The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Disunion, Slavery, and the Causes of the Civil War
Abraham Lincoln pledged in his First Inaugural Address to keep the union together but to allow slavery in the States that had it already
Nikki Haley recently downplayed the role of slavery in the actual starting of the Civil War. Technically, she is absolutely right. President Abraham Lincoln in his First Inaugural Address said that he would fight to keep the Union together, and that he would ban slavery in the western territories, but he pledged to forever protect slavery in the southern States that had it, and Lincoln even endorsed the infamous Corwin Amendment that would have forbade by constitutional amendment federal actions that would outlaw slavery altogether. It is Chris Christie and Ron DeSantis who have gotten the history wrong in this particular campaign food fight.
Consider what Lincoln said when he took the oath of office on March 4, 1861:
"Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that--
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.
I now reiterate these sentiments, and in doing so I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration. I add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause--as cheerfully to one section as to another."
For Lincoln, his first priority even ahead of abolishing slavery was avoiding disunion. As a man from Illinois, he was acutely aware of the fact that all the Midwest's farm produce floated by barge down the Ohio, Missouri, and Mississippi River to New Orleans. If Louisiana seceded, the economy of the Union would be at her disposal. It was essential to prevent this result.
In pledging to outlaw slavery in the Western territories, Lincoln was girdling the tree of slavery in the southern states where it existed in 1861. Such a strategy would end slavery in 100 years but not sooner.
In September 1862, the United Kingdom considered recognizing the independence of the Confederacy, exchanging ambassadors, and resuming trade and commerce with the South. But, Lincoln knew that anti-slavery opinion was very strong in the U.K., so he announced in September 1862 that all three million slaves in areas still in rebellion against the Union as of January 1, 1863 would be emancipated by presidential executive order thus turning the Civil War from being a war about keeping the Union together into a war to free the enslaved people. And, all four million enslaved people were freed when Lincoln helped steer the Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery to passage in Congress and after Lincoln's assassination in April 1865. The U.K. DID, as Lincoln predicted it would, stay out of the Civil War once it became a war to free the slaves, which is undoubtedly what Lincoln hoped would happen.
Slavery was the root cause of the Civil War, but Nikki Haley is right that from March 4, 1861 to January 1, 1863, the Civil War was about keeping the Union together. Only after Emancipation did the Civil War became a fight to end enslavement in the United States. And, at that point the U.S. was on the North's side of the fight.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
This is a rediculous obfuscation of history. Southerners were completely unwilling to accept a regime in which slavery would be banned in the Western territories and they would be unable to expand. They wanted parity with free states. They wanted to continue conpromises that had led to admission of slave and free states in approximately equal proportions. They feared that if they became a minority, their way of life would eventually be destroyed. They weren’t willing to accept assurances that the North would not abuse (as they saw it) a firm majority. They didn’t want it to have that majority in the first place.
The fact that Mr. Calabresi personally thinks Lincoln’s offer fair does not mean the Civil War was not “about” slavery.
One could easily imagine a similar argument on the other side. Because Southerners were offering separate but equal, an eminently fair offer (as they saw it), black protests and agitation in the 1960s couldn’t possibly have been about Civil Rights. The eminent fairness of Southern segregationists’ offer on this point completely belies the claim that civil rights had anything to do with it.
The situation here is similar, just with the tables turned.
Yeah, this argument is particularly silly considering that the seceding states had plenty to say about why they were leaving the Union.
For example, South Carolina, which seceded in 1860 - before Lincoln even took office! - declared
and
There really wasn't any doubt that the reason the states wanted to leave was to protect slavery.
Yes, there is no doubt whatsoever that the Southern states left because of slavery. But we're not discussing why they left, we're discussing why the Civil war happened.
It's just stupid to conflate secession and the Civil war, they were two events, with different causes. Secession didn't logically entail civil war, in principle the Union could have just said, "Good bye to bad rubbish!", and let the Confederacy leave in peace.
So, slavery was the cause of secession, and secession was the cause of the civil war, but Lincoln would have waged that war regardless of why the states had seceded. So the Civil war genuinely was not about slavery.
Even though secession absolutely was, and only fools dispute that.
'regardless of why the states had seceded.'
Which may be true but is irrelevant, since you have just told us the root cause of the civil war was slavery, there would have been no civil war without slavery.
.
A causes B, B causes C, and therefore we conclude that A didn't cause C? Wow!
.
Exactly. Brett's "argument," such as it is, is that if, hypothetically, D happened to cause B, it would also have led to C; therefore A didn't really cause C. But that's not the way actual logic works, not to mention there's no evidence that D isn't actually the null set here.
Congrats. You have mastered the logic of 2 year olds.
