I would suggest that it’s overly simplistic to suggest that any war is only about one thing. The Civil War brought to the surface all kinds of issues, i.e.: economic imperialism, industrial -v- agricultural economies, urban -v- rural cultures…
That said, anyone who suggests that the CW wasn’t about slavery is smoking too much cotton. If the constitution had abolished slavery from the beginning, it’s hard to argue that the war would ever have been fought…
Actually, 2sense, the historical record supports only your initial statement that “The South seceded to protect slavery.” The reasons behind the pursuit of the conflict are more complex. Probably the single most important line of thinking was Lincoln’s consuming belief that survival of the Nation depended on the Confederate States’ forcible return to the Union. The North’s facile ability to compromise on the issue of slavery is itself sufficient proof that the institution of slavery, though the direct reason for secession of the Southern States, was not what the Civil War was all about.
JMHO, but Lincoln’s wisdom regarding “a house divided against itself” seems to me to be the best summary of the North’s position, while “states rights” seems to best sum up the South’s.
Having said that, I wholeheartedly agree that slavery was the one major factor that led to the Civil War, and I agree with jrepka that, had slavery been abolished from the beginning, the war would never have been fought.
With the exception of the more extreme Neo-Confederates, I know of no one who insists that slavery was not an issue at all. It is painfully obvious, however, that the North was not primarily fighting to free the slaves, despite what you’ve seen in Hollywood movies. It is very clear that most Northerners were indifferent to the issue and couldn’t care less whether or not the slaves of the South were freed. And while the South explicitly stated that it wanted to preserve the institution, the average Southern soldier saw himself as defending his homeland, not specifically the institution of slavery.
**
If the constitution had abolished slavery from the beginning, it’s hard to argue that the war would ever have been fought… **
[/QUOTE]
The Constitution did abolish slavery. I’m feeling too lazy to look it up right now, but originally the Constitution called for a gradual eradication of slavery. And, sadly, this is a matter that reflects poorly on the South of the 19th century. In signing the Constitution, the Southern states originally agreed to the eventual abolition of slavery and then reneged on the deal.
Bear in mind the documents you cite were written by men from the wealthy, or at least well-to-do, upper classes who of course had a great interest in preserving slavery. As I’ve already said, the average Southerner saw himself as defending his home from invaders. Considering the devastation unleashed on the South during and after the war, that attitude was well-justified.
There were, by the way, a substantial number of Southerners who did not support the institution of slavery, though they still fought for the South, e.g. Gen. Robert E. Lee, who refused to own slaves.
**I can not see how anyone can reconcile this historical record to the viewpoint that the war was fought for another reason.
Would anyone care to enlighten me?
**
Again, the view that slavery was not a significant issue at all is taken only by a relative handful of Neo-Confederates, so the position you’re attacking here is something of a straw man.
While Lonesome is correct that the Constitution did abolish slavery, it wasn’t until the Civil War was over and the 13th Ammendment was passed. It was not in the original.
The Constitutional Convention had strong debates on slavery but it was left up to the states to decide whether to continue the practice. The importing was outlawed about 1820 in most European countries, and many American Northerners were very concerned about slavery. In fact, one of the factors in Northern life was abolition meetings.
At least not in the sense that it was the be-all and end-all of the conflict. The way I like to put it is
<antique firearm analogy coming>
that slavery was the powder in the pan which sparked it off, but it was not the powder in the chamber that made the bullet go.
(Neat analogy, no?)
The whole mess was really a conflict over power–who could exercise power over what. The Southern slaveholding states had originally dominated the federal government, as a list of the early presidents will show. But over time other areas of the country grew, and the South no longer held as many of the federal cards. In effect, the South’s power within the federal government was fading–much like the power of the Northeast industrial states has been fading in relation to the federal government since the 1950s or so. (While the South’s, ironically, is growing.)
