Replies

I agree to a point, but it's not quite as evenly split as you seem to be saying. (If I'm wrong there I apologize for misinterpreting your excellent post.) It's not as if everyone in Lincoln's time thought slavery was just fine and that one had to be a radical to hold the view similar to the current one. Slavery was not an acceptable establishment to many, or even most--including many southerners. So it's not as if by saying slavery was an evil that should be abolished in the nineteenth century one is being a revisionist, when in fact many believed that at the time. It's those who say the war was not about slavery who are doing the revizin'.

I've heard Southern partisans say many times that the Civil War was not about slavery. Thats not rational of course. The institution of slavery was the focal point and the trigger. But at the same time, I hear Northern partisans state give slavery as the sole cause of the conflict. Thats just simly two competing sound bites, neither of which add anything at all to understanding. Both pure propaganda.

The fact is that the Civil War is the most complex political event/eruption in US history. It's causation cannot be boiled down to one simple statement and maintain intellectual honesty. Slavery cannot be tossed out and still maintain intellectual honesty.

In reality, the reasons for conflict change for both sides as the war progresses. In fact, in many aspects, in the north the war becomes more about slavery as time passes and in the south the war becomes less about slavery as time passes. Partisans of both sides seize whatever fits their beliefs from this continuum and hold it up as a picture of the whole. Its like someone asking what a NASCAR race is like and having one person show them a photo of a crash and another show them a photo of the Winner's Circle.

Secession was more about slavery in the deep South states, whereas it was less about slavery as you move geographically farther from the deep South areas. For instance the concept of honor, local and regional loyalties, and opposition to what was viewed as military "coercion" of fellow states played a large role in the secession of states farther from the center. Whereas in the center, slavery was a clearly stated impetus in secession documents. You can not make the statement "The Southern states seceded over slavery" and give a clear picture of the whole.

We see these threads constantly and they are always the same. One side or the other trots out pieces of evidence to support their sound-bite one-liner capsule history and flings it at the other side. Then vice-versa.

The facts that are trotted out for one side or the other are generally correct, just as the photos of a NASCAR race are factual. Many times both sets of facts are contradictory, yet both true. Thats because they are part of a complex whole and not individual proofs.

So many in these threads start with a belief, and then mine the complexity for things that support that belief rather than studying the eruption holistically and establishing a belief based on that study.

I agree with your statement in regard to the common views of slavery at the time, even in the South. Lets put it this way, if you judge certain Lincoln comments by modern standards he is an out-and-out racist. But it is ridiculous to make such a judgment because its fairly clear that his views of the matter were somewhat advanced for the time. In addition, he was a politician who had to operate in a political environment where a large portion of the electorate, even in the north, were less advanced (to put it kindly). Lincoln said things from time to time to appeal to, or assuage, the feelings of that portion of the body politic. It is ridiculous to take such statements out of their political and temporal context and yank them into the modern day to call Lincoln a "racist" in the modern sense.

Similarly, we all know that there were fire-eaters. We also know that Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee were quite different from them. We know that a person like Patrick Cleburne didn't have an interest in the maintenance of slavery at all. We know that Alexander Stephens actually had more of a constitutionalist view of the situation than he did a social (slavery) view of it. Yet we trot out a Stephens political speech, presented to fire-eaters for political reasons, as a generic reflection of the Confederate leadership's primary motivations. That is as lame as calling Lincoln a racist based on similar constructions.

Such as trotting out Lincoln's statement that he would maintain slavery to preserve the Union (which he certainly would have) as evidence of inherent racism or lack of real concern over the fate of slaves. Thats fairly ridiculous (and was originally meant to be a facetious turn of the tables) and ignores that his views early in the war and later in the war were altered by events. We trot out comments of his in regard to the rights of blacks and whites in a politically charged environment as reflective of his inner views. Quite a reach.

Similarly, regardless of his views at the start of the war (which were fairly moderate actually), by the end of it Jefferson Davis was so wrapped up in independence for the sake of independence that I do not believe that slavery played any part at all in his thinking.

I've read hundreds of books and articles on the war from all sorts of points of view. My fundamental conception of the war is vastly different than it was when I first started studying it. I still find new facts that alter my views of the event from time to time. But the rate of change in my views has declined steadily as time has gone by.

There is plenty of blame to go around for the Civil War and plenty of abuses on both sides. Those who continually try to place blame on one side or the other in these threads will simply fail. It is sad to see facts ignored because they don't fit the propaganda of one side or the other. Those who engage in it are doing a disservice to the memory of both Lincoln and Lee who, despite any other flaws, desired an honorable reconciliation and reunion with malice toward none.

When you see the words "The war was not about slavery" you have someone trying to sell you a simplistic sound-bite for modern political or psychological reasons and not historical ones. When you see the words "The cause of the Civil War was slavery period" you have someone trying to sell you a politically correct sound-bite history and dismissing the complexity of event for personal reasons.

Its not a black and white answer. Very few things are.

Nobody will ever convince me the poor, young white boys of the South fought, and were willing to die, for the Confederacy to continue slavery.

