Civil War: Cause?
 

:cd:

To what degree, if any, was there a direct correlation between the replacement of the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution, and the socio-economic conditions (including the electoral college, gerrymandering and closed primaries) leading up to the american War of Rebellion?

Articles of confederation change
 

Oy-vey, you always ask the questions which make me strain my brain ;) Ok, here is my answer. As we all know, the Articles of Confederation was a failure. It was pretty much predicated on states rights. without a strong Federal government, taxes could not be levied, armies could not be raised, National Banks could not be formed, etc.

So they founding fathers got together and hammered out the Constitution (for interesting reading leading up to the ratification of the constiution, read the Federalist papers). There was a lot of angst going on here though because in the new representational form of government proposed, the north would have the ability to outvote the south on any regionally divisive issue since the representatives for each state were based on population counts. Therefore a compromise of sorts was reached which provided for each slave to be counted as 3/5ths of a person for purposes of representation.

Consequently the need for slavery to be spread as states were created was paramount so that the south could have a chance in voting down legislation that did not favor them. That plus the fact that the founding fathers did not outlaw slavery period in the constitution would lead to all the failed compromises, the fugitive slave Law, the Dred Scott decision all paved a road toward disunion.

I may be wrong but I believe if the founding fathers had found a way to abolish slavery at the onset of the Constitution, there would not have been a Civil War. I know there are probably a lot of people on this board who may think that states rights was the paramount reason for the war, however, if you think about it logically, almost every thing you can bring up including the Morrell Tariff which was passed after secession has slavery mixed up in it and therefore was a reason for the war.

Bill

Holy mackerel Bill -

3/5ths of a person! In other words, although the founders would not or did not mention slavery in any way, they felt the need to compromise with the South and "count" votes, which then led directly to the spread of slavery (Missouri Compromise et al), which then led to John Brown and Abolition and all the rest.

Would it be fair to say, then, that to have agitated for Abolition might sometimes have been the same as voting to take AWAY voting power from the South? More so, or as much as, than anything having to do with the moral cause of freeing a horribly oppressed race of people?

Fer cryin' out loud!

And, how is it that today under a Federalist government, we do not have a criminal or civil code that applies to all States equally, nor even a United States of America driver's license? Seems like the only thing we have that IS Federal is a Social Security number, for all the good THAT might do someday.

Obviously, I am confused. You are not.

Confused, Moi?
 

Oh believe me I am easily confused. As a matter of fact, I served in the USCG (Uncle Sam's Confused Group) .

What is even more weird is the fact that one of the main reasons why the South lost the Civil War was the lack of a central government, to wit:

a)In North Carolina, they had warehouses full of confederate uniforms. Virginians were in rags, NC would not release the uniforms. They were still there in WW2 when the state gave them to the government for use by German POWs.

b) Georgia grew so incensed at Richmond that they threatened to secede from the Confederacy.

c) The lack of standards between the states created a logistical nightmare for the Confederacy vis-avis rail road guage size. If the Richmond government had had their say, they could have standardized the Rail road rail sizes and thus allowed for more more efficient transport of arms, soldiers and materiel for the war effort.

This is a topic that could go on forever (about the causes of the war). Personally, I think it could be boiled down to fear and pride on both sides. That is a topic for another discussion.

Bill

Ok here is a topic everyone can understand on why the south seceded. Today in California they have a big budget crisis and lets say for arguments sake that the US Government imposed a tariff that only affected the state of Maine i.e. the export of Lobsters to help California balance their budget on the money earned by Maine Lobster Fishermen. Now if you lived in Maine would you think that a fair arangement that a special Tax i.e. Tarriff was imposed just on you to help another state balance their budget? well thats one of the things the Northern Indutrialist did to the Agriculture based economy of the southern states. They imposed high tarrifs on all agriculture products shipped to England (who payed more for cotten then the textile mills of PA)Then when the South decided to take their ball and go home old Abe was in a pickle he couldn't let his Ill. constituents down when La. decided to tax all goods heading up the Mississippi river thru La. So Abe told the wayword states they could come back into the union and keep thier slaves but, the Southern States wanted some Tax relief and didn't get any and the rest is history .

The World Conscience
 

Most countries in Western Europe had abolished slavery. The abolishment of slavery would eventually happen and with the abolishment of slavery would come the civil war. States rights, slavery all played important part in the cause of the Civil War.
I believe that strong central government which came out of the Civil War enabled the U.S. to be the strong nation which enabled us to expand and eventually become the greatest nation in the World. Its sad that we couldn't have developed the strong central government without a war.

Keith

Jerry & Keith -
It is odd, what might have been the true combination of causes for that war...I judge most of them were economic not moral, however. New York City was always THE most active slave trading port, and yankee bigotry against the negro race was every bit as horrible as anything that happened south of the Mason-Dixon... nor did it end with the Civil Rights Act in either part of our country.
I would find the federalist system of government more tolerable if it were in fact strong and central. In that light it might have been a significant error to include the 10th amendment which, in fact, creates enormous waste, redundancy, injustice, and actual degredations of human and civil rights in many cases. Perhaps, one day, our people will find a way to rectify this... and the Civil War might finally end.
It is undeniably true that back then in most other parts of the world, slavery had been abolished. My reading of the history says that America was trying to rid itself of the "peculiar institution" too, but as a fairly young economy had become quite dependent on that form of labor, south AND north. Too many other things seem to have taken place along the way, emotions got inflamed, people's livelihoods were threatened, loyalties were challenged in a governmental environment which had not yet fully embraced federalism. In the end, northern industrial power trumped southern agriculture, slaves were reluctantly freed, and Reconstruction fueled an onslaught of internecine punishment from which both sides are still recovering.
And, I am not quite as sanguine as others about the expansionist policies of our government. Many many people suffered, and still do, from those in a way that is impossible to justify, and which was not at all necessary. We decimated civilizations, expropriated their land and natural resources, made treaties later broken, and set the stage for resentments throughout the world by which America is burdened today. The hopeful aspects of our nation could yet be destroyed by our insatiable selfishness and arrogance.

We have a lot of work to do upon ourselves so that all the sacrifice of lives and treasury will have the intended meaning.

Thanks for all your well written thoughts :ae: and some good points noted also. I always enjoy discussing the WBTS i.e. Civil War .Since Websters Dictionary states that the definition of Civil War is when one faction trys to take over the Government. The South split with the US and formed its own Country and Capital and left Washington City for the Union so i.e. no civil war occurred :) One term for the WBTS some countries refer it as the 2nd American Revolutionary War. God bless the USA, and lets take care of our Civil War Era veterans grave sites no matter what side they supported because if we don't stand up for their rights now who will stand up for us when we are dead an buried? So, on memorial day plant a flag (Dixie or Old Glory) for your departed veteran and for the decendants who followed. Deo Vindice and E Pluribis Unum.

Jerry -

I, myself... assuming the temerity to even use the first person prounoun in such a case as this is, have always preferred the nomenclature "War of Rebellion".

We shall not have further american wars... of rebellion, nor of revolution wherein blood is shed and dealt if Patriot Files shall keep the fair diplomacy of sincere persons alive against escalating rhetoric.

That war must end when, and only when, we ALL say it has ended, for all of time.

Much is at risk.

In the balance, a vanguard of peacemakers holds the key.

And then no more shall any of us need, "Look away, look away..."

Jerry and Blue...........
 

I love to debate Civil War topics. As soon as a lot of stuff gets cleared at work and I can clear the brain, maybe we can discuss a few interesting items about the War of the Rebellion.

Bill