As any parent knows, when your child tells you that he whacked Timmy in the head with the block because Timmy pushed him and took his toy. He is presenting the argument that A causes B and B causes C so A causes C. Timmy pushed him and took his toy which made him mad. Being mad, he bashed his brother with the block. Therefore, I can't blame him for hitting his brother ! A causes C as clear as day !
The job of a good parent is to put a stop to this infantile logic. Sorry John, you had plenty of options other than bashing Timmy with the block. You are trying to push the bullshit that B has to cause C and that is simply false. You have just lost your computer time.
If you don't do your job as a parent, you end up with your kid claiming he had to shoot that other kid because that kid called his mom fat. Yes, the South left the union due to the North's position on slavery. You can shriek and shout like a two year old all you want, but civil war did not have to follow. That was a separate choice.
Cause is not the same as blame.
Your entire arguments is against some straw thesis no one has.
That is not what was said or implied. You simply make up your usual bullshit when confronted with an argument that doesn't fit the narrative you are trying to push.
It's exactly what was said and implied. As Sarcastr0 noted, you switched the topic from cause to blame.
Again, "blame" is the bozo injected word. I didn't put it there and I mean exactly what I wrote no matter how much a bozo wants to argue otherwise.
" but civil war did not have to follow. That was a separate choice."
Well, I agree with that. The USA could have said 'toodles, and y'all have a great life!'.
After Pearl Harbor, the USA could have said 'So sorry, we were totes wrong to stop selling you oil and steel because of your human rights abuses in China. What can we pay as indemnities to make things right?'.
That we didn't do that means the USA was responsible for WWII, and that the embargo, and Japan's territorial ambitions, weren't the root cause of WWII in the Pacific. Obviously.
Careful there: many of the confederate apologists here openly admit that they also think the axis were the good guys.
Who's the commenter here who thinks we should have allied with the Nazis to fight the Soviets?
there was a brief discussion about bombing the causcian oil fields after the soviet invasion of finland. the idea was dropped, partially due to the inability to reach the oil fields.
I think it was Kalak, not Kazinski.
.
Correct: that is exactly how to describe the causation involved here.
Now you’ve raised the separate question of who bears the moral blame for the fracas. In the case of the civil war, it’s an equally easy question (the Confederates), but it’s a different one.
This is silly.
The Union was never going to allow any states to leave, and everyone knew it. Pretending the Civil War didn't until the exact moment the shooting started, and only happened because of that same shooting mistakes the process for the cause.
Personally, I think it is silly to pretend that the Civil War didn't start when the first state declared secession and raised its banner in rebellion against the Federal government. Just because it didn't shoot the Federal officials it arrested or expelled, or burn the goods and materiel it seized, doesn't mean that these weren't acts of war and rebellion.
That's absurd. Why would a nation just recently founded on the right to secede consider secession an act of war? Nothing could be further from the truth. A number of states for example expressly reserved the right to secede when ratifying the Constitution, but it was considered superfluous and not even needing to be said.
When Lincoln kicked off the war by heading to Sumter, every member of his own cabinet opposed it except for the postmaster, and they roundly advised that this action was starting a war and that's why they did not support it.
Cherry picking. Some of the states didn't even mention slavery at all in their secession documents, while the ones that did mentioned other things too of course.
The North for its part did not go to war over slavery, at all. It takes two to tango, but those pushing a certain narrative ignore half the equation. The North for example was even more racist than the South. Abolition wasn't generally popular, but the opposition to slavery in the territories was based in opposition to existing in the same states where blacks were present. They wanted to quarantine all black persons in the states where they already existed. It also took the form of a populist "free white labor" movement, but most of all simple political power, as they figured allowing slavery to expand would tip the balance of political power in Congress and so on to the South.
"The North for example was even more racist than the South."
I'm trying to come up with a definition of 'racist' that has slave holding places less racist than non-slave holding places????
Tocqueville famously observed/claimed that racism was worse in the North. Arguably, white folks working and living closely with black people their entire lives even in the context of slavery could conceivably be less racist than white folks banning black people from being near them altogether, or even from entering their state like Illinois and others did.
We must be using different definitions of the word.
Thought experiment: you are strapped into the time+race travel machine. You are going to go back to 1850, and you're going to arrive black, The only choice you get to make is whether you arrive in Mississippi or Maine.
Do you pick Mississippi because you think it is less racist?
If you were banned from the state and would be deported from it anyway, then the choice wouldn't really be meaningful. But, no, I would rather have a larger degree of freedom and legal rights even if it meant being in a place with stronger attitudes of racial prejudice. Alexis De Tocqueville could be wrong, but he knew more about it than me:
“[R]ace prejudice seems stronger in those states that have abolished slavery than in those where it still exists, and nowhere is it more intolerant than in those states where slavery was never known.”
