"Was the Civil War Inevitable?" Topic

All of the 'causes' of the Civil War boil down to one-slavery. If slavery had been abolished as Jefferson and others wanted in the Declaration of Independence, the Civil War then would not have happened.

And Dn J is right; there were NUMEROUS secession plots and debates and nullifications, as many or more from the north as from the south.

But all of them went through bilateral channels or backed down and none of them used unilateral tactics. Which means:

A. Far from being serious about seceding, these cabals all believed this was more a leveraging tactic to get what they want rather than a serious play for secession.

B. All those dropped secession challenges and the court decisions around "Union" should've served as a warning to the CSA that unilateral secession was less OK not more so.

Tariffs were immensely controversial, as was the War of 1812, both with sectional elements.

Tariffs for the South weren't really an issue by the time of the ACW because a Southerner in Congress was getting tariffs more beneficial to Southerners.

Also, there is always controversy, that's not the question, the question is why the CSA thought they had the unilateral right to declare themselves independent?

Their arguments were self serving and weak and do not stand the scrutiny of either logic or law.

There was widespread condemnation of slavery in the south prior to 1830 or so.

I have a sneaking suspicion a lot of these people in the South had "accidents".

Certainly something more might have come of this, had God willed it. What happened is far from what HAD to happen.

Then as now, as long as there are those who conflate desire with law and believe that compromise means they always get their way, events like the ACW are destined to reoccur.

Kevin, we very nearly had civil wars in the 1830s, over tariffs and Indian policy. Your "if/then" is no doubt correct, but also politically impossible; the choice was union with slavery or disunion. Plus, our hindsight, 20/20 or better, elevates slavery far above where most Americans at the time regarded it.

If you insist on a single cause, ignoring the historical principle of multiple causation, may I suggest that human nature is it?

Charge, you don't know enough history to make those generalizations, many of which are inaccurate.

What would have been a fair compromise, for both sides, to allow for an end of slavery to be declared? It would have to be equitable for both sides to not have led to war? To just declare the slaves are free, without fair compensation, would have ended in war. IMO

The South too, would have to believe they were equally involved in the process and not being coerced by Northern politicians and interests. Again otherwise war would occur. Many in the South had the same view about northern coercion, as the quote I posted from AP Hill espoused.

My point, just ending slavery by declaring all slaves are now free, would have ended in war.

Well, the real problem was not slavery but the existence in America of millions of African-descended people who few in either north or south were prepared to accept as equals. White superiority was an accepted "given." Had you lived back then you'd likely have accepted it as well. Achieving our present egalitarianism took centuries. So merely abolishing chattel slavery, while a good thing in itself, would have not fixed everything.

The first and biggest problem was the selling and buying of people for forced labor. Far cheaper and more humane to organize an emancipation with economic assistance to the South than to go to war, with leaders from both sides forming a coalition. Again, the war cost more than twice the monetary "value" of the slaves.

This would not have been easy. As doc says, racism would have been widespread north and south. But the freed slaves would still form a much needed labor pool and would be looking for work. Federal assistance for a proscribed period could have eased the transition. Plenty of difficulties to face. But again, we are not in the minds of people in those times.

An under-recognized aspect of the southern labor requirement was the need to MOVE workers every few years. Cotton and tobacco exhaust the soil. Post-war sharecropping etc prove the south COULD have survived economically with a different labor system, through industrialization etc, but they didn't know that.

Remember that the north -- even Lincoln in his first inaugural -- promised an ironclad (constitutional amendment) protection of slavery where it existed. But the cultural division was too deep. It was far from "all about slavery."

"All of the 'causes' of the Civil War boil down to one-slavery. If slavery had been abolished as Jefferson and others wanted in the Declaration of Independence, the Civil War then would not have happened."

Simply repeating the same thing over and over doesn't make it true. Please refute some of the arguments made above.

