Actually, re-reading the thread I linked, it seems as if the discussion of Dred Scott’s “correctness” took place there, with myself, BobT, Boris B, tracer, and 2sense. No real resolution was reached.
Jodi: I agree with most of what you said. An exception, though, is this statement:
Without being flip, may I ask how the heck you know that? Tariffs might very well have been enough to prompt actual secession, as might have the recognition of Haiti or the admission of California. While the secession threat was temporarily alleviated in each of these cases, there are any number of supervening circumstances which might have caused that threat to escalate. Are you positive that the South wouldn’t have been sparked to secession by an issue other than slavery, no matter what?
I do think that slavery is the most tangible embodiment of the irreconcilable differences between the South and the North. The Southern conception of its autonomy irremediably impinged upon the growing national conviction that slavery was a moral abomination which couldn’t be tolerated.
I said: “It all goes back to slavery, with the possible exception of the tariff issues, which in any case would not have been enough to prompt actual secession, as opposed to the threat thereof.”
To which GADARENE replies:
Well, I obviously cannot know with 100% certainty what might or might not have led to secession, but the tariff issue was resolvable; the irresistable force of the “Southern way of life” meeting the immovable object of moral disapproval meant that the issue of slavery was not. The recognition of Haiti and the admission of California might have triggered secession once again because of slavery – Haiti being slave-holding and California being proposed to be admitted without slavery – which, of course, would add a non-slave state to the Congressional mix and upset the delicate balance of slave states and free states.
This, of course, is not provable, either.
What, like the occupation of the Southern capitals by Northern troups? That might have done it, as might any number of hypothetical actions that have little basis in history. Given the issues and the history as we know it – I’m pretty positive, yeah.
The only time those differences became truly “irreconcilable” as opposed to merely acrimonious and hostile, was when the issue was slavery.
Yes. Exactly. Which means that the central issue of the war was slavery. The only way people can argue the war was really or even primarily about autonomy is by willfully refusing to answer the obvious question: autonomy to do what?
Okay, how about this beside just the state’s rights to own slaves. Did the states have the right to secede? I am saying they did. This is a quote from the declaration of independence: “whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government as to them shall most likely to affect their safety and happiness.”
It seems that Lincoln started the war because not only slavery, but he did not believe the states had the right to secede.
The question, of course, was whether the Federal form of government became “destructive to the ends” of liberty. Again, the Confederates certainly thought that it did. They thought the Union was infringing upon their autonomy by telling them they could not continue to legally hold slaves – or to extend the institution of slavery into the territories. Which, of course, the Union certainly was. But the question is whether the “ends of liberty” are consistent with slavery, or whether the “pursuit of happiness” or even safety means you can act in a way that is morally indefensible.
That is why Lincoln fought the war – which he did not start, BTW. He was very frank, at least initially, in admitting that his concern for the Union was paramount. He said something like, “If I could preserve the Union by freeing the slaves, I would do it. If I could preserve the Union by freeing some of the slaves, I would do it. And if I could preserve the Union by freeing none of the slaves, I would do it.”
But,again – IMO we cannot look at the “right to secede” in a vacuum. Why did the South want to secede? Because they felt their autonomy was threatened. Their autonomy to do what? Own slaves. Or not, as they chose. This, BTW, was not why the war started. South Carolina seceded because Lincoln was elected, and it felt (probably rightly) that it could see the writing on the wall – that Lincoln would never back Southern interests in Congress, especially in terms of bringing new states in as free as opposed to slave, and that a Congress tilted to the North (by new free states) would almost inevitably eventually outlaw slavery throughout the United States or, if unable to do that, by wrecking the Southern (slave-based) economy by penalizing the slaveholding states by every possible means. And the war was not started by Lincoln; it was started by the firing upon Fort Sumpter – a Federal possession – by Confederate troops.
Granted, but to invoke slavery as the cause of conflict in the case of California seems a bit like the tail wagging the dog. That is, California upsetting the delicate slave/non-slave balance had specific repercussions for the power of the South in the national legislature, not all of which had to do with slavery. While you can argue that they opposed the admission of California as a non-slave state strictly on the basis of its being a non-slave state, it’s also true that whether or not it was a non-slave state affected the ability of Southern congressmen to filibuster, block amendments, and otherwise pursue a self-interested agenda, on which only one of the items was slavery. Do you see what I’m saying?
In the other thread, I point out that the South seceded despite attempts on Lincoln’s part to offer a palliative to slaveowners. The Crittenden Compromise, for example, promised to open future southern territories up for slavery. Now, obviously Southern leaders–led by South Carolina–felt that Lincoln’s mere presence in the White House (along with his power to appoint justices) bespoke a threat to their right to own slaves. But I still maintain, as does McPherson, that it wasn’t intrinsically the loss of slavery against which Calhoun and those who followed him were willing to take up arms, so much as it was what the loss of slavery represented to the South.
