The Civil War was about slavery, not economics

It was the reason.

How do we know this? Because if the North had been pro-slavery, there would have been no war.

It all begins and ends with slavery. There were no other issues that would have been remotely abrasive enough to trigger a civil war.

 

Because they didn't plan on LOSING the war and having to provide a bogus paper trail to cover their heinies.

 

Here we go again. As if Democrats were innocent bystanders in the 2008 banking debacle. Just ask Barney Frank, he's recanted and blamed the 2007 Democrat majority, Andrew Cuomo, Freddie and Fanny, and the politicians that forced banks give mortgages to unqualified buyers and then to use mortgages as collateral. But that's okay what's your excuse for doubling the debt under Obama? Oh, Oh, Oh, I know Bush. Not Solyndra, the Stimulus(porkulus), GM bailout, Cash for Clunkers. Should I go on and on and on all the squandered funds and the destruction of America's economy and the middle class.

 

It was about states right. What rights? Why the right to own slaves of course.

 

Actually, you didn't prove a thing. Every single state document related to secession specifically mentioned slavery. Slavery was written into the Consittution of the CSA.

You cannot pretend that the war was about economics and then try to ignore the basis for the entire southern ecomomy and discout the South's single largest financial asset: Slaves.

 

LOL! I am not pretending anything. The OP mentioned slavery and "racism"....race had little to nothing to do with slavery.

 

Again, you're talking about two different things. You can make an argument that slavery was a greater or lesser part of why the south seceded, but it definitely had nothing to do with the war itself. Those are two separate events.

Regardless, if you know the history, tariffs were an issue that was so abrasive, as South Carolina had threatened to secede in the 1830s over the issue of tariffs. Taxes were a big part of why the colonies seceded from the UK in the first place. To say that taxation wasn't "abrasive enough" to cause secession is to ignore the history of the founding of the US!

 

The first quote in the OP upends your attempt to dodge.

 

The southern states reasons for secession had nothing to do with the war. You are talking about two separate events. The war was about Lincoln's desire to conquer the south and add that territory back to the US. He said so himself multiple times that it nothing to do with slavery and that if he could "save the Union" without freeing any slaves he would do so.

 

The main problem with your assertion is "nothing else." Quite simply put, secession was largely based on the issue of slavery (although not entirely) - the Civil War was fought because the right of secession was rejected by the federal government.

But there were, of course, other issues involved, many of which were related to slavery, but would have been issues even if they weren't.

As far as the racist sentiments in declarations of the causes of secession - how about U.S. history post-Civil War? It's completely ridden with slavery, far from exclusive to the South. In WWI our allies sought troops, but Pershing was unwilling to send unready troops into action - so he sent blacks, who were put into the most dangerous fighting - a bit of a turnaround form the Union Civil War racism, when blacks were deliberately kept out of combat, also because of racism. In WW2, the Air Force and Marines turned away all blacks, the Navy only accepted blacks in food services, and the Army only had five black officers. [this is not including the Navy's Golden Thirteen, who were not commissioned officers] American black sodliers were even made to give up their seats for Nazi prisoners. So let's keep things in perspective when we talk about the racism in the 1860 South.

 

Pretending the secession and the war are two different things is about as silly as you can get! Of course, we've had no end of these sort of rationalizations since the shootings in Charleston.

Secession made war inevitable. The South underlined the point by firing the first shots.

Most of the secession documents AND the Confederate Consitution specifically mention slavery. And since slaves were by far the largest asset the South held, pretendting that it was about economics begs the issue.

Your claim about Lincoln's propoganda regarding attaching the issue of slavery to the war to keep the Europeans out is just as silly.

Brazil did not abolish slavery until 1867, and that did not perclude any European nation from doing business there.

The South could only prevail under two conditions, both of which had to be fulfilled. One, they had to win and consolidate a quick military victory. Second, they had to get substantial financial help and or military help from Britain, the only Europeans power with any interest. England was the market for half of the South's exports, so the faint hope existed that the British might support the South as a way of weakening the north, and securing their source of raw materials.

The South did score a quick win at Manassas, but was unable to make the most of it, and the Union remained secure and in tact. The slaughter at Antietam would ultimate seal its fate.

Britain, for its part, started looking for a secure source of cotton within the Empire. It found two. Egypt and India. One the war was undway, the South lost half the market for its principal export and never got it back.

The Civil War was fought to preserve the Union. The Supreme Court had ruled against Calhoun and his secession ideas well before 1861.

The South, by seceeding and taking the risk of engulfing the nation in civil war, doomed itself economically for a century.

With no industry, very little hard cash, and an economy almost totally dependent on its enemy, the South never had a chance.

It is worth acknowledging the valiant efforts, bravery, and brilliance of the Confederacy's armies and its generals. Grant, McLellan, and Longstreet were butchers by comparison.

Yet, Rhett Butler surmised the fate of the South early on in Gone With the Wind, and the myth of the old south lives on as a romatic notion.

One could forgive the leaders of the War of Southern Secession for feeling the way they did at the outset. There had never before in history been a war in which industrial might played a deciding factor. War were fought between nations and armies, and resources played a role.

But the Civil War was the first war of the industrial age. The proud Confederates who marched into the maw of iron, railroads and kerosene, had no idea (and no reason to understand) what they were up against.

Recall that the South invented the ironclad, the quintissential weapon of 19th century naval warfare. But, recall also, that they did it by reclaiming a Northern steam frigate (something they did not have the technology to build) and building an iron fortress on top of it with rails ripped up from the Norfolk and Western Railroad. Recall that this work of industrial cannibalism occurred in March of 1862, when the war was hardly a year on, and you can see what the odd really were.

The war, call it the Civil War, the War of Southern Secession, the War between the States, etc, is the enduring tragedy of American history. Clearly, it colors political discussion to this very day.