Tocqueville reportedly asked why for example, in Pennsylvania, black people were allowed by law to vote, but none had ever dared to actually do so, to which it was replied, "the law with us is nothing if it is not supported by public opinion."
“So the Negro [in the North] is free, but he cannot share the rights, pleasures, labors, griefs, or even the tomb of him whose equal he has been declared; there is nowhere where he can meet him, neither in life nor in death. . . In the South, where slavery still exists, less trouble is taken to keep the Negro apart: they sometimes share the labors and the pleasures of the white men; people are prepared to mix with them to some extent; legislation is more harsh against them, but customs are more tolerant and gentle.”
The point here, though, isn't to argue about which people centuries ago were more racist by contemporary standards. The point is just to understand the motives of the North for making war on the South. Was it due to some righteous cause or motivation regarding slavery or toward black people? No.
South Carolina seceded on December 23, 1860, AFTER the Electoral College had formally elected Abraham Lincoln as the Sixteenth POTUS with 180 of 303 votes.
The article said what was in the minds of many Southern politicians as they wrote their ordinances of secession: that they feared the SECTIONAL majority (a word also present in quite a few of the aforementioned secession documents), led by Lincoln, openly hostile to slavery, would abrogate the Constitution and the rule of law to, among other things, outlaw it, despite Lincoln's very assurances in his Inaugural address that he would NOT. Lincoln supported the Corwin Amendment, which would have given explicit Constitutional guarantee to slavery where it already existed.
Of course, given how the Government has blatantly disregarded its own Constitution as it's amassed further power, I'd say the Confederates states were CORRECT to not trust Lincoln. However, their ability to defy him ultimately proved FUTILE.
Except when the Union declared war on the Confederacy, slavery was legal in Washington, D.C.
Maryland, Delaware, Missouri and Kentucky were likewise slave states, and remained so until the end of the Civil War.
Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves only in areas under Confederate control. It did not free a single Union slave. Moreover, ironically, whenever the Union took control of Confederate territory, the slaves in that area remained in bondage: They were *not* emancipated.
The Emancipation Proclamation did not turn the Civil War into a war for abolition of slavery; the Union was perfectly happy to let slaveholders in Missouri, Kentucky, Delaware and Maryland – and in areas conquered by the North – maintain the status quo.
.
Thank you for repeating stuff that ChatGPT could've gleaned from any neoconfederate apologist site.
1) The E.P. didn't free slaves in non-insurrectionist territory because Lincoln had no legal ability to free slaves in non-insurrectionist territory.
2) When the U.S. regained control of territory in rebellion it did in fact free the slaves in that territory.
3) Lincoln was not "perfectly happy" to let slaveholders maintain the status quo.
So…. I’m not allowed to assert facts that you “could have gleaned” from another website? Or just a “neoconfederate apologist” one (I am neither)?
1. If Lincoln didn’t have the authority to free Union slaves, then perhaps emancipation wasn’t all that important to the Northerners.
Oh, I almost forgot: In 1862, Congress passed a bill emancipating slaves – but only in the District of Columbia, & compensating their owners. I wonder why Congress didn’t emancipate Union slaves?
2. No, the Union did not free the slaves in conquered Confederate territory. Maryland emancipated its slaves on November 1, 1864. Slaves in the other three Union states were emancipated a year later, by the 13th Amendment.
3. Lincoln prioritized suppressing the rebellion far ahead of emancipating slaves:
“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. 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.”
There’s this thing called the “constitution.” There’s this institution called the “Supreme Court.” In 1856, the Supreme Court had declared slavery a constitutional property right. That decision, and that constitutional property right, remained in effect until the 13th Amendment overturned it in 1866.
Of course Congress couldn’t just abolish slavery within states, as it had no power ocer intrastate matters. The interstate commerce clause wasn’t expanded until the 1930s. and Congress couldn’t abolish slavery in federal territory without just compensation for the owners.
I would suggest that you read up a bit on these things before saying anything more.
ReaderY 2 days ago
Flag Comment Mute User "I would suggest that you read up a bit on these things before saying anything more."
ReaderY - Can you inform us as to what Pallio wrote that was incorrect? Inquiring minds want to know.
.
If pineapple on pizza is an abomination, then perhaps the Jets will win the Super Bowl. (I assume this is the non sequitur portion of this evening's program.)
Not clear on which part of "Didn't have the authority to do so" is confusing you. Under the Constitution, Congress has plenary power to legislate in DC. It does not have such power outside of DC.
What the fuck are you talking about? Maryland was not "conquered Confederate territory," nor were the other three slave states that weren't in rebellion. Therefore, they have nothing whatsoever to do with the claim.
