Was the Civil War about Slavery?

Acton Institute, Prager University ^ | 8/11/2015 | Joe Carter

[iowamark]

What caused the Civil War? That seems like the sort of simple, straightforward question that any elementary school child should be able to answer. Yet many Americans—including, mostly, my fellow Southerners—claim that that the cause was economic or state’s rights or just about anything other than slavery.

But slavery was indisputably the primary cause, explains Colonel Ty Seidule, Professor of History at the United States Military Academy at West Point.

The abolition of slavery was the single greatest act of liberty-promotion in the history of America. Because of that fact, it’s natural for people who love freedom, love tradition, and love the South to want to believe that the continued enslavement of our neighbors could not have possibly been the motivation for succession. But we should love truth even more than liberty and heritage, which is why we should not only acknowledge the truth about the cause of the war but be thankful that the Confederacy lost and that freedom won.

[rockrr]

Excellent post Tau Food. Lost causers who selectively choose to blame all of the world’s ills on the Lincoln administration do so by ignoring the consequent effects of the rebellion and the fact that the would-be confederacy imposed the same burdens as the union did.

Income tax? It’s true that the congress of the union imposed an income tax, but the confeds immediately did the same. Tariffs? The confeds implemented them too. State-sponsored censorship? Yep, they did it too, along with suspension of habeas corpus and other suspensions of civil rights.

It was an ugly time - all the way around. Thank God we got beyond it and thank God the right side won!

[mrsmel]

Wardaddy, I will always be a proud Southerner, and that includes our history. I never hear anyone say they American history needs to apologised for, wiped out of the textbooks, etc, because of the Trail Of Tears and other immoralities which happened under the aegis of the American flag. The South has historically and traditionally been the last bastion of conservatism, including the social issues. I am proud of that. I am proud of our ancestors, a tiny percentage of whom were slave owners, who fought against the invasion of our homeland and our right to self-determination. I see no distinction in our war against Lincoln’s tyranny and the Revolutionary War against King George-the America of Revolutionary times wasn’t perfect either, but that didn’t make their fight for freedom any less legitimate. What I have never understood, is why the North wanted so badly to hold us into the Union, when they have had nothing but contempt and opposition to our conservatism ever since, immediately after and to this day. We just want to go our own way and be left to do it in peace, but that’s never been good enough for the descendents of the Puritans, who have a historical reputation of forcing everyone within their reach to conform. Today’s left are merely their secular humanist heirs.

[DiogenesLamp]

But compared to the real thing before Civil War, it's just pure political hyperbole.

That is slavery in it's purest form. That is 100% slavery.

But, doubtless, none of that real enslavement is what DiogenesLamp means here.

Do not minimize our lesser percentages of slavery. It is the same in principle, it merely differs as to degree.

Just because slaverty is no longer 100% of your work product, doesn't mean that 40% of your work product being taken from you is acceptable.

And it is increasing every year.

[DiogenesLamp]

But, we're the luckiest people in the world to live in the USA. Do you see any of these "slaves" leaving?

And the Titanic was a very luxurious ship while it was floating. People were "lucky" to be on it. They also didn't start "leaving" until it was obvious that they needed to get into the life boats.

Many of them waited too long.

Talking about how "lucky" people were to be somewhere completely ignores the point about it taking on water. You are focused on the Present, and are seemingly ignoring the probabilities of what is going to happen in the future.

[Tau Food]

We just want to go our own way and be left to do it in peace

If by "go our own way" you mean secede from the USA, then you are simply wrong. The people of the South do not want to secede from the USA. That would fall into the category of delusion.

There have been some people from all parts of the country who really have wanted to leave the USA, but those people have actually left. This is not a prison.

There are other people who want to pretend that life is so unbearable here that they want to leave, but those people don't really leave. Like I said, they are pretending.

And, then, there are people who don't agree with everything about the USA and complain about this or that. That group includes all of the rest of us. ;-)

[Tau Food]

Well, like I said, there are some people who really want to leave and there are some people who pretend that they want to leave. It’s easy to distinguish between the two.

[Pelham]

“No mystery - people like pelly are sore losers who don’t like our nation and wish it were something else than it is.”

I’m not the only one at FR to notice that the majority of your posts are nothing more than attempts to denigrate other Freepers.

[rockrr]

Pot=kettle

[BroJoeK]

Pelham: "Evidently your judgement on the merits of a secession/independence movement depend upon the success or failure of that movement.
Had the Founding Fathers been defeated they would be having the same abuse heaped on their heads that is now reserved for the Confederates."

But FRiend, great efforts have been made to explain to you the stark differences between our Founders' Revolution of 1776 and Fire Eaters secessions of 1860-61.
So let me summarize, as briefly as possible:

1. In 1776 Founders, especially Ben Franklin, had spent nearly 20 years in England trying to negotiate a better deal for American colonies.
   They wanted "no taxation without representation".