To answer that, I can only point to the millions of Confederate soldiers who owned no slaves, yet fought as gamely in the name of patriotism as did their counterparts to the North. Autonomy need not be directed specifically toward a single freedom or a single purpose; to be autonomous is simply to be free from the direction of a higher body.
It just seems that by using your argument style, I could just say the war was fought over money because the reason for owning slaves was the economy. In fact, you could probably argue that every single war that has ever been fought was simply about money. The fact is, this would certainly be an oversimplification. The reason for studying history is so you don’t repeat mistakes. The way to avoid mistakes is to look at things with a little depth.
The reason behind the war was the polarization of the country and the fact that one of the sides thought its rights were being infringed on.
Also, the Union didn’t occupy Ft. Sumter until after the secession. It was an obvious sign of aggression.
There were some states in the South in which Lincoln didn’t get a single vote, yet he still won the Presidency. It was a 4 way race. If the Democrats hadn’t split into Northern and Southern Democrats, Lincoln would still have won but lost the popular vote by 300,000 out of the 4.6 million votes cast.
Okay, what “specific repercussions” do you see in Congress that negatively impacted the Southern economy and were unrelated to slavery? Because I see few, if any. The very fact that the entire debate of emerging territories and proposed states was even then couched in terms of which would be “slave” and which would be “free” underscores that this was the issue. Not other, non-slavery related potential Congressional problems – slavery.
Yes, but I disagree. California’s entry into the Union, without more, did nothing to the cause of the South. You can only say that it had the ability to block amendments, filibusters, etc., if you admit that it would be likely to align itself with the other free states, as opposed to the slave-holding South. Which, of course, it would; it would not have the economic self-interest – a slave-based economy – that would lead it to align with the South. But merely admitting a state – any state – does not block any other state’s right to “pursue a self-interested agenda.” It can be predicted, however, that California’s admission would negatively – perhaps fatally – impinge on the Southern states’ ability to pass, as opposed to pursue, their own agendas – because, not being dependent on the “peculiar institution,” California would be disinclined to pass legislature to defend it. Besides, your argument appears to be inconsistent. You appear to be conceding that California’s admission was blocked solely because it would have come in as free, as opposed to slave, and simultaneously to be arguing that the issue of slavery is merely the “tail,” not the dog.
You know, this is back to the “I fought you not so I could sell heroin to kids, but so I could do what I wanted (which was to sell heroin to kids)” argument. The loss of slavery “represented” to the South the loss of autonomy. But if there had been no slavery, there would have been no need to threaten their autonomy to make them divest themselves of it by force. To me, to try to divorce the practical cause from the theoretical cause is historical revisionism. It also devolves to a “chicken and egg” argument – which can first, the demand that the South surrender its autonomy, or the demand that it surrender its slaves? Or is it not the same thing? How can a person look at one and pretend not to see the other? This, to me, is what Confederate apologists attempt to do by focusing on “autonomy” as if the autonomy in question was not the ability to hold slaves.
Which is great, of course, until the direction you are attempting to be free of is an order that you stop doing something both economically necessary and morally indefensible. In this case, the idea of autonomy was directed towards a single freedom or purpose – the right to continue to hold slaves. To me, there is no getting around this. And the fact that millions of Confederate soldiers who fought for their states and against their country failed to ask the question “What am I fighting for? Autonomy, yes, but autonomy to do what?” does not mean that, had they asked the question, the answer would not have been “autonomy to own slaves.”
Sure you could; so what? Sure the reasons for owning slaves was economic; what’s your point? You can hardly leave the “slavery” out of an “economy based on slave-based agrarianism” without engaging in the precise sort of artificial divorce or willful tunnel-vision I’m talking about.
I agree; but again, what’s your point. The fact that we need to look at things “with a little depth” does not mean that we leave behind concrete causes when we start talking about theoretical ones, as if the two bear no relation, or as if one does not exist.
Its right to do what was being infringed on? I agree someone here is guilty of over-simplification, but I don’t think it’s me.
Bushwa. The Federal garrison was present in Charleston prior to South Carolina secession; they were just garrisoned at old, indefensible Fort Moultrie, not new, defensible Fort Sumter. Sure, Anderson did not defensively withdraw his troops to Sumter until after the secession, but then before it he didn’t have any reason to think he had to, did he? In any event, both Moultrie and Sumter were Federal forts, acknowledged to be in the control of the Union. In any event, far from being a sign of “aggression,” the occupation of Sumter was an entrenchment – not a withdrawal, obviously, but not an aggressive act, either.
I freely concede that the point of contention regarding California was its admission as a free state. And to the extent that the one reliable thing that distinguished free states from slave states was, tautologically, the legality of slavery within their borders, I absolutely agree that the national debate between the North and South (and their respective Western satellites) was framed, delineated, and defined by slavery. In short, I concede insofar that slavery was the dominant cultural difference against which Southern autonomy was measured.