The cultural division revolved around slavery and the aristocratic lifestyle it provided the elites. Obviously slavery dominated the economy, conferred social status on owners and was accepted by most as the order of things in a society resistant to change. It was not acceptable to the South that slavery be prohibited in the evolving territories. As you say, new land was, like slaves, a vital commodity for businessmen and leaders.

Lincoln was trying first to save the USA. But he was well on the way to a deeper understanding by the time of his election. I go back to Catton, who came to see that slavery underlay everything. But the people of those times could not see it.

"A. Far from being serious about seceding, these cabals all believed this was more a leveraging tactic to get what they want rather than a serious play for secession."

Well, during the Nullification Crisis of 1832 both sides started raising troops with Jackson promising to send 50,000 troops to South Carolina. He also sent the people of SC a proclamation declaring nullification and secession to be illegal. That's far more than leverage.

"B. All those dropped secession challenges and the court decisions around "Union" should've served as a warning to the CSA that unilateral secession was less OK not more so."

I would argue that there was nothing 'unilateral' about secession in 1860. Thirteen states voted on it and 11 elected to leave the Union. Maryland wasn't given the chance to vote because the legislature was occupied by troops. The upper South, (North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas) rejected secession until Lincoln called for troops to prevent secession and Kentucky and Missouri never seceded.

"Also, there is always controversy, that's not the question, the question is why the CSA thought they had the unilateral right to declare themselves independent?

Their arguments were self serving and weak and do not stand the scrutiny of either logic or law."

Because as independent nations they agreed to enter the Union and felt they could leave it because they were still independent nations. As noted in other threads, Virginia specified when she ratified the Constitution that she retained the right to leave, as did other states. The reason there were no trials for treason after the war was because Lincoln and later Johnson, were told that the Supreme Court would not convict any Southern leaders of treason because secession was legal.

"I have a sneaking suspicion a lot of these people in the South had "accidents"."

That's just ridiculous. The South was not a modern Marxist dictatorship.

"Then as now, as long as there are those who conflate desire with law and believe that compromise means they always get their way, events like the ACW are destined to reoccur."

Too true.

"My point, just ending slavery by declaring all slaves are now free, would have ended in war."

Possibly because such a declaration would be illegal under the Constitution.

"The first and biggest problem was the selling and buying of people for forced labor."

Slavery was an accepted part of the human condition until the Enlightenment. The idea that it was wrong because people have individual rights took centuries to be accepted, and it's still not a given with everyone in the world today.

"Far cheaper and more humane to organize an emancipation with economic assistance to the South than to go to war, with leaders from both sides forming a coalition. Again, the war cost more than twice the monetary "value" of the slaves."

Hindsight is 20/20. As the Secession Crisis unfolded a Southern member of Congress, (can't remember who off the top of my head), gave a speech where he asserted that he would be able to clean up all the blood spilled by the southern states seceding with a handkerchief. The people involved had no idea what was coming. If they had then perhaps they might have reached an agreement, but I doubt it. Both sides were too entrenched.

"The cultural division revolved around slavery and the aristocratic lifestyle it provided the elites."

I think that's more the Hollywood, or at least dime-novel version of history. :-)

"Obviously slavery dominated the economy, conferred social status on owners and was accepted by most as the order of things in a society resistant to change. It was not acceptable to the South that slavery be prohibited in the evolving territories. As you say, new land was, like slaves, a vital commodity for businessmen and leaders."

Which leads to the one question which I always ask and haven't received a decent answer on yet; 'If everything was about slavery why is the US the only country that fought a civil war to end it?'

Dn J, yes, yes indeed.

Take a look at Grant's 2nd inaugural. He treated Reconstruction as done,and was more interested in reconciling the white south than in elevating the freedmen. And he saw the railroad and telegraph as essential in doing that, by restoring a NATIONAL economy and culture. By 1860 the north and south were two different cultures, two different societies, and the south saw independence from the north as equivalent to 1776. Slavery was certainly the first and largest factor in that, but very far from the only one.

