[Southern Poll:] Majority of Alabamians Discount Slavery as Main Cause of Civil War

Newhouse News ^ | 5/3/2005 | Sean Reilly

[Incorrigible]

Majority of Alabamians Discount Slavery as Main Cause of Civil War

BY SEAN REILLY

The Civil War ended 140 years ago last month. In Alabama, the self-described "Heart of Dixie," disagreements over its causes are alive and well, although perhaps without the vehemence of an earlier day.

So suggest the results of a new Mobile Register-University of South Alabama poll showing that 52 percent of the state's adult residents believe the bloody, four-year conflict was fought primarily over states' rights, not the preservation of slavery.

At the same time, President Lincoln, who ended slavery and crushed the rebellious Confederacy of Southern states, is better regarded than either the Confederacy's own president, Jefferson Davis, or its most revered general, Robert E. Lee. Ninety percent of Alabamians view Lincoln "favorably" or "very favorably," according to the poll, compared to 77 percent for Lee and 66 percent for Davis.

"I think that's encouraging -- that people see that after all is said and done, saving the Union was probably better," said Mel McKiven, a University of South Alabama history professor who teaches a course on the Civil War and Reconstruction.

Asked about the majority's view that the war was mainly fought over states' rights, McKiven cited a speech by Mobile lawyer and judge E.S. Dargan, a prominent political figure at the time. On the eve of secession in January 1861, Dargan declared that Alabama could either become a "sovereign independent state" or else "submit to a system of policy by the federal government that in a short time will compel her to abolish African slavery."

But while Alabama still gives state workers the day off for Confederate Memorial Day, some lament that the defining attitude today toward the war is ignorance. Thirty-six percent of respondents believe that Southerners pay too little attention to the war, compared to 55 percent who say the level of attention is too much or about right.

The survey of 506 adult Alabamians conducted April 25-28 by USA Polling Group also shows few regrets over the way the war turned out. Some 73 percent of those polled believe the quality of life in Alabama would have been the same or worse if the South had won. The poll's margin of error is 4.4 percent.

As squabbles over display of the Confederate Battle Flag persist, 58 percent say that most people today consider the banner a racist symbol. Only 32 percent believe the flag is seen as a positive symbol of Southern heritage.

"That's sad," said Ben George, a south Alabama veterinarian and outspoken activist in Southern heritage causes. George, a camp commander in the Sons of Confederate Veterans, was more heartened by findings that only 34 percent of respondents see slavery as the war's primary cause -- a view that he termed "an oversimplification."

"The truth really is it was the Constitution that was fought over, what type of country we were going to have." Although that dispute encompassed slavery, it also included states' rights and tariffs, George said.

Stretching from 1861 to 1865, the war claimed more than 600,000 lives on both sides and devastated large swaths of the South. Although North and South were one nation again after April 1865, the sense of estrangement lingers even today. Seventy-one percent of Alabamians believe that people elsewhere view the South unfavorably, according to poll results.

Equally durable has been the debate over the circumstances that provoked the war.

Evidence from the time strongly indicates that secession supporters were driven by a desire to protect slavery, said Robert J. Norrell, a University of Tennessee historian and great-great-grandson of two Confederate veterans.

But a generation or two after the Confederacy's defeat, Norrell said, Southerners began promoting explanations that downplayed slavery's role and in some cases denied that it was a central factor at all.

Although the Southern heritage movement doesn't appear to have a large following, Norrell saw the poll results as evidence that it is winning the public relations battle today.

Although the poll registers a racial gap on the subject, it is not overwhelming. While 57 percent of whites label states' rights as the war's main cause, 38 percent of blacks do as well.

Mobile City Councilman Fred Richardson, who is black, attributed those responses to ignorance. "They're just saying something because they've heard it," Richardson said. Southern heritage organizations, he added, are "very loud with their arguments."

