war was about.
> ...




https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog...r-terminology/

----------


## Ender

The War Between the States.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> The War Between the States.


That would be a very small war, because there isn't really very much room between the states.

----------


## Ender

> That would be a very small war, because there isn't really very much room between the states.


Har, Har!

----------


## Thaddaeus

That depends on how many Loyalists there were actively fighting to preserve the king and parliament's rule.  


As far as the Civil War goes, absolutely not.  The south was not fighting to dominate the north, though it did have dominance in the early years of the Republic.  1861-1865 was a failed War of Southern Independence.  My favorite label for it is "the late unpleasantness", for sheer euphemistic glory.

----------


## tod evans

This goes here;

----------


## pcosmar

War happens when civility fails.

there is no civil war.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Were they fighting in a civil manner?

----------


## Jesse James

The War of Northern Aggression is good  but I prefer The War of Southern Secession or Southern Independence.

by the way, the wrong guys won

----------


## PierzStyx

> Abe Lincoln quotes below.  If Lincoln had no interest in eliminating slavery where it existed, then why insist on keeping the country together?  It's simply because Lincoln cared more about the raw materials of the South.  The North would have crumbled without a tariff to protect it.
> 
> 
> "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position."
> 
> “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races.”
> 
> "And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”
> 
> ...


I don't know that Lincoln purely wanted access to Southern material. The war laid waste to huge chunks of the most productive parts of the Southern farmlands. But I do know for sure that Lincoln was a Hamiltonian through and through. He fetishized the "Union" as one singular country and like every good nationalist placed its worth above that of the people living in its boundaries. To the point that he was willing to kill them for daring to leave it. The irony is that by using force of arms to maintain the nation as it was boundary wise, Lincoln actually destroyed the Union that was and replaced it with a full-fledged nation-state. The Republicans have always been left wing, big government progressives from the beginning. The only argument between them and modern Democrats is about what should be ran how, not if it should happen at all.

----------


## PierzStyx

> The War of Northern Aggression is good  but I prefer The War of Southern Secession or Southern Independence.
> 
> by the way, the wrong guys won


I don't know. Look, the North was obviously wrong from our perspective. But the South wasn't any better. Maintaining your wealth and prestige literally on the backs of 5 million slaves means that no matter how much you favor succession, you are not a friend of liberty but are a tyrant. There were no good guy sides in the war. And either way you have tyrannies: the federal tyranny or the slaver's tyranny. Either way, both are tyrants.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I don't know. Look, the North was obviously wrong from our perspective. But the South wasn't any better. Maintaining your wealth and prestige literally on the backs of 5 million slaves means that no matter how much you favor succession, you are not a friend of liberty but are a tyrant. There were no good guy sides in the war. And either way you have tyrannies: the federal tyranny or the slaver's tyranny. Either way, both are tyrants.


The North was right on slavery. The South was right on states rights and secession.  Slavery was a "gift" from the Brits.

----------


## Spikender

The problem I have with talking about Civil War with most people is that any defense of the South's actions is automatically seen as both an endorsement of their entire society as well as painting the North as the bad guys. Sometimes, people just can't separate individual criticisms and praise. I know I recently got into a debate about the nukes dropped on Japan, and the guy took me saying it was a bad move as an endorsement of atrocities committed by Japan and condemning the United States as evil.

That always annoys me.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

I agree with a lot of the last few comments on here.  I think this is much more subtle and nuanced than many present or would like to acknowledge.

The South had a raw material economy stronger than the North.  The South exported, while the North imported.  The South leaving the Union and the Union demanding the South stay is strong evidence that the South did not need the North, but the North needed the South.  The economies however, did complement one another, so secession is obviously not without its shortsightedness.  

The South had no interest in taking over the North, so the name "Civil War" is a misnomer.  It was much more about economics than the disingenuous high ground the North tried to present.  Slavery is part of economics, so the issue is much larger than simply saying "slavery."

