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.

[Team Cuda]

OK - we kind of went off an a tangent here. We spent a long time arguing about whether or not slavery was the cause of secession (spoiler: it was). And now we are at “no document before Fort Sumter made such a claim (that injury & oppression) because it wan’t remotely true then.” So, just to be clear, your are now claiming that injury and oppression (either one) was not a cause for secession for the first 7 states? So what was the cause of their secession? (Hint: slavery).

Then you say “Indeed, the records show that Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee & Arkansas were the reasons Jefferson Davis ordered war on Fort Sumter, not “money flows from Europe”” WTF? How is this on topic to the question of whether or not slavery was the root cause of secession?

So, to prevent us from going too far afield, my argument is as follow:

Slavery (maintaining slavery in the existing states, expansion of slavery into the territories, and enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act) was the primary cause of secession. While there were other elements of friction between the North and South, slavery was the overriding issue.

The reason the South was fighting was to defend slavery. The Union was fighting to maintain the Union (yes, Virginia, two different sides can have different reasons for fighting). Any discussions regarding the Corwin Amendment, or various northern newspaper editorials is immaterial, as the Union was not (originally) fighting to end slavery.

This Southern reasons for secession was clearly stated in 100% of those Articles of Secession that listed a reason. Those that did not list a specific reason either implied slavery, or did not state a reason.

The Articles of Secession, as published by the various state legislature, were an accurate rendering of the reasons they chose to secede. it was not mere “blather” hiding their real reason, it was the reason (why would they have wanted to hide their real reason, anyway?).

The item that started us towards war (what I call the cause of the war), was the various states choosing to secede. There had been many issues, such as tariffs, in the past, but the tipping point was the passing of Articles of Secession. Anything else that occurred after the passing of those articles (Fort Sumter) was the result of the Articles of Secession. BTW it appears that you’re claiming that “Jefferson Davis ordered war on Fort Sumter”. In earlier posts your’re claiming that Lincoln started the war by wanting to resupply Fort Sumter. How does this jive with your statement that Davis ordered WAR on Fort Sumter?

I hope this helps us keep on topic.

I would like to see the “records” that show Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee & Arkansas were the reasons Jeff Davis ordered war on Fort Sumter.

I don’t have a clue what you mean by money flows from Europe.

BTW - I’m still waiting on your definition of “teeny tiny”. I’m not looking for an exact number, maybe just a range of percentages. Would it be something like 1% 0 3%?

[DiogenesLamp]

No. You need to look up what I told you about Lieutenant David Dixon Porter. You need to stop playing this silly game where you ignore evidence and simply regurgitate the same old crap people have been spouting for years.

Lieutenant Porter was trying to start a ware with direct attacks on the Confederates.

Stop brushing this away because it doesn't fit in with what you wish to believe.

[DiogenesLamp]

+1.

[DiogenesLamp]

Thanks. That one is pretty good.

[DiogenesLamp]

"It is the inordinate political ambition of the southern politicians which is the cause of the rebellion"

Politicians creating an issue through which they see a path to power? Absolutely. Yes they do.

[NKP_Vet]

“Americans celebrate Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, but H.L. Mencken correctly evaluated the speech, “It is poetry not logic; beauty, not sense.” Lincoln said that the soldiers sacrificed their lives “to the cause of self-determination — government of the people, by the people, for the people should not perish from the earth.” Mencken says: “It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of people to govern themselves.”

https://www.capitalismmagazine.com/2002/04/do-states-have-a-right-of-secession/

[DiogenesLamp]

I do find it very interesting that your argument has (in a manner of speaking) “evolved” from “nobody gave a sh*t about the slaves” to, “it was just a teeny tiny minority”. I take from this that you concede that some people clearly did give a sh*t about the slaves, even if, in your words, it was just a teeny tiny minority.

You are taking me a bit out of context here. My point when I say "nobody gave a sh*t about slaves" refers to the people who claimed to give a sh*t about them. I assumed most people understood that the slaveholders didn't give a sh*t about slave freedom, it was the Northern states that made this claim.

Nobody in positions of power in the North gave a sh*t about the slaves until it became politically advantageous and militarily useful for them to pretend they were doing some great and noble thing, which they had previously had no intention of doing.

I hope that clears things up for you.

so I looked at various statistics. 4 out of 11 states is 36%, or over a third.

In a Democratic Republic, it takes over 50% to have any significance. If you don't have 50% support for something, you have a 100% loss on any vote.

