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.

[rockrr]

Union Secretary of War John Floyd had told the people of South Carolina in November of 1860 that all the forts at the entrance to their harbor would be turned over to them.

Where did you get that? That wasn't Buchanan's policy.

[DiogenesLamp]

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.

Two of these things I see as violating the terms of Constitutional law. Judges should not interpret law differently than it was intended when it was lawfully created, and Federal Marshals should be required to enforce Federal law, even if it is law they don't like.

But yes, I have said the social pressure would eventually destroy slavery in the South, it would just take time. There were quite a lot of people in the South that wanted to get rid of slavery. Eventually they would have become a majority, but getting the profit out of it would have helped.

So long as it was profitable, it was going to be difficult to get rid of it, but mechanization combined with the endless social pressure against it, would have eventually eliminated it in all the slave states.

Most likely the border states would have thrown it out first.

[DiogenesLamp]

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

They identify themselves as "Slave holding states", which they were, but they were the same "slave holding states" in the Union as they were in the Confederacy.

Thank you for the link!

You are welcome. Most people think there were no economic arguments for secession put forth. This one clearly demonstrates that economics was a major concern for them.

[DiogenesLamp]

irrelevant to the issue of more free states.

I asked you why "the south was sweating bullets for 30 years about the addition of more free states than slave in the western territories"?

Why were they opposed to more free states without commensurate slave states?

You don't think them paying the bulk of all the taxes had anything to do with this?

Do you like it when Liberals use the "poor" to vote your taxes up?

[DiogenesLamp]

more free states would have lead to the abolishment of slavery...

And how would it accomplish that?

There were 35 states in the Union. 16 of them were slave states. To abolish slavery, you must have a constitutional amendment. A Constitutional amendment requires 3/4ths approval of all the states. With 16 slave states opposed to the amendment, it would require 48 states to vote in favor of such an amendment.

16+48 = 64 states in the Union to accomplish a constitutional amendment banning slavery.

Were they going to break the territories up into 29 additional states to reach that goal of 64 states or what?

By my calculation, it was impossible to abolish slavery if the territories were made into the number of states they became.

So how were more free states going to abolish slavery?

and in the eyes of the south wreck the basis of their economy.

More like just keep taxing them at 10 times the rate the North was taxed at. So long as the Southern states couldn't overcome the Northern majority in congress, the taxation would continue.

[DiogenesLamp]

why was there a plot to kill lincoln when he transferred trains in baltimore on his way to his first inauguration?

I would presume it was because someone or a lot of someones didn't like him and saw him as a threat.

I dare say at least 750,000 people wouldn't have had to die had they been successful.

[DiogenesLamp]

Please identify the five states you are referring to. I believe that I know but I want to make sure that I am on the same page.

Maryland, Missouri, Kentucky, Delaware, and West Virginia.

But it only takes one to disprove the claim that they were fighting for the freedom of black people.

[DiogenesLamp]

You seem to assume that only exports paid for imports.

No, I clearly said that 73% (at least) of the imports were paid for by Southern produced goods, and 27% (at most) were paid for by Northern produced goods.

As an example: from the 1860 census, the value of manufactured goods from the State of New York $378,800,000.

How much of that value was the consequence of protectionist laws that caused the South to have to buy those products at the inflated prices at which they were sold?

What would have been the value of those products if European machinery had been purchased in their stead?

Little of these manufactured items found their way to Europe. These manufactured items were sold all over North America.

What would have been the consequences to these manufacturers if the South had opened up the doors to European versions of similar products to the entire Midwest regions?

You want to talk about a powerful incentive for Northern manufacturers to go to war? There it is.

Maybe the manufacturers in New York had enough money to buy imports in the quantities represented by your Tariff graphic.

Where did they get the money to buy European goods? Only 27% (at most) could have come from their own sales to Europe. Didn't the other 73% (at least) have to somehow come from Southern production?

[wardaddy]

Nice work

[DiogenesLamp]

The fort needed supplies. The Confederates did not want it re-supplied. Lincoln sent supplies.

In January of 1860, it was believed that all the necessary supplies for that fort could be carried by the "Star of the West". (which incidentally was also covertly carrying Union riflemen to reinforce the fort.)

So you are telling me that in April of 1861, the Fort needed the Warship Powhatan, the Warship Pocahontas, The Warship Pawnee, The Armed cutter Harriet Lane, A Ocean transport carrying several hundred riflemen and munitions called the "Baltic", a possibly armed Tug "Yankee", and another possibly armed Tug "Thomas Freeborn", and one possibly unarmed tug "Uncle Ben", to deliver the same "supplies" that were previously manageable by the single ship "Star of the West"?

Here is a photo of one of your "supply ships."

Lot's of room on that "supply ship" for cargo! Here's another photograph.

There was NO MILITARY ATTACK PLANNED! At some point, sanity and facts must prevail!

And yes there f***ing *WAS* a military attack planned! The Ship's orders *SAY* SO.