The two regions were economically different.  You could really start seeing the divergence after the War of 1812, starting with the way New York played the shipping angle to Europe.  The South had more raw materials.  The South's raw materials were a large part of the economy that today's revisionist downplay.  They provided 2/3 of the world's cotton.  The tariff was an ongoing issue.  First in 1828.  The last straw was the Morrill tariff of 1861.  It was a foregone conclusion that it would pass, so the eventual secessionists did not even even bother sticking around for the vote. 

The North sought industry protection instead of letting people freely choose where they would buy their goods.  The South had wealth and their exporting was hurt by the tariff.  The North could not freely compete with the rest of the world.

England and Europe favored the South because they did not favor the tariff.  England also played it's own shrewd angle, fitting for a country that thought it superior to many and practicing colonialism.  Lincoln knew he could not sell the war internationally on the tariff/economics, so he played the slavery card.  England (rightly) opposed slavery, so the US government played that angle.  Most Americans probably did not really care about slavery, at least to the point of killing one another over it.  Lincoln was a shrewd and insincere racist, but he was also practical by manipulating the slavery angle.  The South was definitely not some innocent bystander either.  Their insistence on slavery was the epitome of greed and pathetic human behavior.  They lost all righteousness with their greed.

I know what I just wrote is simplistic and on some grade school level, but it's really tiresome to hear people completely vilifying the south today.  The only thing they know to say is "because slavery."  War and conflict almost always have an economic component.  Most wars have enough blame to go around.  It's not like North was totally good, and the South was totally bad.  People view history through the these lenses because they just don't want to think.

----------


## Jesse James

> The North was right on slavery. The South was right on states rights and secession.  Slavery was a "gift" from the Brits.


Yeah this

----------


## Jesse James

> I agree with a lot of the last few comments on here.  I think this is much more subtle and nuanced than many present or would like to acknowledge.
> 
> The South had a raw material economy stronger than the North.  The South exported, while the North imported.  The South leaving the Union and the Union demanding the South stay is strong evidence that the South did not need the North, but the North needed the South.  The economies however, did complement one another, so secession is obviously not without its shortsightedness.  
> 
> The South had no interest in taking over the North, so the name "Civil War" is a misnomer.  It was much more about economics than the disingenuous high ground the North tried to present.  Slavery is part of economics, so the issue is much larger than simply saying "slavery."
> 
> The two regions were economically different.  You could really start seeing the divergence after the War of 1812, starting with the way New York played the shipping angle to Europe.  The South had more raw materials.  The South's raw materials were a large part of the economy that today's revisionist downplay.  They provided 2/3 of the world's cotton.  The tariff was an ongoing issue.  First in 1828.  The last straw was the Morrill tariff of 1861.  It was a foregone conclusion that it would pass, so the eventual secessionists did not even even bother sticking around for the vote. 
> 
> The North sought industry protection instead of letting people freely choose where they would buy their goods.  The South had wealth and their exporting was hurt by the tariff.  The North could not freely compete with the rest of the world.
> ...


well said

----------


## FunkBuddha

> I agree with a lot of the last few comments on here.  I think this is much more subtle and nuanced than many present or would like to acknowledge.
> 
> The South had a raw material economy stronger than the North.  The South exported, while the North imported.  The South leaving the Union and the Union demanding the South stay is strong evidence that the South did not need the North, but the North needed the South.  The economies however, did complement one another, so secession is obviously not without its shortsightedness.  
> 
> The South had no interest in taking over the North, so the name "Civil War" is a misnomer.  It was much more about economics than the disingenuous high ground the North tried to present.  Slavery is part of economics, so the issue is much larger than simply saying "slavery."
> 
> The two regions were economically different.  You could really start seeing the divergence after the War of 1812, starting with the way New York played the shipping angle to Europe.  The South had more raw materials.  The South's raw materials were a large part of the economy that today's revisionist downplay.  They provided 2/3 of the world's cotton.  The tariff was an ongoing issue.  First in 1828.  The last straw was the Morrill tariff of 1861.  It was a foregone conclusion that it would pass, so the eventual secessionists did not even even bother sticking around for the vote. 
> 
> The North sought industry protection instead of letting people freely choose where they would buy their goods.  The South had wealth and their exporting was hurt by the tariff.  The North could not freely compete with the rest of the world.
> ...


