Was the Civil War about slavery?

[History_Buff]

Even had both sides been willing to negotiate, I don't think there was ever going to be an acceptable middle ground. Lots of people were trying in the run up to the war, and none of them were ever particularly popular.

 

[Cutlass]

I was pointing out that the total refusal to negotiate resulted in 5 years of bloody war. I'm not sure if your stolen car analogy fits here... I would agree on the attempt at fait accompli; as it was, it turned out to backfire to the case of the South.



Possibly. But once war broke out, there were no serious negotiation attempts. The only fait accompli achieved was civil war. The question is: did it need to go on for 5 years?

The South could have given in at any time. For what reason was it Lincoln's responsibility to surrender a war that the South started?

To the South the issue was hardly "any little pretext"; that would suggest the South would secede and go to war no matter what issue was at stake. One could, however, argue that the slave states in essence were unwilling to submit to an abolition that was ultimately unavoidable. I would agree that is an irrational position, but politics often is irrational.

The point is that abolition was not a problem any time in the immediate future. There was no need to act in 1861. The worst that they faced was a gradual erosion of the political power of the South for decades to come. Does that actually justify a war?

 

[Agent327]

The South could have given in at any time. For what reason was it Lincoln's responsibility to surrender a war that the South started?

The point is that abolition was not a problem any time in the immediate future. There was no need to act in 1861. The worst that they faced was a gradual erosion of the political power of the South for decades to come. Does that actually justify a war?

How does this relate to the necessity of 5 years of civil war? And the solution to the problem of slavery had already led to several compromises, so I'd say it was a matter of some urgency to the US as a whole.

 

[LightSpectra]

How does this relate to the necessity of 5 years of civil war? And the solution to the problem of slavery had already led to several compromises, so I'd say it was a matter of some urgency to the US as a whole.

The "solution" to slavery, including annexing Cuba as a slave state to get more pro-slavery senators, or flooding Kansas with slave-holders to exploit Northern Democrat principle of self-determination?

 

[Cutlass]

How does this relate to the necessity of 5 years of civil war? And the solution to the problem of slavery had already led to several compromises, so I'd say it was a matter of some urgency to the US as a whole.

Ask the Confederates. The war was their choice, not Lincoln's. Why do you think it was Lincoln's responsibility to be Neville Chamberlain?

 

[Flying Pig]

The avoidance of war except where absolutely necessary is one of the duties of a national leader, in my book.

Define absolute necessity.

You've essentially summed up why we still have wars.

 

[Dachs]

Define absolute necessity.

 

[LightSpectra]

The avoidance of war except where absolutely necessary is one of the duties of a national leader, in my book.

You've essentially summed up why we still have wars.

What's the point of having a strict moral imperative if you're intentionally going to leave its species undefined?

 

[Agent327]

Ask the Confederates. The war was their choice, not Lincoln's. Why do you think it was Lincoln's responsibility to be Neville Chamberlain?

The question was about the necessity of the duration, not the war itself. (As to LiIncoln's responsibility, according to his own statements, if there be any doubt, he was the president of all states - that includes the rebel ones.)

 

[Flying Pig]

What's the point of having a strict moral imperative if you're intentionally going to leave its species undefined?

I believe that it's subjective, and hard to define in general terms - a leader should know in any time of crisis the point at which he considers war to be the least worst option, and has a moral obligation not to go to war until that point is reached.

 

[LightSpectra]

I believe that it's subjective, and hard to define in general terms - a leader should know in any time of crisis the point at which he considers war to be the least worst option, and has a moral obligation not to go to war until that point is reached.

But you said "in my book", so clearly you have some opinion in the matter. Otherwise you're making any state leader who decided upon war to be unfalsifiable.

 

[Flying Pig]

I also believe that nobody should be condemned for making a reasonable and rational leadership decision under pressure, even if that decision later proves to not have been the best one - I also think that morality is a rather private business, and that leaders will have to answer, metaphorically speaking, to their God for it, not necessarily to their fellow people.

 

[History_Buff]

The question was about the necessity of the duration, not the war itself. (As to LiIncoln's responsibility, according to his own statements, if there be any doubt, he was the president of all states - that includes the rebel ones.)

What exactly do you think Lincoln should have done to shorten or avoid the war?

 

[Cutlass]

The question was about the necessity of the duration, not the war itself. (As to LiIncoln's responsibility, according to his own statements, if there be any doubt, he was the president of all states - that includes the rebel ones.)

Given that the North failed to win decisively early in the war, and given that the South did not give up when they saw that the North really was prepared to fight, what exactly should Lincoln have done?

 

[Agent327]

I thought that would be obvious. Given the fact that a decisive victory was not in sight, he could have changed his stance of "no negotiation with rebels". But I guess he was a man of principle. A costly principle.

 

[Traitorfish]

No more so than the Confederates, who were similarly stubborn in their refusal to lay down arms and disband their government. Why hold Lincoln so uniquely responsible?

 

[LightSpectra]

It would be unlikely for any person to read JEELEN's posts and not think he's trolling at this point.

 

[Cutlass]

I thought that would be obvious. Given the fact that a decisive victory was not in sight, he could have changed his stance of "no negotiation with rebels". But I guess he was a man of principle. A costly principle.

So a person steals your car, you confront him, and he punches you in the nose, and that makes the car legally his and you should sign over the title on the spot?

 

[Flying Pig]

In the interest of fairness, I should point out that JEELEN is proposing that it isn't necessarily worth having a fight-to-the-death with him over the car, not that the car is rightly his.

 

[History_Buff]

I thought that would be obvious. Given the fact that a decisive victory was not in sight, he could have changed his stance of "no negotiation with rebels". But I guess he was a man of principle. A costly principle.

And offer what? Lincoln had already offered all sorts of promises that he did not intend to end slavery as an institution. To give up any more would have been unacceptable to Lincoln's own party. Yet the South was not willing to accept this assurance.