Yes; that's what he said.
.
You are almost certainly correct that at the beginning of his administration, Lincoln would have been willing to permit and even strengthen protections for slavery in the south in order to end the secession crisis, but that the south decided to go to war over slavery anyway.
What eludes me is why you think this is a point in favor of the confederacy.
Indeed, of the three remaining Union "slave" states (WV was admitted as a slave state when it was unconstitutionally separated from VA, but it abolished slavery in 1865 when it also ratified the 13th Amendment), although with the ratification of 13A by the 27th of then 36 states, GA, on Dec 6, 1865, rendering it in full effect, the initial refusal of DE and KY to ratify 13A was moot, DE did not do so until 1905, and KY did not until...1973!
DN response to Paliobulldog - "Thank you for repeating stuff that ChatGPT could’ve gleaned from any neoconfederate apologist site."
I am willing to bet that Paliobulldog got that statement from reading the actual document called the emancipation proclamation.
The root cause of the American Civil War was treason in service of perpetuation of chattel slavery. Eleven states refused to abide the result of an election in which all states had freely participated. The Confederates lit the fuse by firing on Fort Sumter. Everything that followed was the utterly predictable result.
The root cause was that some of the compromises made in order to get all 13 colonies to agree to the Constitution turned out to not actually be workable.
Which should have been obvious at the time -- promising to ignore your moral beliefs tends to not work -- but well everyone was rather desperate to have a united front against the rest of the world so it was somewhat unavoidable.
At the time people genuinely thought slavery was on its way out, and that if they kicked the can down the road, it would be an easier issue to deal with later. So it seemed like a defensible compromise.
And it was on the way out, until the invention of the cotton gin flooded the South with money, and transformed it back into an economically viable proposition. Nobody anticipated that when the US was founded.
Even so, slavery was not terribly productive, economically, and the North's stronger, non-slave economy was a large part of why they won the Civil war. And, indeed, it could be seen that slavery was a declining fraction of the economy, and that slavery was not materially expanding as the country did.
It was pretty obvious that eventually free states would have been dominant enough to pass the 13th amendment even without having to wage a war and enforce Southern ratification at gun point. That's why the Corwin amendment was proposed, and that's why the South seceded: They could see the way things were going, and that they WERE eventually going to lose if they remained in the federation.
You know, people.
Not quite the same as everyone. But can do the rhetorical lifting if you want to pretend it means that!
It was pretty obvious that eventually free states would have been dominant enough to pass the 13th amendment even without having to wage a war and enforce Southern ratification at gun point.
The important thing is to think of slavery in purely economic terms because when have people made decisions based on cultural terms, especially when such people are lead by a neo-aristocracy.
Counterfactuals can prove anything. It's an apologist's take that slavery could have been ended without blood.
I'm not arguing that it could have been ended without at least some blood. It could have been ended legally, rather than by war, but law enforcement spills blood, too. And there's all that suffering in the meanwhile, that's not to be ignored.
It's like, the fact that slavery was awful shuts down your capacity to reason about anything related to it.
I'm saying it was reasonable for the founders to think that slavery would be easier to deal with later, and that compromising with the slave states and putting off dealing with slavery until they were in a stronger position was seen as preferable to ending up back under King George's thumb.
Sure, it's easy to say, "They shouldn't have compromised!", when you're not looking at ending up hanging from a British gibbet if the revolution fails. Real people make real compromises with evil.
I mean, we literally allied with Stalin to fight Hitler, and Stalin was as guilty as Hitler for starting the war! Are you saying we shouldn't have done that, just because Stalin was evil?
Brett legal formalism from 150 years ago is a pedantic point that matters only to you.
Not even the neoConfederates care. Out legal history is imperfect deal with it and quit refighting the Civil War over weener nonsense.
As to the motives of the Founders, they were quite mixed.
"A pedantic point that matters only to you."
Funny thing to say after reading the OP.
The OP is not arguing via counterfactual to say abolition could or should have been attempted via legal means, with a bit more patience.
That is nonsense you brought to the table all on your own.
And it is not an argument anyone without your selective but extreme formalism cares about.
"...eventually free states would have been dominant enough to pass the 13th amendment even without having to wage a war and enforce Southern ratification at gun point."
Not sure why you think the south that seceded in 1860/61 because they thought they might lose slavery someday wouldn't have seceded when an amendment ending it was actually passed...
.
I mean, no. That’s bullshit rationalization. There were 15 slave states — the 11 confederate states + Missouri, Kentucky, Delaware, and Maryland — at the time of the civil war. It takes 3/4ths to pass an amendment. Basic pre-algebra tells you that there would’ve needed to be 45 states in favor — 60 states total — in order for it to pass. It was not “pretty obvious” that eventually there would be 60 states — spoiler alert: there still aren’t! — even if slavery had been confined solely to the existing slave states and every new state admitted were a free state.
