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.

[Covenantor]

Well stated. Hat tip to you sir.

[wardaddy]

Thank you.

My tag line made my week here btw

[Bull Snipe]

for the Confederacy win would have meant not losing. Get Brit & French recognition, possibly physical intervention. And or hang on long enough that the North would tire of the war and possibly negotiate a settlement. Neither of these worked for the Confederacy. “Win” was never going to be Abe Lincoln signing the surrender terms on the lawn of the White House.

[FLT-bird]

Well stated.

The Progressive position I get. Whether one is just raised with a congenital hatred for the South which typifies New England, or whether one is a Leftist lover of big government, centralized power, etc or whether one is a vacuous virtue signaler, I fully understand why those types would want to demonize the South. The South has always been the antithesis of Leftism. It has always favored decentralized power, limited government, limited expenditures and balanced budgets. Notice how the constitution written by a Southerner only lists things the government may not do. Nowhere is there a provision for any goodies the government must hand out. The South is there natural enemy of Leftism and always has been.

Its the supposed conservatives who go along with every Leftist trope about the South that I can not understand. Whether they’re appeasers hoping the crocodile will eat them last or they were just taken in by PC Revisionists in Academia who have spewed this “all about slavery” nonsense since the 60s generation started becoming prominent in Academia in the 1980s, I really don’t know. What I do know is that they are either ignorant of history or they are no conservatives at all - like Neocons for example.

Anybody who thought they could contain this to just Southern historical figures and that somehow Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Henry and Mason would get a pass from the PC Revisionist crowd was fooling himself. They were just as white and just as Southern (naturally given they were only a generation or two removed from the Southerners the PC Revisionists seek to demonize). They will be the next targets. Bank on it. Its all part of the Left’s plan to completely transform America. First they have to destroy the South’s intellectual legacy which goes right to the very heart of it.

[DoodleDawg]

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

Why not? You would have us believe that Northern newspaper editorials speak for the entire U.S.

[DoodleDawg]

It existed in the United States. Specifically in 15 states prior to secession, and 16 after West Virginia split.

And would have stayed at 16. Nothing in the Corwin amendment allowed slavery to expand regardless of how many states were admitted.

Passing the Corwin amendment meant it would linger until the very last state voluntarily gave it up.

Unlike the Confederate constitution which basically prevented individual states from becoming slave-free and arguable prevented any amendment ending slavery entirely.

Now what was it again they claimed they were fighting over?

The South? Slavery. It's in all the history books.

[DoodleDawg]

Lies about any war are written by those who won it.

And those who lost it. One has to only look at some of the posts by the Confederate fanatics on posts like this to realize that.

The minute these immigrants set foot on land they were in the Army.

You make my point for me.

By the 3rd and 4th year when the ratio was 10-1 the Union gained control.

And again.

The South had the best officers and the best enlisted forces.

And again.

[DoodleDawg]

My position is that Article IV, section 2 already required this, and that Dred Scott merely affirmed what the Constitution already required.

Like I said, odd-ball theories. Though I must admit that you are one of the few people I've met to speak approvingly of the Scott v. Sandford decision.

[DoodleDawg]

Most of the time they are written by the winning side, and then taught as history, you know, like in the United States where most people think the war was fought over slavery.

So then history is written by the losers? You're making a lie of the popular Lost Causer myth. But then myths are your stock in trade.

[DoodleDawg]

That fort sat on South Carolina’s sovereign territory and those ships entered South Carolina’s sovereign territorial waters.

But on land deeded to the federal government free and clear by act of the South Carolina legislature. Why shouldn't the government have a right to resupply it?

[DoodleDawg]

The Southern states if independent could have set a much lower tariff.

Could have, but would they? Representatives to the Virginia Secession Convention promised tariffs as high as Virginia manufacturers wanted them to be.

Also, without the navigation acts in place in the US, they would have either built up their own shipping industry to handle those exports.

They could have done that before the rebellion as well. Why didn't they?

Also due to the lower tariff, importers would have brought their goods into Southern ports - especially New Orleans, and then shipped them up the Mississippi river and distributed them throughout the Midwest.

Where they would have the tariff applied the moment they crossed into the U.S. So where is the advantage of landing them in the South again? Especially if they were taxed by the South before going to the U.S.?

[a little elbow grease]

Very well said.

[MamaTexan]

It never ceases to amaze me that people who think there was nothing wrong with the states passing nullification laws on the subject of slavery over 150 years ago get SO upset over the states passing nullification laws on the subject of immigration today.

You can't (Constitutionally) have it both ways.

[central_va]

Bull, When asked define 'win' for the CSA you said:

For the Confederacy win would have meant not losing. Get Brit & French recognition, possibly physical intervention. And or hang on long enough that the North would tire of the war and possibly negotiate a settlement. Neither of these worked for the Confederacy. “Win” was never going to be Abe Lincoln signing the surrender terms on the lawn of the White House.

This is fact and reality. Since I am reality based I do not feel it necessary to agree with it. It is just the truth.

Your cohort below is a nut job, PLEASE STRAITEN HIM OUT. He is lunatic. He will not listen to a "lost causer".

Kooky revisionist jmacusa said this cray cray crap.

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.

[Wuli]

Yes.

[LS]

You never needed an amendment prohibiting slavery to kill it.

Merely appointing fed postmasters who would admit abolitionist literature in; appointing fed judges who would free slaves in freedom suits (such as Dred Scott); or appointment of fed marshals who would not pursue runaways.

These would have opened the door to reluctant but “forced” manumission.

[FLT-bird]

“But on land deeded to the federal government free and clear by act of the South Carolina legislature. Why shouldn’t the government have a right to resupply it?”

Because due to the power of Eminent Domain, South Carolina claims it. So it wasn’t federal any more nor was any other federal installation in a sovereign state which had seceded.

[FLT-bird]

Could have, but would they? Representatives to the Virginia Secession Convention promised tariffs as high as Virginia manufacturers wanted them to be. Yes they would. President Davis promised tariffs as low as their necessities would permit. The Confederate Constitution had a maximum 10% revenue tariff. They could have done that before the rebellion as well. Why didn't they? That industry had already concentrated in the Northeast. The most efficient investment for the Southern states at that time was in producing more cash crops. Of course had the North not been draining their pockets for generations with sectional partisan legislation, they'd have had more money to build up their industries. Read Rhett's address on the subject. Where they would have the tariff applied the moment they crossed into the U.S. So where is the advantage of landing them in the South again? Especially if they were taxed by the South before going to the U.S.? It would have been much harder and would have required a much greater enforcement effort. Read Sherman's comments to his own brother or any of several Northern newspaper editorials on the subject.

[gandalftb]

Your example is not helpful to your position.

The editorials talk about economics, but also about slavery. Here they self-identity themselves as rallying around the issue of slavery:

“Citizens of the slaveholding States of the United States, circumstances beyond our control have placed us in the van of the great controversy between the Northern and Southern States.”

Thank you for the link!

Jefferson Davis well understood his likely fate by supporting succession. This was no casual “see ya later” moment. Davis was a trained military officer, Secretary of War, long time Senator.

He was voicing his political stand and that of Mississippi. He offered his most powerful reasons, knowing it was a historical moment to be endlessly discussed on the internet on FR.....

[rockrr]

He was voicing his political stand and that of Mississippi. He offered his most powerful reasons, knowing it was a historical moment to be endlessly discussed on the internet on FR.....

OK that made me laugh. Kudos to you!