# "The American Civil War wasn't about slavery because slavery didn't actually exist in the South" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 16, 2025, 7:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-american-civil-war-wasnt-about-slavery-because-slavery-didnt-actually-exist-in-the-south/1013037 "2025-01-16T07:59:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2025, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-american-civil-war-wasnt-about-slavery-because-slavery-didnt-actually-exist-in-the-south/1013037/41 "2025-01-16T22:57:14Z")
> [@Hari\_Seldon](#): > > In 1808 Congress did pass a law banning the import of slaves. And Mexico followed suit in either 1829 or 1830, [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_Texas) isn’t clear. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2025, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-american-civil-war-wasnt-about-slavery-because-slavery-didnt-actually-exist-in-the-south/1013037/42 "2025-01-16T23:02:16Z")
> [@StringsandHammers](#): > > You’re wrong. Mexico did outlaw slavery decades before the US. Yes, except Texas was allowed to keep their slaves. > [@Nightaudit](#): > > I was always under the impression that making the Roman Catholic Church the religion of the Nation … was a more powerful driver for Texas independence, being most of the settlers were some kind of Protestant. That was one of the big reasons, yes. > [@Andy\_L](#): > > So yes, Mexico abolished slavery way before the U.S. without any conditions. They then walked it back regarding Texas. Thank you. > [@StringsandHammers](#): > > B) The War for Texas Independance was “at least in part” due to slavery. It wasnt anything that they listed. > [@StringsandHammers](#): > > Texas fought 2 wars over slavery. Yes, but then you said this- which was false. ---
**Author:** ![Maserschmidt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/maserschmidt/32/18829_2.png) [@Maserschmidt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maserschmidt)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2025, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-american-civil-war-wasnt-about-slavery-because-slavery-didnt-actually-exist-in-the-south/1013037/43 "2025-01-16T23:12:53Z")
Kind of crazy how the Constitution of the Texas Republic was so adamant on the topic of slavery. > **SEC. 9.** All persons of color who were slaves for life previous to their emigration to Texas, and who are now held in bondage, shall remain in the like state of servitude, provide the said slave shall be the bona fide property of the person so holding said slave as aforesaid. Congress shall pass no laws to prohibit emigrants from the United States of America from bringing their slaves into the Republic with them, and holding them by the same tenure by which such slaves were held in the United States; nor shall Congress have power to emancipate slaves; nor shall any slave-holder be allowed to emancipate his or her slave or slaves, without the consent of Congress, unless he or she shall send his or her slave or slaves without the limits of the Republic. No free person of African descent, either in whole or in part, shall be permitted to reside permanently in the Republic, without the consent of Congress, and the importation or admission of Africans or negroes into this Republic, excepting from the United States of America, is forever prohibited, and declared to be piracy. > > **SEC. 10.** All persons, (Africans, the descendants of Africans, and Indians excepted,) who were residing in Texas on the day of the Declaration of Independence, shall be considered citizens of the Republic, and entitled to all the privileges of such. ---
**Author:** ![thelurkinghorror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2025, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-american-civil-war-wasnt-about-slavery-because-slavery-didnt-actually-exist-in-the-south/1013037/44 "2025-01-16T23:18:44Z")
Women got the right to vote nationally in 1953 in Mexico. Mexico recognized SSM in 2022, maybe you’re thinking that in 2010 they said all states have to recognize a marriage, but don’t have to perform it. The last election was between a woman and another woman for the most part. ---
**Author:** ![StringsandHammers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stringsandhammers/32/17933_2.png) [@StringsandHammers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/StringsandHammers)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2025, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-american-civil-war-wasnt-about-slavery-because-slavery-didnt-actually-exist-in-the-south/1013037/45 "2025-01-16T23:25:39Z")
Of course you’ll refuse see to see any culpability for Texans owning slaves in the lead to the Texas War of aggression. I said Mexico outlawed slavery decades before the US and that’s an indisputable fact. There doesn’t have to be a “but…”. You’re just making excuses and refuse to admit any guilt on the part of white settlers owning those slaves on Mexico 's land then afterwards refusing to grant “freedom” to anyone else but straight white males. Gross. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2025, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-american-civil-war-wasnt-about-slavery-because-slavery-didnt-actually-exist-in-the-south/1013037/46 "2025-01-16T23:31:32Z")