(And that's also assuming that every free state wanted to abolish slavery in the states, which is probably a bad assumption.)
Good point regarding slavery not actually having been under imminent threat within the existing slave states, but what then was the South's reason for secession?
The stated goal of the Confederacy was to maintain slavery. Lincoln was clear that his goal was to maintain the Union.
Looking for non-BS reasons assumes the actors are reasonable, I do not think was can assume that in regards to the confederates.
It makes sense ONLY if the Federal Government was actually going to respect the Constitution. Yes, if Lincoln was true to his word (being a corporate attorney, he was a pragmatic man), he'd have considered only a Constitutional amendment as the means to ban slavery over the will of the several slave states, and indeed doing so with all 15 slave states being in solidarity to oppose it would have required SIXTY states in the Union.
Who's to say that would NOT have been effected, with a sectional majority in the Congress and the Electoral College that, as long as the new GOP (the term wasn't actually used until late in the 19th century) held onto and maintained solidarity outside the South, they could effectively dictate terms, including dividing the states, or creating enough out of existing territories, to pull that off, EASILY. For a more pleasant diversion, view a few episodes of "How the States Got Their Shapes", and it's easy to see that quite a few proposed states might have come about had their been a need to render moot that pesky thing known as the Constitution. Aside from simply IGNORING it, as our Federal and many State Government (including in the SOUTH) have done since 1865.
That's the nature of what's considered essentially a CONFEDERATION of free states, and not an overreaching, over-arching NATIONAL government, the master (and oppressor) of the states, rather than a FEDERAL government, once the SERVANT of them. Sort of like Anakin Skywalker monstrously morphing into Lord Darth Vader, even before getting barbecued and needing the armored breathing suit.
The declarations of secession and subsequent acts to impose the authority of the "Confederate States of America" on hundreds of thousands of loyal citizens of the United States were acts of war, committed to protect and perpetuate slavery.
In that sense, the war was not about secession, the war WAS secession.
But Lincoln didn’t start the war. The state of South Carolina, Nikki Haley’s state, started the war by firing on Fort Sumter. And they most certainly did so to preserve slavery.
Sure. Also, Clarence Thomas is the greatest judge who ever lived. Good grief.
He is. I got a rock.
So LIncoln lied to get us into war? So did Wilson and FDR.
You left out the 3rd Stooge, LBJ, with his Tonkin Gulf BS and Shemp, I mean "W" wasn't exactly shooting straight either.
Shemp Howard would be INSULTED at being compared to GWB.
You’re taking Lincoln at his word. How can you do that? He was a politician, crafting his words to the time and place.
He was officially taking the view (at that point) that the South was in rebellion and the Confederacy was illegitimate and unjustified. He’s not going to say, on his first day as President, “We’re going to abolish slavery.”
Why not take him at his word? He was pretty consistent, after all, and even if not a white supremacist, he was a white separatist: HIs solution to slavery was to free the slaves and deport them, to have their own country apart from the US.
Remember Liberia? That's how it came about!
That's more neoconfederate bullshit. Lincoln supported voluntary colonization, not because he was a "white separatist" in the sense you appear to mean it — that he didn't want to live around blacks — but because he was a pessimist who didn't think whites and blacks could live together peacefully as legal equals. At no point did he favor "deporting" blacks.
As for not taking him at his word, you are very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very selective in when you are willing to do that with politicians.
Liberia was founded in 1847, well before Lincoln was nationally known. He had nothing to do with that. He did support deportation of blacks, but had no specific plans. Considering what the Cherokee and Choctaw suffered during the "Trail of Tears" in the 1820s and 1830s, being forced out of the Carolinas, Georgia, and Alabama to "Indian Territory" (present-day Oklahoma), and that involved about 100K persons, just imagine the sheer logistical challenges and the costs, let alone the human suffering, in kicking out FOUR MILLION American blacks, which were then roughly the same percentage as today.
Just because Lincoln was willing to accept slavery continuing in the South for the sake of the Union, doesn't mean that the war wasn't about slavery. It only means he was willing to compromise, maybe, for the sake of the Union.That doesn't mean that slavery was not the key issue in leading to the Civil War.
The South was not willing to accept that compromise, probably believing that it was at best only temporary and that eventually it would lead to the abolition of slavery. And they said so repeatedly in their secession resolutions and speeches throughout the war.
They claimed a belief in states rights to justify the most pernicious form of slavery that bound not just the individual but their descendants as well. States rights has been used since to justify bigotry from Jim Crow on down to today with Texas' immigration measures and the various bans on women having the right to choose their own reproductive choices, free of Government intervention.