Indirectly, at least, the debate spills over into the public policy arena. Blacks, for example, continue to lag behind whites economically in many categories. Intertwined with controversies over affirmative action and reparations are questions about how far government should go in making amends.

"If whites accept that the Civil War was the result of an aggressive defense of slavery, then there is more culpability for the after-effects of slavery," Norrell said.

May 3, 2005

(Sean Reilly can be contacted at sean.reilly@newhouse.com)

Not for commercial use.  For educational and discussion purposes only.

[Incorrigible]

Pardon me while this Yankee steps out of the firing line!!

[StarCMC]

All I can say is "UGH!"

[wideawake]

Again, if it was purely about slavery, why would the 90% of the white population who were not slaveowners - who were in direct competition with cheap slave labor as they tried to put food on their tables, in fact - support secession?

And in AL in particular there was a strong faction of slaveowners who resisted secession.

[mountn man]

Most people think thats ALL the Civil War was about was slavery. And why do they think that? Because thats all the public schools have ever taught that it was about.

[RebelBanker]

Dixie ping!

[dljordan]

"Pardon me while this Yankee steps out of the firing line!!"

Oh Lord, here we go.

[shellshocked]

"Most people think thats ALL the Civil War was about was slavery. And why do they think that? Because thats all the public schools have ever taught that it was about."


'nuff said.

[traderrob6]

It was far more about "states rights" than slavery. Slavery was an important issue but secondary to what the south deemed usurpation of power by the centralized federal govt.

[sandbar]

Maybe that is because the slavery WASN'T the main cause of the civil war.

[JusticeForAll76]

Let us not forget that 4 slave states fought on the Union side

[A Balrog of Morgoth]

Again, if it was purely about slavery, why would the 90% of the white population who were not slaveowners - who were in direct competition with cheap slave labor as they tried to put food on their tables, in fact - support secession? And in AL in particular there was a strong faction of slaveowners who resisted secession.

Before all my fellow southerners get up in arms, let's remember something......

It's not just what Southerners thought about slavery that mattered. Despite the Lincoln slurs soon to follow later on this thread, there is no denying that a significant number of the people who supported him were vocal and effective advocates of abolition.

The "fireaters" in Charleston weren't just up in arms over tariffs.

[wideawake]

Slavery was an important issue but secondary to what the south deemed usurpation of power by the centralized federal govt.

I would say that slavery is what motivated moneyed Southern families to support and finance the secession cause - but I would say that the way it was sold to the general white population was as a defense of states' rights.

[SouthernBoyupNorth]

Heh... It makes me laugh when you Yankees post something like this. The rights of states were one of the major issues. Slavery was a major issue for the North. It is what was used by the Government to galvanize the common people to get behind the war. Rhetoric aside, when all is said and done then war is over and it has left deep and vast scars on both the south and the north. It still amazes me when I drawl out a "Hey Y'all" at a party the amount of reaction I get, some good, some bad, from you Yankees.

[HamiltonJay]

The civil war was fought over many issues, obviously the Abolisionists and Anti-Abolisionists was part of it, but so were economic factors... "tarrif of abomination"... and role of the federal government... "Nullifiers Movement". The US came to the brink of Civil War and Constitutional Crisis many times prior the actual war., over all of these issues. Any one of them alone could were alone enough in the right circumstance to lead to succession... and only through great statesmanship and politics did they not do so before. All three of them combined, meant that eventually something had to give.

Lincoln himself was not an abolisionist at the start of the conflict, and Maryland and WV both were SLAVE STATES that were part of the Union during the civil war.. in fact WV broke away from Virginia so it could remain in the Union. Obviously the nature of the war changed when Lincoln signed the Emancipation proclamation... but while this may have raised the spirt of the war to an larger ideal it also was a very shrewed and effective political move. Europe was debating getting involved on the side of the South.. tobacco, cotton etc were all valuable assets they wanted... by putting "slavery" in the middle of the fray, by this action, Lincoln ensured that Europe would not get involved.. the blockades would stand, and the south would eventually lose by attrition.

