Five myths about why the South seceded

Washington Post ^ | January 9, 2011 | James W. Loewen

[kosciusko51]

One hundred and fifty years after the Civil War began, we're still fighting it -- or at least fighting over its history. I've polled thousands of high school history teachers and spoken about the war to audiences across the country, and there is little agreement even on why the South seceded. Was it over slavery? States' rights? Tariffs and taxes?

As the nation begins to commemorate the anniversaries of the war's various battles -- from Fort Sumter to Appomattox -- let's first dispense with some of the more prevalent myths about why it all began.

1. The South seceded over states' rights.

Confederate states did claim the right to secede, but no state claimed to be seceding for that right. In fact, Confederates opposed states' rights -- that is, the right of Northern states not to support slavery.

[hosepipe]

[ Well that certainly advances your “argument” /s ]

I was not arguing!... were you?..

[Aleya2Fairlie]

Obviously “everyone” doesn’t “know” this. Can you explain what the length of time you have been with FR has to do with what you “know” about the South, or how that pertains to my historical research?

You should “know” by now that personal attacks and assessments don’t prove your point. Quite the contrary, they put a label to you that I’m sure you don’t want.

[BroJoeK]

Aleya2Fairlie: "Obviously “everyone” doesn’t “know” this.
Can you explain what the length of time you have been with FR has to do with what you “know” about the South, or how that pertains to my historical research?"

"Obviously?" It's not obvious to me at all, not on Free Republic.

Remember what you said: "I’ve seen that revisionist lie repeated over and over."

Well, I meant exactly what I said:

"in all that time I've never seen anyone make such a claim -- except Lost Causers like yourself pretending someone else said it."

Of course, if you can prove "that revisionist lie [was] repeated over and over" here on Free Republic, I'd be most curious to see when & where.

But if you can't prove it, then why do you keep saying it?

[BroJoeK]

kosciusko51: "I thought this was interesting and wanted to see what other FReepers had to say about it."

Thanks for the thread.
Sorry the source is WaPo, reduces its credibility hugely.
But I still think the points about Southern myths are pretty valid:

1. The South seceded over states' rights.
   "Confederate states did claim the right to secede, but no state claimed to be seceding for that right"
2. Secession was about tariffs and taxes.
   "Tariffs were not an issue in 1860, and Southern states said nothing about them.
   Why would they? Southerners had written the tariff of 1857, under which the nation was functioning.
   Its rates were lower than at any point since 1816."
3. Most white Southerners didn't own slaves, so they wouldn't secede for slavery.
   "Less than half of white Mississippi households owned one or more slaves, for example, and that proportion was smaller still in whiter states such as Virginia and Tennessee.
   It is also true that, in areas with few slaves, most white Southerners did not support secession. "
4. Abraham Lincoln went to war to end slavery.
   "Since the Civil War did end slavery, many Americans think abolition was the Union's goal.
   But the North initially went to war to hold the nation together.
   Abolition came later."
5. The South couldn't have made it long as a slave society.
   "Slavery was hardly on its last legs in 1860.
   That year, the South produced almost 75 percent of all U.S. exports.
   Slaves were worth more than all the manufacturing companies and railroads in the nation.
   No elite class in history has ever given up such an immense interest voluntarily.
   Moreover, Confederates eyed territorial expansion into Mexico and Cuba.
   Short of war, who would have stopped them - or forced them to abandon slavery?"

Yes, some of the author's statements (not included here) are you typical liberal nonsense, but the myths themselves, in one form or another, I think we've seen here on Free Republic many times.

Sure hope I don't get in trouble for posting this! ;-)

[kosciusko51]

BroJoeK, great summary of the article without the liberal talking points.

You will probably get in trouble.

[BroJoeK]

bt579: "So the SMALLER Confederate Army (1.25mm) caused more deaths on the LARGER Union army (2.75 mm men)and they were handed..."

There's just no denying that Southern troops fought well.
Exactly how well is a subject for discussion.

I have a book handy here with statistics on the top ten battles, ranked according to the number of casualties.
Of those, the Union won five, the Confederacy four and one was a draw.

It sounds like a pretty even match, until you consider that the South always came to battle with fewer troops, on average, about 1/3 fewer troops.
Typical example: if the Union had 75,000 the Confederacy had 50,000.
And yet they still won or "tied" half the largest battles.

On the number of casualties, here's the point to remember: at the end of the day, both sides averaged just over 20% casualties per battle.
Yes, it did vary considerably, depending on who were the commanders and which side was more or less offensive -- commanders on offense usually lost a higher percentage.

