States Rights - was the South justified in the American Civil War?

Page 1 of 3123>
November 28th, 2012 at 10:31:39 AM permalink
TheCesspit
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 23
Posts: 1929
The War between the states/American Civil war I find interesting, as it was a wide ranging war that bridged the gap between the older March/Counter March with close combat and brutatlity of the bloody fields of later wars in the Great War when sheer fire power started to rule more than close assault.

However, also interesting are the causes of the war, and the reasons for the fight. The classic view of the cause was the right to own slaves. But I think this was just the top line reason, and masks the underlying argument, "States Rights. This was the ability for the states to specify their own rules (for example the legality of owning slaves). The CSA contended that they could cede from the Union if they choose and leave more rights for the states to self determine, and remove federal power.

The Northern faction (led by the Republicans) believed that succession for the US was not possible, while the southern Democrats (and some of the Northern ones too) believed in the statement of the declaration of independence :

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

So was the South justified in it's stance to cede from the Union (which then led to the civil war) based on States Rights? This is despite of what you may think the causes they were railing against (slave ownership, the economic imbalance, northern-led federal protective tariffs which hurt the southern agricultural economy).

Or was the North right in it;s moves to preserve the Union from fragmenting?
It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die.... it's called Life
November 28th, 2012 at 11:00:06 AM permalink
AcesAndEights
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 6
Posts: 351
I find this subject fascinating, but I haven't studied it in detail. I tend to think the South was justified in seceding and that states should hold that right, but given the absolute moral wrong-ness of slavery, I don't necessarily fault the North for going to war over it. I dunno. I need to read more about it.

In any case, I think the Federal government is too strong, and the result of the war only served to strengthen it.
"You think I'm joking." -EvenBob
November 28th, 2012 at 12:53:56 PM permalink
TheCesspit
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 23
Posts: 1929
The war didn't really become about the slaves until after Antietam and the Emancipation Proclaimation. Which, it should be noted, only defined that slavery was to be abolished in the states under rebellion (this came into effect on January 1st 1863). Slavery to me was only the cassus belli, rather than the underlying deep cause. Four of the slave owning states were part of the Union (though in at least Maryland's case, not voluntarily), and the emancipation proclamation didn't free the slaves in those states, or in areas already under Union control.

The war became heavily in the Union's favour after Antietam, as the loss of any potential support from Europe to the CSA was lost. It should have been a major victory but the Union generals were overly cautious, and General Lee was just better at the art of war than most of his opponents. The next year is a series of brilliant campaigns by Lee that extended the war but this led to the slow attrition of his army, and the South was not up to matching the North's weight of men and industry.
It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die.... it's called Life
November 28th, 2012 at 2:00:16 PM permalink
Fleastiff
Member since: Oct 27, 2012
Threads: 62
Posts: 7831
Slavery was largely a trumped up issue with hothead rabble rousers on the extremes. John Brown was almost certainly mad.
November 28th, 2012 at 6:12:36 PM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 346
Posts: 12545
I don't think secession is appropriate unless the parties wanting to leave lack any other options.

Compare the case of US independence vs the secession by the South. The Colonies lacked representation in Parliament, and thus had no say over how and by whom they were governed. The South had representatives and senators in Washington, plus they could vote in presidential elections. At that all or most blacks could not vote. if anyone had a moral case to secede, it was the black population int he South. Of course many of them were slaves....

The other objection is that once you recognize the right to just leave a political unit, then every major dispute where there are opposing sides can be "solved" by secession. And that in the long run will drive you into anarchy.

But the fact is one cannot simply ignore the reasons the South wanted to secede. One big reason was slavery. Not the only reason, certainly, but a very big reason. Not to mention they wanted to expand the number of slave states. Slavery being incompatible with a free republic, it had to go. It was bound to go. it could go easy or hard, and the South chose hard.
Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER
November 29th, 2012 at 6:26:19 AM permalink
Fleastiff
Member since: Oct 27, 2012
Threads: 62
Posts: 7831
Slavery as a political institution didn't really matter, it was the economics of slavery and capital that played a role. There were not all that many slave owners but the growing population did seem a problem.
The north had contempt for blacks and used varying legal and social pressures to keep them off the voting rolls.
Evin the Irish regiments had contempt for blacks.
November 29th, 2012 at 12:24:13 PM permalink
TheCesspit
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 23
Posts: 1929
Quote: Fleastiff
Slavery was largely a trumped up issue with hothead rabble rousers on the extremes. John Brown was almost certainly mad.


I don't quite understand what you mean by this statement. It was trumped up by who? The Bleeding Kansas events show that it was more than a few people wanted to swing the course of slave ownership one way or another. It was a central debate for several years in the house (the Missouri compromise, the Nebraska/Kansas deal, admission of Minnesota). I think it was a pretty key point for much of the early US.

The South thought that the federal government should not be able to impose on their states an abolition of slavery. There was the view that it was the tyranny of the state over their own individual rights. The irony is that the the CSA probably would have protect slavery at top level. But still, at what point can a state decide to cede from the Union?
It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die.... it's called Life
November 29th, 2012 at 1:33:01 PM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 346
Posts: 12545
Quote: TheCesspit
There was the view that it was the tyranny of the state over their own individual rights.


That is exactly the glaring contradiction in the South's claim. In effect they were demanding the right to violate the rights of black people. to strip them of rights, really, as slaves were considered property.
Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER
November 29th, 2012 at 2:10:21 PM permalink
TheCesspit
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 23
Posts: 1929
Not to strip of them their rights. They had no rights, like a horse has no rights, and a house has no rights. It's dumb, I agree. It's disgusting to our view point, but the white southern gentleman wholly and faithfull believe that the slave was property, and it was an affront to give them rights.

However, the war wasn't fought to "free the slaves" not initially. The North wasn't going down their like good Sir Galahad to free the black man, and give him his rights. They went to preserve the unity of the states. I'm trying not to fall into some sort of "Lost Cause" mentality here, but it's always strike me that if the United States was a Union of States, surely some or all of those states could remove themselves if they so decided to?

I agree that the you can't always cede when you disagree (I don't agree that leads to anarchy, though), but there is a point when all else has failed and you believe your section of the world has a very different view from there's. It happened in Czechoslovakia, for instance. The Scots are getting the right to vote on it as well soon. In these cases, it was a bi-lateral agreement, but I guess, did or does the US constitution allow a state to unilaterally, or bi-laterally dissolve itself from the Union? And if not, should it have done?
It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die.... it's called Life
November 29th, 2012 at 2:53:58 PM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 135
Posts: 18136
Quote: TheCesspit

However, also interesting are the causes of the war, and the reasons for the fight. The classic view of the cause was the right to own slaves. But I think this was just the top line reason, and masks the underlying argument, "States Rights. This was the ability for the states to specify their own rules (for example the legality of owning slaves). The CSA contended that they could cede from the Union if they choose and leave more rights for the states to self determine, and remove federal power.


IMHO, slavery was not the "cause" of the war but was the big issue of the time. I doubt slavery would have lasted even 20 years longer than it did. In fact, slavery made most southern whites more poor as they had to compete against slaves for labor. The North was more about internal improvements (canals, etc) and expansion. The south was more of a believer in state over federal control.

Had the South gotten a European Power to ally in "The War of Northern Aggression" they might have won independence. They never would have been able to subdue the North as they themselves were subdued. But say the Birts threw in and the North would have had to sue for peace. However, the Brits saw Egypian Cotton as a substitute for their factories and colonialism shifted from your own population in new lands to subduing Africa and Asia. They had no good reason to take that risk.
The President is a fink.
Page 1 of 3123>