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.

[PeaRidge]

It is well documented that Lincoln rebuffed every Davis-Confederate effort at peace.

You cannot rationalize your misrepresentation with another one just like it.

Lying is not cleverness.

[BlueLancer]

"It is well documented that Lincoln rebuffed every Davis-Confederate effort at peace."

Well, to be fair, should you have expected anything different? After all, I'm pretty sure that anything that Davis was willing to put on the table did not meet the basic requirement that Lincoln would have been bargaining for ... Union.

[PeaRidge]

New York Herald of March 2, 1861:

There has been a great deal of flurry in business circles in this city for a few days past, sending off goods to the South purchased before the 1st of March, on which day the new tariff takes effect. The Congress of the Confederated States have adopted a tariff similar to the United States, imposing the same duties on goods coming from the Northern States as we now pay on those imported from Europe. South Carolina wanted to establish free trade, but she could not have her way in that respect; so that in the future the products and manufactures of the North will have to enter the Southern market subject to the same impost as foreign goods. The new tariff adopted by the Congress at Washington [rb note: the Morrill tariff], if it should become law – which it will unless Mr. Buchanan keeps it in his breeches pocket – will surround our commerce with Europe with so many obstructions and difficulties that in conjunction with the disadvantages of the Southern tariff, New York will receive a blow more severe than any it has experienced within fifty years.

The trade of the Southern States, and of the cotton States especially, is of more importance to New York, and indirectly to Boston and Philadelphia also, than the whole trade of the West put together. And for the reason that it is more safe and reliable; because the Southern planter has a fixed locality and a certain property; he has his plantations and his negroes; he is always to be found, and he has on the spot a security for his indebtedness. Hence his pay is always prompt. But in the Northwest, on the other hand, society is like a quicksand; it is continually shifting and changing, rising and falling. There is nothing persistent about it. Its ability to pay is dependent on uncertain crops; there is very little money there; and it is extremely difficult to collect accounts in that section, as many of our merchants know.

The effect of these two tariffs, then, upon our trade with the best, and most reliable part of the country will most disastrously be felt in all the Northern cities. We learn that even now some of the largest houses in the Southern trade in this city, who have not already failed, are preparing to wind up their affairs and abandon business entirely. The result of this as regards the value of property, rents, and real estate, can be readily seen. Within two months from this time it will probably be depreciated from twenty to forty percent.

[PeaRidge]

So Lincoln started a war that killed 670.000 for your stated reason.

[x]

Lincoln would compromise backwards and forwards over slavery, as the issue in itself was not one that stirred the masses of the North; but he could not compromise over two things: repealing the Morrill Tariff and allowing the mouth of the Mississippi River to fall under the control of a foreign power.

The Morrill Tariff was the new tariff that was coming in. Lincoln favored it, and didn't want to see it repealed. Everybody knew tariff rates would go up, and nobody much wanted to stop that. The question was how much. There was plenty of room for compromise about that.

We don't know what would have happened if the Confederates hadn't fired on Fort Sumter. Maybe they would have attacked elsewhere. Maybe the Federals would have attacked them. Maybe there would have been a compromise solution.

My own theory is that Lincoln was biding his time, pretending that the country was still intact, and hoping that reconciliation would be possible. If all federal forts and property in the rebel states had been confiscated, it would be hard to maintain the idea that the union was intact, so Lincoln had to hold on to those forts.

That's only my theory. But I don't think it was secession as such that Lincoln or Northerners objected to, as the violent assault on the fort and the flag. People took such things more seriously back then.

That Southerners saw slavery as being threatened by the Republicans is a given. But that in itself was not enough to sever the Union. The Morrill Tariff could, as it would protect northern industry and 3/4 of the revenue collected would come from the South.

Tariffs were assessed on imports and whoever bought imported goods paid a price that reflected the tariff. Militant Southerners thought that because their region exported so much and brought in currency through exports that they were in effect paying the tariff.