Well, to me, the problem here is the definition of “I”. When you say “what I wanted,” are you speaking for plantation owners, Southern political leaders, small farmers, storekeepers, or all of the South at once? The perpetuation of slavery obviously benefited many influential people within the South. To some, however, the abstract freedoms invoked in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence were at stake, especially if they themselves owned no slaves. The problem with talking “chicken and egg” is that, rightly or wrongly, the North was moving to restrict certain spheres of autonomy vested to the South, directly and in-, by the Constitution. The right to own slaves was obviously (and, in my subjective view, correctly) the focal point of the autonomy in question.
Little friendly disclaimer to the effect that neither James McPherson or I are Confederate apologists.
I don’t understand. How can you assume that Confederate soldiers didn’t ask themselves the question, “What am I fighting for?”
The South also thought that it was being unfairly taxed. The north with the majority passed a new tax law that would support a new banking and currency system as well internal improvements. The southern states oppsed this, but it was passed through cngress because of the higher population in the north. These improvements would mainly help the industrial north as opposed to agricultural south.
I am talking about all people, past and present, who wish to frame the cause of the Civil War in terms of “autonomy,” as if the underlying exercise of that autonomy was not the holding of slaves.
The problem with this, again, is that there is something intrinsically artificial in people who will declare “I fight for freedom!” but do not bother to define “freedom to do what?” It’s tunnel vision. It’s allegiance to theory and willful ignorance of practice.
So what are we arguing about? The “autonomy” in question manifested itself as the right to own slaves. The infringement on that autonomy – the right to own slaves – was the primary cause of the Civil War. That’s what I said. That’s what I’m saying.
I’m sure they told themselves they were fighting for freedom. For states’ rights. For autonomy. I see little, if any, indication that the average Confederate foot soldier ever asked himself – freedom to do what? States’ rights to do what? Autonomy to do what? They never looked beyond the lofty ideal of “autonomy” to see if the exercise of that autonomy was worthy of defense. Or, if they did, then they deemed slavery to be defensible, and knowingly fought in its defense. A person who says “I fight for freedom” but doesn’t know what freedom he fights for is . . . well, probably your average grunt who is asked to serve his homeland. That doesn’t make the cause he fights for a just one. That doesn’t change the cause he fights for.
TEXASSPUR –
Are you saying you think the South seceded over issues of taxation?
Of course not. Like I said before, I think they seceded because of state’s rights. You have been saying that the only problem between the north and south was slavery.
Jodi: Quick post; gotta get back to the Duke game. I wanted to point out, though, that your response to my first quoted passage in your last post is confusing the antecedent…the “I” I’m referring to stems directly from your heroin dealer example, in which you seem to be speaking for all or part of the seceding South. I’m just asking, which all, or which part?
But, of course, I never said this. I said that slavery was the main cause of the Civil War. I certainly never said it was “the only problem between the north and south.”
But what was your point regarding taxes, then? How does that tie into states’ rights? Surely you are not saying that the Southern states were arguing that their states’ rights meant they could opt out of taxation? They didn’t even feel this was true for the Confederacy. So what was your point?
GADARENE says:
No, actually, I didn’t. There’s only the one “I” in the whole example.
But I already answered this: “I am talking about all people, past and present, who wish to frame the cause of the Civil War in terms of “autonomy,” as if the underlying exercise of that autonomy was not the holding of slaves.” Therefore, I am talking about those “parts” of the seceding South which would say that it fought not on the issue of slavery but rather on the issue of autonomy (or self-determination or states’ rights), as if the two are not connected. The analogy, to spell it out, is as follows:
“I fought you not for the right to sell heroin, but for the right to do what I want (up to and including selling heroin, if that’s what I decide to do).”
. . . parallelling:
“I fought you not for the right to own slaves, but for the right to do what I want (up to and including owning slaves, if that’s what I decide to do).”
The South could not & did not succeed over States rights- the South was very much AGAIST States rights. The South considered that a slave was a slave, ie property, even if a Northern state passed a law that made a slave free upon reaching that state. The South consistently invoked federal Law to get “Their property” back- despite “states rights”.
Next- remembering the name of Lee, a gentleman, and one of the greatest generals the USA has ever produced is one thing. Marse Robert was truly a great American- despite his terrible mistake. However, Ashscroft also thinks that Nathan Bedford Forrest is a “hero”- an illiterate, racist “general”, who was actually not a very good general at all, and who killed negro POWs, not to mention founding the KKK. NBF is just about the biggest hero in the South- but not because he was a General- because he was a racist. The only reason to think NBF is a hero- is because you are a racist also. Which tells us all what Ashcroft is…
An exception, though, is this statement:
