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.

[FLT-bird]

Did they use eminent domain to do that? Or a rebellion? What was the legal mechanism by which they claimed crown property?

[FLT-bird]

The North didn’t go to war to end slavery. True. It went to war to preserve the Union. It won that fight. The South most certainly did. And it lost that fight. Why couldn’t the South have ended slavery on it’s own prior to 1861? And if the South had won the war would it have ended slavery? The South didn't go to war to preserve slavery. Slavery wasn't threatened. If anybody thought it was, the North offered slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment to draw them back in. They turned the offer down. As to the second question why "couldn't" the Southern states have ended slavery prior to 1861. They "could" have of course. Only about half of the western world had at that point. Connecticut did not abolish slavery until 1854. New Jersey had "apprentices for life" who were not free to leave in 1861. Its not like everybody in the the Western world had gotten rid of it yet so the Southern states were hardly alone in that. As to your third question, would slavery have ended in the Southern states had they gained their independence. I would ask where in the West did it survive for long after 1865? Russia still had Serfdom and Cuba and Brazil still had slavery but even Brazil by the early 1880s had gotten rid of it. Industrialization killed off slavery over the course of about 75 years everywhere in Europe and the Americas. The laws of economics applied in the Southern states just as they did elsewhere so of course it would have ended and ended before too long there too.

[FLT-bird]

Nothing in the Confederate constitution set tariff rates but I'll let that go for the moment. The Confederate constitution specifies tariff for revenue.

Henry Benning to the Virginia Secession Commission: "I have no idea that the duties will be as low as 10 per cent. My own opinion is that we shall have as high duty as is now charged by the General Government at Washington. If that matter is regarded as important by this Convention, why the door is open for negotiation with us. We have but a provisional and temporary government so far. If it be found that Virginia requires more protection than this upon any particular article of manufacture let her come in the spirit of a sister, to our Congress and say, we want more protection upon this or that article, and she will, I have no doubt, receive it. She will be met in the most fraternal and complying spirit." Speech of Henry Benning to the Virginia Secession Commission> So one guy in one state wanted the possibility of a higher tariff. Great.

Actually it says " taxes, duties, imposts, and excises for revenue, necessary to pay the debts, provide for the common defense, and carry on the Government of the Confederate States..." Nowhere does it set that at 10% for any of them. And nowhere does it say exigencies of war impacted any of the rates. It's all in your imagination. Key words "For revenue". That means maximum 10%. That was the standard definition of a revenue tariff. A protective tariff was more than 10%.

What does the Navigation Act have to do with Southern packet lines? I didn't say it did specifically.

It didn't do much to promote Southern lined before the rebellion, why would that change? Because being its own country it would have wanted navigation acts to have its own merchant marine for the same reason the USA implemented the Navigation Acts just like the British before them had done. Why did the Southern states not do it before? That had been outsourced to the Northern states which made sense if they were all in one country.

LOL! Sure. LOL! Sure they didn't.

The truth and your posts don't often collide. Only when I'm responding to your BS. Then its my truth vs your BS so there's no collision.

Stephens was very influential, was considered for the presidency, and was the vice-president. And as a congressman he would have known about federal revenue and expenditures. Stephens was so influential he sat at home in Georgia and nobody listened to him. He knew he'd be wasting his time in Richmond since....nobody was going to listen to him.

Charles Adams, Clyde Wilson, and the Kennedy brothers are hardly "almost all the tax experts".

They and others and of course hordes of Newspapers from all sides at that time. Strange all those Northern newspapers would say the South was providing the vast bulk of the exports if that wasn't the case. Yet that's exactly what they did as I showed.

When it comes to BS few rise to your level. Nah. I leave the BS to you. Your posts overflow with it.

[jmacusa]

You didn’t answer my question. If the war wasn't about slavery, in your view, would the South have ended or continued it? And why did the Confederacy enshrine slavery in it's Constitution?

[FLT-bird]

And this is exactly why all the British forts in 1776 still remain in British hands today! Derp! He walked right into that one. Notice how you can post a bunch of tax experts and a bunch of newspapers on all sides at the time saying one thing and he just responds with "no they weren't! Your posts are BS!" Hilarious.

[Bull Snipe]

The consequences of losing a war.

[jmacusa]

The North went to war to preserve the Union. The abolitionist movement was also a factor, many in the North wanted it ended. Slavery had been ended in the North. The South choose violent secession to preserve it.

[FLT-bird]

So, why did the Southern states secede? If not about slavery, it must have been about something else, unless we assume that everyone woke up one morning and said, “I’m bored, let’s secede!” Specifically, why did Mississippi chose to secede - please provide support from their Articles of Secession. Please provide the same for South Carolina, Texas, and Georgia. I am sure that I am misreading those documents and look forward to your correcting my reading.. Why did they secede? Mostly money - the same thing people almost always fight over. They knew they would be better off economically on their own. That's the same reason the North wanted them to remain in so badly. Read Rhett's address or Georgia's listing of its economic grievances. Texas had complaints about border security in addition to complaints about being financially bled dry by the Northern states.