There are two great legacies of the Civil War.... one was the end of formal slavery... though reconstruction thuroughly failed to end discrimination, in fact many abolisionists went home rather than see the end goal of equaltiy achieved. The other was a much stronger federal government, that still exists to this day.

If judge by which outcome was embraced more hardily, it is obvious that ending slavery and discrimination was not the number one priority of the north or of the war.

[wideawake]

The "fireaters" in Charleston weren't just up in arms over tariffs.

Of course not.

But if the leaders of the secession movement's entire message was "We want to break up the Union and go to war with our countrymen because we want to own people" they would never have been able to sell it.

They made their appeal to honor, federalism and local rights.

If you polled the average Johnny in Lee's ranks as to why he was fighting, his answer wouldn't be "So the richest family in my county can still own black people!"

[carton253]

I think that if America got better acquainted with Robert E. Lee, their opinion of him would improve greatly. He was a very great man.

[Tired of Taxes]

As long as I live, I will never understand why anyone would object to a war being fought to free people ON OUR OWN SOIL, but then turn around and support freeing people in other countries.

[wideawake]

Before all my fellow southerners get up in arms, let's remember something...

I'm from NYC. Born and raised.

[bookworm100]

On June 5, 1851, Uncle Tom's Cabin; or, Life Among the Lowly began to appear in serial form in the Washington National Era, an abolitionist weekly. Harriet Beecher Stowe's antislavery story was published in forty installments over the next ten months. For her story Mrs. Stowe was paid $300.

Harriet Beecher was born June 14, 1811, the seventh child of a famous protestant preacher. Harriet worked as a teacher with her older sister Catharine: her earliest publication was a geography for children, issued under her sister's name in 1833. In 1836, Harriet married widower Calvin Stowe: they eventually had seven children. Stowe helped to support her family financially by writing for local and religious periodicals. During her life, she wrote poems, travel books, biographical sketches, and children's books, as well as adult novels.

Kentucky, across the Ohio River from Cincinnati, Ohio, where Stowe had lived, was a slave state. Stowe conceived the idea of Uncle Tom's Cabin -- in a vision of an old, ragged slave being beaten -- as she participated in a church service. Later, she said that the novel was inspired and "written by God."

Although the Washington National Era had a limited circulation, its audience increased as reader after reader passed their copy along to another. In March 1852, a Boston publisher decided to issue Uncle Tom's Cabin as a book and it became an instant best seller. Three hundred thousand copies were sold the first year, and about 2,000,000 copies were sold worldwide by 1857. For one three month period Stowe reportedly received $10,000 in royalties. Across the nation people discussed the novel and hotly debated the most pressing socio-political issue dramatized in its narrative, slavery.

The book had the effect of incensing the South, and it motivated the North to say, “If that institution could do something [evil] to such a wonderful man, we've got to put an end to it. "

Because Uncle Tom's Cabin so polarized the abolitionist and anti-abolitionist debate, some claim it to be one of the causes of the Civil War. Indeed, when President Lincoln received its author, Harriet Beecher Stowe, at the White House in 1862, legend has it he exclaimed, "So this is the little lady who made this big war?"

[wideawake]

I think that if America got better acquainted with Robert E. Lee, their opinion of him would improve greatly. He was a very great man.

He was one of the noblest men who ever lived.

He was highly intelligent and formidably disciplined and of impeccable, irreproachable moral character - yet he also had the common touch and no one who encountered him thought of him as a prude.

Despite his privileges of birth and gifts of mind, he was noted for his humility and courtesy.

He did not enjoy killing, but he was possessed of total physical courage and dedication to duty.

He was a devout Christian, a loving father and a devoted husband.

And one of the boldest and most creative captains in the history of warfare, triumphing continually against very long odds and making very few mistakes.

Robert E. Lee embodied every good quality that Americans have aspired to.