"Preserve the Union" Topic

The other thread on this has gotten bogged down in modern politics.

Ending slavery was not the reason nor the goal of the United States during the Civil War. The goal and reason for going to war with the Confederacy was to preserve the Union, not to end slavery. If ending slavery would end the war and save the Union then end it.

Emancipation was a war measure. The CSA was benefitting from the use of slaves. They were building fortresses and defensive works. They were harvesting crops. Doing manual labor for the CSA armies freeing up white men to go fight.
It is also seen as a speedy end to the Southern Oligarchs' hold on power.

Slavery was recognized as the reason the Southern Oligarchs and the state legislatures they controlled left the Union. If you end slavery, you forever end this as a reason for the Oligarchs to leave the Union again.

If you were to ask the average Union citizen or soldier what they were fighting for they would say to preserve the Union. if abolition would help preserve the Union and shorten the war, then do it and do it now. This does not mean slavery wasn't the cause of the war. It was.

Northerners did know slavery was a cause of the breakup of the Union and the only way to prevent that again was to end slavery.

This topic will get bogged down too I think.
Two sets of fixed opinions.
Going on and on and on…..

Good luck

martin

Ending slavery was not the reason nor the goal of the United States during the Civil War.

Well, putting down an insurrection, but it amounts to the same thing.

Preserving (and expanding) slavery was, however, the reason for secession, which WAS the insurrection.

I am guilty of falling into the trap, especially the modern civil war thing. High anxiety these days, must try to control myself….

The main point was the Union a collection of States that sometime work together or a Federal goverment that could tells the States what to do. Before the war the South went along because it had more or equal power over the federal goverment. When it looked like it was going to become a minority power, they thought they could leave the Union. Lincoln coundn't have been elected if the Demecratic party had united under 1 person. It started as the United "States" of America and became The "United States" of America afterward.

I agree with you that preserving the Union was why Northerners initial fought the war. But as the war went on, especially after the Emancipation Proclamation, ending slavery did become a reason why many Union soldiers fought. It is in their letters and diaries and memoirs.

From what I read, and that's not a lot I confess, the desired industrialization of the United States, that would take place in the North of the Union, necessitated a period of protectionism to save it from European concurrence, while the South was loathe to see access to European markets cut off for its exports. Cotton was a crucial commodity, and the ACW generated a severe crisis in Europe's textile industry… Abolition was not only a humanitarian obligation, it was also a pillar – though a diminishing one – on which cotton production and henceforth Southern prosperity relied. Secession was the fruit of these antagonistic economical interests, and facilitated by the diverse interpretations one could have at the time of the US constitution. The unfortunate result was a war that killed hundreds of thousands…

Even if slavery were not the proximate cause, it had been the elephant in the room for decades. Get over it!

I should change my name to Usual Suspect.

Here is my go to regarding slavery and the war, a quote from Bruce Catton in 1961.

"The Civil War was ABOUT something. It was fought FOR something. And—let us never for a moment forget it—it WON something.
Under everything else, the war was about Negro slavery.
It was fought for freedom—and if ever anything was worth fighting a war for, freedom was and is the cause. . . .

Hi John!

Slavery was far from a marginal issue. It was, however, also far from the ONLY issue!

Anything else could be worked out within the Constitution and Judicial System. Slavery could not be worked out to the satisfaction of most of the Slave States. Slavery was the root cause of the Succession Crisis and the subsequent war.

Had it not been for the west, compromises (morally repugnant ones) would have been made. The north would NOT have gone to war to free slaves in the existing southern states. To preserve the Union, yes, and to keep slavery out of the west, yes.

Of course slavery was fundamentally at odds with the Declaration and some resolution of that conflict had to happen eventually. But it need not have been in the 1860s and it =need not have been through war.

On April 1, 1861 if you polled those living in the north I suspect the attitude of a clear majority to the Deep South states leaving would have been "good riddance". Same poll at the end of April would have produced a much different result. That transformation had nothing to do with the existence of Slavery in the South. It had nothing to do with the Deep South states seceding. The secession of Upper South states may have been a factor. The prime motivator for the change was what was viewed as the unprovoked attack by the Confederates on Fort Sumter.