While there is some benefit to having administrative divisions in a large country, and even some local variation based on custom and circumstances, there is nothing inherently undemocratic in have one central government making the rules for the country as a whole. It is how those rules are made that matters, and not whether or not there are separate sovereignties that want their own rules. States Rights was a false issue for democracy from the outset.
Perhaps you should rethink your last paragraph given that the abolition of slavery began within the individual states. Slavery was protected as a federal matter, but opposition grew and later thrived within the northern states.
I often hear the argument, mostly here, that we need State's Rights and State Sovereignty because the central government is less democratic than the individual states.
The question is not whether or not States can be "better" in things like abolishing slavery or any area but whether or not having States with separate sovereignty is necessarily more democratic than having a central authority. Either can be oppressive to individual rights and either can be more beneficial to individual rights. The result depends on who is making the decisions at each level. Neither is necessarily good or bad on their own.
As referenced, somewhat inaccurately, in the 2000 movie, "The Patriot":
"Please tell me, Mr. Howard, why should I trade ONE tyrant (King George III), 3000 miles away, for THREE THOUSAND tyrants, a MILE away? A legislature can oppress a man's rights as easily as a king can."
What's so Civil bout Wah anyway?
Ask anyone, if you could, unfortunate to have been in the path of General William Tecumseh Sherman's Army's path during his "March to the Sea", and then his campaign into the Carolinas. Hence why I refuse to use the name of that fine WWII AFV, the M4 medium tank, which the BRITISH gave to it. He was a WAR CRIMINAL, and deserved the same fate as doled out to ten Nazis after the International Military Tribunal at Nuremburg on October 15, 1946.
D.W. Griffith had it right,
“The bringing of the African to America sowed the seeds of disunion.”
Frank
Slavery was the root cause of the Civil War, but Nikki Haley is right that from March 4, 1861 to January 1, 1863, the Civil War was about keeping the Union together.
A war not being about it's root cause is an interesting take on how English works.
Let's ask the counter-factual: If the South had seceded over tariff law, would Lincoln have let them go? You really think so?
But *they didn't.*
I don’t know. The South didn’t do that.
You want to disaggregate secession from slavery. You can’t. Trying is just cleaning the Confederacy’s hands.
"If the South had seceded over tariff law, would Lincoln have let them go?"
Maybe not. If they had seceded over tariff law, then we'd say 'The root cause of the Civil War was tariffs'.
I believe it was in his memoirs that Ulysses Grant speculated on pre-1860 sentiment about secession. He suggested that he, like most Americans, might have been inclined to accept it, except that slavery added an intense moral dimension.
.
No. But (a) the South was not going to secede over tariffs, so it's a moot point; and (b) whether Lincoln would've done the same thing in some hypothetical situation has nothing to do with the question of what caused him to do what he actually did do in an actual situation.
Probably not. In which case, it would be fair to say that the ensuing war was about tariff law. Just like how we say that the actual war was about slavery.
Considering that tariffs collected in SOUTHERN ports were about 80 percent of Federal revenues in 1860, he'd have been a FOOL to just let the Confederacy go its way.
Hint: when people come up with bullshit reasons, and disclaim that it's "not about the 'money' ", that's EXACTLY what "it's" about.
We all know why Haley hedged and waffled and left room for the interpretation that the “freedom” being fought for was the freedom to own slaves. Regardless of what she did in the past as to removing the Confederate flag from the state capitol, she’s running for the Republican nomination now and she knows to win it she needs the white racist vote.
Her campaign is now national. Confederate flags are, depressingly, all over. They were brought into the Capitol by the rioters of Jan. 6. Last year I was driving through the north country of New York State and I saw them hanging on barns and houses.
I doubt this was her motivation. She must realize that she can’t possibly get “the white racist vote,” any more than Tim Scott or Vivek Ramaswamy. So there goes your theory.
What is scary is the degree that people like Halley, Scott, and Ramaswamy must go to please a small group of Republicans, that as you note would not vote for them anyway.
I'll see your north country of New York State and raise you the upper peninsula of Michigan.
The causes of the American Civil War is a discussion for scholars, what is clear about what happened last week was Gov Nikki Halley's unwillingness to state that slavery was a cause of the war. This reflects that fact that a certain small portion of the Republican Party is now inhabited by people who would rewrite history. They object to history that is not projected the way the want it told. Objecting to 1619 Project and CRT. Objecting to the removal of statues placed specifically to retell the history of the Civil War. Gov Halley would not state a simple fact least she offends a small group and a small group that would likely not vote for her anyway. There is no need for this deep dive into the cause of the American Civil War, there is a need to ask why a small group can so affect politics.
