Maryland Division SCV honors USCT Veteran with gravestone dedication

[firstmdes]

Thomas DiLorenzo, in his widely acclaimed book, The Real Lincoln asserts the following concerning Lincoln and slavery. " A crusade against slavery would have offered a compelling case for Lincoln's war, but he never made that case. Until the day he died, he insisted that the war was being fought to deny Southerners the right of secession that virtually all the founding fathers believed was fundamental. Slavery, according to Lincoln, was only incidental to the real cause of the war: "saving the Union". Lincoln called up 75,000 troops to surpress a rebellion, not to free the slaves. Indeed, the official name of the war is the "War of Rebellion". Lincoln and the Republican Party did use the slavery issue brilliantly, however, to advance their real objective: establishiing a consolidated federal government and essentially destroying state sovereignty".

DiLorenzo's arguements concerning Lincoln's real rationale for waging a war against the South are very persasive and compelling.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I have not mentioned Lincoln's reasons for the war. I have only been arguing the Southern reason for the war...and based on what I have seen written and spoken by the leaders of the rebellion, they left the Union because of slavery. If slavery did not exist in 1861, there would not have been a war. If they left the Union for any other major reasons, please let know what they were and give me the sources of this information. And I would prefer the sources be contemporary to the Civil War and not written a generation later when the 'Lost Cause' movement was taking flight.

Thanks!

[RebelBugler]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I have not mentioned Lincoln's reasons for the war. I have only been arguing the Southern reason for the war...and based on what I have seen written and spoken by the leaders of the rebellion, they left the Union because of slavery. If slavery did not exist in 1861, there would not have been a war. If they left the Union for any other major reasons, please let know what they were and give me the sources of this information. And I would prefer the sources be contemporary to the Civil War and not written a generation later when the 'Lost Cause' movement was taking flight.

Thanks!

In my view, you have been arguing the reason for Southern secession, not the War. Clearly, the question of slavery and the political, economic and public safety aspects of slavery and/or its abolition were key determinants in the South's decision to secede. However, it had always been the South's intention to secede peacefully and pay just compensation to the Federal authorities for any debts owed.

Similarly, Lincoln had made several public overtures, claiming it was not his intention to interfere with the institution of slavery but rather preserve the Union. If we are to accept his statements, slavery would have continued unimpeded. Had the South not seceded, we infer from Lincoln's commentary that slavery would have been protected.

Accordingly, the cause of the war is obviously divergent views over consolidated (Union) government versus the rights of states to secede from what they considered to be a voluntary compact.

[firstmdes]

In my view, you have been arguing the reason for Southern secession, not the War. Clearly, the question of slavery and the political, economic and public safety aspects of slavery and/or its abolition were key determinants in the South's decision to secede. However, it had always been the South's intention to secede peacefully and pay just compensation to the Federal authorities for any debts owed.

So, let me think about this a bit...One of the "key determinants in the South's decision to secede" is slavery or its abolition. Lincoln decides to fight to keep the Southern states from seceding. That makes me believe that without slavery, there would have been no secession and without secession there would not have been a war; therefore, slavery is the main cause of the war. Makes sense to me. Why are you having such a hard time understanding it?

As to the South intending to pay compensation to the Federal authorities, please tell me where you got that. I have only heard that Lincoln justified the war, partly, to reclaim Federal property being illegally seized by the Southern states. He was trying to resupply Ft. Sumter when the rebel batteries opened fire on the fort. Seems to me that South Carolina was not trying to "to secede peacefully and pay just compensation to the Federal authorities for any debts owed." If I am wrong in this, please correct me with actual source material not just opinion. An intelligent debate requires statements backed by sources and proof. All I have gotten out of you is opinion.

[Blockade Runner]

So, let me think about this a bit...One of the "key determinants in the South's decision to secede" is slavery or its abolition. Lincoln decides to fight to keep the Southern states from seceding. That makes me believe that without slavery, there would have been no secession and without secession there would not have been a war; therefore, slavery is the main cause of the war. Makes sense to me. Why are you having such a hard time understanding it?

As to the South intending to pay compensation to the Federal authorities, please tell me where you got that. I have only heard that Lincoln justified the war, partly, to reclaim Federal property being illegally seized by the Southern states. He was trying to resupply Ft. Sumter when the rebel batteries opened fire on the fort. Seems to me that South Carolina was not trying to "to secede peacefully and pay just compensation to the Federal authorities for any debts owed." If I am wrong in this, please correct me with actual source material not just opinion. An intelligent debate requires statements backed by sources and proof. All I have gotten out of you is opinion.