   By stark contrast Jefferson Davis' emissaries spent barely 8 weeks in Washington hoping to negotiate secession.

2. In 1776 for several years, Brits had acted aggressively towards Americans -- arbitrarily imposing taxes, denying requests for representation in parliament, revoking the Massachusetts charter, sending thousands of troops to occupy Boston, declaring a state of rebellion and war against Americans.

   By stark contrast, in 1860 the Southern Slave-Power had dominated Washington, DC politics almost continuously since the republic's founding in 1787.
   They were not only represented they were over-represented due to the Constitution's 3/5 of slaves rule.

3. In 1776 Founders listed over 30 real reasons for Declaring Independence, including:
   "He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people."

   By stark contrast Fire Eaters' phony Reasons for Secession mentioned not one of our Founders' reasons, but instead only one actual concern: what might happen long term to their "domestic institution" of slavery.

4. In 1776 when Founders signed their Declaration of Independence, Brits had already declared and waged war against Americans for 18 months, fighting over two dozen battles & attacks, causing 3,500 American casualties, including over 800 Americans killed.

   By stark contrast, in December 1860 when Fire Eaters first wrote their Declarations of Secession, the country was at peace, and the only military actions were by secessionist seizing dozens of Federal properties -- forts, ships, arsenal & mints, etc.

5. By further contrast, by the time Union forces killed the first Confederate soldier directly in battle, on June 10, 1861, dozens of Union troops had already died, over 100 wounded and 500 captured as POWs.

Point is: in early 1861, the far better comparison is not of Confederates with Founders, but rather Confederates assaulting Fort Sumter with Brits assaulting Lexington & Concord, and the Union with our long-suffering Founders.

Battle of Lexington & Concord, April 19,1775:

Battle of Fort Sumter, April 12, 1861:

[CatherineofAragon]

"What’s yore mammy servin’ you for lunch, Miz Catherine? You know a little gal like you can’t be seen eatin’ in fron’ of the gempmums - they most nevah marry a gal that eats a lot!"

LOL!!

God love you, miss m...I needed a laugh!

[Pelham]

“There are not many of you who believe that the wrong side won our Civil War”

“You have no real reason to believe that a CSA wouldn’t have grown into a powerful, bloated bureaucracy on its own.”

Well those are your imaginings since I don’t recall stating my opinion on either one.

It’s not likely that the CSA would have become a centralized bureaucratic state. It was an agrarian society with a different culture than the Northeast. And 150 years after the War the South still isn’t plagued by the busybody mentality found in the Northeast, unless it’s inflicted on them by the heirs of that same crowd entrenched in Washington DC. That particular self-righteous yankee mindset didn’t go away after the Civil War it just channeled itself into new ideas that the rest of the country must obey, gay marriage being their latest enthusiasm. It’s not a coincidence that the Northeast is the bastion of liberal and leftist politics in America.

The wrong side of the Civil War is the belief that it was good or necessary. Had Lincoln let the seven Deep South states secede in peace they would have just been a larger version of the Republic of Texas, and the Republic of Texas had already discovered that it was hard to go it alone. The much smaller CSA would have had to come to an accommodation with the USA.

The CSA’s one major asset would have been control of Mississippi river traffic accessing the Gulf. But the seven member CSA also had a major problem built into its geography. It had a one thousand mile border with the remaining US states and runaways could simply cross into the US instead of heading for Canada. With the Deep South gone the US Congress could vote to end slavery in 1861. The CSA would have been confronted with a porous border as well as the economic rationale for slavery coming to an end.

Slavery ended all over the western hemisphere without war except in the case of Lincoln. The death and destruction of the Civil War was entirely unnecessary for ending slavery, it was mandatory only for Lincoln’s desire to force an unwilling population to remain in a union it no longer wanted to be part of.

[rockrr]

Slavery ended all over the western hemisphere without war except in the case of the southern slavers.

FIFY

[BroJoeK]

Pelham on 1776 rebellion vs. 1861 secessions: "I just point out that it’s the same descriptor used by the lawful British government at the time of the American Revolution.
I just ask for consistency.
It was rebellion and secession in both cases."

About that word "rebellion" there is no dispute.
Our Founders fully understood that they were in rebellion and revolution for independence against the King of England.
All knew the consequence of failure, as Benjamin Franklin famously quipped, on July 4, 1776:

"Gentlemen, we must now all hang together, or we will most assuredly all hang separately"

None had delusions that victory in revolutionary war was guaranteed, or that success in rebellion was some kind of "right".
All expected, if necessary, to commit their "lives, their fortunes and sacred honor" to the cause of independence.

But Founders never used that word "secession", neither in 1776 nor any other time in their lives.
The word "secession" came into use much later, with future generations, and held a very different meaning than our Founders' Revolution.