President Grant addressed the nation in his Second Inaugural Address on March 4, 1873. The text of this speech is below.

"Fellow-Citizens:

Under Providence I have been called a second time to act as Executive over this great nation. It has been my endeavor in the past to maintain all the laws, and, so far as lay in my power, to act for the best interests of the whole people. My best efforts will be given in the same direction in the future, aided, I trust, by my four years' experience in the office.

When my first term of the office of Chief Executive began, the country had not recovered from the effects of a great internal revolution, and three of the former States of the Union had not been restored to their Federal relations.

It seemed to me wise that no new questions should be raised so long as that condition of affairs existed. Therefore the past four years, so far as I could control events, have been consumed in the effort to restore harmony, public credit, commerce, and all the arts of peace and progress.It is my firm conviction that the civilized world is tending toward republicanism, or government by the people through their chosen representatives, and that our own great Republic is destined to be the guiding star to all others.

Under our Republic we support an army less than that of any European power of any standing and a navy less than that of either of at least five of them. There could be no extension of territory on the continent which would call for an increase of this force, but rather might such extension enable us to diminish it.

The theory of government changes with general progress. Now that the telegraph is made available for communicating thought, together with rapid transit by steam, all parts of a continent are made contiguous for all purposes of government, and communication between the extreme limits of the country made easier than it was throughout the old thirteen States at the beginning of our national existence.

The effects of the late civil strife have been to free the slave and make him a citizen. Yet he is not possessed of the civil rights which citizenship should carry with it. This is wrong, and should be corrected. To this correction, I stand committed, so far as Executive influence can avail.

Social equality is not a subject to be legislated upon, nor shall I ask that anything be done to advance the social status of the colored man, except to give him a fair chance to develop what there is good in him, give him access to the schools, and when he travels let him feel assured that his conduct will regulate the treatment and fare he will receive.

The States lately at war with the General Government are now happily rehabilitated, and no Executive control is exercised in any one of them that would not be exercised in any other State under like circumstances.

In the first year of the past administration, the proposition came up for the admission of Santo Domingo as a Territory of the Union. It was not a question of my seeking, but was a proposition from the people of Santo Domingo, and which I entertained. I believe now, as I did then, that it was for the best interest of this country, for the people of Santo Domingo, and all concerned that the proposition should be received favorably. It was, however, rejected constitutionally, and therefore the subject was never brought up again by me.

In future, while I hold my present office, the subject of acquisition of territory must have the support of the people before I will recommend any proposition looking to such acquisition. I say here, however, that I do not share in the apprehension held by many as to the danger of governments becoming weakened and destroyed by reason of their extension of territory. Commerce, education, and rapid transit of thought and matter by telegraph and steam have changed all this. Rather do I believe that our Great Maker is preparing the world, in His own good time, to become one nation, speaking one language, and when armies and navies will be no longer required.

My efforts in the future will be directed to the restoration of good feeling between the different sections of our common country; to the restoration of our currency to a fixed value as compared with the world's standard of values--gold--and, if possible, to a par with it; to the construction of cheap routes of transit throughout the land, to the end that the products of all may find a market and leave a living remuneration to the producer; to the maintenance of friendly relations with all our neighbors and with distant nations; to the reestablishment of our commerce and share in the carrying trade upon the ocean; to the encouragement of such manufacturing industries as can be economically pursued in this country, to the end that the exports of home products and industries may pay for our imports--the only sure method of returning to and permanently maintaining a specie basis; to the elevation of labor; and, by a humane course, to bring the aborigines of the country under the benign influences of education and civilization. It is either this or war of extermination: Wars of extermination, engaged in by people pursuing commerce and all industrial pursuits, are expensive even against the weakest people, and are demoralizing and wicked. Our superiority of strength and advantages of civilization should make us lenient toward the Indian. The wrong inflicted upon him should be taken into account and the balance placed to his credit. The moral view of the question should be considered and the question asked, Can not the Indian be made a useful and productive member of society by proper teaching and treatment? If the effort is made in good faith, we will stand better before the civilized nations of the earth and in our own consciences for having made it.