Yep. The fact of of the matter is well, it's more complicated than what people are taught. Everyone who fought or did not fight did so for their own reason. East Tennessee where I'm from was torn apart over that war. 

My great-great uncles fought each other over it while my great-great grandfather was in California mining for gold hoping that he wasn't conscripted. One of my great great grandfathers was an outspoken abolitionist who owned a slave. 

Another was also an abolitionist slave owner who, prior to the war ending, re-united one of his slaves with her family and freed them. The black family continued to live and work for his family for nearly 40 years. The descendants of that family still keep in touch with my family and have invited my parents to their family reunion.

----------


## Ender

> I agree with a lot of the last few comments on here.  I think this is much more subtle and nuanced than many present or would like to acknowledge.
> 
> The South had a raw material economy stronger than the North.  The South exported, while the North imported.  The South leaving the Union and the Union demanding the South stay is strong evidence that the South did not need the North, but the North needed the South.  The economies however, did complement one another, so secession is obviously not without its shortsightedness.  
> 
> The South had no interest in taking over the North, so the name "Civil War" is a misnomer.  It was much more about economics than the disingenuous high ground the North tried to present.  Slavery is part of economics, so the issue is much larger than simply saying "slavery."
> 
> The two regions were economically different.  You could really start seeing the divergence after the War of 1812, starting with the way New York played the shipping angle to Europe.  The South had more raw materials.  The South's raw materials were a large part of the economy that today's revisionist downplay.  They provided 2/3 of the world's cotton.  The tariff was an ongoing issue.  First in 1828.  The last straw was the Morrill tariff of 1861.  It was a foregone conclusion that it would pass, so the eventual secessionists did not even even bother sticking around for the vote. 
> 
> The North sought industry protection instead of letting people freely choose where they would buy their goods.  The South had wealth and their exporting was hurt by the tariff.  The North could not freely compete with the rest of the world.
> ...


Yep- pretty much right on. The war was over finances.

Also, slavery was waning and would have eventually disappeared. 

Many slave owners in the South were setting slaves free and blacks were owning land and had their own "slaves". The slavery issue allowed freed blacks to keep other blacks with them in a fairly "free" state, and not taken or sold off.

The North also had slaves but that's not PC to bring up nowadays- the Emancipation Proclamation only set free the southern slaves.

AND- many slaves were Irish. They were treated much worse than blacks because they were not worth as much. Again- not a PC topic.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Yep- pretty much right on. The war was over finances.
> 
> Also, slavery was waning and would have eventually disappeared. 
> 
> Many slave owners in the South were setting slaves free and blacks were owning land and had their own "slaves". The slavery issue allowed freed blacks to keep other blacks with them in a fairly "free" state, and not taken or sold off.
> 
> The North also had slaves but that's not PC to bring up nowadays- the Emancipation Proclamation only set free the southern slaves.
> 
> AND- many slaves were Irish. They were treated much worse than blacks because they were not worth as much. Again- not a PC topic.


+Rep!

----------


## robert68

> ...
> The two regions were economically different.  You could really start seeing the divergence after the War of 1812, starting with the way New York played the shipping angle to Europe.  The South had more raw materials.  The South's raw materials were a large part of the economy that today's revisionist downplay.  They provided 2/3 of the world's cotton.  The tariff was an ongoing issue.  First in 1828.  The last straw was the Morrill tariff of 1861.  It was a foregone conclusion that it would pass, so the eventual secessionists did not even even bother sticking around for the vote. 
>  ...


If lower tariffs were so important to the deep South in 1861, they shouldn't have seceded and given the Republicans control of the Senate so the Morrill Tariff bill could be passed.  The Declarations of Secession's cited slavery a lot more than tariffs.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> If the Morill Tariff was so important to the deep South, they wouldn't have seceded and given the Republicans control of the Senate so the bill could be passed. The Declarations of Secession's cited slavery a lot more than tariffs.


