# 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:** 5
**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 4, 2011, 7:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/81 "2011-11-04T07:46:56Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > It was precisely the prospect of abolition without war that frightened the Deep South into…starting the war. > > The Deep South really made no attempt to avoid war. In April 1861, they could easily have gone about the business of organizing their government–which was in complete control of all of seven states _except_ for the one U.S.-controlled fort–setting up new government institutions, raising military forces, seeking foreign recognition from Britain and France–all the while loudly protesting about those arrogant Yankees _refusing_ to evacuate their illegally-held fortification right smack-dab in the middle of the harbor of one of the new nation’s most important port cities. Of course, by opening fire and starting a shooting war, they did manage to persuade Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina to come in on the Confederate side. But think how much more Lincoln’s hands would have been tied if he’d had all those slave states (in addition to Kentucky, Missouri, _Maryland_–the U.S. national capital was completely surrounded by slave states–and [technically] Delaware) still in the Union and wringing their hands about any action against the secessionists. If the Deep South had waited it out, either they are independent by default, or they force the Lincoln Administration into firing the first shot and being _clearly_ the aggressor, which maybe wins them even more states, and leaves even more of the free states with the attitude “Those slave owning wannabe aristocrats want to leave? Good! Don’t let the door hit you on the way out!” and “Sure, I don’t like slavery, but those darkies aren’t worth the life of a single good Massachusetts/Ohio/Iowa boy”. All this proves is that the southerners were unorganized and bad strategists. How would you feel if there was a hostile fort in your proximity? If the Union intended to recognize the states’ rights to secede, they would have withdrawn troops from the fort during the siege. They were determined to initiate conflict ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2011, 7:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/82 "2011-11-04T07:57:04Z")
Obviously the Union didn’t recognize the states’ rights to secede. (Even the Buchanan Administration declared secession illegal.) But the Union didn’t “initiate conflict”; it was the South that “initiated conflict” by opening fire. The “hostile fort” was just one fort, with 85 guys in it. Over this one irritant, the Deep South started a war that wound up getting over half-a-million people killed. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2011, 8:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/83 "2011-11-04T08:33:31Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > On secession. The abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison advocated secession because he thought it would undermine slavery by providing a refuge to runaway slaves. The North would have no constitutional obligation to return slaves to the South. Not at the time of the Civil War he didn’t. From an editorial in _The Liberator_, : > [@The Liberator](#): > > Within a few days at farthest, the cannon of the insurgents will be battering down the defences and slaughtering the defenders of the American Union. > > Let us pause a moment and consider. > > Slavery makes open war upon that Union which has so long been its protection and security. > > For thirty years, the opponents of slavery have borne the imputation–which not one in a hundred of them deserved–of seeking their end through the dissolution of the Union. > > In all this time, not a squadron has charged, not a platoon has fired, on the National flag and forces, under the inspiration of Anti-Slavery. Its advocates have been beaten at elections, hunted out of halls which they had hired and paid for, mobbed and maimed in the slave States, and generally proscribed and stigmatized in the free, without being goaded into hostilities. Only in Kansas, when compelled to choose between resistance and annihilation, have they been moved to repel force with force. > > The Slave power, after enjoying undisturbed sway for half a century, has at length lost an election. Hereupon, it proceeds to treat hat election as a farce and a nullity, and defy those whom it invested with authority. > > It has, while in power, loudly vaunted its fidelity and devotedness to the Federal Constitution. Losing power, it deliberately repudiates that charter, and adopts one radically different in its stead. > > “The Union, the Union forever!” has been the vociferous cry of its servitors. Having lost an election, they treat that same Union as a hated curse, passing ordinances and raising armies for its overthrow. > > “Let the laws be enforced!” it was thundered whenever the consciences of freemen revolted at the inhuman atrocities of slave-hunting in free States. But the moment the enforcement of the laws has devolved on Republicans, slavery denounces it as “coercion,” and insists that it is inaugurating civil war! > > And in fact to very many, North as well as South, slavery is above the Union, above the laws, above the Constitution. Rebellion, in their view, is opposition to slavery; while love of slavery and love of the Union are synonymous. > > They plead for Peace, meaning that there be no further resistance to slavery. “National Unity,” in their vocabulary, means a universal agreement that slavery is eminently right, and that it ought to be diffused universally and maintained forever. . . . > > There is not even a pretence that the Federal Government has done or refused to do anything whereby this rebellion is justified. It has been pacific, forbearing, and most anxious to avoid a collision. It has allowed its troops to be disarmed, its arsenals to be robbed, its forts to be seized, its money to be stolen, and its revenues to be collected and appropriated by its open enemies. Through these high-handed villainies, a whole frontier has been open to savage incursion and massacre, until even Mexico threatens an invasion. It has seriously lost ground with its friends by vainly seeking to conciliate its implacable foes. At length the great slaveholding rebellion is ready to unmask its batteries and open fire on the most exposed and isolated of the National defences. The challenge of its opening cannonade will soon reverberate over the country. The Union flag on Fort Sumter is to be shot down by the rebel batteries unless speedily lowered by the devoted garrison. The American Republic now enters upon the gravest peril it has known since the treason of Arnold. God grant that it pass through them with undoubting reliance on the omnipotence of Justice, and emerge at length, however tried and tested, unwavering in its loyalty to Freedom and the Rights of Man! ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2011, 8:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/84 "2011-11-04T08:35:24Z")
