The Age-Old Question

[Xavier]

Was the American Civil War fought over Slavery or State's Rights?

[Amazing Rando]

States' Rights!

[Tfbandie]

States' Rights!

but chief among these 'rigths' was Slavery
http://www.swcivilwar.com/cw_causes.html

Throw in incredible amounts of pride and posturing and a romanticism with war... hmmm...

[Amazing Rando]

War
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
War
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
War is something that I despise
For it means destruction of innocent lives
For it means tears in thousands of mothers' eyes
When their sons go out to fight to give their lives

War
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again
War
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing

War
It's nothing but a heartbreaker
War
Friend only to the undertaker
War is the enemy of all mankind
The thought of war blows my mind
Handed down from generation to generation
Induction destruction
Who wants to die

War
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again
War
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing

War has shattered many young men's dreams
Made them disabled bitter and mean
Life is too precious to be fighting wars
each day
War can't give life it can only take it away

War
It's nothing but a heartbreaker
War
Friend only to the undertaker
Peace love and understanding
There must be some place for these things today
They say we must fight to keep our freedom
But Lord there's gotta be a better way
That's better than
War

War
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again
War
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing

[Cyrus Johnson]

but chief among these 'rigths' was Slavery
http://www.swcivilwar.com/cw_causes.html

Throw in incredible amounts of pride and posturing and a romanticism with war... hmmm...

I think the undercurrent that supports the whole thing is the how the South and the North viewed the concept of liberty, whether America was going to be a land of personal, state, cultural or national liberty.

The South saw the power of the central government as limited and emanating ultimately from powers bestowed upon it by the states. Thus as the states could give that power, so too could they take it away.

The North on the other hand, and in particular the Republicans, argued that in reality such a nation would be virtually powerless and pointless, dependent on the whim of each state to exist. They claimed that the founders devolved onto the central government the powers to steer the nation on the course that best benefits the country as a whole rather than individual states.

One might point out that when push came to shove in mid-war and the CSA was forced to institute a draft, they did so over the objections of some of their own states on the basis of state sovereignty.

[Spiritus Naturae]

I think it would depend on which Southerners you talked to at that time. It would seemingly be very subjective. Some would see it as State's rights and fighting against "tyranny" and for some it would simply be about keeping slaves as their economies would be heavily dependent upon slave labor. By the way,good post, Cyrus.

[Cyrus Johnson]

I think it would depend on which Southerners you talked to at that time. It would seemingly be very subjective. Some would see it as State's rights and fighting against "tyranny" and for some it would simply be about keeping slaves as their economies would be heavily dependent upon slave labor. By the way,good post, Cyrus.

Oh I agree. I was merely giving a very broad overview of what I see as one of the the main underpinnings of the conflict between the major antagonists.

Clearly for a conflict as complex as the Civil War, it's going to be difficult to paint a simple black and white picture in a few short sentences. It's not even clear if we should call it a domestic insurrection or a clash between nations, as it has characteristics of both.

At one end of the spectrum you have the extreme represented by a Boston abolitionist preacher. On the other end you have the extreme represented by the wealthy South Carolina plantation and slave owner. In between you have the entire kaleidoscope of viewpoints.

[Lily]

Was the American Civil War fought over Slavery or State's Rights?

I think it was both...one side fighting for the freedom and dignity of human beings. I don't think the individuals were thinking our state wants to control your state...
The other side fighting for it's right to make their own choices in their state...selfishness on their part for wanting to own another person...
which of course... slavery was wrong...no doubt about it.

[Maxentius]

I think it was both...one side fighting for the freedom and dignity of human beings. I don't think the individuals were thinking our state wants to control your state...
The other side fighting for it's right to make their own choices in their state...selfishness on their part for wanting to own another person...
which of course... slavery was wrong...no doubt about it.

I think it was both. As another pointed out, a chief "States' right" was the power of the state to permit some of its residents to enslave others based on race. On the other hand, re-unification was why most in the North fought. And I will wager that many Confederate soldiers fought to protect their homes. Like most historical questions, the answer is complicated. I certainly don't buy into the Southern argument that slavery had nothing to do with the war, and neither do I buy the Northern argument that the war was fought to end slavery--though it ended up that way.