If the South seceded (and formed a separate country) who really gives a crap about anything the Senate does?

----------


## robert68

> If the South seceded (and formed a separate country) who really gives a crap about anything the Senate does?


Those who want freer trade with their neighbors. BTW, states don't have rights, people do.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> If lower tariffs were so important to the deep South in 1861, they shouldn't have seceded and given the Republicans control of the Senate so the Morrill Tariff bill could be passed.



They didn't have the votes.  It was going to pass with or without them.






> The Declarations of Secession's cited slavery a lot more than tariffs.



Not really.  From Declaration of the Causes of Secession, Georgia:





> The main reason was that the North, even if united, could not control both branches of the Legislature during any portion of that time. Therefore such an organization must have resulted either in utter failure or in the total overthrow of the Government. The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. *In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests.* Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States.... *They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.
> *
> ...After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.
> 
> All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. *The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success.* An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon. Time and issues upon slavery were necessary to its completion and final triumph. *The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity.*

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Those who want freer trade with their neighbors. BTW, states don't have rights, people do.


*states rights
*
About 61,400,000 results

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...74.cdm998_S4kQ

----------


## robert68

> They didn't have the votes.  It was going to pass with or without them.
> 
> ...


It wouldn't have even been put to a vote. 




> The Morrill bill was sent on to the Senate. However, the Senate was controlled by Democrats, and so the bill was bottled up in the Finance Committee, chaired by Robert M. T. Hunter of Virginia
> ...
> However, in December 1860 and January 1861, seven southern states declared secession, and their low-tariff Senators withdrew. Republicans took control of the Senate in February, and Hunter lost his hold on the Finance Committee.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morril...#Senate_action




> Not really.  From Declaration of the Causes of Secession, Georgia:







> These charts show how many words were devoted to the issues raised in each state's Declaration as a percentage of the whole.  "Context" refers to procedural language and/or historical exposition that is not connected to a specific argument.


http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/secession/

Then there's the "Corner Stone" Speech"  given by Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech

----------


## robert68

> *states rights
> *
> About 61,400,000 results
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...74.cdm998_S4kQ


You're supposed to be a libertarian and anarchist.  Further, Jefferson Davis the President of the Confederacy was far from either.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> It wouldn't have even been put to a vote.


I am talking about after the seating of the next Senate session.  The Dissident Democrats were more likely abandon their majority than were the Republicans on the tariff issue, as evidenced by the number of Democrats who voted for the same bill in the house.

Abe Lincoln was a lifelong protectionist who strongly favored such for the (with protections) weak manufacturing sectors.  His 1860 campaign was strongly tied to the now aggressive tariff proposals by the manufacturing north.

Pennsylvania was considered the swing state in the 1860 election.  Lincoln was not likely to win without their support, hence he said items such as: "...adequate protection can be extended to the coal and iron of Pennsylvania, the corn of Illinois and the ‘reapers of Chicago."

Lincoln actually suggested that iron could be made more cheaply in the US than England.  If that were true, then why in the world does one need protection?  The kicker is that Lincoln wants a tariff for items that he suggests are made more cheaply in the US.  He said, "I have long thought that if there be any artifice of necessity which can be produced at home with as little or nearly the same labor as abroad, it would be better to protect that article."

Lincoln then acknowledges his lack of knowledge on the subject.  He says, "I confess I do not understand the precise provisions of this bill,..." (source for quotes below).








Source:  Speech at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Feb. 15, 1861
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/...;view=fulltext

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> These charts show how many words were devoted to the issues raised in each state's Declaration as a percentage of the whole.



You can't simply count words and then calculate a percentage:

1. A form of the word "slave" appears 35 times in the 3300+ word Georgia document.  If you calculate that percentage, then it's about 1%.

2. The appearance of the word "slave" is related to the other issues.  Note that this passage has a form of the word "slave" four times, but it is speaking of the tariff.




