# American Civil War/When/how would the south have abolished slavery without it **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 10, 2014, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359 "2014-03-10T16:42:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359/121 "2014-03-12T18:45:37Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Meh, the South was the side that justly lost the Civil War as it was fighting to maintain an evil system of human slavery, but I think it’s a pretty debatable point about who started “the war.” > > There is nothing clearly stated in U.S. law that prohibited secession. Thus the question of whether Ft. Sumter was a Federal possession or an illegal occupation by a foreign power on sovereign soil of South Carolina is, to me, a technical one which could go either way. The President at the time secession happened actually believed it was probably legal, as did several constitutional thinkers of the day. It was a genuinely unsettled question that was finally settled–but not by legal arguments. What is clearly stated in U.S. law is how such questions of what is or isn’t permitted under the Constitution are handled: [Before the Supreme Court](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitution), and not by one side declaring that they are right and attacking the side that disagrees. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359/122 "2014-03-12T18:46:13Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Thus the question of whether Ft. Sumter was a Federal possession or an illegal occupation by a foreign power on sovereign soil of South Carolina is, to me, a technical one which could go either way. And it was exactly the sort of technical question that is generally resolved by negotiation. The historical record shows that the hotheads in South Carolina weren’t interested in even finding out whether that was an option - and the rest of the South, rather than repudiating the actions of the hotheads, completely embraced them. The South started the war. It’s that simple. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359/123 "2014-03-12T18:48:28Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Lincoln warned in his inaugural address he would only invade to enforce the tariff. :dubious: That is a very odd characterization of [his words](http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html). > [@](#): > > I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and I shall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself. 17 > > In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the Government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating and so nearly impracticable withal that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices. 18 > > The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of the Union. So far as possible the people everywhere shall have that sense of perfect security which is most favorable to calm thought and reflection. The course here indicated will be followed unless current events and experience shall show a modification or change to be proper, and in every case and exigency my best discretion will be exercised, according to circumstances actually existing and with a view and a hope of a peaceful solution of the national troubles and the restoration of fraternal sympathies and affections. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359/124 "2014-03-12T18:50:24Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > The President at the time secession happened actually believed it was probably legal . . . Well, no; although his theory as to why it was illegal is perhaps not the best theory. You can read about that in [_What Lincoln Believed,_](http://www.amazon.com/What-Lincoln-Believed-Convictions-President/dp/1400030730) by Michael Lind (who is a lawyer among other things). ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359/125 "2014-03-12T19:01:40Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > :dubious: That is a very odd characterization of [his words](http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html). Yeah, but you can tell he didn’t mean it. He delivered the whole inaugural address in a real sarcastic tone of voice and whenever he talked about how he didn’t want a war he used “air quotes.” You won’t hear that in the history books. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359/126 "2014-03-12T19:22:18Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Yeah, but you can tell he didn’t mean it. He delivered the whole inaugural address in a real sarcastic tone of voice and whenever he talked about how he didn’t want a war he used “air quotes.” You won’t hear that in the history books. You also won’t hear about the heckler who called him [_The Weakest Lincoln_](http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/daily-show-napolitano-civil-war). ---
**Author:** ![engineer\_comp\_geek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/engineer_comp_geek/32/504_2.png) [@engineer\_comp\_geek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/engineer_comp_geek)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359/127 "2014-03-12T20:03:01Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > You say this but it still makes no economic sense. The whole point of a protectionist tariff is to protect existing companies from competition. So why would those same companies want to encourage the creation of new companies? The same motivation that led northern industrialists to support the tariff would have led them to oppose southern industrialization. You’re a northern industrialist. Would you rather compete against fledgeling southern industrialists or would you rather compete against all of Europe with its established industry, deeper pockets, better established resource chains, and wider market base? Sure, you would rather not compete against anyone, but that’s not a realistic option. If the South went industrial, then industrial profits would be split between the North and the South, with the North getting the larger share (at least at first - theoretically the South could catch up industrially in the long run). Plus, over time, industry in both the North and South would grow to become world economic players. If the South remained agricultural, then Europe got the lion’s share of the profits, and without those profits the U.S. industry would never be able to grow enough to compete with them. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359/128 "2014-03-12T20:27:03Z")
> [@engineer\_comp\_geek](#): > > You’re a northern industrialist. Would you rather compete against fledgeling southern industrialists or would you rather compete against all of Europe with its established industry, deeper pockets, better established resource chains, and wider market base? > > Sure, you would rather not compete against anyone, but that’s not a realistic option. > > If the South went industrial, then industrial profits would be split between the North and the South, with the North getting the larger share (at least at first - theoretically the South could catch up industrially in the long run). Plus, over time, industry in both the North and South would grow to become world economic players. > > If the South remained agricultural, then Europe got the lion’s share of the profits, and without those profits the U.S. industry would never be able to grow enough to compete with them. All of this ignores what the Southerners themselves (at the time) said about why they seceded – their articles of secession make it pretty clear that slavery and white supremacy were an absolute central issue for the Confederacy, and tariffs were not. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359/129 "2014-03-12T20:32:21Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Meh, the South was the side that justly lost the Civil War as it was fighting to maintain an evil system of human slavery, but I think it’s a pretty debatable point about who started “the war.” > > There is nothing clearly stated in U.S. law that prohibited secession. Thus the question of whether Ft. Sumter was a Federal possession or an illegal occupation by a foreign power on sovereign soil of South Carolina is, to me, a technical one which could go either way. The President at the time secession happened actually believed it was probably legal, as did several constitutional thinkers of the day. It was a genuinely unsettled question that was finally settled–but not by legal arguments. You’re wrong on several points. It’s a settled issue that secession is not legal. You can argue that you don’t like this and you think the law should be changed. But facts is facts. Secession was not and is not legal. There is no question over who started the war. The Confederates did. They attacked the United States. You can argue whether or not they were justified in declaring war but arguing whether or not they did it is ridiculous. And James Buchanan did not think secession was legal. He said many times, in private and in public, that it was not. He just dithered over what authority he had to stop it. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359/130 "2014-03-12T20:42:07Z")
> [@engineer\_comp\_geek](#): > > You’re a northern industrialist. Would you rather compete against fledgeling southern industrialists or would you rather compete against all of Europe with its established industry, deeper pockets, better established resource chains, and wider market base? > > Sure, you would rather not compete against anyone, but that’s not a realistic option. > > If the South went industrial, then industrial profits would be split between the North and the South, with the North getting the larger share (at least at first - theoretically the South could catch up industrially in the long run). Plus, over time, industry in both the North and South would grow to become world economic players. > > If the South remained agricultural, then Europe got the lion’s share of the profits, and without those profits the U.S. industry would never be able to grow enough to compete with them. You’re attempting to create a false dilemma. Northern industrialists didn’t need to choose between competing against European or Southern industrialists. They had already achieved the best of both worlds - they had a tariff that protected them from the European competition and southern disinterest which protected them from southern competition. Why would they want to change a status quo that was working for them? You’re acting as if somehow a company benefits if another company in the same country makes a sale. That doesn’t happen. If a company in Brooklyn loses a contract, it doesn’t care if it lost that contract to a company in Atlanta or a company in London - both are identical losses. As far as the Brooklyn company is concerned, it would be better off if there was no Atlanta company - that would be one less competitor to worry about. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359/131 "2014-03-12T20:47:43Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Going by the “who attacked who” (or “who shot first”) school of thought, then the South started the war. An occupation is itself an act of war, though. If the British had sailed up the Chesapeake in 1880 and disembarked and created a fortification I don’t think anyone would say the United States started a war when it fired shots at the occupying British forces. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359/132 "2014-03-12T20:48:43Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Well, no; although his theory as to why it was illegal is perhaps not the best theory. You can read about that in [_What Lincoln Believed,_](http://www.amazon.com/What-Lincoln-Believed-Convictions-President/dp/1400030730) by Michael Lind (who is a lawyer among other things). Lincoln wasn’t the President to whom I was referring. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359/133 "2014-03-12T20:51:54Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > You’re wrong on several points. I don’t think so, if Buchanan genuinely thought secession was illegal, then I’ll cop to being wrong on that as I always thought he felt it was technically legal. > [@](#): > > It’s a settled issue that secession is not legal. You can argue that you don’t like this and you think the law should be changed. But facts is facts. Secession was not and is not legal. It’s only been settled after the war in an atmosphere in which that settlement can only be viewed through a political lens. > [@](#): > > There is no question over who started the war. The Confederates did. They attacked the United States. You can argue whether or not they were justified in declaring war but arguing whether or not they did it is ridiculous. I actually never said I don’t believe the Confederates started the war, my view is they did. I just don’t agree “there is no question”, I think it’s a reasonable claim that secession was debatable as to its legality and from that stems the truth that Sumter could have been an occupation by a foreign power subject to expected retaliation and in itself an act of belligerence. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359/134 "2014-03-12T20:52:16Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > An occupation is itself an act of war, though. [del]Since South Carolina hadn’t seceded from the Union, how could the federal government be occupying South Carolina in any comprehensible sense of the word?