The War started due to the South’s secession. The South’s secession was about preserving their institution of slavery. Period. It is good to see Dopers lay to rest the contrary lie that has developed over the years. But while I’m posting, let me give credit to my distant cousin, John Brown. The secession was a direct result of the fears his efforts had instilled. More importantly, _some_ historians consider Brown essential to the North victory in the Civil War. Consider how horrific the Civil War was, killing 10% of all Northern males of soldiers’ age, and 30% of such Southern males. Merely “preserving the Union” would not have inspired the North to persevere in the face of such horror. Some of Lincoln’s generals, mentioning Brown, had declared the war to be about emancipation before Lincoln made his Proclamation. “John Brown’s Body” was a hugely popular song among Northern soldiers, many of whom were indeed inspired to believe they were on a moral crusade. To say John Brown was essential to North victory is exaggerated or unprovable, but it is still a shame to see this righteous and influential figure so often disparaged. ---
**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:** [November 4, 2011, 8:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/85 "2011-11-04T08:39:27Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > They were determined to initiate conflict If the United States was determined to initiate conflict, why didn’t they? They had over three months. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2011, 8:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/86 "2011-11-04T08:48:32Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > It’s not a hijack because I contend the war was fought over the legality of secession. The Union didn’t believe in it, while the South tried to do it. Secession was only considered due to the issue of slavery, so we’re back to the point that so many of us have made. Regardless what secondary issue is raised–tariffs, states rights, secession, expansion of slavery into the West, or anything else–the prompt for each of those issues was the overriding matter of slavery. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2011, 9:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/87 "2011-11-04T09:46:38Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > First of all, the Civil War was not a civil war. War of Southern Treason. Just saying. ---
**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 4, 2011, 10:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/88 "2011-11-04T10:29:54Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > A ridiculous thing to say to someone who isn’t defending any person who practiced slavery, only pointing out the hypocrisy of someone who initiated the deadliest conflict in US history. You are defending the right of the South to secede in order for them to preserve slavery. And by implication upholding the position that the slaves had no right to an opinion on the matter. _And_ you are holding the North responsible for “aggression”, while absolving the South of responsibility for considering slavery more important than avoiding “the deadliest conflict in US history”. If you defend the right of the South to secede, then you _are_ defending slavery. That’s why they seceded, that’s the only purpose the Confederacy had. ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2011, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/89 "2011-11-04T13:36:09Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Brilliant satire, sir! Can’t you imagine him speaking about “The War of Northern Aggression” in a Foghorn Leghorn accent? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2011, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/90 "2011-11-04T14:02:49Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > You are defending the right of the South to secede in order for them to preserve slavery. And by implication upholding the position that the slaves had no right to an opinion on the matter. _And_ you are holding the North responsible for “aggression”, while absolving the South of responsibility for considering slavery more important than avoiding “the deadliest conflict in US history”. > > If you defend the right of the South to secede, then you _are_ defending slavery. That’s why they seceded, that’s the only purpose the Confederacy had. Again, that is over simplistic. I would agree with you if: 1. The north didn’t have slave states of its own. AND 2. It started the war with the avowed purpose of ending slavery. Neither of these are true, so it can’t be said that the war was about slavery without any qualifiers. The North had no problem with the benefits of slavery in the form of tariffs and food, so long as they didn’t see slavery among them. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2011, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/91 "2011-11-04T14:37:25Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Again, that is over simplistic. I would agree with you if: > > 1. The north didn’t have slave states of its own. AND > 2. It started the war with the avowed purpose of ending slavery. > > Neither of these are true, so it can’t be said that the war was about slavery without any qualifiers. The North had no problem with the benefits of slavery in the form of tariffs and food, so long as they didn’t see slavery among them. It very much can be said that the cause of the war was slavery without any qualifiers. It would not be true to say that the North went to war to stop slavery. However, the North did go to war to preserve a union that the South attempted to break for the express purpose of defending and promoting slavery. The South had no need to break that union; slavery was not in jeopardy and the abolitionist movement was not that popular in the North. All the derivative factors cited by the South to abandon the Constitution resulted directly from projected fears regarding the hypothetical possibility that slavery would be limited or abolished. Certainly many other factors, on both sides, entered into such a movement that would eventually lead to secession and war, but the war was very much about slavery. No other issue ever came close to