# Was the U.S. Civil War all about slavery? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 23, 2010, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-u-s-civil-war-all-about-slavery/540432 "2010-05-23T03:36:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2010, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-u-s-civil-war-all-about-slavery/540432/101 "2010-05-26T20:24:48Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > It appears that your claim is that the North really started the War, and that secession and firing on Ft. Sumter had nothing to do with it. Them poor old Southerners had no idea that the North would react with violence to this. Sheesh. 😕 I’m not sure how you came up with that interpretation. > [@](#): > > No one is saying that the North went to war because of slavery Have you read the thread? > [@](#): > > What we are saying is that secession caused the war, inevitably, and that slavery caused secession. The South did not attempt to negotiate anything before seceding, not that there was anything to negotiate since no bills outlawing slavery were being considered. I agree with a previous post that Lincoln’s election showed which way the wind was blowing, and that was what set them off. I agree. Slavery was the flashpoint, the motive that explains the South’s secession. Do you agree that Lincoln would never have recognized the legitimacy of the Confederacy and done everything in his power to end their rebellion, regardless of their reason for rebelling? > [@](#): > > Saying that the Southern states seceded to prove they had the right to secede is absurd. They did not try to get this supposed right recognized by the Supreme Court. Good thing I never said that. But if they didn’t have the right to secede, was there some fundamental principle at play that barred them from seceding? Did the colonists have the “right” to declare independence from Great Britain? > [@](#): > > I trust that you are not saying that the leaders of the CSA were surprised by the North’s attack. If you were, you’d be calling them total morons. Given that, it is also absurd to bring up hypotheticals about seceding because they didn’t like Lincoln’s looks. They were only going to take this risky and expensive step for something important, and that important thing was only slavery. No, they wouldn’t have raised an army if they didn’t expect resistance. They did offer to buy off federal holdings in the south, including Fort Sumter, but Lincoln rejected the offer. They attacked Fort Sumter and essentially dared Lincoln to stop them. Which he did. I think it’s possible the Confederacy had dared to hope for a limited war followed by Lincoln conceding, but they obviously bit off more than they could chew. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2010, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-u-s-civil-war-all-about-slavery/540432/102 "2010-05-26T20:29:37Z")
And still not one single reason distinct from slavery. ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2010, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-u-s-civil-war-all-about-slavery/540432/103 "2010-05-26T20:35:02Z")
> [@ed malin](#): > > And still not one single reason distinct from slavery. You mean a reason like the desire for self-government? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2010, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-u-s-civil-war-all-about-slavery/540432/104 "2010-05-26T20:45:20Z")
> [@ed malin](#): > > i know plenty of not-anti-abortion people who consider roe v. wade to be all about abortion. and the medical privacy issue at stake in the decsion was abortion. the two cases may not be direct analogues, so can anyone help reframe my point less controversially? > > and are you saying that the civil war had other causes than slavery? your comment doesn’t reveal that. I think you got whooshed. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2010, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-u-s-civil-war-all-about-slavery/540432/105 "2010-05-26T20:49:46Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > I know but you seemed to be arguing that it’s disingenuous to say the North was fighting to end slavery. I think it’s just as misleading to say that the North wasn’t, by limiting the focus to just it’s initial motivation. The North may not have been willing to go to over slavery but the South was and when they seceded, the north was willing to go to war over the secession. Isn’t that accurate? ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2010, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-u-s-civil-war-all-about-slavery/540432/106 "2010-05-26T20:53:16Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > The North may not have been willing to go to over slavery but the South was and when they seceded, the north was willing to go to war over the secession. Isn’t that accurate? Yes. ---
**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:** [May 26, 2010, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-u-s-civil-war-all-about-slavery/540432/107 "2010-05-26T20:59:15Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > [QUOTE=ed malin] > And still not one single reason distinct from slavery. You mean a reason like the desire for self-government? [/QUOTE] And why did they want self government? What issue did they differ on? Slavery. Slavery was why the Confederacy was created. Slavery by the time the Civil War came around had become an all-consuming issue for the South; every other aspect of their society was subordinated to slavery. Religion, politics, economy; everything. It was all about slavery, all other needs were subordinated to excusing and supporting slavery. Their entire society was just a machine for the support of slavery. I recall reading a quote from a congressman of the time comparing it to the Biblical plague of frogs; everywhere he turned, everywhere he looked there was slavery. