What is the main cause for the American Civil War?

Hygro said:

So the white state government seceding to ensure that American citizens remain slaves doesn't infringe on the "rights of others?"

Click to expand...

except at the time Slaves where not considered citizens, each slave was only 3/5 of a citizen, meaning full citizenship was not granted a ruleing made by the US Government, and not repealed actully, though slavary is illegal. So actully the slaves where not citzens so secession did not infringe on the rights of the slave as under Federal law they where not granted any rights under the law

What about the rights of the United States?

Hygro said:

So the white state government seceding to ensure that American citizens remain slaves doesn't infringe on the "rights of others?"

Click to expand...

That had nothing to do with the actual act of seceding.

candle said:

except at the time Slaves where not considered citizens, each slave was only 3/5 of a citizen, meaning full citizenship was not granted a ruleing made by the US Government, and not repealed actully, though slavary is illegal. So actully the slaves where not citzens so secession did not infringe on the rights of the slave as under Federal law they where not granted any rights under the law

Click to expand...

I'm not even going to bother responding to you any more, your posts are so full of crap it's ridiculous.

choxorn said:

I'm not even going to bother responding to you any more, your posts are so full of crap it's ridiculous.

Click to expand...

they wernt go look up the 3/5ths amendment

Regardless of what their legal rights were at the time, do you honestly think that fighting to prevent them from having any rights isn't just the same thing as infringing upon their rights?

at the time no it wasn't, what was right then isnt what is right today and whats right today isnt always right then. You have to look at things in context of the 1860's not 2009

I say again: What about the rights of the United States?

What rights?

You know, to levy taxes and such?

And to keep fortresses which still stand on gov't ground?

I'm kind of assuming with the 2nd one, but aren't roads/etc. usually the property of federal gov't and not the states they're in?

No. First of all, they have the power to levy taxes, not the right. And no, back then roads weren't federal property. I'm pretty sure they weren't at least, other than maybe a few routes.

Ulyaoth said:

That had nothing to do with the actual act of seceding.

Click to expand...

You stated the states have power to do whatever it wanted so long as it didn't infringe on certain rights. But while I understand why you say that had nothing to do with seceding, nevertheless secession was fundamentally to ensure that slaves remained slaves, therefore infringing on their human rights. This, in its own glorious way, de-justifies the legitimacy of secession.

candle said:

except at the time Slaves where not considered citizens, each slave was only 3/5 of a citizen, meaning full citizenship was not granted a ruleing made by the US Government, and not repealed actully, though slavary is illegal. So actully the slaves where not citzens so secession did not infringe on the rights of the slave as under Federal law they where not granted any rights under the law

Click to expand...

Right. Which makes their whole "democracy" completely illegitimate. Their legislature had no mandate whatsoever, and while yes it was the 14th Amendment that made everyone natural born a citizen, we have to realize that this whole argument of legitimate secession is ludicrous when the only possible voice for a whole class of southerners was the federal government. The state legislatures did not represent the state--in Georgia the slave population at secession was 44%. Given that there were some free blacks, and probably some white people who didn't support secession, there's no way the legislature was exercising the true will of the people.

What is the main cause for the American Civil War?

Click to expand...

Just to add my $0.02 without reading the whole thread, when we learnt the American Civil War in school, one DVD told us that it was proudly brought to us by General Motors, or something. But basically, I was taught that the major underlying cause was the US Constitution.

Ulyaoth said:

No, that's not it at all. Anything not specifically stated in the constitution is the right of the state's legislature to decide. So long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. The state legislature voting to secede is all that's necessary.

Click to expand...

Only those things that don't affect the other states or the country as a whole.

Hygro said:

You stated the states have power to do whatever it wanted so long as it didn't infringe on certain rights. But while I understand why you say that had nothing to do with seceding, nevertheless secession was fundamentally to ensure that slaves remained slaves, therefore infringing on their human rights. This, in its own glorious way, de-justifies the legitimacy of secession.



Right. Which makes their whole "democracy" completely illegitimate. Their legislature had no mandate whatsoever, and while yes it was the 14th Amendment that made everyone natural born a citizen, we have to realize that this whole argument of legitimate secession is ludicrous when the only possible voice for a whole class of southerners was the federal government. The state legislatures did not represent the state--in Georgia the slave population at secession was 44%. Given that there were some free blacks, and probably some white people who didn't support secession, there's no way the legislature was exercising the true will of the people.

Click to expand...

except it did, free blacks and slaves didn't have legal citizenship nor the right to vote in all truth, a ruleing of the Federal Government.

Cutlass said:

Only those things that don't affect the other states or the country as a whole.

Click to expand...

So keeping the south to raise money by heavy taxiation, you claim that choking the south for the good of the rest is approved

nd you just made that all up. Since you accept the fiction that a state can simply tell the federal government anything they damned well please, I take it that means that the state of Virgina can expel the Navy at any time it feels like it from those bases? What about Cuba? If they order the US Navy out of Guantanamo, do we immediately leave?

