Why The War Was Not About Slavery

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org ^ | March 9, 2016 | Clyde Wilson

[DiogenesLamp]

Who knows better?-the Vice President of the Confederacy or some people on a blog site 150 years later?

Clearly it is informed people on a blog site 150 years later. Alexander Stephens was a politician, and so what he says isn't necessarily the truth. He is also not in a position to see things as clearly as people who can see the bigger picture drawn from numerous data sources to which he never had access.

Lincoln offered the South all the slavery they could want. Apparently they weren't interested in his offer of permanent slavery, and what they wanted must have been something else.

I think they wanted Independence. Virginia certainly didn't go to war over slavery, and I dare say none of the other states contributed as much to the cause as did the Virginians.

[gandalftb]

Who could be a greater spokesman and authority for the reasons for secession than Jefferson Davis himself?

Read Davis’, resignation from the US Senate, speech:

https://jeffersondavis.rice.edu/archives/documents/jefferson-davis-farewell-address

Jefferson makes NO MENTION of economics, or tariffs, or anything but the issue of SLAVERY:

“When our Constitution was formed, the same idea was rendered more palpable, for there we find provision made for that very class of persons as property; they were not put upon the footing of equality with white men”

“Then, Senators, we recur to the compact which binds us together; we recur to the principles upon which our Government was founded; and when you deny them, and when you deny to us the right to withdraw from a Government which thus perverted threatens to be destructive of our rights, we but tread in the path of our fathers when we proclaim our independence, and take the hazard.”

[MattMusson]

Actually, the war was caused by the Occupation of the South Carolina fort in Charleston Harbor. Then, it escalated when Lincoln raised an army to invade the South.

[marron]

Actually, its interesting to consider how history might have been different had the civil war been delayed, and fought between two sovereign powers over control of the west.

When you consider the Indian Wars, fought for control of the west, and how brutal they were... then add in two national armies fighting in the same territory, and perhaps both of them vying for the support of the tribes against the other... One side, perhaps, supported by the British... Remember Europe’s attempt to take control of Mexico during the 1860s...

But the West was the prize being fought over during the Civil War.

[marron]

If you’ll read the articles of secession, they make it plain why the offer to let slavery continue in the south was a non-starter for them. They state clearly, that the thing they could not accept was Lincoln’s refusal to let slavery extend into the western states. They said that his refusal to continue the previous practice of bringing in states two-by-two, one slave and one free, would over time upset the balance of power and the slave system would be thereby doomed eventually.

You are right, that the common southern soldier did not fight for slavery, he fought for his state. The leadership, however, is quite clear why they demanded independence. In their own words, the slave system, which they considered an entirely moral system, and more importantly, control of the western territories.

[DiogenesLamp]

The pro-slavery radicals in the South had become convinced that slavery could not survive much longer in the Union because growth in the North was far outstripping growth in the South, which meant that the South would eventually be outvoted in Congress on the slavery question.

By that time the North was already outvoting the South on every issue. Slavery could not be outlawed by Congress anyway. What could be done by congress was the creation of laws like the "Navigation act of 1817" and the "Warehousing act of 1846", which greatly favored Northern interests, and then set tariffs High because most of these were paid by the South.

By the 1860s, the game had been rigged so that virtually all the Southern produced wealth was funneled through New York, with Washington DC taking it's huge cut.

The debate about "expansion of slavery" had little to do with actually expanding slavery into the territories, because it was economically unfeasible to do any such thing. The debate was really about the North keeping control of the Congress to keep this sweet deal going. They had the votes and they used them to keep Southern money flowing into the pockets of the movers and shakers in what we nowadays know as the Washington-Boston corridor.

[marron]

I always consider it a mistake for Republicans to defend Democrat history. Let Democrats defend their history.

The GOP was born when Christians abandoned the Whig Party out of disgust with the Whig refusal to take sides on the slave issue. They formed a minority party with no chance of winning... and in a very few years slavery was gone. The Whig party evaporated and the slave institution along with it. We blame Democrats for the slave system, but clearly it was the Whig refusal to take sides that held it in place.

[nuke_road_warrior]

To say the Civil War was not about slavery is both naive and condescending. Yes there were numerous frictions between the soon to be Union and Confederate states that provided impetus to secession. However, if human slavery were not part and parcel of the Southern States culture and politics, the war would never have happened. A large influx of anti-slavery immigrants in the North East, and Westward expansion that was creating new states with majority anti-slavery populations would inevitably lead to the passage of a constitutional amendment outlawing slavery. The election of Lincoln in 1860 meant that he would press for laws prohibiting slavery in the West, hastening the inevitable abolition of slavery. The Southern states saw secession as the only path open to keep their slaves.

