What basis did the North have for attacking the South?

Greed.

 

The north justified attacking the south because the south fired on the north at Fort Sumpter. The south believed they had the right to secede from the union and the north, more particularly Lincoln, believed that they did not. Since they disagreed, they fought over the issue in a bloody civil war. Whether the north won the argument over succession in the intellectual sense can be debated. However, they won the argument through means of physical force when they won the war. Unless you want to fight it again, that's the way it is. As for Lincoln, if you want to understand Lincoln's frame of mind and why he chose to fight, read the Gettysburg Address. It is Lincoln's argument for the justness of the war. A good book--actually a great book on the subject of the meaning of the Gettysburg Address is Gary Wills' Lincoln at Gettysburg

 

An second cause of the war was the problem of slavery. Because of the war, millions of people who were treated and bred like livestock were freed. It took another century and a half to make racism sufficiently disreputatble that even racists now deny being racists.

But one has to conclude that the destruction of the institution of slavery was certainly a good thing.

 

As a result of the war and the effects of the Emancipation Proclamation (not the document itself), Congress officially freed all slaves in the United States in the 13th Amendment. Congress made them (and everyone else) citizens of the United States (in a federal sense) in the 14th Amendment, giving all of us the protection of the Bill of Rights.

But to say slavery was a major cause of the war is a little bit to simple. Certainly slavery was very controversial and the abolitionists agitated hard to free slaves, but the Union tolerated slavery within its borders (Kentucky, Delaware, Maryland and Missouri were slave states) and the Union army used slaves to mine saltpeter for gunpowder during the war between the states. Only later in the war did slavery become the "noble cause" when Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation that only freed slaves in the states that were in rebellion that were not controlled by Union forces. The Proclamation took great pains to ensure that the Union would not actually free any slaves under their control.

Absolutely. The fact that our nation still practiced slavery less than 150 years ago is a great stain upon this nation's history.

 

Should we declare war on every nation today which still practices any form of slavery?

For the constitutionality of secession, refer to U.S. Constitution Amendment 10: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

That says states do have the right to secede because that power has not been prohibited to them. I am aware of the White v. Texas SC ruling of 1869 which said states cannot secede, but this seems to be based on a legal fiction regarded as necessary at the time-- otherwise, the Union had no just cause for the recent war and the continuing occupation {'Reconstruction'}.

 

Ironic, isn't it, that the South gets all the blame for Slavery and a Civil War was fought over it? Yet, it never gets mentioned that blacks in Africa were selling blacks into slavery which is how they ended up in the US. It was African blacks selling African blacks.

And the institution of slavery was destroyed only in the US, but has continued on through the decades and continues today.

http://www.afrol.com/News/child003_child_labour.htm



Just thought I'd remind everyone of the REAL FACTS regarding slavery, not just the usual rhetoric.

 

Excelent post ChristianCynic

 

Guess which flag flew on those slave ships to America?! And yet, historically ignorant people want to do away with the Confederate Flag!

Slavery was NOT an issue in the War for Southern Independence!

 

Nevertheless, the war put an end to slavery for millions of people. If you could today put an end to the practice of slavery in Sudan, would you not do it?

So why was it a bad thing that slavery ended for millions of Americans?

Or was something more important than freedom for them? What would that have been?

 

And once one get's into historical legalities, you might want to know what the Indians thought about that.

As you may know, the Cherokees had a Supreme Court ruling in their favor against dispossesing them of their lands in the east. It was simply ignored by President Jackson.

It was a nasty war. But we won. And it's a good thing.

 

Galatian, I take it that you are definitely a misplaced YANKEE?! And just how do you figure that the North AGGRESSIVELY taking OVER the South was a GOOD THING?!?!

The South was NOT trying to take over the North! We just wanted to be left alone and be seperate. Oh, but those greedy Yankees would have none of that, would they?!

The South went from self-sufficiency to dependency. Yet, you say it was a good thing that the North won. HOGWASH!!

 

Slavery would have ended regardless. The Industrial revolution guaranteed that. No one can say for sure it was good the USA won. Lincoln abused the Constitution, increased Federalism and maked the turning way from Jefferson view for Hamilton's centralized view that has plagued this country since 1865. Northern Reconstruction 1865-77 which raped the south laid the seeds of Racial hatred and resentment that exists to this day.

There is a new book out on Lincoln by Dr. Thomas J. Dilorenzo entitled, The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War. CSPAN has had Dilorenzo on recently. Here is a review at Amazon.com, and the link,

[ August 26, 2002, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: Kiffin ]

 

Galatian, I take it that you are definitely a misplaced YANKEE?! And just how do you figure that the North AGGRESSIVELY taking OVER the South was a GOOD THING?!?!

The South was NOT trying to take over the North! We just wanted to be left alone and be seperate. Oh, but those greedy Yankees would have none of that, would they?!

The South went from self-sufficiency to dependency. Yet, you say it was a good thing that the North won. HOGWASH!! </font>[/QUOTE]Yeah, like I said....GREED!

(Probably political motives involved, too.)

God Bless Dixie!

 

Fundamentally, the secession movement was financed and promoted by the few who actually had something to gain from continuing slavery.

In fact, the North was doing very well with the South mired in slavery. It kept the mass of southern whites poor and kept industry from being established. So the north had a lack of competition, and cheap raw materials in the South.

Slavery made the South poor and vulnerable. When the southern states rebelled, they had one steel mill of consequence. They could concentrate on making cannon or rail and rolling stock, but not both. They chose cannon.

And that meant that supply lines would be always constricted.

The wealthy in the North were not very interested in a war with the South. Bad business. Like going to war with a colony.

 

The only reason slavery figured into the Civil war at all was economics. The Underground Railroad had already been operating for quite some time and the work to free the slaves was ongoing. The South wanted to keep them because that is the only way the plantations were economically possible. The North, being primarily industrial, did not need the slaves and so were able to take the 'moral high ground' due to LACK of economic necessity. There were a good many northerners, however, more than willing to return the runaway slaves for the rewards offered! It was not until the slaves reached Canada that they knew for sure they were safe.

The root of the American Civil War was the same as the root of most wars -- money. A split between the north and the south would have eventually bankrupted them both, actually. Slavery presented an emotional call to war and secession presented a patriotic one, but the root of them both was money.

Galatian asked what would have been better than freeing the slaves. Freeing them gradually, actually, after they had been GIVEN the education, training, and land to make it on their own. Instead we created in one year a poverty-striken lower class that was about 85% black and it is THAT, not slavery, which they have had to fight off to this day. Slavery sounds better because it is one word, but it was not freedom that helped them nearly as much as the courtesy of education and training and a head start economically would have. But there is no simple word for that...