Once the north became motivated to fight a bunch of other grievances kicked in. For some northerners it was the mere existence of slavery. For some it was the fear slavery would spread into western territories. Some were just getting tired of the arrogance of the slave owning aristocracy in the South and their demands. Once the shooting started in earnest I don't see a situation where a U.S. military victory would result in a return to the status quo of 1860 on slavery. So saying "preserve the union" would be a bit simplistic, even where it was the number one goal. OTOH it wasn't a given that the slavery changes would include immediate emancipation of the slaves.

Why would a citizen in Maine put on a blue uniform and go to war over South Carolina leaving the Union? Let South Carolina go. We didn't like them anyway. Always causing trouble.

The reason he went to war was the "Union." We don't fully understand what "Union" meant to Americans in the mid-nineteenth century. They were not that far removed from the Founding Generation.

Many grew up on stories from the Founding Generation. They knew what sacrifices were made by the Founding Generation to create this Union. They were not going to allow the Union to be broken up just because some Southern States didn't like who was elected President. This is borne out in letters, diaries, journals, and newspaper editorials.

This is how they felt. The concept of "Union" was real and that is what they would fight and die for. This was the sentiment of the vast majority in the Northern States. And in some slave states. Five slave states remained in the Union.

I was asked to post this for a member having computer issues.

"The secessionist Government of South Carolina was acutely aware of the Federal Government's legal ownership of Fort Sumter and the island upon which it stood and an official delegation had been sent to Washington DC to negotiate a compensatory financial settlement. The Lincoln administration pointedly refused to even meet with them.

Seizure of the fort by force was a last resort measure after peaceful means had proven fruitless."

So "preserve the union" explains why northerners joined the army to fight the war, but it doesn't explain why the war started.

Slavery was and IS a great evil, and remains so today, existing in many countries. And the people on this board, while deploring it when they think about it (which they seldom do) are NOT inclined to go to war to end it. Out if sight, out of mind. We have worse problems closer to home.

That is pretty much the same attitude the northern voter whom Lincoln represented had towards slavery in the existing southern states. Plus northern prosperity was based to a large degree on southern cotton, and they knew it.,

Bill N said it very well !!

The prime motivator for the change was what was viewed as the unprovoked attack by the Confederates on Fort Sumter.

Once the north became motivated to fight a bunch of other grievances kicked in.

So, the South Carolina says to Lincoln "We want to buy the fort that we recognize belongs to you." Lincoln says "we don't want to sell our property." SC then says "Well, we tried, so the war is now on you because you won't sell us your property." That is just a foolish argument trying to blame the war on the North.

The cause of the war is not related to why the average Union soldier thought he was fighting it, just like modern soldiers don't think they fought in Afghanistan or Iraq for oil.

OP says ending slavery was not the reason of the United States, which in itself doesn't make sense. But the United States did not start the war. The South seceded to preserve slavery, it's literally in their declaration of secession documents. They fired on Fort Sumter. The average Union soldier fighting to preserve the Union, and Lincoln stating he was fighting to preserve the Union, do not declare the cause of the war. This is a trick Lost Causers have been using for over a century, and it is easy to spot.

So we have a better notion of what it was all about than they did? Rriiigghhhtttt.

Just ask: If the south had succeeded, but DID NOT attack United States possessions, would the US have invaded the South to do away with slavery?

If No, then slavery was the catalyst of the troubles, but not the cause of war.
If Yes, then slavery was the cause of war.

I believe the former and even if the south had not attacked first, Lincoln would have eventually taken the offensive to force the reunion. Finding some excuse to justify his action. So in my opinion, union was the cause and slavery the catalyst of the problems.

But obviously my view and others have theirs.

Surely there's a good indicator in the answer to the question "after the emancipation declaration were slaves in the 5 States that didn't secede made free?"

You can change your question just a bit and ask,

If the South did not have slaves would they have seceded from the Union and would there have been a Civil War?

Well, that almost happened in the 1830s over the tariff.

If the goal is restoring the Union, ask yourself, why was the Union divided? What was the stated reason the South seceded? They wrote it down. You can read it yourself:

link

Now that you know why the South seceded (fear of losing their slaves), you know what the cause of the war was (slavery). The war would not have happened if the South did not secede.

So we have a better notion of what it was all about than they did? Rriiigghhhtttt.

