# Civil War Was Not Over Slavery? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 3, 2011, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779 "2011-11-03T20:40:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![YoDoc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/e68b1a/32.png) [@YoDoc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YoDoc)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 9:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/261 "2011-11-11T09:53:12Z")
> [@Andy\_L](#): > > Likewise, as I mentioned above, Texas joined the Union in part because the Republic of Texas was deeply in debt; Union taxes paid off this debt but Texas’s declaration of ‘secession’ does not mention this debt, but does mock the Declaration of Independence with these words: > > "In view of these and many other facts, it is meet that our own views should be distinctly proclaimed. > > We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable. > > That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states. " > > Note that though I did not quote the entire declaration, I have quoted its stirring :dubious: conclusion - the portion that summed up, in the minds of its writers, the cause for which the State would be fighting - slavery. Which is a good point, but Lincoln would’ve let them keep slavery right up until 1862 or 1863. It didn’t start off about slavery, but that’s what finished it. ---
**Author:** ![wmfellows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c2a13f/32.png) [@wmfellows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wmfellows)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/262 "2011-11-11T12:50:13Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > If you supply a fort off the coast of a foreign nation it’s generally called “starting a war” I just had to pipe up to say that is an absurd and factually incorrect assertion (else North Korea, the Sovs in the day etc could have claimed Nato allies were starting a war by the mere supply of advance bases…) Of course using the standards on display in this argument, indeed WWII was the War of Polish Aggression… Queer analysis, really queer analysis. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/263 "2011-11-11T14:17:23Z")
> [@Sailboat](#): > > I think a lot of them, possibly a majority of them, joined up because of peer pressure and other social expectations. It’s been said that not Southern boy could expect a second look from Southern girls unless he signed up, for example, which was pretty motivating for 17-19-year-olds. More so than “sovereignty,” I’ll bet. Here is a [typical Confederate recruiting poster](http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a74/spoke-/Confederatepropagandaposter.jpg). It is entirely directed to the threat of invasion. As I’ve stated earlier, the War was ultimately about slavery. But if you ask why the typical Confederate soldier fought, you get a different answer. As this poster demonstrates, they fought, as they understood the matter, to defend their homeland. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/264 "2011-11-11T15:55:36Z")
> [@Spoke](#): > > As I’ve stated earlier, the War was ultimately about slavery. But if you ask why the typical Confederate soldier fought, you get a different answer. As this poster demonstrates, they fought, as they understood the matter, to defend their homeland. It’s a yes-and-no situation. Most southern manpower simply would not enlist without conscription - the South started running low almost before the war started and would have collapsed in 1863 sans conscription. While desertion was a pain for the North, it was crippling for the South. The immediate military need was defense against the North, but that was also a political judgement. There were a lot of Southern unionists, and many more who might be sympathetic but who were not prepared to fight for it. The hard core of the army, the group which enlisted early, were also hard-core states-righters, men of above-average income and social standing, and who had a deep belief in black inferiority, having created and sustained that belief. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/265 "2011-11-11T16:05:55Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > The hard core of the army, the group which enlisted early, were also hard-core states-righters, men of above-average income and social standing, and who had a deep belief in black inferiority, having created and sustained that belief. A belief in black inferiority had nothing to do with the reasons for enlistment for most Confederate soldiers. What the hell did some cracker from the hills of north Georgia care about alleged black inferiority? He sure wasn’t going to war over that idea. Please show me one recruiting poster that says “We must establish the superiority of the white race!” ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/266 "2011-11-11T16:58:08Z")
> [@YoDoc](#): > > It didn’t start off about slavery Yes, it did, because the South started it and the South went to war over slavery. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/267 "2011-11-11T17:12:29Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > Yes, it did, because the South started it and the South went to war over slavery. I think it’s more accurate to say the South seceded over slavery, and went to war over sovereignty. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/268 "2011-11-11T17:15:01Z")
> [@Spoke](#): > > A belief in black inferiority had nothing to do with the reasons for enlistment for most Confederate soldiers. What the hell did some cracker from the hills of north Georgia care about alleged black inferiority? He sure wasn’t going to war over that idea. Please show me one recruiting poster that says “We must establish the superiority of the white race!” As you so… elequently put it, “crackes from the hills of north Georgia” did not enlist until forced to do so by consciroption, hence the Confederates running out of men in early 1862. Early recruits were, as I said, of high social standing and most defintiely no unaware of politics. They were from politically-involved families and most definitely understood that the entire point of seccession was to guarrantee slavery. Edit: Looking at your second post there, I would say there’s little difference in practice. The basic fact is that the South was prepared to use violence to defend slavery, _even when it wasn’t being attacked_. Secession was explicitly a tool to make that defense possible. Not for nothing were Wide-Awakes already forming before secession. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/269 "2011-11-11T17:26:07Z")
> [@Spoke](#): > > I think it’s more accurate to say the South seceded over slavery, and went to war over sovereignty. Not if you read the new constitutions of the states that seceded. Or the Cornerstone Speech. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/270 "2011-11-11T17:33:12Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > As you so… elequently put it, “crackes from the hills of north Georgia” did not enlist until forced to do so by consciroption… That’s simply not true. A number of volunteer units formed in north Georgia in 1861 and 1862. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/271 "2011-11-11T17:35:02Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > Not if you read the new constitutions of the states that seceded. Or the Cornerstone Speech. I’m not sure how you think these prove your point. As I said, the states seceded so they could preserve slavery. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/272 "2011-11-11T18:43:20Z")
