Harper's Weekly from 1861 - Why the Civil War was fought

[SgtBulldog]

For all the revisionist nay-sayers:

WE must never lose sight of the main object of the war, and of the means by which that object can be attained.

This war is prosecuted for the maintenance of the Union and of the indivisible nationality of the United States. It is not, as foreigners suppose, a war for tariffs, or on account of slavery. The United States Government has no other object in view than the assertion of its authority over the whole of its dominion, and the practical refutation of the subversive doctrines of secession and State sovereignty.

- Harper's Weekly, 12/21/1861

http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/civil-war/1861/december/cost-civil-war.htm

 

[moostraks]

Beautiful...Where did you find this?(Iknow Harper's Weekly, but how in the world did you find this??)

 

[SgtBulldog]

Just happened to run across it while doing some research for the cause.

 

[pickfair]

I was just wondering... wouldn't that be a Northern point of view? I don't think the Southerners were fighting to preserve the unity. Many thought they were fighting for their freedom and their rights.

 

[SgtBulldog]

I was just wondering... wouldn't that be a Northern point of view? I don't think the Southerners were fighting to preserve the unity. Many thought they were fighting for their freedom and their rights.

Which is what this specifies:

practical refutation of the subversive doctrines of secession and State sovereignty.

 

[Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice]

That's like saying my car wouldn't start because it couldn't start.

Tariffs were the reason they wanted to secede in the first place.
Fort Sumter was a customs house so they blew it up.

All conflict is about money. Always.

 

[Van Damme]

This really does not help Ron Paul, or his statement. Ron Paul said that Lincoln never should have gone to war with the South in order to abolosh slavery. The fact that the Civil War was really fought to preserve the Union only serves to show that Ron Paul does not have his facts straight. I would like to know if Ron Paul would go to war to preserve the Union in the event that one of the States seceded. I thought the statement was a bit of a gaff on the part of Ron Paul, but it was a nonsense question that led to the gaff.

 

[SgtBulldog]

Technically, the tariffs passed after the south seceeded.

 

[Van Damme]

Also, the several States seceded before Lincoln was ever elected. So, again, I really don't know what Ron Paul's problem with Lincoln was on the issue of the Civil War.

 

[SgtBulldog]

This really does not help Ron Paul, or his statement. Ron Paul said that Lincoln never should have gone to war with the South in order to abolosh slavery. The fact that the Civil War was really fought to preserve the Union only serves to show that Ron Paul does not have his facts straight. I would like to know if Ron Paul would go to war to preserve the Union in the event that one of the States seceded. I thought the statement was a bit of a gaff on the part of Ron Paul, but it was a nonsense question that led to the gaff.

Dr. Paul never said what the reason for the Civil War was. He was responding to Russert's incredibly stupid statement that there would still be slavery today if the Civil War was not fought.

 

[Van Damme]

Dr. Paul never said what the reason for the Civil War was. He was responding to Russert's incredibly stupid statement that there would still be slavery today if the Civil War was not fought.

Watch this: http://youtube.com/watch?v=jbOE4Ip7In0

 

[noztnac]

This really does not help Ron Paul, or his statement. Ron Paul said that Lincoln never should have gone to war with the South in order to abolosh slavery. The fact that the Civil War was really fought to preserve the Union only serves to show that Ron Paul does not have his facts straight. I would like to know if Ron Paul would go to war to preserve the Union in the event that one of the States seceded. I thought the statement was a bit of a gaff on the part of Ron Paul, but it was a nonsense question that led to the gaff.

There wasn't one specific reason. I think Ron Paul is aware of the state's rights, tariff, slavery, etc.

The question was designed to turn uneducated (or miseducated) Americans against Dr. Paul.

 

[Politeia]

I was just wondering... wouldn't that be a Northern point of view?

Exactly; this is the "official" view, though feelings about slavery had become quite passionate in the previous decades ("Uncle Tom's Cabin" and all that) -- in great part deliberately whipped up -- and it was those passions that fueled the war fever. Otherwise Lincoln wouldn't have been able to arrange a war, which he needed to implement his plan to convert the USA from a federation of sovereign states into a unitary State (with himself as the unitary executive). Even so, he had to resort to conscription to get enough men to fight -- and to "suspend" habeas corpus and jail thousands of dissenters. Politicians love "emergencies" because they can get away with so much more.

I don't think the Southerners were fighting to preserve the unity. Many thought they were fighting for their freedom and their rights.

Of course not; they were fighting to preserve their independence, which they'd claimed as a last resort when it became clear what Lincoln's Washington was up to.

 

[jesshwarren]

Ron Paul's point there is resolution outside of WAR!!!!

