Donahue

[Steve]

Originally posted by Tonio
...they convinced generations of Americans that slavery had little to do with the "Lost Cause."

That was my original point. The cause of the Civil War will be interpreted by each person based upon their own point of view.
What else is new?

 

[MGKrebs]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Besides, AGAIN, Pat Buchanan isn't an elected official or even an appointed one. He's just an ordinary citizen. So I'm not going to hold him to the same standard that I would, say, a Senate Majority Leader.

Sorry to have wasted your time.

 

[Heretic]

I never bought that the civil war was over slavery for the following reasons.

1) Maryland stayed in the union and yet it still had slaves.

2) Lincoln said he would keep slavery if it ment preserving the union

3) the final reason is that I dont think you could find enough people then (even in the north) willing to die for the freedom of a black man, heck after the war they sure didnt treat them very good

In my opinion the civil war was nothing more than a huge pissing contest like Democrats vs Republicans today, it just got out of hand.

 

[Tonio]

Originally posted by Heretic
I never bought that the civil war was over slavery for the following reasons.

1) Maryland stayed in the union and yet it still had slaves.

2) Lincoln said he would keep slavery if it ment preserving the union

3) the final reason is that I dont think you could find enough people then (even in the north) willing to die for the freedom of a black man, heck after the war they sure didnt treat them very good

In my opinion the civil war was nothing more than a huge pissing contest like Democrats vs Republicans today, it just got out of hand.

Well, the war broke out because the South wanted to secede and the North said no. But the South seceded because the Republicans opposed slavery. In 1860, these states vowed to secede if Northern voters elected Lincoln, and they kept their word. So in the beginning, the Southern generals were fighting to preserve slavery and the Northern generals were fighting to preserve the Union.

True, border states like Missouri and Maryland did not secede, even though those states had slavery. That was mostly because citizens of those states were bitterly divided over secession.

In Maryland's case, I recall reading that that federal troops prevented the legislature from even voting to secede, for fear that D.C. would be isolated from the rest of the North. I'll get more details on that. I know that the editor of the St. Mary's Beacon was jailed for publishing pro-Southern editorials.

 

[demsformd]

I just cannot believe that you conservatives would stoop so low as to defending the positions of Buchannan. I am an ardent Democrat but would never defend comments from Jackson, Sharpton, or any other person that spoke wrongly. If you remember I said that Jackson was an embarassment to the party. Buchannan is an embarassment to the GOP and the conservative ideology. So all of those comments were taken out of context huh? Did not know that that could occur so often.

 

[Heretic]

Don't get me wrong I think slavery was a contributing factor but I also believe that saying slavery was the cause of the civil was is a gross over simplification. There was alot of resentment over the north having more votes in congress and the south with its economy being so different from the norths required different economic treatment that it never got. Couple that with a completely different culture and people fearful of what would happen to them if they didnt have greater control their own destiny and it was an explosion waiting to happen.

 

[demsformd]

I think that Heretic is right on this one but slavery was an integral component of the Civil War. It was the basis of the southern economy and culture, which was also provided as reasons for the conflict. So it is safe to say IMHO that slavery was the largest factor in the incitment of the war.

 

[Frank]

Originally posted by Heretic
2) Lincoln said he would keep slavery if it ment preserving the union

Except that if you'd read the Horace Greeley letter that comes from, and Lincoln's MANY remarks on slavery - you would know that he considered slavery to be one of the worst things ever perpetrated by man - BUT - it was NOT his job as chief executive to make the decision to abolish slavery, or in any way use his office as a means of forcing his opinion on the matter. He did not feel it was HIS call to make. It was the citizens of the United States. (This was one of many popular approaches to the slavery problem, dating back to Constitutional times - preach vigorously against it, and popular opinion will force it to die. Unfortunately, not only did it NOT die, but it looked like it would be *expanding* across the continent).

HOWEVER - Lincoln DID believe that it *was* his job as chief executive to preserve the Union. To that end, that was the extent of his sentiment on the matter. Try to remember, he was *elected* as an abolitionist, and his election was one of the more significant reasons the war began in the first place. The war began between the time of his election and his inauguration. They knew a man who despised slavery was taking office.

I have to admit, were I in his shoes, I don't know how I would deal with the issues. I don't know how I could separate what I thought was right to do, and what I thought the law, and my oath of office required or did not permit me to do.

 

[Steve]

Well put Frank...

Lincoln was in no way a 'defender of the slave'. He was doing his part to keep the Union together. Which brings me back to my previous points: the Civil War was not fought over slavery; all Union politicians were covering thier arses; and nothing changed for the black man/woman for another century.

True story...

 

[Frank]

I'd still say that it *was* fought over slavery - the rest is just word games. If there had *never* been slavery, there never would have been a war. The south did not break away until the threat to ending slavery was clear. I'd only say that the Union fought the south to undo the breakaway - but it happened over slavery.

If the Constitutional convention had declared it wrong from the start, there'd be two nations where today we have one - the southern states refused to end slavery under any situation, and the framers of the Constitution knew this. They tiptoed all around the 800 lb gorilla of slavery, because they knew the fledgling nation wouldn't survive a debate on the matter - most revolutions are followed by civil wars.

There's an interesting discussion of this in "The Founding Brothers". It's a great read, in any case.

 

[Steve]

Interesting.

The Constitutional Congress (the Founding Fathers) were circa 1774. The Civil War was 1861-1865, Another 100 years!

The Founding Fathers did not deal with slavery. They dealt with forming a Country, without British interference. It was the South that continued to accept the influx of African slaves, to support their agrarian lifestyle that led to the 'issue'.

In 1776, the big issue was to get rid of the British, not "how shall we deal with the slave issue".

The Constitutional Congress wa oblivious to this nuance of the times. That's why they said "All men are created equal."

It was later generations that interpreted what measured up to "a man".

 

[Frank]

No - *Constitutional* Congress - the British had been defeated - circa 1789 - they were forming the backbone and laws and principles of a new nation - and the issue of slavery and whether or not it would exist in the new republic was *very* much an issue. Anti-slavery groups were broadly petitioning the fledgling government to abolish it once and for all, because if we were to base the new nation on a principle of equality, we had to extend it to all men. And it proved to be a tender spot for those framing the new Constitution, because they knew they could NOT outlaw it if they wanted the keep the southern states in the Union, *especially* Virginia, the wealthiest state. They had war debts to pay, and the nation could not afford to be broken up.

So what did they do? In the final document, they kept quiet about it.

It was a very big issue for at least the next 20 years, through the War of 1812, with groups actively trying to shut it down, such as the Quakers in PA. It was just inconceivable to the Americans that if we were eliminating royalty, aristocracy, and all the trappings of station and class - why did we still cling to slavery? When it became obvious that the South would NOT relinquish slavery - the efforts of the anti-slavery groups appeared similarly to those of today's anti-abortion crowd - if they can't change the LAWS, maybe they can influence public opinion, although they were always trying to influence laws.

Check it out - the anti-slavery movement is an interesting read - and there were those at the time of Washington who predicted civil war, if the issue didn't get resolved.

 

[Tonio]

Thanks for your thoughts, Frank. I'll add that Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence had language condemining slavery. The Continental Congress deleted this passage, because of objections from the Southern colonies:

He (George III) has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidels powers, is the warfare of the Christian king of Great Britain. He has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce determining to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.