Should the authorities at Charleston, however, refuse to permit or attempt to prevent the vessel or vessels having supplies on board from entering the harbor, or from peaceably proceeding to Fort Sumter, you will protect the transports or boats of the expedition in the object of their mission-disposing of your force in such manner as to open the way for their ingress and afford, so far as practicable, security to the men and boats, and repelling by force, if necessary, all obstructions towards provisioning the fort and re-enforcing it; for in case of resistance to the peaceable primary object of the expedition a re-enforcement of the garrison will also be attempted. These purposes will be under the supervision of the War Department, which has charge of the expedition. The expedition has been intrusted to Captain G. V. Fox, with whom you will put yourself in communication, and co-operate with him to accomplish and carry into effect its object.

And:

SIR: This letter will be landed to you by Captain G. V. Fox, ex-officer of the Navy, and a gentleman of high standing, as well as possessed of extraordinary nautical ability. He is charged by high authority here with the command of an expedition, under cover of certain ships of war, whose object is to re-enforce Fort Sumter.

To embark with Captain Fox you will cause a detachment of recruits, say about two hundred, to be immediately organized at Fort Columbus, with a competent number of officers, arms, ammunition, and subsistence. A large surplus of the latter-indeed, as great as the vessels of the expedition can take-with other necessaries, will be needed for the augmented garrison of Fort Sumter.

The subsistence and other supplies should be assorted like those which were provided by you and Captain Ward of the Navy for a former expedition. Consult Captain Fox and Major Eaton on the subject, and give all necessary orders in my name to fit out the expedition, except that the hiring of vessels will be left to others.

Some fuel must be shipped. Oil, artillery implements, fuses, cordage, slow-march, mechanical levers, and gins, &c., should also be put on board.

What were those ships going to do with those cannons? Hmmmm?

[wardaddy]

That’s instructive about sugar on that list.

I suppose our sugar production was mainly for domestic consumption?

And we couldn’t compete with huge sugar grows in the Caribbean basin and Brasil.

I wonder if Belle Glade Florida is still all sugar farms.....

[King Moonracer]

All very well and good, but when they come for our 401ks as “reparations”, we can demand our own from them for our losses. Just read about a 10 year coal miner in my family tree from the 1870s. Slavery ended in 1865. Yeah right.

[DiogenesLamp]

Ah, I think I see the problem. The author of that graphic should have titled it "northern profits" instead of "Tariffs". LoL

In terms of Washington DC, those were profits.

In the real world, what it depicts is the revenue dollars collected at a certain point in time at various ports. It doesn't waste it's time attempting the impossible - trying to differentiate which dollars were for goods headed south vs. goods intended for northern consumption.

It demonstrates that even though 73% of all the trade value was produced by the South, virtually all of the money coming back from Europe went to New York, and was a quite valuable source of income for that City.

No they aren't.

Yes they were. I've posted this numerous times. You might not like it, but this book was written in 1860 by a guy from New York, and he's not trying to shade or color the numbers here.

Thank you for confirming my suspicion. As far as I can tell, you view the world - especially the WBTS - as an "us vs. them" proposition. I don't. For me (and many others) it was an "us vs. us" struggle. I take southerners at their word when they state that they are every bit an American as people from northern states. (full disclosure: Having lived in three southern states and one western state, I do not consider myself a "northerner" - if anything I am a westerner)

I am not from any of the Southern states, and I never thought boo about the Civil War for most of my life, but I did start to notice a pattern when I was learning about politics. Washington DC spends the money, and New York runs the major Banks, the Stock market and controls the News.

I've noticed for several decades that the "news" is extraordinarily biased to hate conservative people, ideas and policy, and i've also noticed the Washington DC "establishment" always seems to be against everything conservatives believe in. (Like balanced budgets and opposition to social programs.)

New York news services behave as if New York is the actual core of the United States, while the rest of us are "deplorables" in "fly over country."

For some reason, they have left me with the impression that they see the political divide as an "us" vs. "them" situation.

Special interests - all around - advocated for legislation favorable to their constituents.

And the powerful ones managed to keep things this way. That's why our Federal policy has long resembled what New Yorker's like instead of what "flyover country" likes.

You frame your arguments as though you consider that the American people (north and south) saw each other as mortal enemies.

I do not see American people either North or South to be inherent enemies. What I see are the entire American population being misled by "news" services that appear to be tools of special interest power blocks, and they are manipulating the American people to elect people friendly to this agenda.

You may not believe this, but I have probably written far more about how the Media systems in this country manipulate elections through manipulating the people of America, and I regard this ability as the number one threat facing the nation.

Nor do I believe that we are mortal enemies now. Just people with different perspectives and interests.

I fully agree. I also must say this is the most cognitive thing i've ever seen you write. I'm impressed.

[DiogenesLamp]

Where did you get that? That wasn't Buchanan's policy.