A good example is the largest battle of all, Gettysburg, where the offensive commander Lee suffered 37% casualties, while the defending commander Meade "only" 28%.

For another example, consider the Wilderness, which was a "tie" -- the offensive commander Grant suffered 17% casualties while the defending Lee "only" 13%.

[Lees Swrd]

The wealthy elite of nearby Washington, including congressmen and their families, expecting an easy Union victory, had come to picnic and watch the battle. When the Union army was driven back in a running disorder, the roads back to Washington were blocked by panicked civilians attempting to flee in their carriages.
If they had only pressed on to Washington that day the War would have ended. I am a proud descendant of Confederate heroes. I love talking to people from up yonder that are moving here in droves ask them what they are running from and most will tell you the same thing look at a lot of the cities look like bombed out war zones makes me think did we realy lose.

[BroJoeK]

Chiltepe: "what too many people COMPLETELY overlook is that the South didn’t go to war over anything...
it declared independence from the North, for whatever reasons people wish to argue, and only FOUGHT BACK when occupied or otherwise made war upon by the North!
That’s a distinction that cannot be stressed enough.
It was a war of independence, same as the 13 colonies separating from Britain."

In actual history the Deep South slave-holders:

1. Declared their secession (beginning in December 1860).
   
2. Immediately began seizing Federal forts, armories, ships, customs houses, a mint, etc. (December 1860 thru May 1861).
   
3. Fired on Federal forces attempting to defend those (April 1861).
   
4. Declared War on the United States (May 6, 1861).
   
5. Waged war in every Union state and territory adjacent to the Confederacy (from April 1861 on).

Prior to the Deep South's declaration of war, in no significant example did Union forces first increase the level of violence.
And the Union never did declare war against the South.

So, it ended you might say, as a War of Northern Aggression in the South, but it certainly started as a War of Deep South Slave-holders Aggression against the Union and its Constitution.

[rockrr]

I love talking to people from up yonder that are moving here in droves ask them what they are running from and most will tell you the same thing look at a lot of the cities look like bombed out war zones makes me think did we realy lose.

They say that living well is its own revenge. I like to think of the phenomena that you speak of as "The South's Revenge" and am amused by those who claim that they are "present-day slaves"....and worse.

Compared to many areas of the northeast, the south looks awfully prosperous to me!

[Happy Rain]

Yeah,Yankee rifles from the First Battle of Manassas (or Bull Run) are rare and valuable collectors items because of their overall good condition...

Probably because they were never fired and only dropped once.

[2harddrive]

Hehe. Sorry, all that is WELL documented. Check the 1859 New York SLIMES editorials. I cannot BELIEVE what warhawks they were!

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Hehe. Sorry, all that is WELL documented. Check the 1859 New York SLIMES editorials. I cannot BELIEVE what warhawks they were!

Then you won't have any trouble pointing to those editorials, then. Here's a link to their search. I've narrowed it down to the 14,000 articles indexed from 1859 to help you.

[x]

Why would there have been war mongering editorials in the New York Times in 1859, when the country was still intact and secession and war only remote possibilities? Unless you can bring up a source now, the rest of us can only assume that you're not telling the truth.

Charles Adams did claim to find a bellicose Times editorial in early 1861, after the paper had been advocating simply letting the South go, but the article I found doesn't match his description: it's not about imports flooding the North from New Orleans, but about Northern goods flooding the South in the other direction.

It's not especially war-like either. It just points out that if the Confederate government wanted to impose a tariff on Northern goods it would have to build custom houses along the border and risk alienating citizens who expected to be able to buy Northern manufacturing goods without red tape.

Apparently, Charles Adams, like DiLorenzo and a lot of you clowns, goes all Pavlovian when ever he sees the word "tariff." He starts salivating and slabbering and his mind stops working.

Anyway, all the evidence I've seen so far shows that the Times wasn't beating a steady drum for war in 1861, let alone in 1859.

[2harddrive]

Wow! You guys are apparently living in a very unusual section of the time-space continuum. Just go back and check the RECORD. LOL. The Slimes DEMANDED TOTAL WAR in no uncertain terms, by 1859. Ask them! Is that really news to you? They were PISSED at the open, tariff-free Port of New Orleans! (How different they were, 100 years later, when Vietnam rolled around!)

[rockrr]

It would appear that y’all are looking at the same source, but seeing different things. Perhaps some need glasses to view it from their section of the continuum.

2harddrive - maybe you could help them by referring to a specific article or editorial from the NYT of 1859 that “demanded total war”? I would think that a useful contribution to the discussion.