With the benefit of 160 years of hindsight, an OVERALL view of the entire conflict and decades of failed compromises on this one subject, and education, of course we do. Do you think the average volunteer or conscript had the benefit of reading hundreds of books about the Civil War? Did they have the benefit of watching hours and hours of documentaries? Most Union soldiers had never seen a slave in their life before they went South to fight.

If your house burns down, you build a new one so you have a place to sleep and eat. The goal of building a new house is to have a place to sleep and eat. The cause of you not having a house is not "having a place to sleep and eat". The cause of you not having a house is that your house burned down.

Once you are able to separate things like that in your head, instead of buying into Lost Cause talking points that are easily debunked, you can understand the obvious cause of the Civil War.

Do I think the war would have happened without slavery. 🤔 Yes. When and how? Who knows. There was never love lost between NE and the Old South(Puritans and Cavaliers). But whatever war happened, it would have been much different. Possibly many more border states, as the Midwest sympathized with neither group, and without slavery may have more in common with the South. I think some of the western southern states would have stayed neutral as well. Possibly neither of the opponents could reach each other, except by water, or violating the sovereignty of A neutral state and dragging them into the war.

Maybe the neutral states, instead unite against both the others groups.

But yes I believe war of some kind was inevitable.

For someone looking for wargame scenarios, there are great ones here.

So for those who do believe slavery was the cause and not the catalyst.

Please answer, Would Lincoln have invaded the South (if SC had not started the hostilities), to end slavery, as his stated goal?

For slavery to be "the cause", that would have to be his justification used to allow him to invade and try and get the other states to join him. If he went in instead, to reunify the US as his stated cause, then the splitting of the Union was the cause and slavery the catalyst of the division.

I don't see any lost cause involved in this at all. Was anyone in here defending what the South did, or slavery as an honorable institution? When the south seceded from the Union, the Civil War did not start. The war started when SC fired on the fort.

There states reasons for succession said slavery was the reason for their succession.

Firing on the fort and the Invasion to reunite the country were what actually started the war. No war, until one side or the other, crosses the line, bringing war to both.

Again my opinions

There is simply no distinction between cause and catalyst in this case. The South seceded because they were afraid they would get their slaves taken away. It doesn't matter why an individual or the entire government was fighting the war. Without secession, there is no war. Thus the cause. Anyone who says otherwise is simply speculating and massively exaggerating side issues which would never have been brought up in history books without slavery and Civil War occurring.

Citing secession as the cause of the war, and not slavery, is the very first tenet of the Lost Cause. This is common knowledge. link

From the link above

"Lost Cause proponents re-imagine slavery as a positive good and deny that alleviation of the conditions of slavery was the central cause of the American Civil War"

1) has anyone in this thread said slavery was a positive thing?
2) did the north go to war for the:
"alleviation of the conditions of slavery" as "the central cause"?

So the conversation above has nothing to do with "The Lost Cause".

What was asked, was if slavery was the cause "of the war". My only point, is slavery caused succession, (the catalyst of succession). The succession actually caused the war. The firing in the fort, the specific instigation of hostilities.

I have never understood, why for some slavery, must be the "only and all" of the Civil War.

Maybe someone can explain why it must be so?

Out if sight, out of mind. We have worse problems closer to home.

The 1860 Census shows that in the free states, the population was 98.8% white.

So for those who do believe slavery was the cause and not the catalyst.

It was both.

From the link above

"Lost Cause proponents re-imagine slavery as a positive good and deny that alleviation of the conditions of slavery was the central cause of the American Civil War"

Re-read this sentence.

Ok I re-read it. Says the same thing.

Again, who here in this thread has imagined slavery as a positive good?

"alleviation of the conditions of slavery was the central cause of the American Civil War"

Alleviation – the act of the elimination of something.

The Union, including Lincoln did not move into the south to eliminate slavery. It was not until after Antietam that he made his first proclamation as to elimination.

Again I ask:

"I have never understood, why for some slavery, must be the "only and all" of the Civil War.

Maybe someone can explain why it must be so?"

This is why slavery is central to the Civil War.

Keeping a voting balance in Congress between free and slave states was the unwritten rule of Congress since 1787.