Again, it is your side that is desperate to have the minority speak for the majority, and not because you are concerned about truth. You want this minority of states to speak for the rest, because it fits the narrative you wish to believe.

I find it very interesting that you consider the words of one newspaper editor to be gospel, but discount the written word of 4 state legislatures.

The Newspapers were on the other side. The politicians of course were trying to gain power and didn't want people to see beyond what they wished them to believe.

Apart from that, what the Newspapers said better fits with the economic reality of the situation. Southern independence was clearly a serious economic threat to established money powers in the North.

Another point that’s been bothering me is your insistence that the southern legislatures were using slavery as blather to cover up their real intent. Why?

You are going to move 230 million dollars per year out of the pockets of the most powerful people in America. Do you think bringing their attention to this fact is helpful or unhelpful to your efforts to get that money?

Yes, I would tell them it was about broiled snake bellies in China before I would give a hint I was going to screw them over financially.

Of course, anyone thinking that the top businessmen in America wouldn't notice a serious threat to their pocket book is just a fool. Perhaps they thought if the public didn't notice, they could get away with it, but the business people were absolutely going to notice what was going to happen to their money.

[BroJoeK]

NKP_Vet: "The Lincoln myth crowd relies on generalities to back up their claims such as “the states” vs the truth like “some states”. "

No, we're not here to sell you a "Lincoln myth", only to correct the factual errors you insist on posting, over & over.
As for "the states" vs. "some states" -- you'll need to be more specific on that.

NKP_Vet: "and MOST importantly they can not separate the term seccesion from the term war

No I think that's your problem, not ours.

What you can't face is the fact that neither President Buchanan nor Lincoln took any military actions to stop secession or the Confederacy.
War only came because Jefferson Davis ordered Fort Sumter "reduced".
So war didn't start over secession but rather over Confederate aggression against the United States.
You keep telling us it was secession, but it wasn't.

NKP_Vet: "Case in point it does not matter why a state left nor if they mentioned slavery or not it was legal"

Yes, it matters first because you keep falsely claiming it wasn't about slavery, when all the documents we have say it was.
So right off the bat you start with a Big Lie, and we have to correct that.

It matters second because our Founders never supported or authorized an unlimited "right of secession" at pleasure, meaning for any reason at all, or, indeed, for no particular reason.
That's not what our Founders said, ever.
So there's a second of your Big Lies we have to correct.

It matters third because the legality or illegality of secession was not the direct cause of Civil War, Fort Sumter was.
So even if we were to somehow concede your secession claims, you still have Civil War and Confederate refusals to accept any terms better than Unconditional Surrender.

NKP_Vet: and indeed the Corwin Amendment the north wanted and passed to entice the states to return made it LEGAL forever."

Lost Causers here grossly misrepresent Corwin with still more Big Lies.
In fact Corwin began as one of several Democrat efforts to find a "compromise" to keep more States from succeeding.
Mississippi Democrat Senator Jefferson Davis proposed a version in December 1860 to keep his own state from secession.
Corwin itself was supported by 100% of Democrats, opposed by a majority of Republicans, signed not by Lincoln but by President Buchanan.
So Corwin was just Democrats hoping to keep their fellow Southern Democrats from secession.
Corwin was the only such proposal Lincoln didn't oppose because, he said, it made no real changes in the status quo.

NKP_Vet: "And...secession is secession; it is NOT war.
War is when you fully know if you send a resupply ship to a fort in a city’s harbor it will be shot at.
War is doing this while one of your echelons tells the Virginia peace commission that you are going to have the soldiers exit."

No, you start war by seizing dozens of major Federal properties, from forts to ships, arsenals and mints, threatening Federal officials, demanding surrender of Union troops in Union Forts, then ordering a fort "reduced" when they refuse to surrender.

Lincoln's resupply mission is totally irrelevant to the fact that Jefferson Davis intended to start war at Fort Sumter and/or Fort Pickens regardless of what Lincoln did or didn't do.

As for your "Virginia peace commissioners", Lincoln himself offered them Fort Sumter, free & clear, no shots to be fired, in exchange for something of equal value to the Union.
Virginians turned down Lincoln's offer.

NKP_Vet: "War is getting your first shot then calling for 75,000 troops to invade and kill Americans.
That is war; not secession."