[RegulatorCountry]

You didn’t answer my question. If the war wasn't about slavery, in your view, would the South have ended or continued it? And why did the Confederacy enshrine slavery in it's Constitution?

Would the north have ended slavery without a war-torn, disenfranchised and subjected south under military occupation to artificially vote to ratify the 13th? If you believe so, why didn't it? The war didn't end slavery in the north.

If a Constitutional Amendment was required in order to end slavery, then why do you believe that only the southern, Confederate constitution "enshrined" slavery?

It seems to me that you need to turn a critical eye upon your own beliefs, because they do not withstand even cursory scrutiny.

[RegulatorCountry]

Slavery had been ended in the North.

Those four Union slave states sort of undermine your contention.

[Mr Rogers]

“”Thank you! No further questions for this witness your honor.””

It helps to read the entire quote, and only a dishonest person refuses to do so:

“IOW, IF ATTACKED by shore batteries, do whatever is needed to defend the resupply efforts. Which would then require using cannons on the Charleston forts.”

If attacked by the South, they could respond. Which would have meant the South fired first to prevent a resupply mission. And that is what the South did, attacking the fort in order to take it before the resupply ships arrived.

“I don’t know why the Confederates thought they were going to be attacked.”

They didn’t. “Davis and his cabinet were thus left with two choices: permit Fox’s fleet to carry out its mission to Fort Sumter, which would allow Anderson’s troops to man the outpost for several more months; or attack the garrison before the supplies could be delivered and risk triggering an all-out war with the Union.

Some Confederate leaders cautioned against launching any attack on Fort Sumter. “The firing on that fort will inaugurate a civil war greater than any the world has yet seen,” warned Confederate secretary of state Robert Toombs (1810-1885). “You will wantonly strike a hornet’s nest which extends from mountains to ocean, and legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death.” But Davis and many other leaders believed that the Confederacy needed to take a strong stand. On April 10, Beauregard was ordered to take the fort by force if he could not convince Anderson to surrender willingly.”

Please notice the Cabinet was NOT worried the Union was going to attack Charleston, but that they would resupply Fort Sumner. The debate was not to defend themselves from an attack on the city, which they knew was not coming, but if they should INITIATE attack on a resupply mission.

This is like debating a delusional person who claims there are two suns in the sky, but only HE can see them!

[FLT-bird]

You didn’t answer my question. If the war wasn't about slavery, in your view, would the South have ended or continued it? And why did the Confederacy enshrine slavery in it's Constitution? Oh but I did answer your question. It would have ended in the Southern states before too much longer just like it ended everywhere else in the Western world before too much longer. Why did the Confederacy enshrine slavery in its Constitution just like Lincoln and the North offered to do with the US Constitution? Explicitly I mean since we all know the US Constitution had a fugitive slave clause and the 3/5s compromise. I dunno. Chits and giggles perhaps.

[FLT-bird]

The North went to war to preserve the Union. The abolitionist movement was also a factor, many in the North wanted it ended. Slavery had been ended in the North. The South choose violent secession to preserve it. False. Abolitionists routinely got drubbed in elections in the North. The vast vast majority of the population including Lincoln were not abolitionists. The South did not choose violent secession. They seceded peacefully. Furthermore they did not choose secession to preserve slavery. Slavery was not threatened. If anybody thought it was, the North offered to expressly protect slavery in the US Constitution effectively forever. So much for abolitionism have much influence up North.

[FLT-bird]

I wondered when somebody was going to break that to him.

Its been hilarious watching him use that totally incorrectly for hours and hours obviously not having a clue what it actually meant....ie “Collaborator”.

Derp.

[jmacusa]

Bombarding Ft. Sumter wasn't contiguous with violent secession? Not buying your argument. And as I asked, would the South have ended slavery with the war?

[jmacusa]

Your side likes to use the argument of ‘’states rights’’ over the issue of secession. Well, which states rights specifically were worth splitting the nation in two and causing the deaths over some 700,000 people?

[FLT-bird]

Bombarding Ft. Sumter wasn't contiguous with violent secession? Not buying your argument. And as I asked, would the South have ended slavery with the war? They seceded peacefully and democratically. By the time of Ft Sumter, they had already seceded. And about Sumter, it was Lincoln who sent a heavily armed flotilla into South Carolina's territorial waters with the deliberate intent to start a war. Lincoln was the aggressor. Would the Southern states have ended slavery with the war? Well they did appoint an ambassador to Britain and France with plenipotentiary power to agree to a treaty that would have seen the CSA abolish slavery so they were willing to abolish it during the war.

[FLT-bird]

Your side likes to use the argument of ‘’states rights’’ over the issue of secession. Well, which states rights specifically were worth splitting the nation in two and causing the deaths over some 700,000 people?

The right to self government.

[Pikachu_Dad]

Dear scalawag,

Try again. Next time use a real dictionary.

Your masters are not going to be happy with you if this is the best you can do.

[Bull Snipe]

“The right to self government”

Exactly what had the Buchanan Administration done to limit self Government in the South