The writer demonstrates his lack of a real education. The cause of the Civil War was not slavery; it was economics. The industrial North wanted to keep the South agricultural and poor - and they succeeded. Lincoln’s freeing of the slaves was simply a tactic of war. While he was personally against slavery, he repeatedly indicated that he accepted the Southerners right to own slaves:
Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears.” The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, “Letter to Alexander H. Stephens” (December 22, 1860), p. 160.
Even more telling is this quote:
“If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.” (Letter to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862)
Go to the head of the class. The economic tug of war began early on. I can't remember exactly, but somehow I recall things labelled the "intolerable tariffs" in the 1820's that were designed to "bring those 'suthrnrs' to their bended knees." or some such.
But now I've probably started a firestorm.
I think it is you who show your lack of education.
re: “The cause of the Civil War was not slavery; it was economics.”
Before I say anything, first let me say that I love the South and the bravery and fortitude of the Southern soldier is second to none. Their endurance and courage is part of our proud history that is shared by all Americans.
Having said that, I must partly disagree with your statement above.
I am not a professor of history, nor am I a licensed history teacher, but I am a long time Civil War buff and an avid reader of it’s battles, it’s leadership, and its causes, not only through individual historians viewpoints, but from the speeches, letters, diaries, and other writings from those who lived during that time period.
My disagreement lies in a couple of places. First, to say that slavery had nothing to do with the cause of the war is plainly not true. It is not the only cause, but it certainly was a major issue in aggravating an already strained relationship. And second, though it has been pointed out Lincoln did not advocate eradicating slavery where it already existed nor did he fight the war initially with the purpose of eradicating slavery, he certainly DID oppose its expansion into the new states being formed from the territories.
In the Lincoln-Douglas debates, he clearly makes it plain that while he believed slavery to be a moral wrong, that where it was already in place, it could not be constitutionally interfered with on the executive level. I cannot remember what he said in regard to congressional action, but I believe he would have said that the states in which slavery exists are the only ones who could alter it in any way - not any outside political entity.
However, as is also clear in the Lincoln-Douglas debates, because he believed slavery to be a moral wrong, it should not be allowed outside of those states where it already existed - it should not even be permitted to be voted on by the territories becoming new states. This was the whole point of the Lincoln/Douglas debates - should the new states/territories be allowed to decide whether or not slavery should be legally permitted within their borders?
The Southern leadership knew that if future states formed from the territories were all “free” states, sooner or later their congressional representation would be critically outnumbered by the free states in Congress. This, they feared, would lead to the eventual interference by Congress and the presidency to destroy their economy based on slave labor. They rightly understood that that would greatly disrupt their whole economic foundation - especially of those who were plantation owners - who were the movers and shakers in Southern society and politics.
This is why the Southern leadership firmly and uniformly opposed Lincoln’s election as president, because he stood against the expansion of slavery into the new states to be formed from the territories. Therefore, slavery WAS an important element in the issues that separated North from South. It was not the only issue, but it was certainly and important element of the growing hostility between the two.
Lincoln also was strongly opposed to secession as utilized by the Southern states. He felt that if a state could simply vote itself out of the United States anytime it so desired, that that was a direct threat to the existence of the nation. He feared that this would lead to an eventual “Europeanizing” of the United States in which, as under the Articles of Confederation, each state acted as an independent country.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying secession isn’t sometimes necessary, but I can see Lincoln’s point. On the other hand, if I felt, as many in the South felt, and as many of us do here on FR, that the Federal government is intruding more and more and leading the nation away from its founding principles, then I can certainly see the necessity of secession - but only for the right reasons.
The question is, did the South secede for the right reasons and was there enough provocation to merit secession? I don’t think so, but that is why we all still argue over the Civil War (or the Second American Revolution as my Southern brothers like to put it).
The purpose of this response is not to pick a fight, but I did feel it necessary to give an alternate view. I love discussing our history and only wish to point out my observations from the research I’ve done pouring over books on the subject, but also from the reading/studying of the writings of the leaders on both sides, North and South.
By the time of the “Civil” War, 75% of the Federal budget was derived from tariffs on exports (tobacco and cotton) from southern ports. There was no income tax at that time. The South had complained for decades they were not getting fair distributions of those funds to allow the South to participate in the Industrial Revolution. It is surprising that Secession did not occur sooner.
As usual,just follow the money. MR. lincoln got his war and freed NO slaves except those in the South.
As for those attending the fairy tale movie,”Lincoln”, no amount of discussion will alter their convictions. “I know it’s real, I saw it in the movies”.
Then why did the Confederates all say that secession was about slavery?
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery..."
Lincoln didn’t free anybody.
Fourteenth Amendment explained / Eric Williams
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/23398430/060225-—Eric-Williams-Show-—Excerpt
“The cause of the Civil War was not slavery; it was economics.”
Maybe there were multiple causes depending on your region, politics, religion, etc.? Maybe things were more complex than neat little declarative statements make it seem? Maybe there were deep, social tensions in our society that had been with us since the start of the republic including abolition, state’s rights, economics, taxes, etc.?
The war was started by the slave power. Its proponents had over 4 billion dollars (then year) invested in slaves. The notion that slavery was evil would eventually bring the moral people of the US to forbid slavery in the territories, as had already been done in the Northwest Territory.
The southern slave power desired to profit off their investment. They attempted to invade the territories, and attempted to invade northern states that they did not claim.
They had no case to bring to the supreme court. They sought a decision on the battlefield. They lost.
The south made war to promote and propagate slavery. The US responded to the insurrection, and ending slavery was part of denying the ends of the war to the insurrectionists.
1. The North was not "industrial" in 1860 except as contrasted with the backward South. A considerable majority of northerners were farmers or involved with services to farmers. Only a minority had anything to do with industry.
2. The South insisted, vociferously, that it was determined to remain agricultural. There was no plot to "force" it to do so.
3. In 1860 white southerners were on average considerably better off than white northerners. If I remember correctly, the per capita income was about 2x than of the North.
After the war the South did indeed remain agricultural and poor for decades, but that was a result of the war itself, not the cause of the war.