There was a huge cultural difference between North and South and I think most southerners simply resented Yankees dictating the fate of southerners.

Good post. It aided my understanding of the conflict.

Bravo! Well said!

Secession was more about slavery in the deep South states, whereas it was less about slavery as you move geographically farther from the deep South areas.

But, still, the smaller the percentage of slaves and slaveowners, the less likely it was that a state would join the rebellion. That's a pretty good wholesale indicator, though of course, it can't account for everything.

You can not make the statement "The Southern states seceded over slavery" and give a clear picture of the whole.

So far as I can make out, historians tend to avoid blanket statements like that, and look at the actual details of the conflict. Nonetheless, it is quite clear that without slavery and the perceived threat to it, there woud have been no secession and no war.

It's not a black and white answer. Very few things are.

Undoubtedly. In history few things happen because of one and only one reason, but the connection between slavery and secession in starting the Civil War is clearer than the reasons for many other conflicts.

I've read hundreds of books and articles on the war from all sorts of points of view. My fundamental conception of the war is vastly different than it was when I first started studying it. I still find new facts that alter my views of the event from time to time. But the rate of change in my views has declined steadily as time has gone by.

There is plenty of blame to go around for the Civil War and plenty of abuses on both sides. Those who continually try to place blame on one side or the other in these threads will simply fail. It is sad to see facts ignored because they don't fit the propaganda of one side or the other. Those who engage in it are doing a disservice to the memory of both Lincoln and Lee who, despite any other flaws, desired an honorable reconciliation and reunion with malice toward none.

Damn, man. That's the most well-reasoned, well-thought, and refreshing take on this subject that I've read in a long time.

Its not a black and white answer. Very few things are.

Didn't catch your pun, did you? ;-) Next time you're in Forrest City, honk your horn 3 times for me.

Just ran across your reply to my post.

You should write a column for American Heritage or some other mainstream history magazine; you're able to take concepts usually reserved for academic study and present it in an understandable way without being glib.

My pet peeve is the casual way contemporary ax-grinders try to slap our present-day moral standards on times past. They seem to forget that we have the advantage of the passage of time, and the accumulated learning and exhanging of ideas over years, decades, centuries.

One excellent point you brought up which I have never read in these threads is the CHANGING reasons for wars. As the war progresses and specific strategic goals become apparent, the actual nature of the war, the tactics, also change. (A tiny illustration: the first Gulf War, which started as being about expelling Saddam from Kuwait and at least in part became about defending Israel.) I do think Lincoln was against slavery from day one (I used to think he simply thought up a new angle of attack until I actually read about Lincoln) and would have ended it at some point; that he chose to do so as a tool of war seems to irk some, who want to claim it was ONLY as a way to defeat the south.

Anyway, great post.

Its not a black and white answer. Very few things are.

Succinctly put.

Arkinsaw-

Your argument agaist those who claim slavery wasn't the cause of the war fly directly in the face of what Lincoln and the entire northern-controlled Congress SAID in 1861.

Lincoln' First Inaugural Speech, only DAYS befor war broke out:
"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

Furthermore, he fully supported the Fugitive Slave Laws:
"No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

Most telling, Lincoln tells EXACTLY why there WILL be a war:
"The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, ..."

IN other words: Collect the tarriffs, there will be no war.

FURTHERMORE, the northern controlled Congress has JUST PASSED a Constitutional Amendment, constructed to get the Southern states back into Congress, that would prevent the federal government from EVER interferring with slavery:
On March 2, 1861, the U.S. Senate passed a proposed Thirteenth Amendment to the US Constitution (which passed the House of Representatives on February 28) that would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering with slavery in the Southern states. (See U.S. House of Representatives, 106th Congress, 2nd Session, The Constitution of the United States of America: Unratified Amendments, Document No. 106-214, presented by Congressman Henry Hyde (Washington, D.C. U.S. Government Printing Office, January 31, 2000). The proposed amendment read as follows:

ARTICLE THIRTEEN
“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”

Lincoln FULLY SUPPORTED this Amendment, and SAID SO in his First Inaugural speech!!! He said:
“I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution . . . has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose, not to speak of particular amendments, so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”

Now, it sure doesn't sound to me as if Lincoln was BROODING how to get rid of slavery!!!! In fact, as he CLEARLY wrote Horace Greely, maintaining the Union- even if it required the deaths of 620,000 Americans- was FAR more important than ANYTHING having to do with slavery!

Furthermore;
The reason for the war should be easy to determine. On July 22, 1861, the US Congress issued a "Joint Resolution on the War" that echoed Lincoln’s reasons for the invasion of the Southern states:
“Resolved: . . . That this war is not being prosecuted upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those states, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and all laws made in pursuance thereof and to preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality and rights of the several states unimpaired; and that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought
to cease.”

By "the established institutions of those states" the Congress was referring to slavery. As with Lincoln, destroying the secession movement took precedence over doing anything about slavery.

In other words, the US Congress UNANIMOUSLY said that the war had NOTHING to do with slavery.

bookmarking this old, but excellent post!