The South’s unhappiness over this state of affairs manifested itself in more ways than one–you may recall the Nullification Crisis of the Jackson Administration, which was over tariff policies. Slavery itself became an issue because of a growing sense in the North and Midwest that slavery was wrong, which translated into many non-Southern federal politicians failing to support the expansion of slavery into new territories. The Southernors took this as a limitation on their freedom to take slaves wherever they pleased–and there was the slight matter of abolitionists calling slaveholders scumbags–and got very tense over it. Tense enough that it led to civil war–a civil war which did not actually become about slavery until the Emancipation Proclamation took effect on January 1, 1863. Prior to that date, the Lincoln Administration had no intention of interfering with slavery where it already existed–Lincoln himself said so repeatedly. (And you may recall that the EP only applied to those states in rebellion…and, for that matter, only the parts of those which were not under federal control. That’s because there were a number of slave states which never left the Union–they apparently disagreed that it was all about slavery.)
To put this another way, slavery was the most visible and easily understood issue during the Civil War–and the one best suited to good/evil analysis 140 years later–but it was only a part of the overall conflict about who held the power.
As for statements contending the issue was slavery at the time…just as today, it was easier to explain things in terms of one black-and-white (pun intended) issue than to get into the details of how the growth of non-Southern sections was eroding the Southern power base. “We must fight because someday California will have too many Representatives!” just doesn’t do it as a rallying cry. How many issues today are extremely over-simplified by the pros and antis? Same thing.
LonesomePolecat said:
Hohenstein points out that it was the 13th Amendment (1865) which abolished slavery, but I think LonesomePolecat is thinking of Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 1, which provides:
In other words, Congress was prohibited from banning the importation of slaves until 1808, but more or less invited to do so thereafter. (Which was done–the importation of slaves was outlawed in 1808.) This section also authorized a tax on imported slaves of up to $10–not a small sum of money in 1787–which can be seen as an attempt to discourage slave-importing. A half-measure, at best, but still a roundabout confession that the foreign slave trade was a bad thing which Congress could eventually ban.
A number of the Founding Fathers reportedly expected slavery to die out on its own without any help. As I recall, as late as the early 1850s, the legislature of Virginia came close to ending the practice. If they had, given the attitudes and events of the time, and that the Civil War was about more than slavery, Virginia would most likely have joined the Confederacy anyway. Thus, not only would there have been slave states which fought on the Union side, there would have been a free state which fought on the Confederate side…and the over-simplification that the Civil War was really about slavery wouldn’t exist.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by MysterEcks *
** The way I like to put it is
<antique firearm analogy coming>
that slavery was the powder in the pan which sparked it off, but it was not the powder in the chamber that made the bullet go.
(Neat analogy, no?)**
Neat analogy, yes. I used to say that slavery was the match that set the fire, but I like your analogy better.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by MysterEcks *
** LonesomePolecat said:
Hohenstein points out that it was the 13th Amendment (1865) which abolished slavery, but I think LonesomePolecat is thinking of Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 1, which provides:
In other words, Congress was prohibited from banning the importation of slaves until 1808, but more or less invited to do so thereafter. (Which was done–the importation of slaves was outlawed in 1808.) This section also authorized a tax on imported slaves of up to $10–not a small sum of money in 1787–which can be seen as an attempt to discourage slave-importing. A half-measure, at best, but still a roundabout confession that the foreign slave trade was a bad thing which Congress could eventually ban.**
Thank you for the correction. I stated it a little too strongly.
Are you a history teacher or a historian or something? You seem to have an excellent grasp of the details.
I am not sure if I understand the semantics of the main counterargument. If the main bone of contention between the sides was slavery, how can this not be the major cause of the war? I am aware that this is a simplification, but I think that it is the most accurate comparable simplification. I have no problem with the analogy of the match lighting the fire.
I consider myself unenlightened.
MysterEcks:
Your post could as easily be found in the “Why are ALL wars fought?” thread. I agree that wars are necessarily concerned with control. Why did relative control become important? …slavery.
I admit that I am unaware of the Nulification Crisis, Jacksa Chula Harjo is my least favorite President. Other than Removals and the spoils system, I have been content to remain ignorant of this administration. I would disagree about the relative power of the South today; however, I don’t think that you meant relative to the federal government but rather relative to the Northeast in fedgov.