The South fought to protect states right's.

 

[Politeia]

This really does not help Ron Paul, or his statement. Ron Paul said that Lincoln never should have gone to war with the South in order to abolosh slavery.

As regards that specific statement, Dr. Paul's point was that there could have been easier ways to abolish slavery -- if that was the intention -- than destroying over 600,000 American lives and laying waste half the country.

The fact that the Civil War was really fought to preserve the Union only serves to show that Ron Paul does not have his facts straight.

Pretty arrogant assumption from a newcomer; suggest you take a look at http://www.ronpaullibrary.org before you start tossing around such accusations. I'd bet Ron Paul has his "facts" straighter than you or me or anyone on this forum.

I would like to know if Ron Paul would go to war to preserve the Union in the event that one of the States seceded.

No, I very much doubt he would, as there is nothing in the Constitution to prevent a State from seceding. Read the Constitution if you want to know what RP would do as President about anything; if it ain't in there, it ain't in there.

Also, the several States seceded before Lincoln was ever elected. So, again, I really don't know what Ron Paul's problem with Lincoln was on the issue of the Civil War.

See above. Do your homework. For more background, see here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/lincoln-arch.html

 

[Kingfisher]

In "The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History" by Thomas E. Woods theres a chapter on The War Between The States. Anyone who wants to debate the so called "Civil War" should read it.

 

[Cimbri]

It's like turkey bombing those poor Kurds in northern Iraq. The Kurds were used to bring up a sob story before going into Iraq. Now we say turkey can kill them at will. No one should have to die in order to keep a corrupt govenment in power.

 

[Politeia]

In "The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History" by Thomas E. Woods theres a chapter on The War Between The States. Anyone who wants to debate the so called "Civil War" should read it.

Though I'm sure Woods' book is excellent (haven't seen it yet), to be precise it wasn't even a "War Between The States", the usual term used by those who understand that it wasn't a Civil War (a civil war is a conflict over who will rule a nation; the Confederate States didn't want to rule the United States, they had seceded). It was actually an aggressive war by the Washington, D.C. political entity (the federal government) to conquer the theretofore sovereign states, in which the Northern (non-seceding) States were duped (mostly due to anti-slavery passion) into helping Lincoln and the federal entity conquer themselves as well as the Southern states. The end result was to turn the governmental system on this continent upside-down, placing the federal government above the states, who'd originally created it. If it weren't so tragic, it'd be pretty funny.

Actually, many in the northern states saw what was happening and objected, which was why Lincoln "suspended" habeas corpus and jailed thousands of dissenters -- as well as draft resisters. He was a tyrant and a madman. (And, BTW, I am not a Southerner, nor were any of my ancestors.)

 

[speciallyblend]

even my (black history) professor(note she was actually black),said that slavery would of ended because of the invention of the cotton gin,which made slavery economically impossible.... she said economics is what ended slavery in the end... of course multiple reasons,but she said this main reason would of ended slavery.

 

[Van Damme]

As regards that specific statement, Dr. Paul's point was that there could have been easier ways to abolish slavery -- if that was the intention -- than destroying over 600,000 American lives and laying waste half the country.



Pretty arrogant assumption from a newcomer; suggest you take a look at http://www.ronpaullibrary.org before you start tossing around such accusations. I'd bet Ron Paul has his "facts" straighter than you or me or anyone on this forum.



No, I very much doubt he would, as there is nothing in the Constitution to prevent a State from seceding. Read the Constitution if you want to know what RP would do as President about anything; if it ain't in there, it ain't in there.



See above. Do your homework. For more background, see here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/lincoln-arch.html

1) South Carolina seceded on Dec. 20th, 1960, before Lincoln took office. My point was that Lincoln faced a divided Union before he took office. The secession was pre-emptive based upon assumptions about what Lincoln would do as President.

2) My statement: "The fact that the Civil War was really fought to preserve the Union only serves to show that Ron Paul does not have his facts straight."

You misunderstood. I was saying that this exerpt from Harper's Weekley does not vindicate Ron Paul's statement:

"This war is prosecuted for the maintenance of the Union and of the indivisible nationality of the United States. It is not, as foreigners suppose, a war for tariffs, or on account of slavery. The United States Government has no other object in view than the assertion of its authority over the whole of its dominion, and the practical refutation of the subversive doctrines of secession and State sovereignty."


3) I think its pretty arrogant of you to call me a "newcomer", as if an individual's support of Dr. Paul begins at the point in time when they register on this forum.

4) In 1869 in the case Texas v. White, the U.S. Supreme Court declared secession unconstitutional.