Or are there more complex issues? Does Every Cofederate state believe in the Slavery issue at the time of the war? Were there any Slavery opponents for the confederates, or is that an oxymoron?
Slavery was the catalyst, but most of the South succeeded because they didn’t like the idea of the North telling them what to do. There were even movement to end slavery in some of the Southern states (Virginia came very close), and there were Southerners who were willing to get rid of slavery, but only by their own choice and under their own timetable.
In addition, once the North began to invade, the South rallied against the invaders. At the same time, the North was slow to make the war one of freeing the slaves; Lincoln’s primary goal was to preserve the Union.
Yes, every Confederate state was a slave state. As for more complex issues, Confederates then (and now) swear that the Confederacy and the war were really about states’ rights. Well, every state in the union had an interest in preserving its rights, yet you didn’t see Maine or Minnesota joining the Confederacy. Many of the proclamations that the states issued at the time they joined the Confederacy specifically mentioned slavery as a central issue.
There were very complex issues involved, some of which are still extant and which will spin this question off to Great Debates if we aren’t careful.
One guy who I always thought had a fairly balanced understanding of the Civil War and its causes is Dr. James I. Robertson.
I distinctly recall him saying in one of his lectures that slavery was undoubtedly the root cause of the Civil War because there was no other issue so devisive and emotionally charged which could have served as the catalyst for secession.
However, Roberson has also said, “just as most Northerners did not fight to end slavery, most Southerners did not fight to preserve it.” (cite)
Robertson can get away with saying both things because they are not the same thing: slavery may well be the singlemost important issue in driving the two sides to war, but individuals fought for a vast array of reasons, perhaps including but certainly not limited to slavery.
The causes for the Civil War, like most wars, were political. As previously mentioned the South was sick of the North holding the political majority and passing bills which infringed on it’s plantation-based way of life. Certainly the anti-slavery movements didn’t help as they threatened the South’s whole economic base. It would be like Alabama spearheading a national bill resticting industrial railway usage (which was very important to the North).
Also crucial to the politial mood was the expansion of the West. The South of course wanted the newly forming states to be slave states as this would add to the South’s political clout and help preserve it’s “pecular institution”. They got very angry when the first major trans-continental railway was scheduled to cross the northern half of the country.
In the midst of all this Lincoln was elected president, without one single Southern electoral vote. The South said “forget it, this is taxation without representation and it’s time for another revolution for independance”. The North replied that they just couldn’t up and leave, and the war began.
So yes, slavery was central to the formation of the conflict, but the South didn’t fight for their right to own slaves so much as their right of self-determination. Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclimation in addition to being morally appropriate was a political device used to solidify the Union’s fragmented focus on the prolonged war. Of course the fog of history and idelistic thought have blurred the original causes into a smear of pro-slave verses anti-slave.
It is also interesting to note that the war began on April 12, 1861 and the Emancipation Proclamation was signed on January 1, 1863.
Some primary source documents in which several of the seceding states discussed their motivations for secession:
Georgia’s secession declaration. (Sorry, no flowery title.)
A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union.
There was also a speech given by Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens on March 21, 1861 in Savannah, Georgia, in which he gave his views on the advantages of the new government and constitution and the cause of the “late rupture and present revolution”, the so-called “Cornerstone Speech”.
These documents primarily pertain to the South’s reasons for secession; the causes for the war would include the North’s reasons for not acquiescing in the dissolution of the American national union, and also the specific political and tactical decisions both sides made in the run-up to armed conflict (such as the South’s decision to fire on Fort Sumter).
nods at the above
Mirage has got it all down pat. (IMHO)
It’s so sad that the Confederacy has been demonized into a group of yahoo rednecks who owned, raped, and beat slaves for their own amusement.
But the victors write the history books. sigh
The southern states were withdrawing from a union they thought was voluntary. Apparently, they were wrong.
Yes, this is the party line. But the thing that the neoconfederates like to gloss over in the whole “states’ rights” thing is that the specific “right” the southern states wanted to defend was the “right” to perpetuate chattel slavery and extend it into as many new territories of the USA as possible.
Likewise, if one looks at the reality instead of the pro-slaver propaganda, one finds that the secess states were utter and complete hypocrites when it came to “states’ rights”. As far as they were concerned, non-slave states did NOT have the right to “nullification” (which they would claim for themselves) if that “nullification” were of a federal fugitive slave law. Indeed, the slavers were quite happy to demand that the federal government enforce centralized authority AGAINST fellow states when that enforcement favored slavery.