I disagree that “the Lincoln Administration had no intention of interfering with slavery where it already existed”. If this were true then why were the Southern states so concerned about his election? You will not convince me with political speech such as the L-D debates. Lincoln was a politician. His public voice was tempered by what, in his estimation, people he was trying to gain support from found supportable. His actions in defeating the Crittenden Compromise show that he was NOT willing to save the Union at the cost of perpetual slavery.
2sense:
Look at the facts:
[ul]
[li]The Emancipation Proclamation was written specifically to only free slaves in states then in a state of rebellion against the USA.[/li][li]Maryland, a slave state, was also a Union state.[/li][li]Lincoln himself said: “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.” The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, “Letter to Horace Greeley” (August 22, 1862), p. 388.[/li][/ul]
Slavery was a big issue, but some groups blew it way out of proportion even then. The Civil War was fought over states’ rights, but the states’ rights issue stemmed from the industrial vs. agricultural/urban vs. bucolic argument that had been going on since Washington and Jefferson disagreed over how strong the Federal government should be. Jefferson, the originator of the entire philosophy the Confederacy was based upon (rural living, plenty of farms and free, landowning farmers, and a government that could keep to its own) was an avidly anti-slavery. Others had to convince him that if the Constitution banned slavery nobody would sign it. Anyway, the Civil War may have been averted as cheaper machinery made the South more dependent upon Northern industry and technological innovation. A small part of that would have been the replacement of the slave as obsolete, but more of it would have been the growth of southern towns and an industrial culture tied to the north, with their heavy durable goods manufacturing and oceanic trade, economically if not wholly philosophically. But reactionaries like Fredrick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln (his election precipitated the secession of South Carolina and the start of the shooting war) always give peace a tough time.
I believe that formal institutionalized government-sanctioned slavery was abolished in the New World for good in the 1880s when Brazil abolished it.
Would it have been likely for the United States to follow that same path?
It’s hard to say.
Slavery in the South represented a significant sociological problem (as well as an economic one) for the United States to deal with.
For many in the U.S. in the 1850s and 1860s, slavery was an intolerable condition that they did not want to coexist with.
Any compromise idea floated before the Civil War (like the last ditch Crittenden proposal) still allowed for the expansion of slavery.
Slavery was an issue where there didn’t appear to be a middle ground.
Well, look at it this way. Consider the example of a married couple who have a lot of problems in their relationship, and the marriage finally collapses after a huge fight over financial problems or an adulterous affair. You could say the marriage failed because of the money problems or the affair, and to an extent it would even be true, but it doesn’t really give a good explanation as to why the marriage failed. After all, lots of marriages survive money problems and affairs.
Slavery wasn’t the only issue. It was an important issue, but it wasn’t the only important issue. There was the matter of tariffs. Southerners were getting ripped off by high tariffs which pretty much forced them to buy most of their manufactured goods from the North when they could have gotten them more cheaply from England and France without the tariffs. There was the matter of industrial development versus agriculture. The South wanted to remain an agricultural society, which put it at a serious disadvantage economically and politically with the North and led to further friction. There were cultural differences. The South was largely Celtic, while the North was largely Anglo-Saxon (please remember I’m talking in very broad terms here) and the difference between the two naturally led to still more friction. (Some writers have suggested that the American Civil War was basicly an extension of the centuries-old Anglo-Saxon/Celtic conflict in the British Isles, but I think that’s an awfully long stretch.) There were genuine and sincere differences in the philosophy of government. Many Southerners thought, with some justification, that the North was treating the South more or less as a colonial possession. And the North did, after all, have an economic stake in keeping the South in the Union. All of this and other issues as well led many Southerners to see themselves as being pushed around by the North (a view which did, after all, have some truth in it).
Add the volatile issue of slavery to that potent brew, and you’ve got a pretty good recipe for an explosion.
So that’s why I get a little irked when I hear people say that “the Civil War was about slavery.”
And just to kick up a little controversy in addition to what we’ve already got, bear in mind that the North technically committed genocide in destroying the South’s culture. Aw, all right, I admit I’m just being contrary with that one.