> But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.
> 
> All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies.* The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments,* and a sectional party was therefore determined upon. Time and issues upon _slavery_ were necessary to its completion and final triumph. *The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity.*






Either way, I have already acknowledged that the greed of the South was pivotal.  If there are no slaves, then Lincoln has no platform and no excuse for any aggression.

People can argue the percentages, but your charts actually support the argument that the war was not just "about slavery."  Many revisionists all but ignore the other economic issues of which slavery was a part, especially the central role of protectionism.

----------


## robert68

> I am talking about after the seating of the next Senate session.  The Dissident Democrats were more likely abandon their majority than were the Republicans on the tariff issue, as evidenced by the number of Democrats who voted for the same bill in the house.


The fact only one Democrat Senator (William Bigler of Pennsylvania) voted for it, indicates otherwise.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> The fact only one Democrat Senator (William Bigler of Pennsylvania) voted for it, indicates otherwise.


It indicates what I said.  No Republican abandoned his party on this vote.  One Democrat abandoned his party to join the Republicans.  And, of course, the vote was from Pennsylvania, the pivotal state that strongly help secure Lincoln's election.

Some of the abstaining Democrats (many more than the Republicans) probably knew they did not have the votes anyway.  I would bet that the other abstaining Democrats were probably for it, but shrewdly withdrew.  Perhaps they abstained for political expedience, as many do that today.

Either way, the general sentiment had shifted back to high protections.  It was only a matter of time.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

Newspaper excerpts from the period:





> “We believe that the right of any member of this Confederacy to dissolve its political relations with the others and assume an independent position is absolute.”   -- Cincinnati Daily Press 11-21-60
> 
> “There is a growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go.”  -- NY Times 3-21-61
> 
> 
> “Let the South adopt the free-trade system [and the North’s] commerce must be reduced to less than half what it is now…Our labor could not compete…with the labor of Europe [and] a large portion of our shipping interest would pass into the hands of the South.”   -- Daily Chicago Times, 12-10-60
> 
> 
> “The mask has been thrown off, and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centers of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports. The merchants of New Orleans, Charleston, and Savannah are possessed of the idea that New York, Boston, and Philadelphia may be shorn, in the future, of their mercantile greatness, by a revenue system verging on free trade…"  -- Boston Transcript 3-18-61

----------


## Ronin Truth

> You're supposed to be a libertarian and anarchist. Further, Jefferson Davis the President of the Confederacy was far from either.


I am, so what, what's the relevance?  We're having a conversation about US history.  This thread was started from an article on LRC. <shrug>

----------


## robert68

> *It indicates what I said.*  No Republican abandoned his party on this vote.  One Democrat abandoned his party to join the Republicans.  And, of course, the vote was from Pennsylvania, the pivotal state that strongly help secure Lincoln's election.


No it doesn't. You said "as evidenced by the number of Democrats who voted for the same bill in the house."  When in fact only one Senate Democrat supported it, a northern Democrat.  The rest IMO is your believing what you want to believe. 




> Some of the abstaining Democrats (many more than the Republicans) probably knew they did not have the votes anyway.  I would bet that the other abstaining Democrats were probably for it, but shrewdly withdrew.  Perhaps they abstained for political expedience, as many do that today.
> 
> Either way, the general sentiment had shifted back to high protections.  It was only a matter of time.

----------


## robert68

> I am, so what, what's the relevance?  We're having a conversation about US history.  This thread was started from an article on LRC. <shrug>


Libertarian principle recognizes individual rights, not state rights. <shrug>

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Libertarian principle recognizes individual rights, not state rights. <shrug>


Looking around, we don't really seem to be living in "libertarian world", quite yet.

----------


## robert68

> Looking around, we don't really seem to be living in "libertarian world", quite yet.


Irrelevant. Go tell some other libertarians that the right of a state trumps the right of individuals.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Irrelevant. Go tell some other libertarians that the right of a state trumps the right of individuals.


