Why The War Was Not About Slavery

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org ^ | March 9, 2016 | Clyde Wilson

[NKP_Vet]

Conventional wisdom of the moment tells us that the great war of 1861—1865 was “about” slavery or was “caused by” slavery. I submit that this is not a historical judgment but a political slogan. What a war is about has many answers according to the varied perspectives of different participants and of those who come after. To limit so vast an event as that war to one cause is to show contempt for the complexities of history as a quest for the understanding of human action.

Two generations ago, most perceptive historians, much more learned than the current crop, said that the war was “about” economics and was “caused by” economic rivalry. The war has not changed one bit since then. The perspective has changed. It can change again as long as people have the freedom to think about the past. History is not a mathematical calculation or scientific experiment but a vast drama of which there is always more to be learned.

I was much struck by Barbara Marthal’s insistence in her Stone Mountain talk on the importance of stories in understanding history. I entirely concur. History is the experience of human beings. History is a story and a story is somebody’s story. It tells us about who people are. History is not a political ideological slogan like “about slavery.” Ideological slogans are accusations and instruments of conflict and domination. Stories are instruments of understanding and peace.

Let’s consider the war and slavery. Again and again I encounter people who say that the South Carolina secession ordinance mentions the defense of slavery and that one fact proves beyond argument that the war was caused by slavery. The first States to secede did mention a threat to slavery as a motive for secession. They also mentioned decades of economic exploitation.

[gandalftb]

The point I was making is what counts.....

No mention of economics, tariffs, etc.

Davis only mentions slavery 3 times to the exclusion of all other causes......

OK, forget my characterization and read what Davis said in plain and open speech. I assume he was sober and of a sound mind.

OK, how else are we to construe that?

[DiogenesLamp]

Actually reading their words is cheating, somehow.

Not at all. But completely ignoring Lincolns words *IS* cheating.

I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution--which amendment, however, I have not seen--has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable. "

He is of course referring to the Corwin Amendment.

"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."

In other words, permanent slavery in the United States.

[DiogenesLamp]

The south would have been prosperous without slavery?

No.

The north would not have invaded if there had not been slavery

You are skipping a lot of steps to go from your assertion to your conclusion, and your conclusion is deliberately misleading.

The North didn't invade to stamp out slavery. The North invaded to stop the South from becoming independent. Why did they North refuse to let the South go? Was it out of principle or something?

Lincoln was going to let the original 7 states leave if Virginia would pledge to remain in the Union. So okay, no Principle reason to "preserve the Union."

Well what was it then? Why would Lincoln want to keep a bunch of slave states in his Union? Why did he insist he had no interest in freeing the slaves for nearly two years into the war?

What's left?

Money. The South was a cash cow fueling New York and Washington DC pockets. So long as it remained in the Union, they could keep the slavery produced money flowing into New York and Washington DC.

If it got out, that money not only stopped, that money would then fuel competing industries in the South with existing Northern manufacturers.

[HiTech RedNeck]

And all on the same principles that came unanchored from God.

[DiogenesLamp]

If you’ll read the articles of secession...

Here is an article of secession that I urge you to read.

http://www.civilwarcauses.org/rhett.htm

[rockrr]

I think Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and perhaps Georgia said it was about slavery, but All the rest, (the other 7 states) did not.

Yes they did.

[DiogenesLamp]

Well, independence for those who weren’t slaves, of course.

And you will of course explain to us how this is different from what the founders did?

Let's see. 13 slave owning states demanding Independence from a Union (United Kingdom) while the Union is offering freedom to their slaves. The 13 slave owning states form a Confederacy, and chose a slave owning General from Virginia to lead their armies to fight for their independence.

Did the original 13 slave owning states have a right to independence or not?

[Bull Snipe]

“In other words, permanent slavery in the United States.”

Not the case. The amendment does not in any way limit a state from outlawing slavery within that state.

