Causes of the US Civil War

[Vraith]

Therefore, I don't understand why you are presenting this argument to me. Your reductionist objection of individual homes secedeing from their nations is non-sensical. The retained power of secession only works in the US because States are sovreigns (counties and municipaities are not) and because of the retained powers clause of the 10th amendment States retain those powers not expressly denied to them.

heh...presenting it to you cuz you defend it most often and most firmly.
It ain't no fun [and unlikely to result in anything new being mentioned] to present anything to squishy people.

BUT: the thing you cite...does NOT say ONLY the states retain such, it also mentions the people. Therefore, those people [counties, municipalities, individuals] retains those powers...I mean the point isn't that States are sovereign...States are just middle-men Gov'ts...the PEOPLE are sovereign, too. If one gov't, the one with the most lawyers, guns, and money, [and the one with the decisive power short of revolution] is forbidden from certain actions, the damn Minor Leagues sure don't get to just claim it.

And States, in general, have tried to limit not expand.


Hashi: yea, I guess I'm in a mood...

[Avatar]

There would never have been a civil war if some fuckwads with a shitpile of money
And land,
and power,
didn't think they were ENTITLED to own other people..

They could have carried on owning people if they had been willing not to secede though. That's where that argument suffers, for me. Not saying it wasn't a contributing factor. Am saying it was not the only factor. Maybe not even the most important factor.

--A

[SerScot]

Vraith,

No. The "People" were never sovereign in the way the States were. If the People were sovereign as you suggest a general plebicite would have been necessary to ratify the Constitution. There was no general plebicite. The Constitution was ratified State by State and only had force and effect in a given State after ratification, See U.S. Const. Art. VII. Because States, not the people, held the express power of ratification States also had the power to choose not to ratify. Rhode Island chose not to ratify for almost two years after the Constitution had force and effect in the other 12 States. Therefore, the power to choose to recind ratification also lay with the States as it was not denied to the States.

There is nothing in the Constitution that implies any other political entity possesses the soverignty the States possess in holding thenpower of ratification.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

If one gov't, the one with the most lawyers, guns, and money, [and the one with the decisive power short of revolution] is forbidden from certain actions, the damn Minor Leagues sure don't get to just claim it.

Hashi: yea, I guess I'm in a mood...

Driver's license? The Federal Government has no power over this particular piece of plastic, only the States do. Every power not expressly granted to some branch of the Federal Government defaults to the States; therefore, if some new power is discovered next week its first expression will be found with the States rather than the Federal Government.

I have been there, myself, many times. I wasn't a rebuke, merely a friendly jab. I always prefer people to speak their minds freely, even if perjoratives or expletives need to be used.

[Orlion]

There would never have been a civil war if some fuckwads with a shitpile of money
And land,
and power,
didn't think they were ENTITLED to own other people..

They could have carried on owning people if they had been willing not to secede though. That's where that argument suffers, for me. Not saying it wasn't a contributing factor. Am saying it was not the only factor. Maybe not even the most important factor.

--A

Slavery was a factor, but it'd be better to explain it as "the expansion of slavery" coupled with northern projects like the Underground Railroad. Essentially, these people could not expand their operations into new territories or feared that if they did, an allocation of voters to that territory would make slavery illegal. This would (potentially) free the slaves in that territory or force them to move the slaves back to Southern states, leading to the ever increasing population disparity between white and black people. Essentially, the South feared that:
1) Slavery would eventually be abolished, contrary to what the gummint said. This is classic not trusting the government that happens to this day. Abolishment of slavery would harm their economies since they had not thought about sharecropping yet and:

2) Feared a racial uprising. This was actually a main reason given in many secession conferences. Couple this with Northern activists actually trying to foment a slave uprising, and there you go.

I think, as a result, that slavery was THE cause of the US civil war. All the other economic and state's rights reasons would not have existed if slavery was not a problem. Sure, to say it was a war to free the slaves is ridiculous. Emancipation was a tactic used against the South, not an ideal fought for. But, slavery was the principle cause.

[SerScot]

Orlion,

To a reductionist Slavery was the cause of the American Civil War. However, there is a great deal of nuance and complexity within that reductionist statement.

[Orlion]

Orlion,

To a reductionist Slavery was the cause of the American Civil War. However, there is a great deal of nuance and complexity within that reductionist statement.

Seriously, take slavery out of the equation and there is no cause for the Civil war, since all the other "reasons" depend on there being slavery. Whatever aspect of the causes; political, economic, moral,; none of those make sense if one denies slavery's prominent role.

So yes, Slavery was the cause... but without the nuances, etc. nobody will know exactly why it was the cause... which then leads to an interesting conversation:

Normal Person: The cause of the US Civil War was Slavery!

Me: No, you're wrong. The cause was Slavery.

Edited to add: So I imagine we are in some agreement.

[Avatar]

“I view the [Emancipation Proclamation] as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion. I will also concede that emancipation would help us in Europe, and convince them that we are incited by something more than ambition.”

--A

[peter]

At the risk of being contentious can I briefly recall an American commentator I heard on satelite link to the Chanell 4 news following the shocking school massacre not so long ago. He stated the view that the ongoing fight between the pro-gun lobby and anti was in effect no more than the continuation of the civil-war between the liberal North and East of the USA and the still ultra coservative South and West. He said in effect the USA was still two countries at heart and the divisions of the civil war remain absolutely active to this very day. I had never encountered this (to me) shocking idea before having thought (and been taught) that the absolute tragedy that was the civil war was long dead and buried.

Sorry it's a bit off topic guys but having a few people clearly interested in the civil war gathered it seemed a good place to canvas a few oppinions to help me make sense of this odd commentry.

(Mods by all means move/delete if you think it is too outside the scope of the thread and accept my apologies in advance)

[Avatar]

It's an interesting question. I mean, we know that the legacy of slavery and disenfranchisement remains a factor, for some people at least. It wouldn't surprise me if the Civil War was the same, again for some anyway.

Well, Americans? Any truth to the speculation? (Not necessarily gun-specific btw. Just in general?)

--A

[SerScot]

Peter,

Sorry for the delay but you should take a look at Colin Woodward's book American Nations in which he argues there are 11 different culturally identifiable nations in North America. That those nations ally with each other and that they are why we have such a division of views about things like firearm ownership and the appropriate level of government regulation.

[peter]

Peter,

Sorry for the delay but you should take a look at Colin Woodward's book American Nations in which he argues there are 11 different culturally identifiable nations in North America. That those nations ally with each other and that they are why we have such a division of views about things like firearm ownership and the appropriate level of government regulation.

Wow - that's a lot of potential difference and potential for trouble as well. We in the UK are getting used to the idea that we could in the not so distant future fragment back into 'the old countries'; could the same really happen in the US too? [Am just starting Oliver Stones book 'The Untold history of the United States'. Will try to acess a copy of Woodwards book to follow - could be an interesting juxtaposition!]

[Avatar]

It's theoretically possible, but I don't think it is particularly likely. Not prior to some catastrophic event, anyway.

--A

[peter]

What, like Hilary Clinton getting the Democratic nomination you mean?

[SerScot]

Peter,

Right now I'd say Hillary Clinton is the most likely person to win the Presidency in 2016.

[peter]

Me to SerScot, me to.