Wait, I thought it was the 1619 Project that tried to "rewrite history"...
The 1619 offer a different focus on American History using facts. That is not really rewriting any history, just offering an alternate prospective. I would not suggest the 1619 Project replace current history books, but only that it be used to compliment current texts.
"Lost Cause" textbooks from the unReconstructed South need to be replaced, but Northern schools taught me accurately about slavery and secession as long ago as the 1960s. In contrast, "1619 Project" claims that 1776 Colonists revolted to protect slavery are absurd.
Given that the victors of the War of Northern Aggression certainly "re-wrote" history then, and did some FURTHER "editing" in wake of the political correctness that has plagued this country since LBJ and his "war on Poverty" (which was really a war on FREEDOM and the ability of folks to run their own lives w/o government interference), I'd say there needs to be resistance to it. Since the dawn of time, tyrants of whatever political mode have rewritten history, rendering their opponents "in damnato memoriae", to preclude "wrong thinking".
Well, it certainly became about slavery when Lincoln needed to get re-elected.
Just for the record:
Lincoln was a Republican.
Interesting that in Lincoln's days Republicans could talk about slavery and now they cannot.
No, she is not “absolutely” right, “technically” right, any combination of those, or in any other way right, because Lincoln did not start the war. He inherited it from Buchanan, months after it started. Why he continued the war is not one of the causes, any more than why the Soviet Union fought World War II negates the fact that the war started because Hitler invaded Poland.
South Carolina’s declaration of secession gave, as its sole cause for secession, the matter of slavery. South Carolina then fired the first shots of the Civil War in order to give effect to that secession; those shots being fired on January 9, 1861, not only prior to Lincoln taking office, but prior to any other state seceding.
(Anyone who now knows about the firing on the Star of the West, but tries to pretend that the Civil War didn’t start when the military forces of a seceding state opened fire on the military forces of the United States, is simply too contemptible for words. It may have been politic to try to ignore the shots fired in the early months of 1861, when there was still some hope of ending the war before anyone died, but now there’s no honorable reason to pretend the war didn’t start when the first shots were fired in anger.)
Now, Nikki Haley, having been born in South Carolina, having been raised and educated in South Carolina schools from kindergarten all the way through when she graduated from Clemson, having served in the South Carolina state legislature, and then having been governor of South Carolina? She damn well knows why South Carolina started the Civil War.
So why did she answer otherwise? Because she was lying, of course.
As to why, the reason she was lying was pure habit. When your entry into politics was a contested primary race in a safe district for the South Carolina state legislature in 2004, you don’t answer a constituent’s question of “What was the cause of the Civil War?” with “This state wanted to preserve slavery, and seceded, took up arms, and opened fire on the forces of the United States in service of that aim.” You give a temporizing answer that doesn’t alienate every Lost Cause idiot in the district, because politics very often means telling your constituents no more of the truth than they’re willing to swallow.
But to pretend she was doing anything but lying is ridiculous.
My impression, living in the South for some years now, after moving from Michigan, is that Southerners generally feel no impulse to defend slavery, but get irate at the Civil war being portrayed as utterly black and white, with nothing but bad motives on one side, and nothing but good on the other.
That's winner's history, not real history.
Slavery in 1860 was like Abortion today, just substitute "Slave" for "Fetus", ironically, the Afro-Amuricans got/get the short straw in each era.
.
Just serves as a reminder to everyone: Buchanan was the worst president in American history, at least pre-Trump.
As South Carolina had declared its secession and RESUMPTION of the status it held as a recognized free nation and republic when it was a signatory of the Treaty of Paris in December 1783, wherein the United Kingdom recognized the independence of its former colonies as THIRTEEN SEPARATE NATIONS, on December 23, 1860, it had every right to defend its borders and territory from the aggression of what was legally a FOREIGN power.
Unless you make the unreasonable assertion that when South Carolina ratified the Constitution on May 23, 1788, that was an act of SURRENDER. Do you see ANY language or terminology that indicates the Palmetto State was SURRENDERING to Federal authority? Or that any OTHER state was doing likewise? Not only won't you find any such language, a reading of the then-extant Federalist and anti-Federalist papers, circulations that give a great indication of the thinking that went into the Constitution and the subsequent Bill of Rights, give NO indication that ANY of the states believed they were surrendering their sovereignty.
And lest you think that this propensity to "go one's own way" was peculiar to South Carolina and/or the South, look up the Hartford Convention of 1814 sometime.
In a follow up article Calabresi finds that no one dies from being shot. There is however a mildly concerning trend of people dying from holes in their body. And another trend of bullets creating holes in bodies. And even a third trend of guns causing bullets to fly at high velocity.