Totally relevant.  I said no such thing. (and I'm pretty sure you know and completely understand that.)  

I'll bet I was libertarian before you were even born.  You're just singing to the preacher, badly.

----------


## robert68

> Totally relevant.  I said no such thing. (and I'm pretty sure you know and completely understand that.)


You didn't have to use those exact words and you *should* know and completely understand that.

You wrote "The South was right on states rights and secession " and after I responded that "states don't have rights", you posted the following:
*




			
				states rights

About 61,400,000 results

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...74.cdm998_S4kQ


*Since blacks had no rights in the Confederacy and Confederate Constitution, you put the right to enslave them over their right to liberty. 
1+1+2. Principle libertarians don't do that.




> I'll bet I was libertarian before you were even born.


Then you'd lose your money and are slow learner. I'm done with this.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> You didn't have to use those exact words and you *should* know and completely understand that.
> 
> You wrote "The South was right on states rights and secession " and after I responded that "states don't have rights", you posted the following:
> [B]
> 
> 
> Since blacks had no rights in the Confederacy and Confederate Constitution, you put the right to enslave them over their right to liberty. 
> 1+1+2. Principle libertarians don't do that.
> 
> ...


Very wise decision, you're batting way out of your league.

----------


## robert68

> Very wise decision, you're batting way out of your league.


LOL. Says a neo-Confederate “anarchist libertarian”.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> LOL. Says a neo-Confederate “anarchist libertarian”.


*Q:* What is the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist?
*
A:* Twenty years.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> No it doesn't. You said "as evidenced by the number of Democrats who voted for the same bill in the house."  When in fact only one Senate Democrat supported it, a northern Democrat.  The rest IMO is your believing what you want to believe.




I am speaking of proportion, not raw numbers.  The tariff was a more a sectional issue for Democrats than Republicans.  

Hunter first tabled the bill because he wanted to propose his own version of the house bill for his senate colleagues.  He wanted more deliberate consideration.  This was not really possible because the first senate session was ending shortly after the house bill passed.  The second senate session would not resume until after the fall elections.  Since there was a long gap between sessions at this time (almost six months), you can't necessarily consider Hunter's first suspension of the bill as "filibuster."  In fact, there were many Democrats who urged a vote on the bill.

The bill was later resurrected by Pennsylvania's Cameron immediately after Lincoln's election victory.  The atmosphere was now much different because the Republican senate election wins and shift of power.  That made if more dire for Hunter, along with Pennsylvania's conditional support of the tariff tied with their now connection to the Republican Party.  The momentum had greatly shifted in six months, with the north and south division becoming even more apparent.  It's no accident that South Carolina issued their secession document only two weeks after Cameron's hasty motion to reintroduce the bill.

----------


## robert68

> I am speaking of proportion, not raw numbers.  The tariff was a more a sectional issue for Democrats than Republicans.  
> 
> Hunter first tabled the bill because he wanted to propose his own version of the house bill for his senate colleagues.  He wanted more deliberate consideration.  This was not really possible because the first senate session was ending shortly after the house bill passed.  The second senate session would not resume until after the fall elections.  Since there was a long gap between sessions at this time (almost six months), you can't necessarily consider Hunter's first suspension of the bill as "filibuster."  In fact, there were many Democrats who urged a vote on the bill.
> 
> The bill was later resurrected by Pennsylvania's Cameron immediately after Lincoln's election victory.  The atmosphere was now much different because the Republican senate election wins and shift of power.  That made if more dire for Hunter, along with Pennsylvania's conditional support of the tariff tied with their now connection to the Republican Party.  The momentum had greatly shifted in six months, with the north and south division becoming even more apparent.  *It's no accident that South Carolina issued their secession document only two weeks after Cameron's hasty motion to reintroduce the bill.*


South Carolina issued its declaration to secede on December 24, 1860, before Lincoln's election, and there's not a single word in it about tariffs. It's "Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union"  are about slavery or slavery related.
http://www.civilwar.org/education/hi...nofcauses.html

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> South Carolina issued its declaration to secede on December 24, 1860, before Lincoln's election,


No, Lincoln was elected November 1860.  