If Lincoln's April call-up of 75,000 Union troops was an act of war, then why was the Confederate call up of 100,000 Confederate troops a month earlier not also an act of war?
The fact is Confederates:

1. provoked war -- seized dozens of Federal properties.
2. Started war -- at Fort Sumter
3. Declared war -- May 6, 1861
4. Waged war -- more in Union states & territories than Confederate, the first 12 months.
5. Refused to accept any terms better than Unconditional Surrender.

So, bottom line: war is when you attack a country's troops in their own Fort after demanding their surrender, especially after you've been told they would not surrender without a fight.

[OIFVeteran]

I think you missed the point of my post. I was showing how a previous President responded to a threat of nullification/secession therefore establishing a precedent upon which other Presidents could base their actions on. This was Andrew Jackson’s response to South Carolina during the nullification crisis.

I would even say that Andrew Jackson was following a precedent set by George Washington in his response to the whiskey rebellion. Though the whiskey rebellion didn’t involve an entire state the same principle would have applied if it did.

[BroJoeK]

OIFVeteran: "I would even say that Andrew Jackson was following a precedent set by George Washington in his response to the whiskey rebellion."

Indeed, the new 1787 Constitution was first framed in response, at least in part, to the nation's failures during the 1786 Whiskey Rebellion.

Further, every early President faced some form of rebellion or secession threat, including:

1. George Washington: Whiskey Rebellion, called up the US Army to suppress it.

2. John Adams: Quasi War with France, Alien & Sedition Acts to suppress Americans with French sympathies.

3. Thomas Jefferson: Secession threatened by former VP Aaron Burr, Jefferson had Burr arrested & tried for treason.

4. James Madison: Hartford Convention threatened secession, Madison moved US Army from border frontier with Canada to position near New England in case of rebellion.

I'm not aware of any similar events under Monroe or JQ Adams, but Andrew Jackson famously faced down South Carolina in the 1830 Nullification crisis, sending a war fleet (horrors! a war fleet!) to Charleston Harbor and this message:

"...please give my compliments to my friends in your State and say to them, that if a single drop of blood shall be shed there in opposition to the laws of the United States, I will hang the first man I can lay my hand on engaged in such treasonable conduct, upon the first tree I can reach.[68] "

Bottom line: our Founders in no way ever supported unilateral secession or rebellion, at pleasure.

[BroJoeK]

NKP_vet: "In the 60s and 70s many Southern democrat politicians, from Strom Thurmond to Jesse Helms, switched parties and became republican."

Some did, many more did not -- from Texas Lyndon Johnson to West Virginia's Senator KKK Byrd.
How conservative were those new Republicans?
Well how much Federal "free stuff" are they known to have turned down?
So I'm not saying some Southerners weren't conservatives, but more conservative than everyone else?

Naw, they weren't.

[Mr Rogers]

“Lieutenant Porter was trying to start a ware with direct attacks on the Confederates.”

Who fired the first shots?

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lieutenant Porter did not. Neither did Lincoln. No sane person doubts it was the South who first attacked. Perhaps no other fact of the war is as well established or as undebatable as that!

This is like debating a 3 year old. But Lost Causers aren’t big on history. Never have been. They don’t like to admit the South fought for slavery, either.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "Nevermind that the West was totally unsuited for Cotton or Tobacco production.
So....they were really motivated by the desire to spread slavery and they seceded so that they could spread slavery...even though when they seceded they made utterly no claim to the territory of the US and left only with their own sovereign territory within their own state borders."

DiogenesLamp: "Yes, it's circular reasoning bullsh*t.
They would immediately see what was wrong with what they are claiming if they weren't so intent on trying to believe it."

The spread of slavery in US territories was a core issue in the 1860 presidential election.
Lincoln opposed it, other candidates supported it to one degree or another.
It was also a reason for secession, mentioned by Robert Rhett in his Address to Slaveholding States:

"If it is right to preclude or abolish Slavery in a territory, why should it be allowed to remain in the States?"

Georgia also mention the territories:

"They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic...

...Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation and demanded the prompt and efficient exercise of this power to that end. This insulting and unconstitutional demand was met with great moderation and firmness by the South."

As did Texas:

"The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean,"

So, it wasn't just Republicans who thought slavery in the territories an important issue, so did secessionists.

As for Confederate claims on Western territories, sure, nothing said about that on Day One, but in early 1861 Confederates began military operations aimed at both Oklahoma and New Mexico.

[BroJoeK]

I think we agree on most everything and apologize for any confusion.