[DiogenesLamp]

That’s right - we know that it was about slavery because the ones trying to secede TOLD us that it was about slavery.

I think Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and perhaps Georgia said it was about slavery, but All the rest, (the other 7 states) did not.

It has become convenient though to represent the 3 or 4 that did, as speaking for all 11 states. This is done because people want to push this narrative to justify what was done to all the Southern states.

But regardless of their reasons for seceding, the fact remains that the Declaration of Independence asserts the right to do so, and if it was good enough for the 13 slave states that became the USA, it was good enough for the 11 slave states that became the CSA.

[marron]

The debate about "expansion of slavery" had little to do with actually expanding slavery into the territories, because it was economically unfeasible to do any such thing.

Sleight of hand. Whether it was economically feasible or not wasn't the point, control was. The secessionists are quite clear, you just have to read their own words. Control of the west was the key sticking factor, which is why they could not accept any compromise from Lincoln.

[Pelham]

“The men you name, otherwise good men, were engaged in an evil practice.”

The Royal government that those founders rebelled against had offered two emancipation proclamations during the war. Dunmore’s and Philipsburg.

So did the wrong side win the Revolution in a moral sense?

And should New England have formed its own separate country like the Essex Junto and the Hartford Convention wanted?

[DiogenesLamp]

The biggest problem with the Civil War was that there was no plan in place afterwards concerning what to do with the freed slaves.

That's because they had never planned to free them in the first place. That became a war tactic in 1863, and it was meant to damage Southern efforts to get recognition from other countries as well as provoke slave desertions and insurrections.

Thousands of people without a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out were left to their own accord, which caused chaos for decade upon decade, and we are still paying for that today.

I have read that huge numbers died of starvation, exposure and disease in the after math of the war. Others tell me these claims are made up, but it seems reasonable to me to believe that people tossed out of their existing lives might very well have had a hard time of it.

[ek_hornbeck]

Buying and selling human beings like cattle is evil. Anyone who practices, supports, benefits from, or excuses slavery is evil. The Confederacy was evil because it practiced and profited from slavery. Anyone who excuses that is scum.

Many of America's founders were slave-owners. Were they all "evil scum" too, and was the US an evil nation at its founding? If that's what you believe, I'm sure Antifa would appreciate your membership and support.

[ek_hornbeck]

Has it occurred to you that slaves could be used to do things other than pick cotton?

[DiogenesLamp]

Wrong. It was all about slavery. Slave capital was greater than all the railroads and textile mills in the north put together.

From what I recall, the entire value of all the slaves was around 5 billion in 1860 dollars. You think this was more than all the railroads and textile mills in the North put together?

CSA Constitution had no fewer than THREE radical clasuses protecting slavery even if states (oh, remember “state’s rights”) voted to prohibit slavery.

The US constitution had one clause protecting slavery (Article IV, section 2.) and Lincoln was doing what he could to add an amendment that would protect it even further. "Corwin Amendment."

So the theory that the war was about slavery is contradicted by the fact of the Union offering perpetual slavery.

[central_va]

Killing Yankees with free ammo is not a hard sell.

[dfwgator]

Has it occurred to you that slaves could be used to do things other than pick cotton?

"When you was slaves, you sang like birds."

[marron]

Its interesting when you read the history of the abolition movement in the US; it was they who argued for secession for years, saying that the North should not let itself be “unequally yoked” and should secede from the South.

The British famously fought against slavery starting decades before the Civil War, and mostly stopped the slave trade across the Atlantic.

But the British supported the South, I think they saw a split in the country to be an opportunity for them (as they had supported the various independence movements in South America). They even sent Irish mercenaries to South America to help overthrow the Spanish...

People are complicated. They do what they do, and their grandchildren pick up the pieces. You seldom if ever see in your own time the full import of the things you do.

[Verginius Rufus]

I’ve heard Barbara Marthal speak in person a couple of times. Lovely lady who counts American slaves among her ancestors.

[Wuli]

All is for naught. It mattered not what ANYONE, Lincoln or anyone else thought at any given time. The fact is that one of the key results of the civil war WAS the end of slavery. And, it is hard to think of the national “differences” leading to civil war were slavery not one of the essential differences. Without slaver the south is not an economy depending on slavery. Without the southern economy depending on slavery a major impediment to unity on many other issues would have been absent, and so would any southern demand for secession in order to keep slavery.