The Slave Power was statist and centralizing. No free state was going to be allowed to ban slavery. Eventually it would have been practiced in every state and territory of the Union.
The political and intellectual father (or at least grandfather, as he died before secession) of the Confederacy was not Jefferson Davis, but John C. Calhoun. His principal objection to unionism was his belief that states have the right to negotiate their own trade agreements with one another and with foreign governments. Since the south was predominantly agrarian, planters resented the tariff that effectively forced them to purchase goods manufactured in the north instead of cheaper British or European goods.
While this was not the flashpoint that caused shots to be exchanged at Fort Sumter, disagreement over trade and taxes tilled the soil for secession over other issues, including slavery.
As I said above, I appreciate most of what you say, but some of it is misleading. You are correct to note that murder and rape of civilians was rare in the civil war, but generally, the "pillaging" refers more the Sherman's scorched earth policy during his "March to the Sea" rather than uncoordinated criminal looting by individual soldiers.
There certainly is no denying the massive destruction of civilian property in Sherman's wake.
Very interesting post, thanks.
Nobody was tried for treason after the war, not even Jeff Davis who was being incarcerated and was asking for a trial.
Why did Lincoln invade Virginia?
Looking back at your original essay, which I think was well-done, BTW, I think you missed one.
This is that Lincoln was the precursor of all subsequent expansions of federal power, and therefore that if Lincoln had not expanded this power, or had failed in his attempt to conquer the South, we would live in a states-rights paradise. IOW, Lincoln is the cause of all our present problems.
This is a classic example of the post hoc, ergo prompter hoc fallacy. The admittedly bad recent and ongoing expansion of federal power occurred after Lincoln, therefore he caused it.
In actual fact, the primary expansion of federal power didn’t get going till the late 1800s, some decades after Lincoln’s presidency, during which the government contracted greatly from its size during the war.
I don’t know of anything at all in Lincoln’s writings, including his letters,which I’ve read several volumes of, that indicate any desire to expand the scope of the government, except insofar as necessary to win the war.
In fact, the CSA did not expand confederate power as much as the Union did federal power, and you can make a good case this was a significant contributor to their eventual defeat.
If you wish to fight a war, you need to recognize that a real existential war, not our present wars of choice, requires centralization of power to win. If you can’t accept that, you should either not get into a war, or you need to recognize that failure to centralize will mean probable defeat, the consequences of which might be considerably than a (hopefully) temporary expansion of central power.
I would also suggest that if temporary expansion of central power is not preferable to defeat, then you probably should not be fighting that particular war, since it doesn’t really matter if you lose.
Bro, I think I thought of one you mythed.
11. Slavery was dying in the South anyway. Therefore the Union invasion and conquest of the Confederacy had nothing to do with slavery, as the institution would have faded away in just a couple of years anyway.
I’m sure you’re aware that slavery was more profitable and entrenched than ever in 1860, and that southerners had since about 1820 gradually shifted from a consensus that slavery was a necessary evil to an equal and opposite consensus that it was a positive good.
But this one has been brought up to me numerous times, and thought you might want to add it to your list.
My only comment is that there is always an inherent right to secede.
So, what if you are not a “neo-Confederate”...but just an average person who believes these or similar points? Are they still “myths”?
Or do you have to start off such discussions by moronically making up categories of people?
If so, what do neo-Federalist/communists believe?
Thanks.
Thank you for a well-done synopsis.
Whether it is the War of Northern Aggression or the Civil War is one’s point of view. A recent point of view considered the economic reasons for succession. Taking slaves away in the South would have a similar economic effect as taking away horses and plows in the North.
.