However, one isn't encouraged assume these trends are particularly connected.
And Brett thinks that since one would also die from being stabbed, that gunshots aren't actually the cause of the shooting victim's death.
There is the question of what people who know what they are talking about and are willing to speak candidly can reasonably say about the causes of the Civil War (and I won't add to the many, often surprisingly, cogent comments on that topic) and the question of what Nicky Haley said, and what that says about her. To say that Haley's meaningless word salad was "absolutely right" is pure hackery. That she indulged in meaningless word salad in response to the question (is this that much different from what she has to say about anything else?) speaks volumes about her.
In fairness, there is a bit of 'we have met the enemy and he is us' here. And by 'us' I mean the electorate. When is the last time you heard a politician say 'we can either raise taxes, or cut benefits, or run a deficit, pick at least one'?. Honest people who speak unpleasant truths don't get elected. I don't like that politicians are lying weasels, but we the voters won't elect anyone else.
Walter Mondale?
There are rare exceptions that prove the rule :-).
I can't recall any big windys from Gerald Ford either, for that matter. In the general case, though...
(Ford failed to make this list, which is nice ...)
Mondale is the go-to example. (Though he probably would have lost anyway.)
As Andy Rooney put it, “Politicians lie. They lie because, when they tell the truth, we don’t vote for them.”
I miss Andy Rooney.
Mondale was the next generation of "Minnesota Milquetoast" and a complete MORON. That the DNC nominated him to run again Reagan in 1984 indicates that he was either a sacrificial lamb in a campaign they already knew they were going to get shellacked in; or there simply was a DEARTH of talent. Considering that their candidates, successful or not, have included since, a geek, a hillbilly horndog, a bloated sack, a "community organizer" and big city political hack, a dyke that killed sales of pantsuits, and a corrupt hack that makes LBJ look like a choir boy, I'd say it's been the LATTER.
Not that many GOP nominees, until 2016 and 2020, inspired me either. Especially those named "Bush".
The root cause of civil war 2 is almost certainly going to be the intellectual dishonesty of guys like Steve here, so it makes sense they can't admit root cause is the same thing as cause.
It matters not the reasons for the last civil war. It is history and nothing can be done to change it.
The problem is that for some reason the left wishes to have another civil war. We should start trying to determine why they are so insistence upon it so we can stop the next one.
We love the poorly educated!
Nikki Haley whiffed because she strives to appease our society's vestigial bigots, who are concentrated in the region she inhabits and in the political party from which she seeks favor.
Steven Calabresi got a whiff, rather than whiffs, because his nose is firmly stuck up Nikki Haley's ass.
Carry on, clingers. So far as better Americans permit, though, and not a step beyond.
It's rare to find a controversial subject where you can say with confidence that it just is not worth discussing anymore. But this one is it. The notion of the lost cause is so toxic, and by now so discredited, that the only interest to be found in the discussion is a kind of horrified marvel that anyone still champions it. That is not a payback worth anyone's effort.
If you want to know why someone does something, it is usually good practice to go by what they said.
Every single Confederate state cited slavery as the reason for their secession
There is little coherent debate as to whether secession is an act of war or not, and the Confederates proceeded to wage war anyway
Gee, wouldn't the signatories of the Declaration of Independence would be VERY interested to HEAR that? So you'd have been OK with, had the Continentals lost the Revolutionary War, the primary military and political leaders, like George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson all being HANGED as traitors to the Crown? Or His Majesty's soldiers and servants extricating property and enslaving the colonials as punishment for their rebellion? Funny how one howls when the shoe's on the other foot.
Nikki Haley is right that from March 4, 1861 to January 1, 1863, the Civil War was about keeping the Union together.
Calabresi is full of it. Haley spouted some Palinesque nonsense. She didn't even make any sort of argument about that.
Here is what she said.
“I think the cause of the Civil War was basically how government was gonna run, the freedoms and what people could and couldn’t do,” Haley told the man who posed the question during the Berlin, New Hampshire town hall. She then asked what he believed to be the war’s impetus. He refused to answer, declaring that it was Haley, not him, who’s running for president. She followed up by saying, “I mean, I think it always comes down to the role of government and what the rights of the people are.”
That's disgusting, and entirely inappropriate.
Seriously, it's trying to out-edge the edgebot, which is great for the edgebot beuase it shits up the comments to the way it likes it. Don't swim in its shit.
I would certainly not claim it would stop it from posting shit, just that you wouldn't also be posting shit, thereby decreasing the sum total of shit being posted.
It's an edgebot, it'll cheerfully plagiarise your comments for its own use and carry on regardless.
I'm with Nige here. Plus, your comments are racist and offensive on their own terms. And you know about Popehat's Rule of Goats.
^^^ Very much this