[CatholicSage]

It was certainly fought over both issues, the North for slavery (and unification) and the South for states' rights. I, despite being a Northerner, have become a bit more sympathetic to the South lately. Most people there didn't care a whit for slavery, didn't own slaves or belong to slave-owning families; they fought to protect their political philosophy of a union that existed because of the states rather than the national government. As far as the starting conditions of the war are concerned (Preserve the union vs. states' rights) I think the South had the moral upper hand. As events progressed so that the North began to fight against slavery, the North gained this moral upper hand (IMHO). Still, I'm not so sure that the Civil War should have been fought in the first place...even considering slavery, it may have been better had slavery died a natural, gradual death, which would have protected both slaves and whites better than the sudden emancipation of so many. Perhaps later resentment and poverty of blacks could have been avoided in this situation. Ah, but I speculate...

[This_Guy]

Short answer - Both

Long answer follows :-)

"Hon. Horace Greely: Executive Mansion,
Dear Sir Washington, August 22, 1862.


I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I ``seem to be pursuing'' as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be ``the Union as it was.'' [2] If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. 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. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever...

A. LINCOLN"

Only a partial quote, but gets the point across I think.

As one born and raised in the South, I believe from the South's view, it was at least as much about slaves as it was states rights. I'm inclined to believe the issue of slavery was the biggest though.

I often make jokes about the war (We're still occupied and things of that type). And I take great pride in my Southern background. But the slavery issue is and I think will always be a thorn in the side of Southern Pride. It was a lifestyle that saw no wrong in depriving a man/woman/child the same basic freedoms that our very nation was founded to provide and protect.

At the same time, States Rights was, and in my opinion should always be a valid issue. There are things that the Fed should have their fingers in. There are things they should just leave alone. The right of freedom for ALL Americans would be in the first group I think.

The sad thing is that the single war that cost the most American lives, to date, if I'm not mistaken, was the one we waged aginst ourselves. And many of the people that lived in my part of the Nation joined that war to protect the right to deny freedom to one class of people.

I just hope we learned something from that war, and never let anything tear our Nation apart again!

Just my thoughts :-)

[themuzicman]

Was the American Civil War fought over Slavery or State's Rights?

The American Civil war was fought over whether a state could abuse the rights of human beings to be free simply because they wanted to have slaves.

To a LIMITED extent it was about state's rights, but it was more about whether a state could violate basic HUMAN rights.

And you know what they say about freedom: Abuse it, and lose it.

And boy did the states lose out on that one. (See the 14th amendment.)

Michael

[geochron]

The American Civil war was fought over whether a state could abuse the rights of human beings to be free simply because they wanted to have slaves.

To a LIMITED extent it was about state's rights, but it was more about whether a state could violate basic HUMAN rights.

And you know what they say about freedom: Abuse it, and lose it.

And boy did the states lose out on that one. (See the 14th amendment.)

Michael

I looked into this before. On a trivial level, the South had no problem with States rights until it no longer controlled the federal government.

Reading this...

http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoun...ion_causes.htm

...it seems to me the major beef is that the Federal Government is not forcing the Northern states to recognise slavery within their own territory. Seems to me South Carolina seceded because it couldn't impose its will on other states, not because other states were imposing their will on it.

[bar Jonah]

War
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
War
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
War is something that I despise
For it means destruction of innocent lives
For it means tears in thousands of mothers' eyes
When their sons go out to fight to give their lives

War
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again
War
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing

War
It's nothing but a heartbreaker
War
Friend only to the undertaker
War is the enemy of all mankind
The thought of war blows my mind
Handed down from generation to generation
Induction destruction
Who wants to die

War
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again
War
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing

War has shattered many young men's dreams
Made them disabled bitter and mean
Life is too precious to be fighting wars
each day
War can't give life it can only take it away

War
It's nothing but a heartbreaker
War
Friend only to the undertaker
Peace love and understanding
There must be some place for these things today
They say we must fight to keep our freedom
But Lord there's gotta be a better way
That's better than
War

War
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again
War
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing

... which is exactly why God commanded war so many times, and will again. :riwink:


I'm not an expert and don't pretend to be, but it is my understanding that the central cause of the war was economic between the north and south, that the north was putting a stranglehold on the south through commerce, particularly by banks up north. The issue of states rights is connected to that, and slavery became an issue later on as far as popular support for the war (on both sides), but as for the cause, from what I've read, it was very much economic. Money money money.

[Glenn P]

but chief among these 'rigths' was Slavery
http://www.swcivilwar.com/cw_causes.html

Throw in incredible amounts of pride and posturing and a romanticism with war... hmmm...

One of the rights may have been slavery - something that Lincoln personally practiced. But actually, chief among those rights was the right to secede from the union. Had this never arisen, there would have been no war.