> ...and there's not a single word in it about tariffs. It's "Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union"  are about slavery or *slavery related.*


Related?  By that logic I could say the constitutional issues to which the document alludes are related to tariffs.  




**************************************************  *



There are numerous references to the tariff and northern taxation before, during, and after the South Carolina Secession Convention.  Here are excerpts from just one of those references, the South Carolina Secession Declaration Debate:




> And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit,...
> 
> ***
> 
> For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States, have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. *The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue - to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.*
> 
> ***
> 
> Yet this British policy has been fully realized towards the Southern States by the Northern States. *The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected, three- fourths of them are expended at the North. This cause, with others, connected with the operation of the General Government, has made the cities of the South provincial.* Their growth is paralyzed; they are mere suburbs of Northern cities. The agricultural productions of the South are the basis of the foreign commerce of the United States; yet Southern cities do not carry it on. Our foreign trade is almost annihilated. In 1740, there were five ship-yards in South Carolina, to build ships to carry on our direct trade with Europe. Between 1740 and 1779, there were built in these yards, twenty-five square rigged vessels, besides a great number of sloops and schooners, to carry on our coast and West India trade. In the half century immediately preceding the Revolution, from 1725 to 1775, the population of South Carolina increased seven-fold.
> ...



This is one single source.  There are numerous sources.  I acknowledged slavery as a reason.  Are you telling me that the tariff or no other issues were relevant?

Source: South Carolina Secession Declaration Debate
http://history.furman.edu/benson/docs/scdebate3.htm

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

There was also considerable debate on how the causes should be cited.  One issue was the presentation to other southern states (for support) versus presentation to the world.

Judge Wardlaw, for just one example, stated: "My objections to the other Address is that it deals too much with the Fugitive Slave Law and upon Personal Liberty Bills. It is too much like special pleading."


The documents and debates vary among the other seceding states.  Note that Georgia, for example, actually includes the tariff issue in its final document.  

Denying that the secessionists and politicians of the day did not debate and argue about the tariff as cause is like saying oil had nothing to do with the Iraqi invasion.

----------


## robert68

> I am speaking of proportion, not raw numbers.  The tariff was a more a sectional issue for Democrats than Republicans.  
> 
> Hunter first tabled the bill because he wanted to propose his own version of the house bill for his senate colleagues.  He wanted more deliberate consideration.  This was not really possible because the first senate session was ending shortly after the house bill passed.  The second senate session would not resume until after the fall elections.  Since there was a long gap between sessions at this time (almost six months), you can't necessarily consider Hunter's first suspension of the bill as "filibuster."  In fact, there were many Democrats who urged a vote on the bill.
> 
> The bill was later resurrected by Pennsylvania's Cameron immediately after Lincoln's election victory.  The atmosphere was now much different because the Republican senate election wins and shift of power.  That made if more dire for Hunter, along with Pennsylvania's conditional support of the tariff tied with their now connection to the Republican Party.  The momentum had greatly shifted in six months, with the north and south division becoming even more apparent.  It's no accident that South Carolina issued their secession document only two weeks after Cameron's hasty motion to reintroduce the bill.


How about backing up your narrative with a source.

----------


## robert68

> No, Lincoln was elected November 1860. 
> 
> Related?  By that logic I could say the constitutional issues to which the document alludes are related to tariffs.


References to the Fugitive Slave Clause in the Constitution are "slavery related" references, of which there are many. 




> There are numerous references to the tariff and northern taxation before, during, and after the South Carolina Secession Convention.


But not a single word about tariffs in their Secession Declaration. 




> Here are excerpts from just one of those references, the South Carolina Secession Declaration Debate:
> 
> This is one single source.  There are numerous sources.  I acknowledged slavery as a reason.  Are you telling me that the tariff or no other issues were relevant?