The expansion of slavery into the new territories was a non-starter for Lincoln and the Republican Party. The slave states insisted on it because they knew they would soon be outnumbered in Congress.

Lincoln said that slavery, where it existed, could remain, but no expansion to the new territories. But he also gave his "House Divided Speech." So the South wouldn't believe him or anyone else speaking compromise.

The slave-holding states would not willingly give up three billion dollars worth of property. People were getting rich off the slave trade.

The South feared another "Santo Domingo" part of the "social system" in the South involved controlling three million slaves who didn't want to be slaves. So setting them all free at once was their worst fear.

Every State succession convention listed slavery as the reason for succession. The Confederate Constitution has slavery written into it. Read Stephens' "Cornerstone Speech."
link

So yes the stated war aim of the loyal states was to preserve the Union. The reason these other states left the Union was slavery. So part of preserving the Union was to eliminate slavery so that issue would not threaten the Union again

Slavery was supporting the CSA war effort. Emancipation was a war measure to eliminate slavery as a support system to the Confederate economy and armies.

If you take slavery out of the equation, then there would not have been a Civil War.

I pointed out that folks in this thread are merely spreading Lost Cause myths, you didn't understand the link and now literally repeated the Lost Cause myth sentences after quoting it. Not sure what else can be done.

Not a one of you has answered my initial question.

Algnc23 you seem obsessed with turning everything into "lost cause", as if somehow that negates any discussion that disagrees with yours. Like calling someone a "racist", when discussing fails.
…

"Conventional wisdom of the moment tells us that the great war of 1861—1865 was "about" slavery or was "caused by" slavery. I submit that this is not a historical judgment but a political slogan. What a war is about has many answers according to the varied perspectives of different participants and of those who come after. To limit so vast an event as that war to one cause is to show contempt for the complexities of history as a quest for the understanding of human action.

Two generations ago, the most perceptive historians, much more learned than the current crop, said that the war was "about" economics and was "caused by" economic rivalry. The war has not changed one bit since then. The perspective has changed. It can change again as long as people have the freedom to think about the past. History is not a mathematical calculation or scientific experiment but a vast drama of which there is always more to be learned.
I was much struck by Barbara Marthal's insistence in her Stone Mountain talk on the importance of stories in understanding history. I entirely concur. History is the experience of human beings. History is a story and a story is somebody's story. It tells us about who people are. History is not a political ideological slogan like "about slavery." Ideological slogans are accusations and instruments of conflict and domination. Stories are instruments of understanding and peace.

Let's consider the war and slavery. Again and again I encounter people who say that the South Carolina secession ordinance mentions the defense of slavery and that one fact proves beyond argument that the war was caused by slavery. The first States to secede did mention a threat to slavery as a motive for secession. They also mentioned decades of economic exploitation and the seizure of the common government for the first time ever by a sectional party declaredly hostile to the Southern States. Were they to be a permanently exploited minority, they asked? This was significant to people who knew that their fathers and grandfathers had founded the Union for the protection and benefit of ALL the States."

—-

"Advocates of the "slavery and nothing but slavery" interpretation also like to mention a speech in which Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephens is supposed to have said that white supremacy was the "cornerstone" of the Confederacy. The speech was ad hoc and badly reported, but so what? White supremacy was also the cornerstone of the United States. A law of the first Congress established that only white people could be naturalized as citizens. Abraham Lincoln's Illinois forbade black people to enter the State and deprived those who were there of citizenship rights.

Instead of quoting two cherry-picked quotations, serious historians will look into more of the vast documentation of the time. For instance, in determining what the war was "about," why not consider Jefferson Davis's inaugural address, the resolutions of the Confederate Congress, numerous speeches by Southern spokesmen of the time as they explained their departure from the U.S. Congress and spoke to their constituents about the necessity of secession. Or for that matter look at the entire texts of the secession documents.

Our advocates of slavery causation practice the same superficial and deceitful tactics in viewing their side of the fight. They rely mostly on a few pretty phrases from a few of Lincoln's prettier speeches to account for the winning side in the Great Civil War. But what were Northerners really saying?"

Some quotes and other statements..