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2010, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-u-s-civil-war-all-about-slavery/540432/108 "2010-05-26T21:05:57Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > 😕 > > I’m not sure how you came up with that interpretation. Because you keep on bringing up why the North went to war. They wouldn’t have gone to war if the South hadn’t seceded, and the South seceded due to slavery. It’s like saying GW I started because of respect for national boundaries, not because Saddam attacked Kuwait. > [@](#): > > Have you read the thread? I always read the thread. The South went to war because of slavery. The North went to war because of the South. I don’t know if you would get a majority of northerners who would go to war to abolish slavery in 1861. I doubt it. I’m sure you wouldn’t get a majority who would go to war for equal rights for black people. > [@](#): > > I agree. Slavery was the flashpoint, the motive that explains the South’s secession. Do you agree that Lincoln would never have recognized the legitimacy of the Confederacy and done everything in his power to end their rebellion, regardless of their reason for rebelling? Hard to say. Not if they unilaterally seceded without negotiation. Perhaps if they had some kind of good reason for doing so. But the point is moot, since I challenge you or anyone to come up with a reasons besides slavery which would have motivated secession. > [@](#): > > Good thing I never said that. But if they didn’t have the right to secede, was there some fundamental principle at play that barred them from seceding? In response to the question > [@](#): > > Can you name a cause unrelated to slavery? you said > [@](#): > > The right of the states to secede. so I might be forgiven for thinking believe this is a cause. > [@](#): > > Did the colonists have the “right” to declare independence from Great Britain? You can read the Declaration of Independence for that. 🙂 But the difference is that the colonists, or their ancestors, never entered into a voluntary association with Great Britain, unlike the Southerners, and the colonists did not have representation in the government which ruled them, again unlike the Southerners. ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2010, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-u-s-civil-war-all-about-slavery/540432/109 "2010-05-26T21:07:59Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > But the difference is that the colonists, or their ancestors, never entered into a voluntary association with Great Britain, unlike the Southerners, and the colonists did not have representation in the government which ruled them, again unlike the Southerners. Didn’t end up being very voluntary, did it? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2010, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-u-s-civil-war-all-about-slavery/540432/110 "2010-05-26T21:08:56Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > You mean a reason like the desire for self-government? It has already been noted, several times, that their love of self government did not extend to the northern states being able to reject the Fugitive Slave Act, so I don’t think you have much of a case here. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2010, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-u-s-civil-war-all-about-slavery/540432/111 "2010-05-26T21:12:38Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > Didn’t end up being very voluntary, did it? If they wanted out of the Constitution, they were free to try to get it amended to allow secession explicitly or they were free to sue for secession using existing legal channels. Voluntary means entering into a contract, not being able to quit it without penalty any time I damn well please. ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2010, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-u-s-civil-war-all-about-slavery/540432/112 "2010-05-26T21:17:08Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > It has already been noted, several times, that their love of self government did not extend to the northern states being able to reject the Fugitive Slave Act, so I don’t think you have much of a case here. The Fugitive Slave Act was a federal law that many northerners defiantly ignored. That’s not self-government, that’s protest. Like burning your draft card. ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2010, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-u-s-civil-war-all-about-slavery/540432/113 "2010-05-26T21:21:52Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > If they wanted out of the Constitution, they were free to try to get it amended to allow secession explicitly or they were free to sue for secession using existing legal channels. > Voluntary means entering into a contract, not being able to quit it without penalty any time I damn well please. Sue for secession? That’s a new one. Also, it’s not like the states didn’t try to engage in certain legal formalities. [Here’s](http://www.lsjunction.com/docs/secesson.htm) the text of the Texas Ordinance of Secession, for example. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2010, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-u-s-civil-war-all-about-slavery/540432/114 "2010-05-26T21:25:10Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > If they wanted out of the Constitution, they were free to try to get it amended to allow secession explicitly or they were free to sue for secession using existing legal channels. > Voluntary means entering into a contract, not being able to quit it without penalty any time I damn well please. Moreover, the Southerners seceded when they nnot out of some love of abstract liberty, but because they were no longer able to dominate the federal government. When their various abuses finally caught up with them in the west, they ran like scared little girls (the elites, anyway). ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2010, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-u-s-civil-war-all-about-slavery/540432/115 "2010-05-26T21:28:16Z")
[QUOTE=robby] You are likely remembering an excerpt from a letter that Lincoln wrote to Horace Greeley in August 1862, just one month before the Emancipation Proclamation was issued. [/QUOTE] That was exactly the quote I remembered. Thanks for the cite…it’s good to have his exact words instead of my vague recollections. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Rhodes](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rhodes/32/273_2.png) [@Rhodes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhodes)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2010, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-u-s-civil-war-all-about-slavery/540432/116 "2010-05-26T21:31:02Z")
For what it’s worth, in my AP US History class we were taught that the AP graders wanted us to show how the Civil War was NOT about slavery. It was as if slavery wasn’t even THE central issue. Really, IIRC, the Civil War was was about: 1) blah blah blah slavery, 2) blah blah slavery blah, and especially 3) blah blah blah blah slavery blah blah. I couldn’t quite grasp the concept of it not being about slavery when all of the real reasons were direct results of slavery, so I guess that’s why I barely squeaked by with a passing grade on the AP test. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2010, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-u-s-civil-war-all-about-slavery/540432/117 "2010-05-26T23:11:43Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > It has occurred to me that those who discount the states’ rights view may be colored by their conception of the United States today, with its strong central government. I don’t believe the southern states viewed the U.S. the way we do. I think they viewed the U.S. as more like a mutually beneficial club, with a central government empowered to perform a few important tasks that the individual states would have difficulty performing. If they felt that membership in the club wasn’t beneficial, they could leave and form a new club. That, however, is not “states rights” but a separate discussion regarding the legitimacy of dissolution. At the risk of my comment turning into a semantic debate, however, I will stipulate that one can perceive secession as a state right. However, the “states rights” argument already fails in history, without even considering our current view of the nation. The Southern states were unanimous in their condemnation of the Hartford Convention and threatened to go to war to force New England to remain in the Union when several Northern states considered withdrawing due to the harm that the War of 1812, (“Mr. Madison’s War”), was inflicting on that portion of the country. The Southern states all issued significant condemnations of every action by any Northern state to bypass or work around the Fugitive Slave acts of 1793 and 1850. If the South’s opinion was that the North had no right to work around a Federal Law, then it is rank hypocrisy for the South to claim that they have some separate rights outside the Fedral government over which they can start a war. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2010, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-u-s-civil-war-all-about-slavery/540432/118 "2010-05-26T23:48:39Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I think you got whooshed. You will have to explain what you mean to me. I’m unfamiliar with the terminology you kids use on your raspberries and your tip-top music. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2010, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-u-s-civil-war-all-about-slavery/540432/119 "2010-05-26T23:53:30Z")
> [@ed malin](#): > > You will have to explain what you mean to me. I’m unfamiliar with the terminology you kids use on your raspberries and your tip-top music. A whoosh is the sound something makes as it goes over your head. The term is typically used when somebody means something ironically or humourously or otherwise not seriously and you respond as if it _had_ been meant seriously - in which case the intended meaning of the post has gone over your head. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2010, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-u-s-civil-war-all-about-slavery/540432/120 "2010-05-26T23:54:46Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > And why did they want self government? What issue did they differ on? Slavery. > > Slavery was why the Confederacy was created. Slavery by the time the Civil War came around had become an all-consuming issue for the South; every other aspect of their society was subordinated to slavery. Religion, politics, economy; everything. It was all about slavery, all other needs were subordinated to excusing and supporting slavery. Their entire society was just a machine for the support of slavery. I recall reading a quote from a congressman of the time comparing it to the Biblical plague of frogs; everywhere he turned, everywhere he looked there was slavery. Thanks for helping! I appreciate it. Guys, am I allowed to create apps to respond on these boards. See I can make one that responds to MOIDALIZE with the string ‘And that was directly based on slavery.’ Rats, now I have to ask the moderator another question. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-u-s-civil-war-all-about-slavery/540432.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-u-s-civil-war-all-about-slavery/540432.md?page=7)