> [@Spoke](#): > > I think it’s more accurate to say the South seceded over slavery, and went to war over sovereignty. I think it’s more accurate to say the the South seceded over slavery and the North went to war over secession. The war, from the North’s perspective, became more and more about slavery over time, but it wasn’t so much so at the start. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/273 "2011-11-11T20:58:34Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > So, we’re at war with Cuba? > > Oops – Gitmo is _on_ the coast of the island, not “off” it, so I guess we’re saved by the loophole. If the Cubans had a problem with Guantanamo and they warned us to desert the base, and we didn’t , and they attacked I would be defending the Cubans. > [@wmfellows](#): > > I just had to pipe up to say that is an absurd and factually incorrect assertion (else North Korea, the Sovs in the day etc could have claimed Nato allies were starting a war by the mere supply of advance bases…) > > Of course using the standards on display in this argument, indeed WWII was the War of Polish Aggression… Queer analysis, really queer analysis. So countrys have the right to have a base on foreign soil? Or in foreign harbors? Queer analysis, really queer analysis. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/274 "2011-11-11T21:16:24Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > So countrys have the right to have a base on foreign soil? Or in foreign harbors? Queer analysis, really queer analysis. If the other country invites them to build a base there, yes. And if they change their mind later on, they don’t get to keep everything in the base. We call that “stealing.” ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/275 "2011-11-11T21:45:42Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > If the other country invites them to build a base there, yes. And if they change their mind later on, they don’t get to keep everything in the base. We call that “stealing.” Building the base was a sunk cost at that point and the Union had no responsibility to defend the harbor any longer, so why didn’t they just abandon it? Probably because they wanted to instigate a war. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/276 "2011-11-11T22:13:37Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Building the base was a sunk cost at that point and the Union had no responsibility to defend the harbor any longer, so why didn’t they just abandon it? Because it was their property. They paid for it, they built it, they owned it. Why should they give it away to a pack of thieves? Note, also, that Fort Sumter is just the biggest and best example of Southern banditry. Throughout the South, Federal property, from land, to equipment, to straight-up cash money, was seized by the Confederate government without cause. You can argue that people have a natural right to secession, but in exercising that right, they did enormous violence (even before the shooting started) to the rights of the North by appropriating their property. If the South wanted out, they could have tried to negotiate a settlement that would equitably disentangle Northern interests from Southern territory. They didn’t even bother to try, and decided instead to take what they wanted at gunpoint. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2011, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/277 "2011-11-12T01:34:33Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Building the base was a sunk cost at that point and the Union had no responsibility to defend the harbor any longer, so why didn’t they just abandon it? > > Probably because they wanted to instigate a war. Note that you jsut moved from a (poor) legal) argument to an argument on rpacticality. If the latter becomes necessary for your stance, the former must be assuemd to be insufficient. And then of course you make rather silly accusations. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2011, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/278 "2011-11-12T03:57:18Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Because it was their property. They paid for it, they built it, they owned it. Why should they give it away to a pack of thieves? > > Note, also, that Fort Sumter is just the biggest and best example of Southern banditry. Throughout the South, Federal property, from land, to equipment, to straight-up cash money, was seized by the Confederate government without cause. You can argue that people have a natural right to secession, but in exercising that right, they did enormous violence (even before the shooting started) to the rights of the North by appropriating their property. If the South wanted out, they could have tried to negotiate a settlement that would equitably disentangle Northern interests from Southern territory. They didn’t even bother to try, and decided instead to take what they wanted at gunpoint. I never said they were above reproach. I said they could secede. > [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > Note that you jsut moved from a (poor) legal) argument to an argument on rpacticality. If the latter becomes necessary for your stance, the former must be assuemd to be insufficient. And then of course you make rather silly accusations. I’m not trying to make an argument on practicality, I asked a question and gave wild speculation, just trying to join in with the spirit of the thread. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2011, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/279 "2011-11-12T04:59:31Z")
> [@Spoke](#): > > A belief in black inferiority had nothing to do with the reasons for enlistment for most Confederate soldiers. What the hell did some cracker from the hills of north Georgia care about alleged black inferiority? Because he’d been taught from childhood that that was the central, most important fact in life. Every Sunday he went to church and was preached at about the inferiority of blacks and how slavery was the will of God; and that’s pretty much all church preached to him about. People who traveled North expressed surprise that the Bible touched on subjects other than slavery. The South by the time of the Civil War was a narrow, warped society dedicated to protecting and promoting slavery and almost nothing else; everything else was subsumed into that one fixation. ---
**Author:** ![Naxos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/50afbb/32.png) [@Naxos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Naxos)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2011, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/280 "2011-11-12T05:02:33Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Because he’d been taught from childhood that that was the central, most important fact in life. Every Sunday he went to church and was preached at about the inferiority of blacks and how slavery was the will of God; and that’s pretty much all church preached to him about. People who traveled North expressed surprise that the Bible touched on subjects other than slavery. The South by the time of the Civil War was a narrow, warped society dedicated to protecting and promoting slavery and almost nothing else; everything else was subsumed into that one fixation. Spot on! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779.md?page=15)