Some say Haley was wrong for not mentioning slavery as the cause of the civil war

So now you descend into the frothy 'mosh pit' of spite, bitterness, and invective. I leave you to your thrashing about. Try to avoid splattering it on others just because they disagree with you and you'll be a better person for it. Adios....

 

I agree, and have stated this, many times. It's heads and tails of the same coin.

Heads = Lincoln starts a war to save the union. In a letter published in the NYTimes, we learn that saving the union is his primary reason, where he stated that if he could have saved the union without freeing the slaves, he would have done so. So, freeing the slaves was a collateral objective, not a primary one.

Tails = Most of the south, perceiving that Lincoln was an abolitionist, in order to preserve slavery, seceded.

I'm calling Heads because of Lincoln's primary motive. Of course, timeline-wise, tails occurred first.

 

It was the south's reason to secede, but not Lincoln's reason to declare war. He stated in a letter published in the NYTimes that if he could have saved the union without freeing the slaves, he would have done so. Of course, that being said, he was an abolitionist. But, he wasn't in a hurry to end slavery.

Of course, as time progressed, it became increasingly clear to Lincoln that in order to save the union, slavery had to be ended.

 

Lincoln did not "start the war." His commitment to preserving the Union demanded the primary pretext for attacking the United States be addressed.

After President Lincoln announced plans to resupply U.S. troops at Fort Sumpter, Confederate General P.G.T. Beauregard bombarded the fort on April 12, 1861, the initial act of the Civil War.

 

Yes! Quite right! And no one disputes that. The Southerners who owned slaves (estimated credibly at ~5% of the population of states where slavery was legal) definitely had 'skin in the game' and a lot to gain through secession.

But the other 95%...? What was 'in it' for them but the very real possibility of prolonged, extreme hardship, deprivation, and death if they took up arms and fought simply to defend slavery -- which was of no real benefit to them at all?! They may have been largely uneducated, but were 95% of the populations of the Confederate states really THAT stupid and easily manipulated by the 5% who owned plantations and lots of slaves...?

 

The documentation proves that Lincoln's primary motive was to save the union, and that if he could have saved the union without freeing the slaves, he would have done so.

In the NYTimes letter, Lincoln wrote, "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."

https://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm

But, of course, given that the south seceded to preserve slavery, as time progressed, especially after the attack on Ft Sumter, that he had no choice but to end slavery.

The south's succession to preserve slavery, and Lincoln's primary motive for the war to save the union, thus slavery drives the war, but is not Lincoln's primary motive, it is a collateral motive. It's really two sides of the same coin.

It’s important to note that when Lincoln wrote this letter, a draft of the Emancipation Proclamation already lay in his desk drawer, it's just that the letter to the NYTimes tells us ending slavery was a collateral motive. He was an abolitionist, and if south hadn't seceded, it is reasonable to believe he would have sought to end slavery at some future point, but with legislation, not war.

In Lincoln's first inaugural address, Lincoln spoke thus:

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read: Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/lincolns-first-inaugural-address

Clearly, the secession forced him to change his mind on 'interfering' in states rights, but the point is, initially, he was in no hurry to end slavery, as much as he found it repugnant.

 

Bravo! That was surely one of the more intelligent, thoughtful posts I've seen in this thread. The Civil War was indeed caused by two main considerations -- the concern for States Rights (which I believe was the dominant one), and, the concern that a small but very wealthy group of Southern slave owners had for their own enterprises. It was a COMBINATION of things, but some who post here are entirely unwilling even to countenance the possibility that this was the way it really was in 1860.

 

Given that the first act of war was the bombardment of a United States fort and United States troops on April 12, 1861, it is obvious that Lincoln did not "start the war."

 

Well, what, precisely, is your argument?

So, while the tariffs played a role in the tensions leading to secession, it would be an oversimplification to say that they were the sole or even the primary cause, especially considering the pivotal role of slavery regarding the civil war.

 

Thank you, I didn't mean to make that a point, so replace 'start' with 'engage'.

I try to be precise in my verbiage, but we all slip, at times.

Also, I added some points to the post, so refresh your browser.

 

There is a lot of nitpicking on the timeline, but what we really have are two sides of the same coin in a confluence of two major contributing facts:

Think of it as heads and tails of the same coin:

Heads, Lincoln engages in war to save the union, his primary motive was to save the union, not free the slaves. He said so in a letter to Horace Greeley published in the NYTimes. But, after the attack on Ft Sumter, it became increasingly clear to Lincoln that in order to save the union, he had to end slavery. thus, ending slavery was a collateral reason, not a primary one.

Tails, Most of the south, sensing an abolitionist president, seceded in order to preserve slavery.

Slavery drove the war, but saving the union guided it.

 

I'm sorry you are offended by the concept of historical accuracy, but the facts don't care about your feelings, nor should they. Try to avoid running and hiding from reality just because it hurts your feelings. You'll be a better person for it. Adios.

 

You can "believe" that as much as you want, but even the people you are defending have made it clear you are full of **** and don't agree with your desperate excuses.

 

For the South, for the seceding states, slavery was always the primary reason. Nothing else came first.

 

Dismissed. "LOL".

 

then replace with "engage in war".

 

I have to disagree. Confederates had taken over Federal forts even before Fort Sumpter.

 

The timeline wasn't the point.

There are two components, equal.

South secedes because they perceive Lincoln is an abolitionist, they attack Ft Sumpter because it's owned by the Union and it's on Southern territory.

Lincoln defends, and this escalates into a civil war. Lincoln declares that his primary motivation is to save the union, and if he could do so without freeing the slaves, he would do so. He also stated in his first inauguration he had no intention of invading the south to force abolition. Once the war began, he became increasingly aware that freeing the slaves would be the only way to save the union.

So, the south secedes to preserve slavery.

Lincoln escalates the war to save the union

Slavery drove the war, Lincoln's effort to save the union guided it.

 

The South attacked Federal property well before Ft Sumpter and even before secession.

 

You mean 'Ft Sumter'.

While your statement is accurate, Historians consider the attack on Ft Sumter the beginning of the civil war.

 

He certainly responded to an attack on the United States by deploying the United States military.

 

I am aware on no military assaults precipitating the War of Secession before the bombardment of Fort Sumpter.

Please enlighten me.

 

SC had already fired on at least one ship that was bringing supplies to Fort Sumpter even before then, and Confederates had already taken gear from other forts. I'll get you a more full list soon. Atun Shei Films has a good list, I just need to find his video on that again.

 

I'll start to take your "concept of historical accuracy" more seriously when you demonstrate an accurate knowledge of places and events in the history of the beginning of the Civil War -- beginning with "Fort Sumter". You're the big expert here, but you don't even know that the name of the place where all this started in earnest was "Fort Sumter"...?

And don't wake up now and claim you made a 'typo', because you blundered through this more than once....

Link: https://www.nps.gov/fosu/index.htm

 

She was wrong, but she tried "not to offend" some supporters in the GOP, which is why she gave the answer that she did. Slavery was the number one issue. It was part of the Confederacy Constitution and in several speeches by those who supported who led the Confederacy. They wanted to make it a right to own slaves, among other things.