[DiogenesLamp]

Here is what the Georgia delegate said to the Virginia secession convention.

Here is what Lincoln said.

" I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution--which amendment, however, I have not seen--has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable. "

He is of course referring to the Corwin Amendment.

"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."

Permanent slavery in the United States. Now tell us again about what the secessionist (4 out of 11) said?

[HiTech RedNeck]

It would seem that the economic power behind the evil was such that even Lincoln, who elsewhere morally decried chattel slavery, pussyfooted around here.

There’s one sight that I never saw but I could well imagine what it looked like, on a large estate in Kentucky, on which there was a large mound. I was told that this was a filled-in place where they had chains, not for prisoners (there wouldn’t be any of those visiting a private estate), but for the chattel slaves of travelers. It was a chilling thought.

Now why did people have these slaves in the first place? It was economics... hiring voluntary help would have cost them more.

In this fallen world, money talks far more than it should be allowed to.

[DiogenesLamp]

They only favored northern interests because southerners couldn't be bothered to build and operate ships and warehouses for themselves.

They couldn't afford to operate ships and warehouses for themselves because those acts had pretty much destroyed their ability to compete with a natural harbor 800 miles closer to Europe than were they.

With all costs being the same, and laws preventing foreign ships from carrying trade between two American ports, there was no reason why any ships would sail the extra 800 miles to Charleston to trade there.

Also, the US government was subsidizing the New York shipping industry, and the North Eastern fishing industries, and the Southern states had nothing like that. Hard to compete when you have to make more money through legal trade than someone getting a government subsidy. (Mail carrying for example.)

[DoodleDawg]

In other words, permanent slavery in the United States.

What you persist in ignoring is that the Corwin Amendment only protected slavery where it existed while the Confederate constitution mandated the legality of slavery in every square inch of territory the Confederacy had or would ever acquire in the future. Given the two choices which do you think the Southern slaveocracy would prefer?

[HiTech RedNeck]

I think God gave them a good long time to recognize the irony in what they did, and eventually allowed the boom to be lowered, in His complex and mysterious way.

[DiogenesLamp]

According to Diogenes and others, Davis was completely mistaken about his own motivations when he said that.

See my response to him. He has misconstrued what Jefferson Davis said to be about nothing but slavery. It was a long wordy slog, but after having read it, I say he is mistaken, and the bulk of it does not deal solely with the issue of slavery. The word "slave" is used exactly three times, and none of them in the context he suggests.

[rockrr]

Don’t forget that degeneratelamp also believes that the Dred Scott ruling resulted in a prohibition against any state banning slavery.

[DiogenesLamp]

It’s interesting that you comment that they had a right to independence. I find it ironic that your definition of independence includes enslaving a sizable portion of the population.

If you want to disagree with the founders, then by all means, tell us they had no right to independence from the United Kingdom for the simple reason that they were all slave states.

Did the slave owning Founders have a right to independence?

[HiTech RedNeck]

It was weird... Illinois could “ban slavery,” but couldn’t declare that any slave reaching Illinois would be free there.

[Bull Snipe]

“there was no reason why any ships would sail the extra 800 miles to Charleston to trade there.”

Yes, there is. When the owner of the cargo on that ship, pays the shipping agent to ship the cargo to Charleston.

[DiogenesLamp]

But Thomas Jefferson would say it would be prudent to do so.

Yes, and i'm glad you appreciate the distinction. A lot of people assert it is a "requirement" to list the causes, but the Declaration of Independence does not in fact say that. It says "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

But not a requirement for exercising the right of independence.

[DiogenesLamp]

No, all you have to do is read their own words.

I agree.

I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution--which amendment, however, I have not seen--has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable. "

He is of course referring to the Corwin Amendment.

"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."

I interpret his words to mean that the continuation of slavery in the United States of America was not an issue for him, his government, or the Northern states who voted to pass the Corwin amendment in both houses of Congress.