Based on the secession declarations of most of the seceding states, and the Cornerstone speech, it's importance is not comparable to the slavery issue, IMO. Have you read any of the Cornerstone speech by  Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens I earlier provided a link for? He couldn't have stated it more clear. The most memorable line is below: 



> Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.[1]


http://teachingamericanhistory.org/l...rstone-speech/

----------------------------------



> Overview
> --------
> Source: South Carolina Secession Declaration Debate
> http://history.furman.edu/benson/docs/scdebate3.htm

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

[QUOTE=robert68;6223153]



> But not a single word about tariffs in their Secession Declaration.



The secession documents were more practical documents to gain support from fellow southern states.  One of the debates focused on which issues to emphasize.  It was decided to focus on support and cohesion from other southern states rather than the world.  

The total focus on slavery today ignores the fact that Lincoln did not care about slavery where it already existed.  Lincoln said, _"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."_

Lincoln is basically agreeing with South Carolina and its document.  He changes tactics when he realizes that he will not get world support on economic issues.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Have you read any of the Cornerstone speech by Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens I earlier provided a link for? He couldn't have stated it more clear. The most memorable line is below: 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.[1]



Yes, I am well aware of what Stephens said.  Not much different than Lincoln's view of blacks:




> "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position."
> 
> I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races.
> 
> "And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.
> 
> "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
> 
> There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races  A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

Again, the question remains.  If Lincoln had no intent to "interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists," then why did he take action to stop secession?

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> How about backing up your narrative with a source.


Source on what?  A lot of this is basic facts you should know before discussing this.  For example, you said that Lincoln was elected after the South Carolina secession document was issued.  The opposite is true.  That simple  fundamental is central to a discussion on understanding the timing of secession.  I am not going to cite facts like that.

----------


## robert68

> Again, the question remains.  If Lincoln had no intent to "interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists," then why did he take action to stop secession?


I don't defend Lincoln, both sides were wrong. 




> Source on what?  A lot of this is basic facts you should know before discussing this.  For example, you said that Lincoln was elected after the South Carolina secession document was issued.  The opposite is true.  That simple  fundamental is central to a discussion on understanding the timing of secession.  I am not going to cite facts like that.


Up until now youve been respectful, and its been kind of refreshing compared to some others in this forum, but you just changed that. 




> Source on what?


To all of your baseless assertions in this entire exchange, which I've let go up until today.




> A lot of this is basic facts you should know before discussing this.


Yea, in fantasy land.  



> For example, you said that Lincoln was elected after the South Carolina secession document was issued. The opposite is true. That simple fundamental is central to a discussion on understanding the timing of secession. I am not going to cite facts like that.


LOL, it wasn't central to the discussion in the least. I was barely awake when I read it. 




> I am not going to cite facts like that.


 LOL, because the facts arent on your side!!!!

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Up until now youve been respectful, and its been kind of refreshing compared to some others in this forum, but you just changed that.



Based on what?










> LOL, because the facts arent on your side!!!!


Say what?  You said Lincoln was elected after the South Carolina secession document, but he was, in fact, elected before the document.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> It wouldn't have even been put to a vote. 
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morril...#Senate_action
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Three states out of how many?  Looks cherry picked.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Three states out of how many?  Looks cherry picked.


I think those were the only states issuing documents of that type.  All the states issued documents declaring secession, but really did not allude to causes like these four.

There were four states that seceded after the start of the war, citing Lincoln's actions as cause.  These states were a mixed bag of Unionists, Democrats, etc.  Arkansas was putting off it's vote until they declared a special session after April 12, the start of the war.  Virginia also declared secession shortly after this date.

A state like North Carolina was really caught in the middle.  It would have been difficult for them to side with Unionists when Virginia seceded because they would have been geographically cut off.  Lincoln also declared soldiers as treasonous in places like Kentucky, a state that tried to stay neutral.  Lincoln's aggressive action forced the hand of a lot of people who were more ambivalent.

Anyway, not to sound overly academic or something, but just pointing out that some states took action, in large part, because of an aggressive Lincoln who greedily would not let the South go and escalated with violence.

----------