> [@StringsandHammers](#): > > You’re just making excuses and refuse to admit any guilt on the part of white settlers owning those slaves on Mexico 's land then afterwards refusing to grant “freedom” to anyone else but straight white males. [Again.](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-american-empire-begin/1008724/60) ---
**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:** [January 16, 2025, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-american-civil-war-wasnt-about-slavery-because-slavery-didnt-actually-exist-in-the-south/1013037/47 "2025-01-16T23:32:33Z")
> [@thelurkinghorror](#): > > Funny enough, they banned the (involuntary naturally) migration of slaves from elsewhere Not surprising at all when you look at the economics. Plantation owners like to tell themselves they were gentlemen farmers but the reality was that agriculture was generally not enough to keep a plantation going. The real business of plantations was breeding and selling slaves. And for that, they needed new markets. Which was the reason why plantation owners kept pushing for territorial expansion. The established plantations in Virginia and the Carolinas sold slaves to the new plantations starting up in Georgia and Tennessee. The established plantations in Georgia and Tennessee sold slaves to the new plantations starting up in Alabama and Florida. The established plantations in Alabama and Florida sold slaves to the new plantations starting up in Mississippi and Texas. Slavery couldn’t sit still; it needed ongoing expansion to survive. And this is why America saw an end to the international slave trade. The southerners whose livelihood depending on the domestic slave trade were happy to shut down the competition, even if it meant voting with people who opposed slavery on principle. ---
**Author:** ![StringsandHammers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stringsandhammers/32/17933_2.png) [@StringsandHammers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/StringsandHammers)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2025, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-american-civil-war-wasnt-about-slavery-because-slavery-didnt-actually-exist-in-the-south/1013037/48 "2025-01-16T23:39:04Z")
> [@Maserschmidt](#): > > Kind of crazy how the Constitution of the Texas Republic was so adamant on the topic of slavery. > > > **SEC. 9.** All persons of color who were slaves for life previous to their emigration to Texas, and who are now held in bondage, shall remain in the like state of servitude, provide the said slave shall be the bona fide property of the person so holding said slave as aforesaid. Congress shall pass no laws to prohibit emigrants from the United States of America from bringing their slaves into the Republic with them, and holding them by the same tenure by which such slaves were held in the United States; nor shall Congress have power to emancipate slaves; nor shall any slave-holder be allowed to emancipate his or her slave or slaves, without the consent of Congress, unless he or she shall send his or her slave or slaves without the limits of the Republic. No free person of African descent, either in whole or in part, shall be permitted to reside permanently in the Republic, without the consent of Congress, and the importation or admission of Africans or negroes into this Republic, excepting from the United States of America, is forever prohibited, and declared to be piracy. > > > > **SEC. 10.** All persons, (Africans, the descendants of Africans, and Indians excepted,) who were residing in Texas on the day of the Declaration of Independence, shall be considered citizens of the Republic, and entitled to all the privileges of such. Yes, that’s one heck of a coincidence I’ll say. It’s also a coincidence that they soon afterwards fought another Civil War to protect their “right” to own other human beings. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2025, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-american-civil-war-wasnt-about-slavery-because-slavery-didnt-actually-exist-in-the-south/1013037/49 "2025-01-17T01:43:38Z")