All these things are not to be accomplished by one individual, but they will receive my support and such recommendations to Congress as will in my judgment best serve to carry them into effect. I beg your support and encouragement.

It has been, and is, my earnest desire to correct abuses that have grownup in the civil service of the country. To secure this reformation rules regulating methods of appointment and promotions were established and have been tried. My efforts for such reformation shall be continued to the best of my judgment. The spirit of the rules adopted will be maintained.

I acknowledge before this assemblage, representing, as it does, every section of our country, the obligation I am under to my countrymen for the great honor they have conferred on me by returning me to the highest office within their gift, and the further obligation resting on me to render tot hem the best services within my power. This I promise, looking forward with the greatest anxiety to the day when I shall be released from responsibilities that at times are almost overwhelming, and from which I have scarcely had a respite since the eventful firing upon Fort Sumter, in April, 1861, to the present day. My services were then tendered and accepted under the first call for troops growing out of that event.

I did not ask for place or position, and was entirely without influence or the acquaintance of persons of influence, but was resolved to perform my part in a struggle threatening the very existence of the nation. I performed a conscientious duty, without asking promotion or command, and without a revengeful feeling toward any section or individual.

Notwithstanding this, throughout the war, and from my candidacy for my present office in 1868 to the close of the last Presidential campaign,I have been the subject of abuse and slander scarcely ever equaled in political history, which to-day I feel that I can afford to disregard in view of your verdict, which I gratefully accept as my vindication."

You can separate out areas related to rights of states or individuals, but underneath these concerns is slavery. Culture, economics…..slavery.

This is not by way of judging southerners. I have repeatedly acknowledged hindsight here and the difficulty in reading peoples' minds in another era.

What are we to make of the Cornerstone Speech for example?

Or southerner newspapers and their disdain for northern laborers? I know I have read examples of this, but could not find one just now. The aristocratic society was real, not a Hollywood creation. For the poor while dirt farmer, it might be an aspirational part of society, or a source of resentment.

In any case, the various articles of secession are clear enough. Too entrenched to address slavery in any other way but war?

I think far too much is made of those articles of secession. They were written by the "fire-eaters" who represented one extreme end of southern opinion. Mnay opposed secession, and there were fervent Confederate patriots like the Chesnuts who despised slavery and rejoiced on its abolition. Those Articles should not be made to carry more weight than they can hold. Unless you want to give equal weight to Lincoln's early statements denying that the war was about slavery.

But the south WAS surely a feudal society, that is true enough. And important. But we egalitarians fail to understand it; we just don't think thta way anymore (for better and for worse).

I agree doc, this gets more at the reality of the times, I think. There were likely more moderates than we realize, same as today. IMO being a secession patriot while not supporting slavery does not really make much sense. If there were a lot of Chestnuts before the war, a deal could have been struck to end slavery perhaps.

And IMO far too much weight is given to Lincoln's remarks about slavery as his perspective changed and he evolved. He may seem to provide cover for some. But we cannot escape history, especially the Declaration.

Thanks for a very interesting and informative discussion.
As for:
"not sure what happened to Charles's head"
I believe it was sown back on after his execution and his body buried, with the head "attached" in St George's Chapel, Windsor.

Cheers Paul

Doc, Tort, reading the replies in the thread on Confederate monuments being removed at West Point currently in TMP, some responses in here and responses in other TMP threads on the Civil War. The hate is vehement and this is 2022. There is no compromise in those voices. "It's our way, or the highway!" "If you don't like it, well live with it, we're in charge and what we say, goes!"

Like I said, and this is 2022. How much worse was it in 1860? With attitudes like that, how would a compromise that appeased both sides ever be reached?