Secession, then and now, means a formal withdrawal from membership in a voluntary political organization, a situation which never applied to Founders in 1776.
The word "secession" did however apply to Confederates of 1860 & 1861, in the sense that their secession was accomplished voluntarily (on their part), peacefully and the new government formed somewhat lawfully.

Important to remember that unlike 1776, secession was declared long before Civil War, and did not cause Civil War.
Indeed, had there been a determined secessionist effort to avoid war, Confederacy may well have succeeded.
By stark contrast, by the July 4, 1776 Declaration, Brits had already effectively declared and waged war against Americans for 18 months causing 3,500 American casualties, including over 800 deaths and major property destructions.

And least you suppose those are relatively insignificant numbers of American deaths, remember total population then was only 3 million meaning 800 deaths in 1776 was equivalent to 80,000 American deaths today.
By contrast, there were no military deaths in the Confederacy until months after it first provoked, then started and formally declared war on the United States.

[wardaddy]

that post so well done so eloquent

Thank you

[BroJoeK]

Pelham: "My point is that he was using force to compel the states to remain in the Union, not to end slavery.
He wasn’t sending his army out with the mission of freeing the slaves, which is most likely what my high school civics class was teaching."

No, Lincoln was using US military to defeat the aggressor force which had first provoked, then started and declared war on the United States.
Freeing slaves became a key strategic weapon in Lincoln's plan for victory, because it not only weakened the Confederacy, but also helped meet Radical Republican abolitionist goals.

[wardaddy]

It’s because these folks are here for a reason. And I’ve a mind to try to expose who they are after 15 years

But I fear Fresno likely already knows what groups they come from

Their writing styles and cut and past and monikers are all too similar in some cases pure copycat

In the past some have been exposed

Black GOPe sorts

Log Cabin sorts

Michael Medved and Glenn Beck style southern history sorts

Basically low voltage on social issue ilk that converge with Morris Dees and Potok at SPLC

Of course now they’re pretending it’s gone too far

They are lucky I have such little time because it would be fun to satisfy my curiosity

[wardaddy]

It’s because these folks are here for a reason. And I’ve a mind to try to expose who they are after 15 years

But I fear Fresno likely already knows what groups they come from

Their writing styles and cut and past and monikers are all too similar in some cases pure copycat

In the past some have been exposed

Black GOPe sorts

Log Cabin sorts

Michael Medved and Glenn Beck style southern history sorts

Basically low voltage on social issue ilk that converge with Morris Dees and Potok at SPLC

Of course now they’re pretending it’s gone too far

They are lucky I have such little time because it would be fun to satisfy my curiosity

[wardaddy]

It’s because these folks are here for a reason. And I’ve a mind to try to expose who they are after 15 years

But I fear Fresno likely already knows what groups they come from

Their writing styles and cut and past and monikers are all too similar in some cases pure copycat

In the past some have been exposed

Black GOPe sorts

Log Cabin sorts

Michael Medved and Glenn Beck style southern history sorts

Basically low voltage on social issue ilk that converge with Morris Dees and Potok at SPLC

Of course now they’re pretending it’s gone too far

They are lucky I have such little time because it would be fun to satisfy my curiosity

[Tau Food]

I'm not going to waste time with your claim that the South has natural reasons for wanting less government than the North. I have shown you the facts - the South has shown a larger appetite than the North for government handouts and welfare. Those are just facts. They might not conform with what you want to believe, but they are facts.

It was the advent of the 16th Amendment's income tax that gave the Federal government the fiscal boost that it needed to grow into the monster that it is today. And, I have shown you that it was the Southern states who were at the front of the line to ratify that amendment. In my lifetime, it was the Southern Democrats who chaired all the large Congressional committees because the South had a tendency to re-elect the same representatives over and over again, giving them seniority.

The South has not, by its nature, demonstrated any strong desire for small government in the area of welfare or national defense. The South is at least as responsible as any other section of our country for the size of our Federal Government. These are facts that you need to accept to understand our history and our present circumstances. If you want to delude yourself, you can remain unhappy and bewildered for just as long as you wish. It's your choice. But the facts are pretty plain. So long as the South is receiving more than it is paying to the Federal government, don't be looking for any stampede toward the gates.

You conclude your remarks with the suggestion that it was wrong for Lincoln "to force an unwilling population to remain in a Union it no longer wanted to be part of." Nothing could be more clear than that right now, the South wants no part of "secession" and is grateful that the South is part of the USA. They are also grateful to Lincoln and to the Union for protecting the integrity of this nation and its borders and they are grateful that Lincoln and the Union ended slavery in this country. In fact, I think that they wished that we had had presidents in the last 50 years who protected our national borders with the same resolve shown by Lincoln.