> [@StringsandHammers](#): > > Of course you’ll refuse see to see any culpability for Texans owning slaves in the lead to the Texas War of aggression. I said Mexico outlawed slavery decades before the US and that’s an indisputable fact. Absolutely. By decree in 1828, Texas exempted, and by law in 1837. No doubt, I never questioned that. And of course, Texas did own a few slaves and that was a bad thing. But you said this > [@StringsandHammers](#): > > Texas fought 2 wars over slavery. which is not true. And what the fuck is “the Texas War of aggression”? I have never heard it called that. The Texans were most certainly not the aggressors. If Texas wanted to declare independence from Mexico over slavery- why wait until 1836? And why did several other Mexican States also declare independence at the same time Texas did? In support of Texas slavery??? 🙄 or, like they said (they being the mexican states and texas)- because Santa Anna tore up the constitution and made himself a dictator? No one has tried to answer that- why did Yucatan declare independence? How about the other Mexican states? Explain that. > [@StringsandHammers](#): > > It’s also a coincidence that they soon afterwards fought another Civil War to protect their “right” to own other human beings. Note that Sam Houston was against Texas secession . And it was 25 years later, when instead of a mere 5000 slaves, there was nearly 200000. I am not saying Texas was right in owning slaves- obviously slavery was wrong. But they didnt rebel against Mexico over Slavery. That was 25 years later, at the start of the Civil War, when they rebelled against the Union. ---
**Author:** ![TroutMan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/troutman/32/6721_2.png) [@TroutMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TroutMan)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2025, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-american-civil-war-wasnt-about-slavery-because-slavery-didnt-actually-exist-in-the-south/1013037/50 "2025-01-17T02:02:30Z")
Is it really that hard to understand that there were _multiple_ reasons Texas declared independence, and slavery was one of them? ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2025, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-american-civil-war-wasnt-about-slavery-because-slavery-didnt-actually-exist-in-the-south/1013037/51 "2025-01-17T02:07:38Z")
Moderating: > [@StringsandHammers](#): > > Not only was the American Civil War fought over slavery but the Texas War for independance that preceeded it was at least in part fought over slavery. > > Mexico outlawed slavery decades before the US and the Texas settlers didn’t want to give up their slaves. Texas fought 2 wars over slavery. > [@DrDeth](#): > > Not true. Mexico gave Texas a dispensation on slavery. And Texas declared independence along with something like 5 other Mexican states, including Yucatan and Zacatecas due to Santa Anna tearing up the Constitution and making himself a dictator. Did Yucatan declare independence over slavery? How about Zacatecas? Et cetera, et cetera. Why is this discussion happening in this thread? Take it elsewhere. This thread is for the discussion of the American Civil War and the basis for it, not Mexico and how it handled slavery issues. @DrDeth, you continue to pursue thread hijacks much more often than most posters. I encourage you to decide if they are worth it, considering your history with this concern. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2025, 10:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-american-civil-war-wasnt-about-slavery-because-slavery-didnt-actually-exist-in-the-south/1013037/52 "2025-01-17T10:39:16Z")
> [@dtilque](#): > > We shall not enter upon the discussion of the moral question of slavery. But we may suggest a doubt here whether that odious term “slavery”, which has been so long imposed, by the exaggeration of Northern writers, upon the judgement and sympathies of the world, is properly applied to that system of servitude in the South, which was really the mildest in the world; which did not rest on acts of debasement and disenfranchisement, but elevated the African, and was in the interest of human improvement; and which, by the law of the land, protected the negro in life and limb, and in many personal rights, and, by the practice of the system, bestowed upon him a sum of individual indulgences, which made him altogether the most striking type in the world of cheerfulness and contentment.[[28]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy#cite_note-28) I can’t **not** hear this in the voice of Foghorn Leghorn. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2025, 10:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-american-civil-war-wasnt-about-slavery-because-slavery-didnt-actually-exist-in-the-south/1013037/53 "2025-01-17T10:42:12Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > The obvious implication is that the North wanted slaves to count as a whole person, and the South wanted to not count them as they were property. > > Just the opposite. The South wanted slaves to count equally to whites, the North did not want them to count at all. > > The reason is straightforward. The higher the population count, the more representatives a state was apportioned in the House, which was at the creation considered by far more important than the Senate and equal to the President. Southern states benefited from having a large number of slaves: for the first seven censuses, they were overrepresented. ( Does that mean that after Reconstruction, the Southern states had more power in Congress than they had before the Civil War? Or did immigration to the North even it out? ---