(An aside: That’s what kind of scares me about the abortion controversy. Like slavery, it seems like the kind of issue which might, under the right circumstances, ignite a civil war. But that’s probably a topic for another thread altogether.)
Thanks…but, no, I’m not–my degrees are in political science and law. I’ve just been reading about the Civil War for some 25 years or so. I’m no expert, but I’ve picked a fair amount up.
You will probably not be comforted to know that thought has crossed my mind, too. Of all the things that might be the next “powder in the pan,” that’s one of the more likely ones.
2sense said:
I think you have a symptom confused with the disease here. Slavery was the fever, not the illness itself.
Yes, that is what I meant–I apologize if I was unclear.
Lincoln said repeatedly that he would not interfere with slavery where it already existed–he wanted to limit its expansion into new states and territories. Even when war broke out, he made it clear that his only goal was to preserve the Union. (See the Lincoln quotation given by Derleth.)
As for the election…it all goes back to the power issue. The Republican Party was started as anti-slavey-expansion party–which was going to be automatically detested in the South–and it slipped into the power vacuum created when the Whig Party expired. The Republican national ticket–Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin–wasn’t even on the general election ballot in most of the Southern states. But it won anyway. (In large part because Southern Democrats split with Northern Democrats, and there ended up being two slates of Democrats on the ballot.)
Lincoln had been saying all along that he was not going to push for the abolition of slavery, and there wouldn’t have been Congressional support for it…and such a scheme might not have been constitutional anyway. (Congress could make laws for Territories, including prohibitting slavery, under Article IV, Section 3, Paragraph 2, but banning slavery in existing states would have been another matter.) Nobody was going to take anyone’s slaves away from them.
But from a power perspective, the election of 1860 was a disaster for the South. The Republicans had taken control of the White House without any Southern support at all. It went well beyond the Republican position on slavery–the Republicans coming into power owed zero, zippo, and zilch to the South. This not only meant a further decline in relative power, it got the Southern leadership right in the pride. Remaining in the Union under those circumstances was more than some of them could bear…so they didn’t.
You also have to keep in mind that the original secessionist movement in the United States came out of New England, which was hit hard by the Jeffersonian embargo against Britain and France during the Napoleonic Wars. The South didn’t invent the “I get to make the rules or I’m leaving” approach, though they are the ones who actually tried to carry out the threat.
You seem to be saying the Lincoln was lying about what he intended to do once in office. Not only have I not seen any evidence of that, I don’t think he could have won the abolition of slavery if he’d tried. It took the Southernors shooting themselves in the foot, as it were, to accomplish that.
Derleth said:
As were Kentucky and Missouri (though the Confederates tried to claim them as well) and Delaware. (I have never figured out how Delaware, which was originally part of Pennsylvania, became a slave state in the first place.)
Lincoln’s election “precipitated” secession and war in the sense it got a lot of Southern leaders’ panties in a bunch, for the reasons I’ve mentioned. But let’s face it–the reaction was akin to a little kid stomping his feet and trying to take his ball and go home because they aren’t letting him be in charge. Lincoln didn’t makeSouth Carolina secede; they started down the Yellow Brick Road all by themselves.
BobT said:
That’s one of the interesting what-ifs of history–how long would it have taken slavery to die out in the United States without the Civil War? That’s a topic for another thread, but I myself suspect it wouldn’t have lasted past about 1885.
Yes I am saying that Lincoln was lying at times. The man was a politician. That’s what they do. In the L-D debates he was trying to sway moderate voters. The EP was a political move. The advantage of international recognition as a war to end slavery had to be balanced against the disadvantage of Northern parents sending their sons off to die so niggers could have freedom. Also, the border states needed to be conciliated to retain their support.
Derlith:
A counter quote of Lincoln’s.
Do you have a cite for Jefferson’s stance on slavery? I find it difficult to believe considering the man owned slaves and enjoyed AHEM the use of them.
Lincoln and Frederick Douglas = created a better future = visionaries
Leaders of Confederacy = reacted to Lincoln’s election = reactionaries
BobT:
An interesting post.
I wonder about your “Slavery was an issue where there didn’t appear to be a middle ground.” statement. Where there any other countries that fought a war to end slavery ( other than slave revolts ) or was this only necessary in America?