You are right 35th. I am talking history here, bear the south no ill will. We can not really know what they all were thinking on either side, but it is interesting to discuss.

Lee is a complex character. I think if he had taken command of the US forces as offered, he may have ended the war and been an American hero to all, may have eventually helped free the slaves, become President. His was a tragic life from the time he resigned, IMO.

The Chesnuts were right at the top of southern society. They were wealthy enough to own multiple plantations and many slaves. James ("Johnny") was Jeff Davis' military secretary, among other things, and Mary sewed with Mrs. Davis. Read her diary and it is clear she was closely acquainted with many prominent Confederates, generals and politicians.

I said: "A. Far from being serious about seceding, these cabals all believed this was more a leveraging tactic to get what they want rather than a serious play for secession."

Dn Jackson said: Well, during the Nullification Crisis of 1832 both sides started raising troops with Jackson promising to send 50,000 troops to South Carolina. He also sent the people of SC a proclamation declaring nullification and secession to be illegal. That's far more than leverage.

I'm not sure we are on the same page on what "leverage" is but although there was a lot of posturing, in the end, everyone backed down and a compromise was reached.

Also, let's try and keep things in context, doc was using this SC nullification as one proof that
unilateral secession was generally considered legal, except that SC didn't do it; they didn't do it at all and they didn't do it over tariffs. Instead they hashed it out democratically.

"My point, just ending slavery by declaring all slaves are now free, would have ended in war."

Possibly because such a declaration would be illegal under the Constitution.

Oh? How so?

dn Jackson: Which leads to the one question which I always ask and haven't received a decent answer on yet; 'If everything was about slavery why is the US the only country that fought a civil war to end it?'

Isn't the question its own answer? Alternatively because every other slave owning western country worked it out with their central government without violence?

I said: "I have a sneaking suspicion a lot of these people in the South had "accidents"."

That's just ridiculous. The South was not a modern Marxist dictatorship.

I'll see your "ridiculous" and raise you a "clueless"

The South considered abolitionism to be a threat that might stoke slave insurrection and it was mostly made illegal.

Also:

While abolitionists struggled in the North to change the attitudes of the White Northerner, no such efforts took place in the South, and as abolitionists grew in numbers in the North they were completely disappearing in the South. Southern state legislatures banned antislavery material. Southern hospitality for abolitionists was a rope with a noose or a whip. By the late 1830s there were no known abolitionists in the South, and northern abolitionists were seen committing acts of violence against the South.

link

So, not like a modern Marxist state; more like a proto-KKK one.

doc mcb said: I think far too much is made of those articles of secession. They were written by the "fire-eaters" who represented one extreme end of southern opinion.

By fire-eaters, you mean all the elected State CSA representatives?

Mnay opposed secession, and there were fervent Confederate patriots like the Chesnuts who despised slavery and rejoiced on its abolition. Those Articles should not be made to carry more weight than they can hold. Unless you want to give equal weight to Lincoln's early statements denying that the war was about slavery.

To carry more weight than they hold? Are you suggesting that the true reasons for secession were simply too "Hot" to mention anywhere?

Let me see if I follow you. When we talk about Lincoln, we talk about Lincoln and when we talk about the CSA, we also talk about Lincoln?

I said: "B. All those dropped secession challenges and the court decisions around "Union" should've served as a warning to the CSA that unilateral secession was less OK not more so."

dn Jackson said: I would argue that there was nothing 'unilateral' about secession in 1860. Thirteen states voted on it and 11 elected to leave the Union. Maryland wasn't given the chance to vote because the legislature was occupied by troops. The upper South, (North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas) rejected secession until Lincoln called for troops to prevent secession and Kentucky and Missouri never seceded.

That would be a very unfortunate argument to make. The CSA unilaterally seceded from the union, even they admit that.

I guess we're not on the same page about what "unilateral secession" means either.

"Also, there is always controversy, that's not the question, the question is why the CSA thought they had the unilateral right to declare themselves independent?