If you are correct in your erroneous supposition that slavery caused the War Between the States, can you name me any other nation in the "New World" where the issue of slavery caused a war???

[Malingerer]

If you are correct in your erroneous supposition that slavery caused the War Between the States, can you name me any other nation in the "New World" where the issue of slavery caused a war???

Excellent question there blockader runner! Many modern historians have argued that slavery was responsible for the Texas War for Independence (the immigrant Americans wanted to bring their slaves with them but the Mexican Constitution forbade slavery) and many would argue that it played a central role in our war with Mexico. And, don't forget the Nicaragua Adventure. Arn't you glad you asked. Remember there are no stupid questions (although it seems there are an awefully lot of inquisitive idiots out there).

[firstmdes]

If you are correct in your erroneous supposition that slavery caused the War Between the States, can you name me any other nation in the "New World" where the issue of slavery caused a war???

I do not understand what that matters to this discussion. What causes other wars is not the same as what causes every war. If we follow your approach then we might be able to say that the invasion of Poland in 1939 was not the cause of England and France declaring war on Nazi Germany because when had the invasion of Poland ever caused a war before? Or, the U.S. did not really go to war against Imperial Japan in 1941, because when had the bombing of Pearl Harbor ever caused a war before? Odd logic if you ask me!

And to directly answer your question: Haiti. Without slavery would there have ever been a war for Haitian independence? I don't like using Wikipedia as a source, but this was from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haiti#Independence:

At the end of the double battle for emancipation and independence, former slaves proclaimed the independence of Saint-Domingue on 1 January 1804, under the name of Haiti. Haiti was the first country in the western hemisphere to abolish slavery.

The emphasis was added by me. I await your thoughts.

[Sgt_Pepper]

If you are correct in your erroneous supposition that slavery caused the War Between the States, can you name me any other nation in the "New World" where the issue of slavery caused a war???

Addendum to Mr. Maranto's reply above:

This is a classic "straw man argument". It is an attempt to distract by asking a pointless, irrelevant question intended to confuse the issue.

However, the question brings up some history of which very few Americans are aware, the slave rebellions and uprisings in Haiti, Jamaica, St. Domingue, Guiana, Brazil and other parts of the Western Hemisphere. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_rebellion

[Blockade Runner]

Addendum to Mr. Maranto's reply above:

This is a classic "straw man argument". It is an attempt to distract by asking a pointless, irrelevant question intended to confuse the issue.

However, the question brings up some history of which very few Americans are aware, the slave rebellions and uprisings in Haiti, Jamaica, St. Domingue, Guiana, Brazil and other parts of the Western Hemisphere. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_rebellion

No gentleman, that is incorrect. Everywhere else in the New World slaveholders were duly compensated for their property. Only in America was there no compensation ever rendered.

States rights and tariffs caused the war. Slavery was an ancillary issue

[Malingerer]

No gentleman, that is incorrect. Everywhere else in the New World slaveholders were duly compensated for their property. Only in America was there no compensation ever rendered.

States rights and tariffs caused the war. Slavery was an ancillary issue

Not that I expect you'll provide any, but do you have any documentation to back up your compensation assertion? For the life of me, I just cant remember the French ever being compensated for their lost slaves in Haiti. Oh, and nice dodge on not responding to the several examples that some of us provided in response to your question. Reminded me of politicians dancing around an uncomfortable question - it just never gets answered.

[firstmdes]

No gentleman, that is incorrect. Everywhere else in the New World slaveholders were duly compensated for their property. Only in America was there no compensation ever rendered.

States rights and tariffs caused the war. Slavery was an ancillary issue

What?? Being killed in combat by former slaves is considered compensation? If that is the case, then the Southern slaveholders were compensated as hundreds of thousands were killed in the U. S. Civil War!

You have got to be kidding!! Please show us some documentation, quotes, sources, anything that even hints at your assertion. I say it again and will keep repeating it like a little brother tormenting an older sibling...No slavery, no war...no slavery, no war...

(Wow! It's like being in Kindergarten again or sitting in the back seat of my dad's Chrysler Reliant saying, "Dad, he's touching me again!)