**Author:** ![RivkahChaya](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rivkahchaya/32/8919_2.png) [@RivkahChaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RivkahChaya)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2025, 11:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-american-civil-war-wasnt-about-slavery-because-slavery-didnt-actually-exist-in-the-south/1013037/54 "2025-01-17T11:31:52Z")
> [@UDS1](#): > > I can’t see any argument for saying that slavery didn’t exist in the southern US prior to the Civil War, unless you are adopting some very non-obvious, artficial and tendentious definition of “slavery”. Well, the bible does instruct the people of Israel in the treatment of slaves (who appear by description to be more like indentured servants in many cases), and they are treated quite a bit better than African or African-American slaves in the US south. Maybe the fact that they don’t get a day off every week, and the offering of their freedom after 7 years makes them more like hostages or internees than slaves ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2025, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-american-civil-war-wasnt-about-slavery-because-slavery-didnt-actually-exist-in-the-south/1013037/55 "2025-01-17T14:15:57Z")
A previous answer to that very question > [@Did anyone advocate for a new Constitution, c. 1865 (in the US, if I wasn't clear)?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-anyone-advocate-for-a-new-constitution-c-1865-in-the-us-if-i-wasnt-clear/1005510/9): > > By 1860 only the balance in Senate counted. Northern population growth had overwhelmed the South; there was a 70/30 split in 1860, out of a population of 31 million. The South had around 4 million slaves, so they would have gained 1,500,000 extra in the Census, or about 5% of the total population, hardly enough to change the balance in the House. The 1870 census showed a population of about 38 million, making the free black population an even smaller proportion of the growing country. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2025, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-american-civil-war-wasnt-about-slavery-because-slavery-didnt-actually-exist-in-the-south/1013037/56 "2025-01-17T15:15:00Z")
> [@RivkahChaya](#): > > Well, the bible does instruct the people of Israel in the treatment of slaves (who appear by description to be more like indentured servants in many cases), and they are treated quite a bit better than African or African-American slaves in the US south. > > Maybe the fact that they don’t get a day off every week, and the offering of their freedom after 7 years makes them more like hostages or internees than slaves No, that’s only your fellow Israelites who can be kept for as long as 50 years unless you trick them into permanent slavery by providing them a wife from the slaves you own. The non-Israelites are permanent inheritable property that can be beaten to death as long as it’s a more than three day lingering death. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2025, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-american-civil-war-wasnt-about-slavery-because-slavery-didnt-actually-exist-in-the-south/1013037/57 "2025-01-17T19:21:29Z")
The high-level answer has been given, so I’ll stick to the low-level one. Most of the states of the Confederacy indeed gained seats from the [8th to the 9th census](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_apportionment). (Virginia would have gained had not West Virginia been split off.) They collectively had 61 seats from the 1860 census and 73 from the 1870 census. The easy conclusion is not right. At the same time, the House increased from 241 seats to 292 seats. In both Houses, the South had almost exactly 25% of the seats. That also doesn’t convey strength. For the length of Reconstruction, Republicans gained many seats in the South, reinforcing the hold the North had. Only in 1876, when Democrat Samuel Tilden really won the Presidency, did the Democrats take back the House. After that the Solid South existed for nearly a century. The number of seats remained a minority, but the ability of a large block of conservative Democrats to affect legislation slanted policy consistently over that period,. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2025, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-american-civil-war-wasnt-about-slavery-because-slavery-didnt-actually-exist-in-the-south/1013037/58 "2025-01-17T19:36:08Z")
> [@Jeff\_Lichtman](#): > > Ben Carson once said slaves were immigrants who came to America for opportunity: Ben Carson says [so many crazy and counterfactual things](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-rather-have-ben-carson-as-president-right-now/805867/27) that it is [difficult to believe](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-rather-have-ben-carson-as-president-right-now/805867/80) that anyone takes anything he says seriously. It also make him the perfect Fox News commentator except for [his tendency to wander off looking for his luggage](https://youtu.be/SYDWsrVYNEk?si=OT00nGqsUBMXdO7-&t=58s). Stranger [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-american-civil-war-wasnt-about-slavery-because-slavery-didnt-actually-exist-in-the-south/1013037.md?page=2)