I have a question about the lead up to the Civil War.

December 28, 2023 | Jonty30

[Phlyer]

The whole state's rights argument was about keeping slavery.

Again, I'm going to need to see some substantiation about this. Even if (and I'll need to understand this better) 20%-30% of Southern households had slaves, that's still a minority, and an even smaller minority of military-aged young men - those who marched off to war. Why would they go off to die?

Aside from evidence of a particular motivation - which is an important issue and I'm not discounting it - there is still the fact that the Northern states had enacted punitive tariffs and explicit industrial technology exclusions for the South. Those are valid issues. To say that the 'whole' State's Rights issue was about keeping slavery denies the other complaints, which were documented and based on real unfairness.

A significant part of your argument (meaning discussion, not a pejorative phrase for losing emotional control) that slaves were so much more efficient, economically, than hired labor assumes several factors I don't think are proven. First, room and board is all that the other (younger) family members were getting, so a slave would be more expensive than a younger sibling to do any work the younger sibling could do even aside from any purchase price. Second, it assumes that there were cash or cash equivalent ways (crops, livestock) in excess of the family's needs that could be used to pay for the slave or the use of the slave, but most small southern farms were subsistence at best. Third, it assumes that the southern families had no sensitivity to the tariff/import restriction limitations, but the same younger sons who would be marching off to war instead of working the farm would be those who would otherwise have looked to work in a steel mill or other prohibited industrial effort. So I maintain that they were very much aware of those unfair restrictions.

I agree that there was a terrible concentration of 'wealth' (meaning cash or cash equivalents) in the hands of a few in the South, but that's sort of my point. Most of those who marched off to war were not materially benefitting from slavery. Most of the middle class who were, in the North, benefitting from the industrial revolution - those who would try to set up a small factory (e.g. gunsmith or textile producer) or work in one were prevented from doing so by the import restrictions. Most of those who would try to get ahead by - for example - buying a better plow either had to pay excessive Northern prices or excessive import tariffs. Those were real problems, and to me seem to be more convincing motivations for young men to walk off to die than slaves they didn't own in the first place (even if their household - in one family out of five instead of one out of eighteen - did).

[Tired of Taxes]

"Again, I'm going to need to see some substantiation about this." (RE: My statement that "the whole state's rights argument was about keeping slavery.") "Even if (and I'll need to understand this better) 20%-30% of Southern households had slaves, that's still a minority, and an even smaller minority of military-aged young men - those who marched off to war."

First, let’s look at the percentages. In the last post, I shared a link that stated “nearly one-third of Southern families owned slaves,” and I mentioned that “somewhere between 20% to 30% of families held slaves - in some states an even greater percentage.” Here’s a chart: Slave and Slavery Percentages for the United States in the 1860 Census. It shows that 49% of Mississippi families and 46% of South Carolina families held slaves. In other southern states, from 20% to 37% of families held slaves. The people who didn’t own slaves could rent slaves from slaveholders, so there was a whole system based on slavery.

Another interesting number on that chart is the percentage of slaves in the population of each state. In MS and SC, slaves outnumbered free people, and in some other states, slaves were nearly half the population. This article gives an idea of life in the South at that time: Why Non-Slaveholding Southerners Fought. It says:

More than 4 million enslaved human beings lived in the south, and they touched every aspect of the region’s social, political, and economic life. Slaves did not just work on plantations. In cities such as Charleston, they cleaned the streets, toiled as bricklayers, carpenters, blacksmiths, bakers, and laborers. They worked as dockhands and stevedores, grew and sold produce, purchased goods and carted them back to their masters’ homes where they cooked the meals, cleaned, raised the children, and tended to the daily chores.

So, a large number of people were slaves in those states, and southerners were fearful of slave revolts. In their statements for secession, they wrote of their fear of what might happen if the enslaved were set free. White non-slaveholders would’ve had the same fears. Their whole world was based on a hierarchy with African slaves at the bottom. It had been their way of life for a long time. They didn’t want the slaves to have equal footing. They said so, in writing, in their declarations of secession.

As for the soldiers, we can never know the motivation for every single soldier.

”there is still the fact that the Northern states had enacted punitive tariffs and explicit industrial technology exclusions for the South. Those are valid issues. To say that the 'whole' State's Rights issue was about keeping slavery denies the other complaints, which were documented and based on real unfairness.”

A tariff isn’t mentioned in any of the secession documents, but let’s look at tariffs. The North and South went back and forth on tariffs. The North wanted higher tariffs because their industries were competing with Britain’s. The South wanted lower tariffs because they wanted to trade freely with Britain. The Tariff of 1857 was favorable to the South. In 1860, the Republicans wanted to pass the Morrill Tariff, thus raising the tariff again. Southern Democrats had enough votes to block it in the Senate, but they left before the tariff came to a vote.

Why would they leave and go to war over a tariff they could’ve blocked? And then never mention the tariff in their declarations of secession? The only explanation is that they didn't leave over a tariff. They left over the bigger issue – the 4 million slaves. In 1860, a Kentucky senator tried to save the Union with the Crittenden Compromise, which would’ve guaranteed slavery as a “right” via amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The Crittenden Compromise never mentions a tariff. It only talks about slavery because the Southern Dems were seceding over slavery – not a tariff. Republicans rejected the Crittenden Compromise and offered the Corwin Amendment, which was not strong enough for the Southern Dems, so they left. When they left, the Republicans were able to pass the Morrill Tariff.

Here’s where the tariff seems to enter the story: The Brits were angry about the tariff, and at first, the Brits believed the South seceded over the tariff, and the South was happy to let the Brits continue to believe so, with the hope of Britain’s support. But, the Brits soon caught on that a tariff wasn’t the real reason for the South’s secession: Debunking the Civil War Tariff Myth.

”A significant part of your argument . . . that slaves were so much more efficient, economically, than hired labor assumes several factors I don't think are proven. First, room and board . . . ”

I don’t believe a slave would be more efficient than hired labor, either. Maybe someone else made that point? But, slavery was profitable (according to what I've read) because, as property, slaves could be sold to pay off debts, and they could be rented out.