What is the main cause for the American Civil War?

[Hygro]

but that is a future situation not the present one, no rights where infringed agasint a slave in the action. Also don't look at this as a high and mighty north, remember freedmen before the Civil War had no rights even in the north and where kept segragated from white people and traditionally lived more akin to an indutured servant. The only reason the north was agasint it was because the south had more power in congress because of it

]Let me address your second point first, before moving on to your opening point. Indeed the North was hardly "high and mighty", and for so many of the reasons the "it-wasn't-slavery" crowd mention, the North as you put it wanted to change/abolish slavery. But you state "the only reason" which simply isn't true. The abolitionist movement, based on moral grounds, was growing politically. Northern culture was very heterogeneous so you had all kinds of political views from outright pro-slavery to industrial anti slavery to apathy to moral anti slavery and I'm sure more that I can't think of. So while much of the north was philosophically ass backward, a lot of it was also more progressive. One of the many reasons tension over slavery reached a breaking point was not where the North and South were with regards to liberty-philosophy, but where "everyone" (hyperbole, but still significant) knew the North and South were clearly going. My point here is that while yes, I am, in this argument, not putting my feet in the shoes of a 19th century white man, I am arguing from a point firmly rooted in available, widespread-enough information and political philosophy of the time, make my argument valid for both the 21st century and relevant to the 19th century. If this were a discussion on gay rights, for example, I would only be able to make a modern argument.

Anyway, this brings me back to your first sentence. Yes and no. I see exactly what you mean and I addressed that earlier--the present-status of slaves at secession was almost exactly the same--they were still enslaved to the same degree. But as we remember with the Dredd Scott Case, even if a slave was legally property, he or she could still finagle ways to sue in a federal court under the right conditions. And white abolitionists could sue on slaves behalf--though I'm sure a myriad of laws made this extremely difficult on average. But you can't sue someone outside your own country without the right diplomatic circumstances, and secession cut the legal ties between the north and the south, making an unfriendly-but-employable court simply off limits. And that is taking away freedom, not just future, but present.

The actual act of seceding did not infringe on anyone's rights. The basis behind the secession, it could be argued, but not the actual act of seceding.

I believe I just argued otherwise. I invite you to prove your point and will take it seriously.

 

[Ulyaoth]

I've already argued my point. The actual action of seceding doesn't infringe on anyone's rights. Just because the cause of their secession was doesn't mean that seceding was, because it's a separate action, separate legislation. Seceding didn't make slaves slaves, even though it was done so that they would be made to stay slaves.

 

[candle]

agreed no new slaves where added, and the people that had rights meaning the male land owners of the south did vote for this action to occur. It was a use of power and simply bulling by the South. If you want proof of there atrocities agasint the south and there bulling look at Shermans March and take a good hard look. Women and Children shot simply for supporting the south, or because a family member served the confederacy. Cities burned, crops destroyed, live stock slaughtered. Sherman under orders from Washingston slaughterd hundreds of innocent people, and the slave was included. If a slave tried to protect a little one sherman's men would attack that slave as well. His men looted and rapped and tore the south apart. While Davis was tring to send a diplomat to Washington to resolve the situation peacefully. When we left the truth is forming the confederacy wasn't the original goal of the movement, it was to make a point that we refuse to be bullied and taxed the same way England did a 100yrs prior. Washington was just as guilty as King George.

 

[Earthling]

You know I just now realized that Bill opened a horrible can of worms with his thread title. Almost certainly would have been better to use the past tense: What was the main cause for the American Civil War.

 

[cardgame]

agreed no new slaves where added, and the people that had rights meaning the male land owners of the south did vote for this action to occur. It was a use of power and simply bulling by the South. If you want proof of there atrocities agasint the south and there bulling look at Shermans March and take a good hard look. Women and Children shot simply for supporting the south, or because a family member served the confederacy. Cities burned, crops destroyed, live stock slaughtered. Sherman under orders from Washingston slaughterd hundreds of innocent people, and the slave was included. If a slave tried to protect a little one sherman's men would attack that slave as well. His men looted and rapped and tore the south apart. While Davis was tring to send a diplomat to Washington to resolve the situation peacefully. When we left the truth is forming the confederacy wasn't the original goal of the movement, it was to make a point that we refuse to be bullied and taxed the same way England did a 100yrs prior. Washington was just as guilty as King George.

It was done to break their spirit and make them surrender.

edit: As the saying goes, all's fair in love and war.

 

[choxorn]

the same way England did a 100 Four Score and Seven yrs prior. Washington was just as guilty as King George.

Fixed.

Anyway, we aren't saying that Sherman's March was justified, but that's not the point of the thread.

 

[Dachs]

Anyway, we aren't saying that Sherman's March was justified,

Speak for yourself. And while you're at it, keep ignoring all of the glaring inaccuracies and misrepresentations in the account of the march to the sea found in candle's post. I wish half the stuff happened the way he describes it.

 

[choxorn]

It's pointless to argue with him. The point of that was to say that that's pointless with regards to the thread's topic.

 

[candle]

Speak for yourself. And while you're at it, keep ignoring all of the glaring inaccuracies and misrepresentations in the account of the march to the sea found in candle's post. I wish half the stuff happened the way he describes it.

what it says in your history books, is not what it says down here and im more likly to belive the truth that is taught in the south about that monster. Why the south celebrates him, we denouce his very right to be honored at all. We have protested his grave site before does that give you a clue. Your hero is a murderer. What you are taught is a lie, come to the south and ask the truth about Sherman. Ask why many southern states actully declared him a criminal after the war was over. Did we declare him a criminal for no reason?