Their arguments were self serving and weak and do not stand the scrutiny of either logic or law."

Because as independent nations they agreed to enter the Union and felt they could leave it because they were still independent nations. As noted in other threads, Virginia specified when she ratified the Constitution that she retained the right to leave, as did other states.

I know Virginia did but it isnt clear that that meant anything. No other state snuck this provision in. Unless someone has proof otherwise? The CSA definitely maintained that they had the right to do this but:

A. Their arguments were weak and overly ornate as a form of rationalization. Jefferson Davis made himself the face of this argument and it has become the very heart of the Lost Cause. One has to be careful using legal arguments to justify extreme behavior; both witch burnings and just about everything the Third Reich did were also legal. Releasing yourself from morality, conscience and social responsibility based simply on something being legal is one way to both craft and justify evil.

B. The CSA didnt want to work it out democratically which by its very nature releases the other side from being bound by the decision.

C. Court law and National behavior gave no indication that a unilateral secession was legal which makes us wonder why the CSA thought such a huge move was legal and didnt think they needed to get a decision. The CSA seemingly wanted to channel the Spirit of '76, play down "revolution", peacefully secede when they didn't get their way and then, post unilaterally leaving, attempt to justify secession democratically. It is too cute and contrived to pass the sniff test.

D. Incidentally, this over concern with Slavery/CSA legality is another moral flaw. These things were only legal to the extent that the South made sure they were legal. The entire reason for the CSA's unilateral secession is that they felt their ability to keep what they wanted legal was fading.

The reason there were no trials for treason after the war was because Lincoln and later Johnson, were told that the Supreme Court would not convict any Southern leaders of treason because secession was legal.

Well, considering Lincoln was assassinated a week after Lee's surrender, Lincoln didn't get a chance to oversee any prosecutions.

By rule, those prosecutions would've taken place as jury trials in recently confederate districts. The Federal prosecutors were afraid that former confederate jurors might be sympathetic to idea that secession was legal; an argument Jeff Davis was dying to make in front of former secessionists.

Where are you getting your information from; that the SCOTUS advised that secession was legal?

Brechtel said:"All of the 'causes' of the Civil War boil down to one-slavery. If slavery had been abolished as Jefferson and others wanted in the Declaration of Independence, the Civil War then would not have happened."

Simply repeating the same thing over and over doesn't make it true. Please refute some of the arguments made above.

This is what every other ACW historian worth their salt says. Any other viewpoint is in the extreme minority and needs to establish itself as a possibility, not the other way around.

You yourself point out that "tariffs" weren't enough to cause SC to secede. Tariffs for the South were more favorable in 1860, thus it couldn't have been anything else. The Secession took place as a fit of pique in reaction to Lincoln's election.

doc said: Charge, you don't know enough history to make those generalizations, many of which are inaccurate.

You hurt my feelings. In my defense, you dont know anything about how either the Law or the Constitution operates and it doesn't stop you from expounding on those areas.

doc said:Well, the real problem was not slavery but the existence in America of millions of African-descended people who few in either north or south were prepared to accept as equals. White superiority was an accepted "given." Had you lived back then you'd likely have accepted it as well. Achieving our present egalitarianism took centuries. So merely abolishing chattel slavery, while a good thing in itself, would have not fixed everything.

Probably one of the truest social worries of the times.

"Possibly because such a declaration would be illegal under the Constitution.
Oh? How so?"

Because, for good or bad, mainly bad, slavery was addressed and made legal by the Constitution. A declaration that slaves were now free would have caused a constitutional crisis since it was not brought about by the necessary amendment process.

"I'll see your "ridiculous" and raise you a "clueless"

"The South considered abolitionism to be a threat that might stoke slave insurrection and it was mostly made illegal."

No problem. Show me a single 'accident' to an abolitionist north or south that can in any way, be lined to a pro-slavery group. Just one, othewise you're in fantasy land.

