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.

[DiogenesLamp]

The South was not paying all the tariffs, for the simple reason that tariffs aren't paid by the producers of exports.

So pray tell, how do you get imports?

They are paid, ultimately, by the consumers of imports, and there were way more consumers in the North than in the South.

And here is that cognitive dissonance again. How did the "consumers" come up with the money to buy those imports? Wouldn't they have to have something the Europeans wanted in exchange?

[Pikachu_Dad]

Why he does not mention slavery at all...

Oh wait...

There is is...

"Experience has proved that slave-holding States can not be safe in subjection to non-slaveholding States.

LOL

[DiogenesLamp]

Let me see if I understand your argument here. Slavery could never be abolished because it would require too many states to ratify an amendment than would ever pass it, but if the Corwin Amendment had passed...slavery could never be abolished. Is that about right?

Pretty close, however at this point I have to put in a qualifier.

Slavery could be abolished by existing slave states giving it up voluntarily. (Which I think would have happened eventually anyways.) Without the Corwin amendment, eventually enough would have done so to ban it in the rest. With the Corwin amendment it would have remained so long as any single state wanted it.

Other than that, yeah, all else being stable, pretty much permanent.

[Team Cuda]

I understand that what you’re saying is that the war was not about slavery because Lincoln wasn’t in favor of ending slavery. However, Lincoln’s opinion about the start of the war is totally irrelevant, as is the opinion of the Pope, the Queen of England, or the King of Siam. The only relevant opinion is that of those who started the war. Lincoln, like those other three august individuals, did not start the war. It was started by legislatures of the seceding states. They clearly stated (or at least those that stated any reasons) that the reason for secession was slavery. Lincoln fought (initially) to maintain the Union. It is unfortunate that he was willing (at least initially) to condone the existence of slavery, but it’s also immaterial. It only takes one side to start a war, and it was clearly started by the seceding states, and it was clearly started (based on their own words) to maintain slavery, and extend it to the territories

[Pikachu_Dad]

Indeed, he hardly ever... oh wait.

Citizens of the slaveholding States of the United States,

There is that S word again.

[DoodleDawg]

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

One of his many odd-ball theories.

[DiogenesLamp]

You are saying that 100% of all imports into the United States were bought and paid for by southern citizens.

You apparently overlooked the qualifier "virtually all". By the numbers I post from that excerpt earlier, it's about 73%. By numbers i've seen from other sources, it's as high as 85%.

Not one single item was imported into the United States was going to a northern customer

False avenue of argument. Of course Northern customers were buying stuff, but any more than 15-27% were doing it through getting the money away from Southerners somehow.

The people in the Northern shipping industry were doing it through gouging because they set their prices just beneath the threshold of fines and penalties (Navigation act of 1817) which would be applied if someone tried to use a European ship or crew to carry their goods.

[Pikachu_Dad]

Lets see what this democratthinks of Republicans...

If they prefer a system of industry in which capital and labor are in perpetual conflict

Interesting -- and chronic starvation keeps down the natural increase of population

Starving? Really???

-- and a man is worked out in eight years

A man is worked to exhaustion in 8 years? You don't say.

-- and the law ordains that children shall be worked only ten hours a day

And shudder, Republicans don't let us work children more than 10 hours a day!

-- and the sabre and bayonet are the instruments of order

Okay. Looks like he is expecting a war !

-- be it so. It is their affair, not ours. Wow. Just WOW ! This democrat is crazy.

So do you agree that children should work more than 10 hours a day then ?!?

[DoodleDawg]

History of war is normally written by the winning side.

They myths about a war are written by the losing side.

[Pikachu_Dad]

Lets see what type of system you prefer then

We prefer, however, our system of industry,

Here we go. Better buckle up !

by which labor and capital are identified in interest, and capital, therefore, protects labor;

Um, okay.

by which our population doubles every twenty years;

Are we talking slave populations here?

by which starvation is unknown,

Are we talking slave populations again? Or just the free class?

and abundance crowns the land;

Oh, okay.

by which order is preserved by unpaid police,

A slave police force too? How does one have an 'unpaid police force'?

and the most fertile regions of the world where the Caucasian cannot labor are brought into usefulness by the labor of the African,

Ah, SLAVERY ! and the whole world is blessed by our own productions.

A blessing to the entire world?

All we demand of other peoples is to be let alone to work out our own high destinies.

So you prefer SLAVERY so you can live high on the hog?

Got it.

This democrat is very delusional !

[Pikachu_Dad]

So the ENTIRE purpose of the Confederacy was to be a group of

SLAVE OWNING STATES !

What a noble (not) goal.

You must be just so proud of your little democrat self !

[Pikachu_Dad]

And the entire diatribe boils down to this:

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution.

The failure of the Northern states to uphold the Fugitive Slave Act to the satisfaction of South Carolina.

So what point was your little democrat brain trying to make with this documnent now?

[DiogenesLamp]

Richmond Enquirer, November 1, 1814

So then did the South believe secession was illegal in 1814, but by 1860 claimed to believe otherwise?

So the Richmond Enquirer, which apparently didn't read Virginia's own ratifying statement, now speaks for the "South"?

Would it not at most speak for Virginia? And of course I don't believe it even speaks for Virginia in any official capacity.

Is it the only one? Do you have other examples of people in the South decrying the attempts by the New England states to secede?

[Pikachu_Dad]

Yes foolish child, Lincoln was willing to make many compromises to preserve the Union and obtain the elimination of slavery by slower routes.

Please keep up.

[Pikachu_Dad]

Absolutely correct Bull Snipe !

The site is positively infested with democrats today.

[Team Cuda]

So we’re back to the whole “the Confederates were no different than the 13 states who declared independence from the British” argument. The difference is that the colonists who rebelled against the British did so because they wanted freedom from a distant, unrepresentative government, and the right to rule themselves. I don’t believe that slavery was even a minor issue in the rebellion. It’s unfortunate that, in 1776, society as a whole had no issues with slavery, but that’s where we were.

Fast forward some 80+ years, and slavery is considered abhorrent by society in general (I know I’m going to get in trouble with that statement, but consider that Great Britain outlawed slavery in 1833, and 70+% of all Americans lived in a state where slavery was illegal). When you look at the reasons the states seceded, they said it was due to slavery. If you don’t believe it, I suggest you read the Articles of Secession from the individual states (I love Mississippi’s).

So, the original colonies fighting for self-government. The Confederate States fighting for the right to own people. Yep. I see no difference (do I really have to add the sarc label?)

[DiogenesLamp]

The South was not paying all the tariffs, for the simple reason that tariffs aren't paid by the producers of exports.

Imports! Exports! How does this trade stuff even work?

Imports are like a black hole. A country sucks them in endlessly, and nothing comes out to balance them.

[Pikachu_Dad]

But Lincoln WAS in favor of ending slavery. That is why he is a Republican.

However, if the South is going to seceed and start a war, then Lincoln was more than willing to make any number of concessions to avoid the disolution of the Union.

The treasonous Breckenridge and his fellow democrat fire heaters were hell bent on causing a war. They were in no mood to compromise.

Much in the same manner as the modern democrat leaders it seems.

[DiogenesLamp]

No mention of economics, tariffs, etc.

Perhaps this is more to your liking then?

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

He said the things I mentioned previously.

OK, how else are we to construe that?

As a guy bidding farewell to colleagues in the Senate.

[DiogenesLamp]

Yes they did.

Show me where North Carolina said they were leaving because of Slavery.