You are correct. Buchanan was very against this idea, but according to Union Captain Abner Doubleday, Secretary of War John Floyd told people this was going to happen.

http://discerninghistory.com/causes/6fortsumter/from-moultrie-sumter-doubleday

Presumably he did this without Buchanan being aware of it at the time.

[Team Cuda]

I’m confused. You seem to be saying that they already had all of the freedoms as members of the Union.

So, please tell me why the South seceded, thus starting a war that killed over 600,000 Americans. I mean, if they already had all of the freedoms as members of the Union, seceding seems kind of silly (not to mention treason). To quote Chester Nimitz, “The world wonders”.

[DiogenesLamp]

That’s instructive about sugar on that list.

I suppose our sugar production was mainly for domestic consumption?

I don't know, or have forgotten. I find it gets harder to remember all the details of things I used to could remember years ago. :)

That book has a lot of other interesting facts. Here's a link to the main cover of that book.

Southern Wealth and Northern Profits.

[rockrr]

I have to amend my original statement. I said “Slavery had either been outlawed or a path to emancipation was in effect in EVERY northern state at the outbreak of the war” but further research shows that to be inaccurate. Almost every state had a path to emancipation. Every state struggled with the proposition - to varying degrees of success. Every northern state had drawn down its slave populations, typically by manumission or “Selling them south”. Resistance to emancipation remained high in the border states and slavery advocates remained numerous and influential. Each of the border states showed an inclination toward abolition, but at a much slower rate than I was led to believe. Here is what I found state by state:

Maryland:

Maryland held a constitutional convention. A new state constitution was passed on November 1, 1864, and Article 24 prohibited the practice of slavery.

Missouri:

On January 11, 1865, the delegates of the state convention led by Charles Drake passed the immediate emancipation of all enslaved persons in Missouri.

Kentucky:

Controversial laws in 1815 and 1833 limited the importation of slaves into Kentucky, which created the strictest rules of any slave state. The Nonimportation Act of 1833 banned any importation of slaves for commercial or personal purpose. The ban was widely violated, especially in counties near the Tennessee border. Slavery was the principal issue that led to the third constitutional convention held in 1849 where the prohibition was repealed.

Delaware:

Delaware was a test case for Lincoln’s proposed compensated emancipation. President Lincoln focused on Delaware as a possible model for his compensated emancipation plans because there were less than 1800 slaves held in the state – fewer than 2% of its population. If it proved viable it would serve as an example of negotiated abolition. It failed - and cost Congressman George P. Fisher his seat in congress.

West Virginia:

Waitman T. Willey, a Senator of Virginia under the aegis of the Restored Government in Wheeling, composed an emancipation amendment to the constitution to be ratified by public vote on March 26, 1863. It became known as the Willey Amendment. It proved symbolic because the enactment of the 13th Amendment superseded it.

[DiogenesLamp]

I’m confused. You seem to be saying that they already had all of the freedoms as members of the Union.

I too am confused. You seemed to be saying that there was some other freedom which they wouldn't have in the Union.

What was that freedom they were seeking that they couldn't have in the Union?

[DiogenesLamp]

So, please tell me why the South seceded, thus starting a war that killed over 600,000 Americans.

The latest official account puts the number at 750,000 killed directly by the war, but how do you get "thus starting a war", from "South seceded"?

What about secession necessitates a war? Since the Declaration of Independence asserts this as a fundamental right, why should a nation object when other states wish to avail themselves of this right?

Why must there have been a war just because states want to leave? We offer Puerto rico a standing invitation to leave if they so chose. We allowed the Philippines to leave, and we allowed Cuba to leave. None of these countries leaving caused a war.

So why must a war be caused by leaving?

I mean, if they already had all of the freedoms as members of the Union, seceding seems kind of silly.

Yes it does, but that is what people are claiming when they say the South left to get more slavery.

Doesn't make sense. They already had slavery. Lincoln offered them even more protection for it, yet they still wanted to leave.

What they wanted must not have been more slavery.

[Team Cuda]

The Revolutionary War was not about slavery. I don’t believe slavery was even mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. We did not fight the British for our freedom for the purpose of maintaining slavery. The mere fact that we had slaves in did not in any way mean that we couldn’t fight for our freedom. The thought that one bad thing offsets all the good things is, on its face, ridiculous.

By the way, the comment about all the states being slave states, while technically true, is too cute by half. According to the 1790 census, both Vermont and Massachusetts had ZERO slaves, and New Hampshire had 151. Calling them slaves states is a little bit of a stretch.

The secession of the Southern states, on the other hand was about three things: maintaining slavery in the existing slave states, expanding slavery in the territories, and enforcing the fugitive slave act. If you think it was about any other thing, please point me to the part of the Articles of Secession from the states specifically mentioning those other things.

One of the tests I use when considering various theories about why the South seceded is the child’s game of 20 Questions. Take any claim regarding why the South seceded (The north invaded! We just want to be left alone!, etc., etc, etc) and play 20 questions, and see how many questions it takes to get to slavery. Betcha you don’t make it to double digits (if you’re honest).