"I know Virginia did but it isnt clear that that meant anything. No other state snuck this provision in. Unless someone has proof otherwise? The CSA definitely maintained that they had the right to do this but:"

In a modern parallel the Brits voted to leave the EU. Since the people voted for it, I'm guessing you would call that unilateral as well. The Confederate government in Montgomery sent a delegation to negotiate withdrawl from the Union with Lincoln, but he refused to meet with them.

"Court law and National behavior gave no indication that a unilateral secession was legal which makes us wonder why the CSA thought such a huge move was legal and didnt think they needed to get a decision."

It's been explained repeatedly why they thought they had the right. Just because you don't except the answer doesn't make it false. And get a decision from who?

"Well, considering Lincoln was assassinated a week after Lee's surrender, Lincoln didn't get a chance to oversee any prosecutions."

The war went on for four years prior to his assisination. It was talked about in that time frame.

"Where are you getting your information from; that the SCOTUS advised that secession was legal?"

Research my father did 20 years ago.

"This is what every other ACW historian worth their salt says. Any other viewpoint is in the extreme minority and needs to establish itself as a possibility, not the other way around."

An appeal to 'experts' argument, which is not an argument at all. A hundred years ago the historians would all agree it was over states rights, would you have acceded to those 'experts'?

The bottom line on the Confederacy is that they were wrong twice: they were defending a morally corrupt institution and betraying their country and fighting against it and the US Constitution.

To the extent the Confederacy's purpose was to defend slavery, it was wrong. But your second point applies as easily to George Washington. And Lincoln was prepared to accept slavery's continued existence to keep the Union together. Was THAT morally corrupt?

Ultimately Lincoln was not prepared to do that. He prioritized. By holding the US together first and foremost, he preserved the nation, whose founding Declaration meant that slavery must go.

But initially Lincoln WAS prepared to do that. Of course he hated slavery and was glad when he could act against it. But he knew an amendment was necessary. IF the union could be held together.

Yes, we are agreeing. You could not free the slaves unless the Union was intact.

As the American colonies were not recognized as Englishmen by the mother country and were not part of Great Britain fully as they were colonies, any comparison between the situation that existed with the American south in 1860 which was part of the United States, and the American colonies relationship with Great Britain is not a valid argument.

dn Jackson: Because, for good or bad, mainly bad, slavery was addressed and made legal by the Constitution. A declaration that slaves were now free would have caused a constitutional crisis since it was not brought about by the necessary amendment process.

Mainly bad? Im glad it meets that level in your opinion. I'm not sure that slavery needed an Amendment to be abolished; it might've been useful to make sure it was both uniformly and eternally abolished and also couldn't be challenged. But I dont know that a Congressional act wouldn't have been enough to outlaw slavery.

dn Jackson said: No problem. Show me a single 'accident' to an abolitionist north or south that can in any way, be lined to a pro-slavery group. Just one, othewise you're in fantasy land.

A pro-slavery group? Card carrying ones? I never claimed this. You are extremely loose with language and reading to the point of evaporation.

Abolitionists disappear in the South around 1830 and laws were passed in the South banning the advocacy of abolition. Something happened to those good people.

I said: "Where are you getting your information from; that the SCOTUS advised that secession was legal?"

dn Jackson said: Research my father did 20 years ago.

Did he publish it? Does he know where Jimmy Hoffa is buried too?

I said: Court law and National behavior gave no indication that a unilateral secession was legal which makes us wonder why the CSA thought such a huge move was legal and didnt think they needed to get a decision.

dn Jackson: It's been explained repeatedly why they thought they had the right. Just because you don't except the answer doesn't make it false. And get a decision from who?

They may or may not have thought they had the right to unilaterally secede but that isnt the problem, the problem is that they made sure no one else got a say in it which is anti-democratic and violative of the way the congress and the courts work.

Why do I keep finding posters on here who disregard the behavior of the US Congress and SCOTUS around secession pre civil war?