"Abraham Lincoln was at pains to assure the South that he intended no threat to slavery. He said he understood Southerners and that Northerners would be exactly like them living in the same circumstances. He said that while slavery was not a good thing (which most Southerners agreed with) he had no power to interfere with slavery and would not know what to do if he had the power. He acquiesced in a proposed 13th Amendment that would have guaranteed slavery into the 20th century. Later, he famously told Horace Greeley that his purpose was to save the Union, for which he would free all the slaves, some of the slaves, or none of the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation itself promised a continuance of slavery to States that would lay down their arms."

—-

"Senator Sherman's brother, General Sherman, had recently been working his way across Mississippi, not fighting armed enemies but destroying the infrastructure and the food and housing of white women and children and black people. When the houses are burned, the livestock taken away or killed, the barns with tools and seed crops destroyed, fences torn down, stored food and standing crops destroyed, the black people will starve as well as the whites. General Sherman was heard to say: "Damn the s! I wish they were anywhere but here and could be kept at work."
General Sherman was not fighting for the emancipation of black people. He was a proto-fascist who wanted to crush citizens who had the gall to disobey the government.

The gracious Mrs. General Sherman agreed. She wrote her husband thus:
"I hope this may not be a war of emancipation but of extermination, & that all under the influence of the foul fiend may be driven like swine into the sea. May we carry fire and sword into their states till not one habitation is left standing."
Not a word about the slaves.

As the war began, the famous abolitionist Theodore Weld declared that the South had to be wiped out because it is "the foe to Northern industry—to our mines, our manufactures, our commerce." Nothing said about benefit to the slaves. The famous abolitionist Henry Ward Beecher enjoyed a European tour while the rivers of blood were flowing in America. Asked by a British audience why the North did not simply let the South go, Beecher replied, "Why not let the South go? O that the South would go! But then they must leave us their lands."
Then there is the Massachusetts Colonel who wrote his governor from the South in January 1862:
"The thing we seek is permanent dominion. . . . They think we mean to take their slaves? Bah! We must take their ports, their mines, their water power, the very soil they plow . . . ."

Seizing Southern resources was a common theme among advocates of the Union. Southerners were not fellow citizens of a nation. They were obstacles to be disposed of so Yankees could use their resources to suit themselves. The imperialist impulse was nakedly and unashamedly expressed before, during, and after the war.

Charles Dickens, who had spent much time in the U.S. a few years before the war, told readers of his monthly magazine in 1862: "The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states."
Another British observer, John Stuart Mill, hoped the war would be against slavery and was disappointed. "The North, it seems," Mill wrote, "have no more objections to slavery than the South have."

Here is Frederick Douglass, the most prominent African American of the 19th century:
"It must be admitted, truth compels me to admit . . . Abraham Lincoln was not, in the fullest sense of the word, either our man or our model. In his interests, in his associations, in his habits of thought, and in his prejudices, he was a white man. He was preeminently the white man's president, entirely devoted to the welfare of white men. He was ready and willing at any time . . . to deny, postpone, and sacrifice the rights of humanity in the colored people to promote the welfare of the white people of his country."

Governor Joel Parker of New Jersey, a reluctant Democratic supporter of the war, knew what it was all about: "Slavery is no more the cause of this war than gold is the cause of robbery," he said. Like all Northern opponents and reluctant supporters of Lincoln, he knew the war was about economic domination. As one "Copperhead" editor put it: the war was simply "a murderous crusade for plunder and party power." "Dealing in confiscated cotton seems to be the prime activity of the army," he added.
Wall Street agreed and approved. Here is a private circular passed among bankers and brokers in late 1861:
"Slavery is likely to be abolished by the war power and this I and my friends are all in favor of, for slavery is but the owning of labor and carries with it the care of the laborers, while the European plan, led on by England, is that capital shall control labor by controlling wages. The great debt that capitalists will see to it is made out of the war must be used as a means to control the volume of money."
It is not clear whether this is authentic or a satire, but it tells the truth whichever."

"No. 1 The North went to war to end slavery.

The South definitely went to war to preserve slavery. But did the North go to war to end slavery?

No. The North went to war initially to hold the nation together. Abolition came later. On Aug. 22, 1862, President Lincoln wrote a letter to Horace Greeley, abolitionist editor of the New York Tribune, that stated: "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."

Lincoln's own anti-slavery sentiment was widely known at the time, indeed, so widely known that it helped prompt the southern states to rebel. In the same letter, Lincoln wrote: "I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free."