[/del] Nevermind- they had seceded by then. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359/135 "2014-03-12T20:53:18Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Meh, the South was the side that justly lost the Civil War as it was fighting to maintain an evil system of human slavery, but I think it’s a pretty debatable point about who started “the war.” Utter nonsense. It’s as debatable as who started WWII, Hitler or Poland. The South fired first, this is completely beyond dispute. Military action was initiated by the South, they both started the Civil War and “the war” whatever putting the words in quotes means. > [@](#): > > There is nothing clearly stated in U.S. law that prohibited secession. Thus the question of whether Ft. Sumter was a Federal possession or an illegal occupation by a foreign power on sovereign soil of South Carolina is, to me, a technical one which could go either way. The President at the time secession happened actually believed it was probably legal, as did several constitutional thinkers of the day. It was a genuinely unsettled question that was finally settled–but not by legal arguments. It was settled by the South attacking the fort, starting the war. The semantic argument over the technical status is utterly irrelevant, rather than negotiate or accept the status queue the South attacked fort. One may as well argue the question of what the technical status was of the Danzig corridor, that it was an unsettled question that was finally settled–but not by legal arguments, and it’s thus a pretty debatable point about who started “the war”, Germany or Poland. ---
**Author:** ![engineer\_comp\_geek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/engineer_comp_geek/32/504_2.png) [@engineer\_comp\_geek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/engineer_comp_geek)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359/136 "2014-03-12T21:02:39Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > All of this ignores what the Southerners themselves (at the time) said about why they seceded – their articles of secession make it pretty clear that slavery and white supremacy were an absolute central issue for the Confederacy, and tariffs were not. Of course it ignores what the southerners said. I was talking about the northern industrialist viewpoint. For the south, it was all about slavery. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Northern industrialists didn’t need to choose between competing against European or Southern industrialists. They had already achieved the best of both worlds - they had a tariff that protected them from the European competition and southern disinterest which protected them from southern competition. Why would they want to change a status quo that was working for them? If it was working so well, why did the Republican party make tariffs one of the main parts of their platform in the 1860 election? The Republicans in the 1856 election were completely anti-slavery and had nothing about tariffs in their platform. As more industrialists joined the party (joining forces with the abolitionists), you can see their influence. In the 1860 election, the Republicans backed off from complete abolition and only mandated that the western territories would not permit slavery, and they added tariffs that would protect industry to the party platform. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359/137 "2014-03-12T21:02:52Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > An occupation is itself an act of war, though. If the British had sailed up the Chesapeake in 1880 and disembarked and created a fortification I don’t think anyone would say the United States started a war when it fired shots at the occupying British forces. And if my grandmother had wheels she’d be a bicycle. The Federal government didn’t sail into Charleston Harbor in 1861 and build a fort, the fort was in existence and garrisoned at the time that South Carolina declared it had seceded. Calling it an occupation and an act of war is ridiculous on its face. If one were to actually believe this line of thought, the act of South Carolina declaring secession caused an instantaneous _de facto_ declaration of war by the North due to the existence of Fort Sumter. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359/138 "2014-03-12T21:09:38Z")
The South tried to solve the Ft. Sumter issue through negotiations, with repeated messages sent to the Federals informing them they viewed the occupation as an illegal occupation of sovereign soil of South Carolina. It’s not entirely dissimilar to the debate about British forts on American soil after the end of the Revolution, which were supposed to be removed but the British dug their heels on. It was technically a violation of the Treaty of Paris but certainly not enough to make the Americans want to go to war over it since they had won a pretty dicey revolution and viewed another outright war with Britain as supremely unwise at that point. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359/139 "2014-03-12T21:46:43Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > An occupation is itself an act of war, though. If the British had sailed up the Chesapeake in 1880 and disembarked and created a fortification I don’t think anyone would say the United States started a war when it fired shots at the occupying British forces. This argument is absurd; it essentially gives the “right” to anyone to attack the federal government just by declaring that they are “occupying” their property. ---
**Author:** ![Melchior](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Melchior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melchior)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2014, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359/140 "2014-03-12T21:56:10Z")
Were slaves still being brought over from Africa at that time? When you have a large breeding population of slaves already, why do that? Ooops…found it! [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act\_Prohibiting\_Importation\_of\_Slaves](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_Prohibiting_Importation_of_Slaves) more here: [http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/congress-abolishes-the-african-slave-trade](http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/congress-abolishes-the-african-slave-trade) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-civil-war-when-how-would-the-south-have-abolished-slavery-without-it/683359.md?page=8)