I think until there is an acceptance by the CSA and its contemporary supporters that their unilateral secession was illegal, there will never be a close to this issue. How was it legal? Because the CSA said so? Who would that matter to…themselves?

Concerning some provision by VA to leave the Union anytime it wanted, I said:

I know Virginia did but it isnt clear that that meant anything. No other state snuck this provision in. Unless someone has proof otherwise? The CSA definitely maintained that they had the right to do this but:

dn Jackson said: In a modern parallel the Brits voted to leave the EU. Since the people voted for it, I'm guessing you would call that unilateral as well. The Confederate government in Montgomery sent a delegation to negotiate withdrawl from the Union with Lincoln, but he refused to meet with them.

This isnt a modern parallel. Britain voted as a country (The EU isnt their country) and there is a specific EU article to leave, and, in addition, the UK worked their Brexit out peacefully and bilaterally with the EU. It was all worked out legally.

Meanwhile, the CSA just left in the night and declared the Union dissolved. No negotiation, no vote of all the states, no review by the courts. That's unilateralism.

And the CSA sending a delegation to Lincoln after they seceded is not a case of bilateralism. It's a case of enormous nerve but not bilateralism.

I said: "Well, considering Lincoln was assassinated a week after Lee's surrender, Lincoln didn't get a chance to oversee any prosecutions."

The war went on for four years prior to his assisination. It was talked about in that time frame.

Really? I always thought Lincoln intended to pardon everyone…that is until your typical, dyed in the wool CSA meathead shot him.

I said: "This is what every other ACW historian worth their salt says. Any other viewpoint is in the extreme minority and needs to establish itself as a possibility, not the other way around."

dn jackson said: An appeal to 'experts' argument, which is not an argument at all. A hundred years ago the historians would all agree it was over states rights, would you have acceded to those 'experts'?

I don't follow. Are you saying that both today's and yesteryear's experts are worthless or that only today's are worthless?

I have never found an 'expert' when it comes to the study and writing of history.

I have found there to be authorities, and am very fortunate to have known a few…

Lincoln absolutely agreed that slavery could only be abolished by amendment. Whether Charge agrees or not.

Lincoln absolutely agreed that slavery could only be abolished by amendment. Whether Charge agrees or not.

I think the Amednment made abolishing slavery stronger and more permanent. However, dn jackson said something odd. He said:

Because, for good or bad, mainly bad, slavery was addressed and made legal by the Constitution. A declaration that slaves were now free would have caused a constitutional crisis since it was not brought about by the necessary amendment process.

I've never encountered this before. Where does the Constitution make slavery legal?

I dont know what he means by a "declaration". Certainly a law by Congress could make slavery illegal without violating the Constitution. Maybe he is referring to Dredd Scott but that was a wildly irresponsible case and any Constitutional conflict wouldve probably been quickly overturned. Interesting but not a given.

His comment is also odd in light of the per se Constitutional crisis caused by the secession…which he ignores.

Charge, there is a great deal you do not know -- have not "encountered." Abolitionists like Garrison understood slavery was constitutional and attacked the Constitution accordingly. Which is one reason the Abols had little influence. Read some history of the 1840s and 1850s and you will see.

The Three-Fifths Compromise is the most obvious recognition of slavery in the Constitution, and there are others.

Lincoln offered the seceding states a constitutional amendment to protect slavery where it existed, but did so saying it was unnecessary because the constitution already did that.

Lincoln had no legal authority to free slaves except as a war measure, which is why the Emancipation Proclamation was written as it was. He knew he needed the 13th Amendment.

@dn Jackson

No problem. Show me a single 'accident' to an abolitionist north or south that can in any way, be lined to a pro-slavery group. Just one, othewise you're in fantasy land.

This article addresses the nature of violence against abolitionists (Both North and South):

link

MOB VIOLENCE AGAINST ABOLITIONISTS IN THE SOUTH