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.

[Pikachu_Dad]

Then perhaps he has a different purpose.

Such as to damaege the reputation of the site for his democrat masters ?

[Pikachu_Dad]

You are just a deranged democrat troll.

[itsahoot]

we know that it was about slavery because the ones trying to secede TOLD us that it was about slavery.

Yep and Iraq was about WMDs.</s>

[marron]

Why would anyone want a bunch of F***ing slave states in their Union? I would think people of moral character would have told the f*ckers to get the f*** out

No. Someone of moral character would put them in the ground.

We're Republicans. We believe in liberty. Our whole party was founded with the explicit purpose to do away with slavery. They declared their purpose and in a decade slavery was gone. The south had the chance to do it the easy way, or the hard way. They chose wrong.

The slave south was doomed either way, they just didn't know it until their farms were burning down around them. You can argue they had the right to use deadly force over tariffs, and it comes right back that the workers in the field had more right than that to resist with deadly force their enslavement.

They were lucky they had the option of surrendering to Grant rather than their field hands.

You can defend it all you want, but it mystifies me that anyone would try. It makes me think you are not a serious person.

[itsahoot]

Nope. all about slavery and Wilson is not entitled to his own facts.

Nope only the winners have the facts.

[wardaddy]

Nice work here

[stanne]

Thanks rockrr. It’s kike a catholic anti catholic thread. Days later you’re hitting your head against the wall

[stanne]

Oh. Ok. And the the war ended slavery. Brilliant on the north

[wardaddy]

Abolitionists or radical republicans as they came to be known politically were war hawks too partner

But they wanted to subjugate the south

The southern war hawks called fire breathers wanted to leave the United States and separate peaceably at first but no doubt some itched for a fight with the louder Yankees

Big difference

Lincoln was not an abolitionist btw

[FLT-bird]

We know it was not about slavery because the ones who chose to make war ie the North, told us it wasn’t.

[Rebelbase]

Agree 100%.

[NKP_Vet]

Every one of the uppity Yankee states were former slave holding states. For years New York State was the biggest slave holding state. States gave up slavery when they didn’t need them anymore.

https://www.thenation.com/article/hidden-history-slavery-new-york/

[jmacusa]

Yeah. I know dude, believe me I know. Tell CNN and the Democrats, they don’t get that.

[jmacusa]

The South started the shooting. They intended to win. They lost. War’s a bitch, especially when you lose.

[central_va]

Define win.

[jmacusa]

Defeat the Union. “In war there is no second place prize for the runner up’’. General Omar Bradley. C’mon, dude even you know that.

[Team Cuda]

So, yell louder. That always helps.

You said that the Confederate states wanted freedom from a distant, unrepresentative government. What freedom were they concerned about having? Could it be....the right to continue owning humans? The only way I have to see why they were seceding, is to read their words. To go through them one-by-one, we see the following:

Georgia - slavery (they mention African slavery in the second sentence).

Mississippi - slavery. I need to quote the first sentence of the second paragraph in its entirety “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery- the greatest material interest in the world.”

South Carolina – slavery, slavery, slavery

Texas – slavery

Virginia – they’re actually a little unclear as to specifically why they were seceding, but they did mention the Federal government perverting powers “to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States”, so I think it’s fair to say that the whole slavery issue was the cause.

Florida – no specific reason given

Alabama – the reason they give is the election of Lincoln and sectional party avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions and to the peace and security of the people of the State of Alabama. They don’t mention the specific “domestic institution” that Lincoln was avowedly hostile to, but I think we all know, don’t we? I will call this one slavery as well.

Louisiana – no specific reason given

Arkansas – doesn’t give a specific reason, but they do reference the “well-founded causes of complaint set forth by this convention”. I don’t really want to research the convention, but I bet it talks about slavery. Since I don’t have the actual data, I will call this one” no specific reason given.

North Carolina – no specific reason given.

Tennessee – no specific reason given.

So, of these 11 states, four (Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas) specifically mention slavery as the reason for secession. One (Virginia) mentions oppression of the slaveholding southern states. Six don’t give any specific reason. Another way to put this is that 100% of the states that gave specific reasons mentioned slavery as the reason for secession.

As far as the Declaration of Independence not specifying that slavery cannot be a reason for wanting independence, this is definitely a red herring. The Declaration of Independence does not anything that could not be a reason for wanting independence. So, you could specifically list that, as Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas did.