providing impetus on such a large scale to break the union. ---
**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:** [November 4, 2011, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/92 "2011-11-04T15:37:39Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Yes I’m saying precisely that. So were the New England states. Nope. The New England states never actually attempted treasonous insurrection; they just had some hot-headed leaders jaw-flap about the possibility. ---
**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:** [November 4, 2011, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/93 "2011-11-04T15:40:09Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Slavery was abolished in Brazil, which was home to many many more slaves than the U.S., without a war. Many countries abolished slavery without warfare. That just makes the Confederate traitors even more contemptible for forcing the issue to come to war within this country. ---
**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 4, 2011, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/94 "2011-11-04T15:43:01Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > You are defending the right of the South to secede in order for them to preserve slavery. And by implication upholding the position that the slaves had no right to an opinion on the matter. _And_ you are holding the North responsible for “aggression”, while absolving the South of responsibility for considering slavery more important than avoiding “the deadliest conflict in US history”. It has been proven in this thread that the Union was not at war to prevent slavery. Lincoln said so himself. So did the Senate: > [@](#): > > Resolved, That the present deplorable civil war has been forced upon the country by the disunionists of the southern States now in revolt against the constitutional Government and in arms around the capital; that in this national emergency Congress, banishing all feeling of mere passion or resentment, will recollect only its duty to the whole country; that this war is not prosecuted upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor for the purpose of overthowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and all laws made in pursuance thereof, and to preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired; that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease People are dancing around the answer here. Put into simple terms, slavery caused secession. Secession caused war. Take that how you want to but that’s the answer. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > If you defend the right of the South to secede, then you _are_ defending slavery. That’s why they seceded, that’s the only purpose the Confederacy had. Nope. People have, over the years, convinced themselves that such an egregious conflict was necessary for the end of slavery. This makes them feel better about so many people dying. They also ridicule anyone who says that the war was avoidable as a racist buffoon. How pacifism equates to racism I do not understand. ---
**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:** [November 4, 2011, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/95 "2011-11-04T15:43:54Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > How would you feel if there was a hostile fort in your proximity? I’d probably think it sucks. Fidel Castro presumably thinks that the presence of Fort Guantanamo sucks. However, when somebody else has a clear legal right to do something that, from your perspective, sucks, you just have to grin and bear it. Or you can put yourself outside the law of nations. Turned out that didn’t work out so well. ---
**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 4, 2011, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/96 "2011-11-04T15:46:32Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > Nope. The New England states never actually attempted treasonous insurrection; they just had some hot-headed leaders jaw-flap about the possibility. They saw it as legal at one moment and illegal at another. > [@](#): > > Hypocrisy is the state of pretending to have beliefs, opinions, virtues, ideals, thoughts, feelings, qualities, or standards that one does not actually have yep i’m right. ---
**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 4, 2011, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/97 "2011-11-04T15:48:53Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > I’d probably think it sucks. Fidel Castro presumably thinks that the presence of Fort Guantanamo sucks. However, when somebody else has a clear legal right to do something that, from your perspective, sucks, you just have to grin and bear it. > > Or you can put yourself outside the law of nations. Turned out that didn’t work out so well. That’s the point. South Carolinians did not believe the Union had a “clear legal right” to have a fort there. We can talk about Sherman if you want to talk about putting yourself outside the law of nations if you would like. I suspect not. ---
**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:** [November 4, 2011, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/98 "2011-11-04T15:49:39Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Put into simple terms, slavery caused secession. Secession caused war. This sort of clear cause-and-effect chain is transitive. Otherwise, “I didn’t kill him; the bullet did” would be a valid defense. Ergo, your “simple terms” are an admission that slavery caused the war. Glad you figured that out. > [@WillFarnaby](#): > > South Carolinians did not believe the Union had a “clear legal right” to have a fort there. That doesn’t change the reality that they did, in fact, have a clear legal right to have a fort there. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2011, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/99 "2011-11-04T15:54:48Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > James Madison, the principal author of the Constitution, said that there was no right to secede in the Constitution. Yeah - he mentioned that during Jackson’s presidency, didn’t he (I think)? South Carolina was talking about secession _then_, and James Madison said there was no right of a state to secede. ---
**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 4, 2011, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779/100 "2011-11-04T15:59:34Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > That doesn’t change the reality that they did, in fact, have a clear legal right to have a fort there. No. They didn’t. South Carolina had seceded. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-war-was-not-over-slavery/601779.md?page=6)