Lincoln was concerned—rightly—that making the war about abolition would anger northern Unionists, many of whom cared little about African Americans. But by late 1862, it became clear that ending slavery in the rebelling states would help the war effort. The war itself started the emancipation process. Whenever U.S. forces drew near, African Americans flocked to their lines—to help the war effort, to make a living and, most of all, simply to be free. Some of Lincoln's generals helped him see, early on, that sending them back into slavery merely helped the Confederate cause.

A month after issuing his letter to the New York Tribune, Lincoln combined official duty and private wish by announcing the Emancipation Proclamation, to take effect on January 1, 1863."

No one here is defending the South, I think we oppose the more current "history", that slavery was the "only".

None of us can know if war would have occurred without slavery, I believe it would have, but my opinion. Some believe it would not have. Again only opinions.

But if slavery is so important to some, do you believe if war occurred without it, the North WOULD NOT have been justified in reuniting the Country? So without slavery, states rights WAS valid, and only slavery negated it. If not, slavery WAS NOT fundamental and only the catalyst of all that happened.

Algae cannot point to a single post or poster here who has viewed slavery as a good thing.

But there is far more to understanding it than merely condemning it.

I pointed out that folks in this thread are merely spreading Lost Cause myths, you didn't understand the link and now literally repeated the Lost Cause myth sentences after quoting it. Not sure what else can be done.

Nothing I posted can be characterized as lost cause rhetoric. It is the direct opposite. I am not sure what you're getting at. I don't think you understand the term.

Let me clue you in, virtually everyone in the 19th Century would be considered racist by our standards. Lincoln would be. Even most abolitionists would be.

We want to believe that the war was a great crusade to free the slaves but it wasn't. Emancipation could only happen under the President's war powers as Commander-N-Chief. It was the only way he believed he could get away with doing it. Under the Constitution, he did not have the power to abolish slavery. Emancipation only applied to slaves in the rebellious states.

There were five slave states (I include West Virginia which came in as a slave state) in the Union that did not succeed.
He could not risk alienating them.

It is a fact that slavery was the cause of the Civil War. Do I have to quote myself to you? Read what I just posted.

Yes, I read your link. I am very familiar with lost cause rhetoric . So what's your point?

35thOVI,

In response to your question, I told you the facts as most Historians view the cause of the Civil War and yet you don't get it. I give up trying to explain how slavery was the cause of the ACW. I explain why it was central to the war in response to your question. Hopeless.

Racism was the norm. Part of that is that ethnocentrism is simply a human survival trait. Plus it is hardly confined to whites: Chinese and Japanese are notoriously arrogant and intolerant of "lesser breeds." The American Colonization Society (Liberia) had the support of virtually every prominent politician of every party.

Plus, after Darwin, racism was considered scientific.

It took the Holocaust to destroy that bad idea. We have progressed morally (in THAT area, though with regression in others) in my lifetime, but it is utterly unrealistic to expect earlier generations to be where we have only recently gotten to ourselves.

OC, "most" historians used to know better. And most historians still subscribe to multiple causation of complex events -- except, somehow, for THIS most complex of events.

I knew someone would jump on that. But what I am espousing is the current thinking in Civil War Studies. You can always find a nay-sayer. I recommend watching the YouTube videos that Gary Gallagher and James McPherson put out. They are two of the most esteemed Historians in the field of Civil War Studies. I'm done with this thread.

OC there is a main reason the "new historians" emphasize slavery as the "all" of the Civil War. Why is that?

That is the reason I ask the question I did. That, has not been answered.

Now as to the second question I asked.

(But if slavery is so important to some, do you believe if war occurred without it, the North WOULD NOT have been justified in reuniting the Country? So without slavery, states rights WAS valid, and only slavery negated it. If not, slavery WAS NOT fundamental and only the catalyst of all that happened.)

So your thoughts?

States rights, including nullification, goes back at least to 1798 and Jefferson and Madison's Virginia and Kentucky resolutions. And was as often appealed to by New England Federalists and Whigs and such well into the 1850s, opposing the federal fugitive slave laws. Both sides did it WHEN THEY WERE OUT OF POWER at the national level. Once Jefferson was president and needed to buy Louisiana he forgot about strict construction. So it is a loser's argument -- sadly, because it is a basis for limiting government overreach.