I hope you've been to Gettysburg. Every American should. On Lookout Mountain, I have relatives whose names appear on monuments on both sides of the lines.

And that, more than anything else, is the legacy of tragedy that the war was, and still is.

 

Give me an example of an issue that the South was ready to go to war with that had no relation to slavery.

That might explain South Carolina specifically. Not the South as a whole.

 

Already done. You're 15 decades and a few hundred thousand dead people late. By the way slavery was what the economics of the Old South was utterly dependent upon. The invention of the tractor would have changed that in any case. There is no such thing as passive racism save as it exists in the modern welfare state which destroys people as surely as slavery. By the way the one thing that strikes me about those quotes is that the whole state as you attributed it did not say that one slaveholder living in that state did and to my mind proves the old dictum that owning a slave far more dehumanizing thatn being a slave for owning a slave seems invariably over time to change even the most decent of men into monsters.

 

Of course the secession and war are two separate things. It's silly to claim otherwise. Seceding is not an act of war any more than a divorce is an assault and battery.

Yes, the issue of slavery was part of why the southern states seceded. But that's not why Lincoln fought the war to bring them back under federal control. Lincoln could have simply let them secede, negotiate for compensation for federal lands that were in the southern states, and been done. But he didn't. The southern states sent emissaries to DC to negotiate but they were refused a hearing by Lincoln.

And regarding Brazil, you're missing the point. The question wasn't whether Europe would refuse to trade with the South, but whether they would join a war on the southern side.

 

The South had no choice about going to war, they were invaded by Lincoln's army. And I'm not saying that slavery was not part of why they seceded. It certainly was. But it was one of many reasons and not the sole reason. My question for you is do you understand why tariffs hurt the southern states and benefited the northern states?

 

Really? Only a small minority of southern whites owned slaves (slaves were very expensive). Seems your statement is a bit of hyperbole.

 

Half the Souths population was slaves.

 

Slavery was obviously the primary reason for secession, as evidenced by the official declarations by seceding states. It's disingenuous to claim that slavery was just one of many reasons.

 

The first shot was not fired by Lincoln's army. The South started the war in the literal sense.

Also, you don't need to invade what is already yours. The southern states were not separate nations. The Federal government had authority over them. This was later confirmed by the Supreme Court. Unilateral secession was never a right the states possessed. By joining the US, they became a part of an indivisible union.

They would not have seceded over tariffs. Even speaking on economics alone, slavery had a FAR greater impact on their economy than those stupid tariffs did.

 

Its the ablution of slavery that your speaking of and abolishing it covers far more than just enslaving people it is an economic way of life. The north didnt need to import things because they had all the factories while the south had to import or export almost everything and was being hit with all the tariffs.Saying it was all about slavery is too simplistic and also disingenuous

 

Slavery was the primary reason. The seceding states said so, they didn't say it was about tariffs. The states seceded to preserve the practice of holding black people as slaves with no rights. There is no way to spin that in a positive light.

 

Of course they had the right to secede. The states signed a contract called the Constitution. All principles of law and reason have shown that contracts are not permanently binding agreements that can never be changed or ended. But whether they had the legal right to secede or not, they certainly seceded in fact. And the Supreme Court is hardly an impressive opinion on the matter, considering you chose the Supreme Court of the Union to cite! You might as well ask the Pope which religion he thinks is the best.

And you seem to be making the mistake of treating the south as if it were not full of individuals but instead one giant collective. The issue of slavery only affected a small minority of the (voting) individuals while the issue of tariffs affected almost everyone. Once again, I ask, do you understand why tariffs hurt the southern states and benefited the northern states?

 

Does that actually make sense? That poor white farmers who have to compete against wealthy slave owners and their "free" laborers would vote to secede in order to support their rich neighbors? Remember, only a small minority of people actually owned slaves, and while they might have been the wealthy elite (who would be in a position to write such declarations) they cannot outvote the non-slave owning population. Why did the rest of the voters agree to secede if it's only to protect slavery? And why secede in the first place if slavery is what they were all about. After all, by seceding, the northern states would no longer be bound by the Fugitive Slave Act to return runaway slaves to what would be another country. It's a lot easier to get to Indiana or Pennsylvania than all the way to Canada.

 

Once again, I will repeat that there was no right of secession.

There was no reasonable expectation that the United States would simply allow itself to break up and negotiate for compensation of Federal lands, particularly when it would have been obvious to anyone that the South had not way of paying such compensation.

The secession argument came up in the 1830's when South Carolina tried to unilaterally outlaw the Federal tarrif. Andrew Jackson made it very clear what the Federal response would be:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States#South_Carolina

My point regarding Brazil stands. There was no economic or political advantage to backing the Confederate states over the Union. It is true that Lincoln issued a preliminary Emancipation Proclamation which had the effect of solidifying the credibility of the Union government, as well as underlining the significance of the North's strategic victory at Antietam.

None the less, it quickly became apparant that there was little benefit in supporting the South. It was a planation economy, entirely dependent on the export of raw materials. The British Empire had alternate sources for the South's product, and developed those resources.

Of course, Southern emmisaries were refused an audience. Granting it would have been tantamount to recognition, which the Union was not about to even consider.

- - - Updated - - -

You're the one not making sense here. Name the states that held referendums on secession.

 

Legally, they did not. The Supreme Court already said so, and they have the final say. There is no explicitly right to secession defined anywhere in the Constitution.

You can disagree with the courts decisions, but legally, their decision is binding. Their opinion supersedes yours in our system.

In this context it does not matter. The results are the same either way.

Slavery was fundamental to the southern economy and culture in a way the imposition of tariffs were not. I understand your argument, I just don't agree with it. Repeating your questions will not change my position.