As far as your shouty statement regarding my hypocrisy, I was a little unclear. What I said was that the Confederate States were fighting for the right to own people. To clarify, what I should have said was:

The Confederate States were fighting for the right to continue to own people, export slavery to the territories, and force the people of the free states continue to treat escaped slaves as property.

I hope that clears things up.

[DHerion]

The south was dependent on a slave population producing/selling raw materials, like cotton, rather than finished goods that have far more value. What would you rather sell, iron ore or finished steel? You can’t blame the north for that.

[wardaddy]

I prefer wearing cotton

But you can’t drive a cotton car

Two different things

The north had more coal and iron available and massive waves of hungry penniless immigrants to work

The south was primarily an agrarian place that especially after the gin stayed with slavery as the north found less use or need for it

It was a primary issue technically the expansion of it was for secession

There were other issues as well and ethnic and cultural ones you can still see today those it’s fading given how many Yankees have moved or are moving south abandoning the north and it’s perfection.

This is the issue here this thirst to assign moral perjoratives of one size fits all

It’s where some conservatives and neoconservatives go off the rails

Folks here like to argue over the causes or batttle decisions fine

But modern northerners on this forum who wish to demonize my ancestry in ways the folks who actually fought them never did is where the problem starts

Freepers calling us descendants of Nazis or hang all slave owners or think Sherman really didn’t do any harm and the Reconstruction was no big deal

Or any southern here who resists their crusade is a racist neoconfederate wishing to reinstitute slavery...so stupid

That’s the contentious stuff

The term neoconfederate is like homophobic or islamaphobe, it’s meant to shut folks down and allow the name caller to preen with self righteousness..bought for free btw at no cost

Now we have folks here who ape that mindset who are on the side of removing statues not just of my ancestors but the founders like Tom or George or Madison and even Lincoln or any white Christian who committed some race based offense like Kate Smith however insignificant

And reparations which is now basically a democrat platform

The founder of this forum gets it and God bless him for it, I’ve waited a long time here to see how this would come down

A cabal here that has spun this south hatred for 20 years doesn’t

Anyone with half a dick and a whole brain can shout from the rooftops that slavery especially if done by whites of non whites is just awful

But does that shrill tone of captain obvious accomplish one whit of preserving America in the face of what’s happening here

It feels to me like folks who do that are siding with the enemy originally at my familial expense but now it’s at the expense of the survival of the nation

We white southerners have been but two things, the nations most solid socially conservative electorate and the lowest hanging fruit for progressives and neocons

Small wonder the progressives openly attack and demonize us 24/7

That folks who call themselves conservative on this forum including some rather public and notable proclaim precisely the same platitudes and canards is troubling

Virtue signaling is a siren call many here are hopelessly addicted to and pitifully think will help convert blacks if they suck up enough but it’s helping our determined foe who insists America is one big SJW nightmare and racism is the number one bogeyman under the bed

At what point do National Review Ben Shapiro types think enough is enough

Do these south bashers ever read what Federal army contemporaries thought or other notables from Churchill to Magnus

Does anyone think these maniacs our south bashers have aligned with can be sated....

They cannot

They can only be denied and defeated

[nathanbedford]

For largely economic reasons, slave states wanted an expansion of slavery to other states so as to increase the market value of a slave. The slave market in officially recognized slave states was already saturated - many children born into slavery were a "surplus" that couldn't be sold because those southern planters who wanted and could afford slaves already had them.

This assertion is clearly 180° contrary to the research which led me to the opposite conclusion in my about page written many years ago:

because of the cotton gin and the vast sums to be made within only three years by clearing land and planting cotton, the demand and price for slaves skyrocketed. Land was abundant and cheap and labor was scarce and expensive so, contrary to the history of Europe where the economics of labor were reversed, men counted their wealth in the humans they owned even more than by the acres they possessed. By 1861, the value of the slaves in America had reached such stunning heights that to end slavery by compensating the slaveholder for the loss of his property would have simply emptied the American treasury.

I should like to know if there is underlying support for the assertion that you quote from the article which I believe is not footnoted. For the record, I do not believe the war was solely over the issue of slavery, but I understand fully that the position I set forth does not support the idea that slavery was the sole cause. I am, however, committed to historical accuracy. Who is right?