Click to expand...

1.) That is not in the slightest degree analogous. While a party to the Constitution, Virginia is liable to its requirements just like any party would be for any contract. When you remove yourself legally from the contract as South Carolina did, the contract is nothing more than a meaningless piece of paper.

2.) The current government of Cuba ratified an specifically stated limitless lease (I forget the duration, for all intents and purposes its eternal), that contract being very specific in its entry and exit requirements. It is not analogous.

The point is that it would be utterly and completely insane to expect that the federal government would consider that action by the South Carolina legislature sufficient in and of itself for secession. Yet rather than work through a process to make secession work, they instead started a war.

Well they lost that war. That was the choice they made.

The point is that it would be utterly and completely insane to expect that the federal government would consider that action by the South Carolina legislature sufficient in and of itself for secession. Yet rather than work through a process to make secession work, they instead started a war.

Click to expand...

It is irrelevant what the federal government would consider legal, what is relevant is what was legal and that was the states volontarily agreeing to be a part of the Constitution.

On top of that as has already been said multiple times there was several months between the vote for seccession and Fort Sumter. South Carolina used that time to send negotiators to give honorable terms of the retirement of federal forces with colors flying and honor intact. The federal government used that time to assemble an armada and negotiate terms in bad faith. Sorry, the side itching for violence is clearly the Federals.

Well they lost that war. That was the choice they made.

Click to expand...

So did the Poles. It is irrelevant as to who is the aggressor.

You stated the states have power to do whatever it wanted so long as it didn't infringe on certain rights. But while I understand why you say that had nothing to do with seceding, nevertheless secession was fundamentally to ensure that slaves remained slaves, therefore infringing on their human rights. This, in its own glorious way, de-justifies the legitimacy of secession.

Click to expand...

According to the federal government AND the relevant state governments, the slaves did not have these rights so they could not be infringed upon. Remember that women didn't even have sufferage at this time, this dog won't hunt for you.

Right. Which makes their whole "democracy" completely illegitimate. Their legislature had no mandate whatsoever, and while yes it was the 14th Amendment that made everyone natural born a citizen, we have to realize that this whole argument of legitimate secession is ludicrous when the only possible voice for a whole class of southerners was the federal government.

Click to expand...

You mean the federal government that denied them citizenship? By your own standard the federal government is also illegitimate. Not that your standard is at all usefull.

The state legislatures did not represent the state--in Georgia the slave population at secession was 44%. Given that there were some free blacks, and probably some white people who didn't support secession, there's no way the legislature was exercising the true will of the people.

Click to expand...

Given that women made up over 50% of the US population, there is no way that the federal government represented the true will of the US citizenry. We can do this all day. Again, this dog won't hunt.

Only those things that don't affect the other states or the country as a whole.

Click to expand...

Please quote the relevant portion of the constitution. Yeah, thats what I thought....

Patroklos said:

1.) That is not in the slightest degree analogous. While a party to the Constitution, Virginia is liable to its requirements just like any party would be for any contract. When you remove yourself legally from the contract as South Carolina did, the contract is nothing more than a meaningless piece of paper.

2.) The current government of Cuba ratified an specifically stated limitless lease (I forget the duration, for all intents and purposes its eternal), that contract being very specific in its entry and exit requirements. It is not analogous.

The point is that it would be utterly and completely insane to expect that the federal government would consider that action by the South Carolina legislature sufficient in and of itself for secession. Yet rather than work through a process to make secession work, they instead started a war.

Well they lost that war. That was the choice they made.



It is irrelevant what the federal government would consider legal, what is relevant is what was legal and that was the states volontarily agreeing to be a part of the Constitution.

On top of that as has already been said multiple times there was several months between the vote for seccession and Fort Sumter. South Carolina used that time to send negotiators to give honorable terms of the retirement of federal forces with colors flying and honor intact. The federal government used that time to assemble an armada and negotiate terms in bad faith. Sorry, the side itching for violence is clearly the Federals.



Do did the Poles. It is irrelevant as to who is the aggressor.

Click to expand...

well untill lincolin took office things where starting to go right for the Confederates, then Lincolin took over and said anyone that aided us would be considered an Enemy of the United States, that is the very reason no european power got involved in this conflict. Lincolin was the aggressor, and he is the reason for armed conflict. The war was his Idea not the south. The Fort was attacked after our ports where blockaded

I prefer to blame Eli Whitney. Keeps things simple.

Patroklos said:

Given that women made up over 50% of the US population, there is no way that the federal government represented the true will of the US citizenry. We can do this all day. Again, this dog won't hunt.

Click to expand...

It's impossible to know what their opinion on secession was, probably roughly the same as the white men. The slaves on the other hand- I highly doubt very many of them supported seccesion for the purpose of keeping them enslaved, that wouldn't make sense.