35th, the key phrase in your question is

if war occurred

and the answer is: yes.

If not, slavery WAS NOT fundamental and only the catalyst of all that happened

Not sure what that means; looks to me like a distinction without a difference.

Donlowry

I believe you refer to this.

(But if slavery is so important to some, do you believe if war occurred without it, the North WOULD NOT have been justified in reuniting the Country? So without slavery, states rights WAS valid, and only slavery negated it. If not, slavery WAS NOT fundamental and only the catalyst of all that happened.)

Ok the question is:

"But if slavery is so important to some, do you believe if war occurred without it, the North WOULD NOT have been justified in reuniting the Country?"

Let me rephrase this.

Would the North have been justified in invading the South if they had seceded, but slavery had not existed?

So was slavery the only justifiable reason for the North to take action. Or was secession itself the justification for the North's invasion?

So I'm saying if the act of secession and the reuniting of the Union was the justifiable reason for the war, then slavery was only the catalyst of the act of secession, not "the cause" of the actual conflict itself.

Otherwise, if slavery was the only "justifiable" reason for the union's invasion, then by default, one would be saying States Rights was valid and secession was legal.

I don't believe the adherents of slavery as the cause, are trying to say that.

Nothing I posted can be characterized as lost cause rhetoric. It is the direct opposite. I am not sure what you're getting at. I don't think you understand the term.

Sorry, nothing to do with you. Quoting on this site is not very good. I simply stated that they were wasting our time with Lost Cause myths and they claim you have to overtly support slavery to be a lost causer, which is not true. Pushing the myth that the war was not about slavery is the central tenet of the Lost Cause.

doc mcb and 35thovi are simply spewing Lost Cause myths which are easily dismissed. Nothing they have said holds any water. Hypotheticals that there definitely would have been a war without slavery are completely worthless. They seem completely unable to separate why one individual soldier fought the war vs. the actual cause. There were LOTS of soldiers who fought for abolition, like Col. Shaw. Does that invalidate all the others who fought for Union?

It is important to stay vigilant to Lost Causers because they obliterated Civil War history for over 100 years and we are just now starting to recover, thanks to modern historians.

Algnc23

"It is important to stay vigilant to Lost Causers because they obliterated Civil War history for over 100 years and we are just now starting to recover, thanks to modern historians."

Was this topic opened up for discussions, or only to hear from those who reinforce your beliefs? If the latter, then this might as well be a current college campus, where those who disagree, are shouted down or run off campuses.

" I simply stated that they were wasting our time "

As Bill just posted in another thread of Doc's. If you don't like this, simply don't read the posts. Easy to do.

"obliterated Civil War history for over 100 years and we are just now starting to recover, thanks to modern historians."

So previous historians were all wrong? But today's, more enlightened and in touch, historians, are the only "correct" historians? Again this sounds very, very much like our current educational systems. Might I ask your age and if you per chance are a teacher?

In a short summary: slavery in the our land, existed for hundreds of years prior to the Civil War. In those years, it did NOT cause a civil war. Slavery and its perceived forced end, along with the economic well being of a large portion of our population, "caused" the succession of a number of states. So it was the "catalyst" of the succession. The "succession" was the "cause" of the actual war.

Some of the Confederate States did not succeed until:

"Lincoln's call for 75,000 volunteers to suppress the Southern rebellion forced the eight slave states who had thus far remained in the Union (Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas, and Tennessee) to choose sides."

So the suppression of the succeeded states.

There were many catalyst to the succession, with slavery being the main one. The actual succession was "the cause" of the actual war.

Those are my views, I have read nothing in here that has convinced me I'm wrong. I've read CW history's since the 1960's, i don't restrict myself to, only historians who agree with my views.

There is nothing "lost cause" in what I'm saying, as there is no implied defense of slavery, or excusing the South's succession. It is a discussion of "cause".

So if those who disagree, want only like views to theirs, please state that and I'll avoid the topic.

Would the North have been justified in invading the South if they had seceded, but slavery had not existed?

Well, see that shows the difference in our viewpoints. You see the "North" invading the "South," I see the federal government putting down an armed insurrection.