But Southerners bought goods and services from Northerners. They spent some of their profits on that. That left them with less money to pay for imports and Northerners with more money to buy imports.

So it's by no means a given that Southerners would have bought the lion's share of foreign goods or paid the biggest share of the tariff. Nor was it impossible that Southerners could have used the tariff to build their own industry. Many Southerners did.

The causes of the Civil War are complicated and to reduce them to the simplicity of a single cause (slavery) that was not a major issue in 1861 is foolish beyond belief.

Depends on what you mean by "cause." Of course there are always multiple causes to any conflict. You can go on and on asking "and what caused that?" to the end of time. But if you want to know what caused the divide between two parts of the country and what made such divisions so impassioned to the point where war was possible, slavery is a very good answer. Certainly better than something like tariffs.

[BlueLancer]

"So Lincoln started a war that killed 670.000 for your stated reason."

For Union? Yeah, I would say that I'm pretty well satisfied that that's why it was fought, for the Federalist side.

Remember: I'm a Texan ... through and through. I've done a good amount of reading and believe that I could make arguments going in both directions on who started the war and why. I think that the Confederate States were correct to push the issue, but shouldn't have been surprised when they found that their opponent was just as "bull-headed" as they were. Neither side was going to pull back on their basic positions; it could have only been decided on the battlefield.

Oh, if only Jackson hadn't been killed at Chancellorsville and, to add further to the dream, if Sherman had decided to stay with Louisiana at the beginning of the war.

[BlueLancer]

"Remember: I'm a Texan ... through and through."

And Hood was an idiot incompetent after being promoted to Corps/Army Command.

[PeaRidge]

I think the relevant question few choose to ask is: Did Lincoln start the war to preserve the Union or to maintain the revenue stream?

4/23/1861 According to an article in the Baltimore Sun of 23 on this date, Mr. Lincoln revealed his opposition to peace: “Another effort was made to move Abraham Lincoln to peace. On the 22nd, a deputation of six members from each of the five Christian Associations of Young Men in Baltimore, headed by Dr. Fuller, and eloquent clergyman of the Baptist church, went to Washington and had an interview with the President. It was reported that he received them with a sort of rude formality.

Dr. Fuller said, that Maryland had first moved in adopting the constitution, and yet the first blood in this war was shed on her soil; he then interceded for a peaceful separation, entreated that no more troops should pass through Baltimore, impressed upon Mr. Lincoln the terrible responsibility resting on him – that on him depended peace or war – a fratricidal conflict or a happy settlement.

‘But,’ said Lincoln, ‘what am I to do?’

‘Let the country know that you are disposed to recognize the Southern Confederacy,’ answered Dr. Fuller, ‘and peace will instantly take the place of anxiety and suspense and war may be averted.’

‘And what is to become of the revenue?’ rejoined Lincoln, ‘I shall have no government, no resources!’ “

[rockrr]

I think the relevant question few choose to ask is: Did Lincoln start the war to preserve the Union or to maintain the revenue stream?

And the answer is *neither*.

[BlueLancer]

You may very well be right, in that being a portion .. even a large portion .. of the determination for war. However, they are not mutually exclusive:

It could be argued that it was the preservation of the Union that would perpetuate the revenue stream.

Conversely, it could be argued, with respect to the Confederacy, that the preservation of States rights was also meant to perpetuate slavery.

None of those are mutually exclusive and, thus, to me, it becomes a "chicken-or-the-egg" argument that just goes round and round.

[Tau Food]

Well, the fact is that the secessionists were just wrong. In their declaration of "secession," the slaveholders in Mississippi argued that they had no choice but to secede because they had become totally dependent upon slaves. Specifically, they argued:

"Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property.

The slaveholders argued that they had become unfit for outdoor work and that they needed the slaves to perform the outdoor work:

"These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun."

It sounds pretty pathetic, doesn't it? How could the world expect these people to degrade themselves by working outdoors? How could they face the future without slaves to care for them? They had no choice; "secession" provided their only hope.

