Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Causes of the civil war

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Causes of the civil war

    What do you think are some of the major causes, and why?

  • #2
    I think the #1 leading cause was the growth of Southern Nationalism. By pretending(?) that their interests were different
    from the rest of the country, they made it true.

    Comment


    • #3
      Go to the "is there still friction" thread. Thats an example of your cause of it!:thumb:
      "War is the remedy our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want."
      General William "Uncle Billy" Sherman

      Comment


      • #4
        The War started when the North refused to allow the South to exercise its right to secede.

        Here is a good article about that right.

        http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/dilorenzo2.html

        JS
        Barcsi János ispán vezérőrnagy
        Time Magazine's Person of the Year for 2003 & 2006


        "Never pet a burning dog."

        RECOMMENDED WEBSITES:
        http://www.mormon.org
        http://www.sca.org
        http://www.scv.org/
        http://www.scouting.org/

        Comment


        • #5
          A good book to read regarding slavery and secession is Negro President, Jefferson and the Slave Power by Garry Wills.
          And we are here as on a darkling plain
          Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
          Where ignorant armies clash by night.


          Matthew Arnold

          Comment


          • #6
            Answer: A fear that political power held by the South at the time would erode quickly because Southerners believed that the election of Lincoln meant that the spread of slavery into western territories would stop abruptly during the course of his presidency.
            I come here to discuss a piece of business with you and what are you gonna do? You're gonna tell me fairy tales? James Caan in the movie "Thief" ca 1981

            Comment


            • #7
              The tariff act imposed by the North had a great deal to do with it.
              If you think about it...........it kind of reminds a person of the stamp act before the American Revolution.

              Mark
              Deo Vindice
              Si vis pacem, para bellum. (If you want peace, prepare for war.)

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by last_cav1971
                The tariff act imposed by the North had a great deal to do with it.
                If you think about it...........it kind of reminds a person of the stamp act before the American Revolution.

                Mark
                Deo Vindice
                The tariff act was actually after the fact. It became a much bigger issue postwar. On the Republican platform, it was but a single minor point in 1860, out of 19 points. Some ten or 12 points were slavery related.
                I come here to discuss a piece of business with you and what are you gonna do? You're gonna tell me fairy tales? James Caan in the movie "Thief" ca 1981

                Comment


                • #9
                  If you read the speeches and letters of the South Carolina Commissioners who went around to the other Souther states to get them to secede there is only one topic they talk about.

                  It wasn't states right or tarrifs or political power. It was a passionate need to preserve slavery rooted in a deep racial fear of the consequences of of the end of slavery.

                  All the other rationales are after the fact inventions trying to give some nobility to the Confederate cause.

                  There was nothing pretty or noble about it and I say that as one who spent most of the first 30 years of my life in the south.
                  Boston Strong!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Tom DeFranco
                    Answer: A fear that political power held by the South at the time would erode quickly because Southerners believed that the election of Lincoln meant that the spread of slavery into western territories would stop abruptly during the course of his presidency.
                    :thumb:
                    Wish I could be that succinct.
                    --Patrick Carroll


                    "Do all you have agreed to do, and do not encroach on other persons or their property." (Richard Maybury)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I'm Choctaw. We were only too glad to get to shoot at the Feds.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Janos
                        The War started when the North refused to allow the South to exercise its right to secede.

                        Here is a good article about that right.

                        http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/dilorenzo2.html

                        JS
                        Jeff, it would be wise to not believe much by DiLorenzo. Mr. DiLorenzo is admittedly not a historian, but an economist who fancies himself a historian. There was a very good article in North and South magazine that featured an argument between him and Gerry Prokopowicz about Lincoln. Many of DiLorenzo's arguments were found to be null and void with regard to timing of events, etc. He belongs to a group (and that website may be the one I'm thinking of) that still espouses secession.

                        BTW, does the specific language in the tenth ever really state that secession is legal? I'm going to have to secure a copy of the 10th amendment. It would be wise though to remember that previous attempts at secession before 1860 were always prevented.
                        I come here to discuss a piece of business with you and what are you gonna do? You're gonna tell me fairy tales? James Caan in the movie "Thief" ca 1981

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Tom DeFranco
                          BTW, does the specific language in the tenth ever really state that secession is legal? I'm going to have to secure a copy of the 10th amendment. It would be wise though to remember that previous attempts at secession before 1860 were always prevented.
                          The attempts prior to 1860 failed, but that I am not aware of any that were defeated.
                          ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Here is the 10th Amendment:

                          The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          You will recall that the constitution enumerates the responsibilities and limits of the Federal Government and sets a number of rules. This says essentially, that everything else falls to the states or to the people.

                          JS
                          Barcsi János ispán vezérőrnagy
                          Time Magazine's Person of the Year for 2003 & 2006


                          "Never pet a burning dog."

                          RECOMMENDED WEBSITES:
                          http://www.mormon.org
                          http://www.sca.org
                          http://www.scv.org/
                          http://www.scouting.org/

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Tom DeFranco
                            Jeff, it would be wise to not believe much by DiLorenzo. Mr. DiLorenzo is admittedly not a historian, but an economist who fancies himself a historian. There was a very good article in North and South magazine that featured an argument between him and Gerry Prokopowicz about Lincoln. Many of DiLorenzo's arguments were found to be null and void with regard to timing of events, etc. He belongs to a group (and that website may be the one I'm thinking of) that still espouses secession.
                            I don't understand your argument. You mention none of his points, only that he debated someone else (whom I have not heard of and don't know his credentials). While this is probably not the point to discuss that interview, you have given me more questions than answers about it.

                            I am not aware of which organization DiLorenzo belongs to -- there are several that still believe secession to be legal. Since there is no law against it and the issue has never been resolved consititutionally, it appears that it is. There are a good many others who make the same arguments, by the way, including Thomas Sowell, who wrote an entire book on the subject.

                            JS
                            Barcsi János ispán vezérőrnagy
                            Time Magazine's Person of the Year for 2003 & 2006


                            "Never pet a burning dog."

                            RECOMMENDED WEBSITES:
                            http://www.mormon.org
                            http://www.sca.org
                            http://www.scv.org/
                            http://www.scouting.org/

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by JSMoss
                              All the other rationales are after the fact inventions trying to give some nobility to the Confederate cause.
                              Including the American Revolution?
                              Including the Nullification Act?

                              I cannot disagree in stronger terms with your statement.

                              I do not disagree that the SC commissioners argued about slavery. I don't know and it doesn't matter. Your argument is basically the same as saying that because I had a cheeseburger for lunch today, that cheeseburgers is all I eat for lunch. The issue goes much further back than 1860. Thomas Sowell's book dates it back to the Velvet Revolution in England but certainly you will agree that the US seceded from England in 1776 (or at least it's possession)-- why should the states not have the same power regardless of the reason?

                              JS
                              Barcsi János ispán vezérőrnagy
                              Time Magazine's Person of the Year for 2003 & 2006


                              "Never pet a burning dog."

                              RECOMMENDED WEBSITES:
                              http://www.mormon.org
                              http://www.sca.org
                              http://www.scv.org/
                              http://www.scouting.org/

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X