More in-depth analysis (with copious quotes) can be found at http://www.civilwarinteractive.com/guesteditorial1.htm
This might be a more convincing argument if the black populations of the Confederate states had any political representation, and thus some say in the decision on whether to secede from the Union. In Mississippi, the majority of the population was slave (436,631 slaves to 353,899 whites).
GA: 462,196 slave / 591,550 white
AL: 435,080 slave / 526,271 white
I should add that even the white population of Georgia was sharply divided on the issue of secession in 1861. What would the vote have been if the 44% of the population that was black had a say in the matter?
I’ve just been re-reading Bruce Catton’s The Coming Fury, the first book of his centennial Civil War trilogy. If I have time when I’m home this evening, I’ll type in some cites from the primary sources he quotes.
But in a nutshell: the Civil War was about slavery. Was it only about slavery? Of course not; nothing human is pure. But as Lincoln wrote to Alexander Stephens in the period between his election and Southern secession, the only difference between them was that Stephens and those with him believed slavery was right and should be extended, and Lincoln and his supporters believed it was wrong and should be restricted.
In 1860, Southerners held that neither the Federal government nor the inhabitants of the territories had the right to ban slavery in the territories; a territory could only ban slavery at the time it became a state. (They deep-sixed Stephen Douglas’ 1860 Presidential candidacy and split the Democratic party because Douglas, while agreeing with them that the Federal government couldn’t ban slavery in the territories, believed that the territorial residents themselves could do so.)
Lincoln, of course, ran on a platform of allowing slavery to continue where it existed, but banning forever its expansion into the territories. He was willing to do almost anything to preserve the Union, except give in on this matter. And so secession came.
Sure, the Civil War was about States’ Rights. The right of States to perpetuate and extend slavery. While other States’ Rights issues may have come up from time to time, slavery was the only one that lead to secession and war.
Well, to be fair, slavery led to secession. If the northern states had accepted secession then there wouldn’t have been a Civil War. However, it was clear at the time of secession that secession would lead to war…a war that the southern states were convinced they would win easily and quickly and send the Yankees back home.
Were there any other Union slave states besides Maryland? And did the Emancipation Proclamation free those slaves or only the ones in Southern states which had been conquered by the North?
There were also slaves in Delaware, Missouri, and Kentucky. The last two, while officially part of the Union throughout the war, were often considered disputed territory - so much so that the Confederate battle flag actually includes a star for each of them, IIRC.
I believe there were also slaves in the District of Columbia - the Compromise of 1850 outlawed the slave trade in the federal district, but I don’t think it did anything about slavery itself.
The Emancipation Proclamation freed only those slaves held in territories still in rebellion on 1 January 1863 (the Confederacy). Lincoln couldn’t have afforded to alienate the Union border states by freeing their slaves too, lest they attempt to join the Confederate war effort. Slavery was not eliminated on a nation-wide basis until the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment after the war.
The cause of the War of Northern Aggression was the cause of all wars.
Economics.
I think the correct answer is, “It depends on who you ask.”
Slavery was outlawed in the District of Columbia on April 16, 1862, nine months before the Emancipation Proclamation, by the District of Columbia Emancipation Act.
I tip my hat to you, Walloon. I learn something new every day.
To address another part of the OP: “Were there any Slavery opponents for the confederates, or is that an oxymoron?”
There were Northern Democrats, called Copperheads, who were against the war and in favor of negotiating a peace with the Confederacy. Their strength was mainly in Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. They were often considered traitors.
If I recall from one of Catton’s books, the Copperheads had enough power in the Indiana legislature at one point to threaten to pass a resolution calling for the end of the war (essentially giving in to the Confederacy). The Republicans withdrew from the legislature (under leadership of the republican Govenor) to prevent a quorum, therefore preventing the resolution - or any other state business - from being passed. The Govenor had to appeal to Lincoln to help with state finances.
Another thing to think about. The state of Missouri (slave) held a non-binding convention to consider secession, essentially recognizing that states did have a right to seceed (otherwise, why hold the convention?). They decided not to leave the Union, putting Missouri in a political no-man’s land between Union and secession. The Federal armies occupied Missouri (and even fought non-confederate state militias) to keep Missouri in the Union.