Well, like I said, they were wrong. After they lost their slaves and became reconstructed, most of them regained their self-respect and learned that indeed they could make it on their own. All it took was a little tough love. Nowadays, their descendants accept without question their ability and need to work.

The "secessionists" were just trapped in a culture of dependency. Now, everyone is grateful for what Lincoln accomplished. No one is doing the "secessionists" any favor by continuing to hold them up to ridicule. Why don't you just let all of this go, for their sakes?

[DiogenesLamp]

My message to you is that you and Mr. Lincoln have no control over one another. There is nothing you can do to change what he did and there is nothing that he did that limits you in any way. If you can't own slaves today, it is not because of Lincoln; it is because we are making it illegal today. So, forget about Lincoln.

You repeat yourself a lot. You also miss my point a lot.

My message to you is that if you want to improve your circumstances, you should concentrate on making changes that you can make.

I gotta give you credit, once you've leapt at a theory, you certainly stick with it. I am actually doing quite well, all things considered. Once again, my situation is irrelevant to the point. I am altruistic, and I see much present and future harm which has been brought to us as a result of bad decisions made in the past.

For some reason you seem to take this view of the past, especially as regards the subsequent consequences of the Civil War:

[BroJoeK]

Thanks for a fantastic link, I love Shelby Foote.
He’s one of those people, you don’t care what he says, just love the way he says it.

In this case I agree with most of his argument, but would still ask: when Confederate armies invaded Union states, which they did numerous times, how did your average Confederate or Union soldier’s views of things change?

Also, his suggestion that average Confederate troops didn’t give a d#mn about slavery may or may not be true, however, it’s certain beyond dispute that all Confederate officers and political leaders cared deeply about slavery, and would not give it up short of unconditional surrender.

[Tau Food]

Also, his suggestion that average Confederate troops didn’t give a d#mn about slavery may or may not be true, however, it’s certain beyond dispute that all Confederate officers and political leaders cared deeply about slavery, and would not give it up short of unconditional surrender.

I'm confident that that is true. The movers and shakers in those states were the planters who owned huge plantations. They were threatened by Lincoln and the prospect that they might lose what they believed was their "right" to own people. If you believe what they wrote in their declarations of "secession," they truly believed that they could not go on without having slaves do their work for them. It may sound crazy now, but it certainly wasn't crazy to them.

Unfortunately, that group of people was calling calling the shots back then. They had the power, the money and the influence to declare these "secessions." The interests of most ordinary people were ignored.

It is tragic that they put the whole country through all that transpired in an effort to preserve what the tides of history were destined to destroy.

[Mollypitcher1]

Some southern states had the RIGHT to leave the union, guaranteed at the time of agreeing to the Constitution. They hadRESERVED their RIGHT to leave the union which was ignored by Lincoln.

[Mollypitcher1]

Excellent post!

[Tau Food]

Yes, I understand what you're saying - why should we be responsible for the way in which we do things when we haven't had time yet to correct the crazy decisions that people made hundreds of years ago?

Yes, you've put your finger on it. That is the delusion to which I have been referring.

It's just an empty excuse.

[Tau Food]

Some southern states had the RIGHT to leave the union, guaranteed at the time of agreeing to the Constitution. They hadRESERVED their RIGHT to leave the union which was ignored by Lincoln.

Maybe you should file a lawsuit so that you can find out what your rights really are.

[BroJoeK]

Thanks for the interesting New York Herald article.
It’s important to remember that the politically dominant Democrat party, up through 1860, consisted of an alliance between the Southern Slave Power, and Northern Democrats representing poor urban immigrants.
So northern newspapers like the Herald could be expected to defend the interests of both.
As for those allegedly unreliable Western farmers, in fact, by 1860 they were beginning to produce exports in volumes rivaling the cotton state planters.

[DiogenesLamp]

Excellent post!

Thank you. Occasionally I wax eloquent... by accident much of the time... I think. :)