LonesomePolecat:
Your metaphor of the married couple is interesting. I would agree that the marriage didn’t resolve problems well enough to prevent the big blow-up. I would also agree that the system set up by the Constitution failed in the same manner. I note that this lesson did not seem to sink in long enough to allow meaningful reform. I am afraid that we will again find ourselves in a bad break-up.
Slavery was a part of it, but not the biggest part. We (“we” meaning Texas and the rest of the South*) seceded because the Federal guv’mint was infringing on our states’ rights.
IOW, the Fed. Gov. was telling us how to do things we** should’ve had the say in, not them. Slavery was only one of many of those things.
Good analogy, MysterEcks.
Disclaimers:
*–“we” used only as a way to save time writing this…I am from TX, BTW.
**–We thought we should, anyway. Whether it was right of us to think that is for somebody other than me to decide.
I agree that there were differences between the North and South. But these differences were for the most part due to slavery. This was the bond that demarked the South. The social structure, the economy, the ethos of the South was built on the backs of the slaves. Maryland did not secede ( with a little help from Mr. Lincoln ) but today it is still considered part of the South.
I am unaware of any differences in political philosophy, would you care to elaborate?
I say this because slavery was the central issue and the war did indeed become a war to end slavery. I note that despite wording in the EP, slavery throughout the United States ended shortly thereafter. I do agree that this is not all there was to it.
Perhaps, depending on how technical you wish to be. The recent genocide on which the South and the North had been founded needs no qualification. I find that in comparison, the rebels got off light.
2sense: Maryland is considered part of the south by whom, exactly? Hell, as far north as North Carolina they think everything above Richmond is Yankee territory.
And even if we’re taking local consensus out of the equation as subjective opinion, Mid-Atlantic is th most common thing I’ve heard to desceibe Maryland’s place in this union.
Yer pal,
Satan
I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Three months, one day, 12 hours, 14 minutes and 31 seconds.
3700 cigarettes not smoked, saving $462.55.
Life saved: 1 week, 5 days, 20 hours, 20 minutes.
Correct me if this idea is not right…but…even though Lincoln may have asserted that his intention was not to abolish slavery wouldn’t it be fair to assume that his policy of non expansion would be seen as LEADING up to the abolishment? Doesn’t seem very much different to me than todays debates regarding gun control and abortion. Any restrictions are interpreted to be stepping stones to complete abolition.
And just a personal rant…I have no idea why so many people are determined to rehash and rehash the history of this divisionist war. Why such a facination? Why not talk incessantly about WWI or WWII. Even Vietnam and all the problems that are involved with that conflict are not subject to such polarization. Southerners are so damned in love with this subject. Just like what is said in one of the other threads about blacks “getting over” slavery. I say GET OVER IT! There was no honor in that war. As a country it is one of our darkest hours in history.
Are there any Revolutionary War buffs out there? Now the glamorization of that war might just be a little better for us as Americans to discuss. It is after all the victory that brought about the development of our nation. Not the conflict that almost destroyed it, and continues to divide many of us to this day.
Derleth, what could the Emancipation Proclamation possibly have to do with a war that started in 1861? Why do people constantly stroke the EP’s perceived failings to assert that “the Civil War wasn’t about slavery”? The South started the war. The EP is 100% irrelevant. Lincoln’s intentions are 100% irrelevant.
Gunslinger, said,
I’ve thoroughly debunked this assertion on my other thread, but let me ask, what exactly are you talking about? These constant unsupported assertions that the Federal government was infringing on some states’ rights are becoming terrifyingly bland. What government? The Buchanan administration? What rights? Tariffs? No, nothing Lincoln did could have made the South secede.
The trigger for secession was the results of a Presidential Election, nothing more or less. It was Lincoln’s opinions the South seceded from - talk about being thin skinned.
MysterEcks said,
Add all the votes of Lincoln’s opponents (Douglas, Breckenridge, and Bell) together and Lincoln still wins. A few states (Oregon, California, and one or two others) would have changed hands, but not enough to deprive him of an absolute majority of electors.