Sure, you can say secession caused war, but arguably there was no war before Fort Sumter, so I focus on that — Why did it happen?
Lost Causers tell us it was Lincoln’s “war fleet” which forced peaceloving Jefferson Davis to order the fort “reduced”.
But we have a pre-Sumter quote from Davis himself saying, in effect, he intends to start war at Sumter regardless.
Will post that to you later.

A second point I make is the sharp distinction between Reasons for Secession before & after Sumter.
And it’s important to remember that before Fort Sumter states like Virginia refused to secede just over slavery or tariffs or Black Republicans.
But after Sumter Virginia could claim, at least in their own minds, “injury or oppression” as specified in their Constitution ratification.

So Virginia at least had a constitutionally identifiable “necessity” while none of the previous seven seceded states did.

Anyway, must run now, will check back in later.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "Just as predicted.
Your utter obsession would not permit you to avoid trying despera tely to drag me in to your endless BS postings."

I'm not impressed with your "predictions".
And your refusal to respond merely suggests you have no good responses.
Nevertheless, Free Republic protocol suggests I address you if I mention you in my post.
But it's not an iron clad rule and can be ignored when n3cessary.

[rustbucket]

Who fired the first shots?

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lieutenant Porter did not. Neither did Lincoln. No sane person doubts it was the South who first attacked. Perhaps no other fact of the war is as well established or as undebatable as that!

This is like debating a 3 year old. But Lost Causers aren’t big on history. Never have been. They don’t like to admit the South fought for slavery, either.

Since you apparently consider yourself "big on history," I recommend the following book to you, "Reassessing the Presidency" published in 2001 by the Ludwig von Mises Institute. It is a collection of essays about former presidents and their policies and actions. Among the essays is one by John V. Denson entitled, "Abraham Lincoln and the First Shot: A Study of Deceit and Deception."

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

And it’s important to remember that before Fort Sumter states like Virginia refused to secede just over slavery or tariffs or Black Republicans. But after Sumter Virginia could claim, at least in their own minds, “injury or oppression” as specified in their Constitution ratification.

Which is also one of the major reasons Davis ordered the attack on Sumter. He needed North Carolina and Virginia in the confederacy, and he knew that once that once the shooting started, they'd join him. Roger Pryor, a pro-secession Virginia politician made a speech in recorded in the Charleston papers: "As sure as tomorrow’s sun will rise upon us, just so sure will Virginia be a member of the southern confederation. And I will tell you, gentlemen, what will put her in the southern confederacy in less than an hour by Shrewsbury clock--STRIKE A BLOW! The very moment that blood is shed, old Virginia will make common cause with her sisters of the south. It is impossible she should do otherwise."

Jefferson Davis needed war because he needed Virginia.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Among the essays is one by John V. Denson entitled, "Abraham Lincoln and the First Shot: A Study of Deceit and Deception."

Ah, the old "That crafty Lincoln tricked us into bombarding a fort into submission" excuse.

[Mr Rogers]

Lincoln strongly suspected his resupply mission would result in an attack on Union forces. He WANTED the South to shoot first. But he could not MAKE the South shoot first. That decision - to start the war by attacking Ft Sumter - was made by the political leaders of the South.

No, the attack did not surprise Lincoln. But in the end, it was not LINCOLN who ordered the cannons to start firing! He could not. The South made a conscious choice to fire first.

[rustbucket]

Ah, the old "That crafty Lincoln tricked us into bombarding a fort into submission" excuse.

It is not an "excuse." My own opinion was that Lincoln was very smart and indeed very calculating and "crafty." He manipulated the country into war.

Lincoln and the Republicans had run on increasing the tariff. The Morrill Tariff which benefited Northern manufacturers at the expense of the South was passed by Republicans and signed by Buchanan on March 2, 1861. It actually posed a huge economic threat to the North. The Confederacy had passed a tariff bill of their own in February 1861 that essentially matched the then existing 1857 US tariff. The Morrill Tariff greatly increased the US tariff and thus created the two-tariff problem that threatened tariff revenue to the US. Imports to Northern port cities immediately started falling, and northern import businesses started failing. There were cries in the Northern press to blockade Southern ports so they wouldn't take away business from the North. A blockade of Southern ports could solve the two-tariff problem.

Lincoln was smart enough to quickly realize early on the financial problem the US would have once and if the South seceded. He had quietly approached General Scott, who was then serving under President Buchanan, and asked/suggested Scott make moves to hold or defend the forts. Fort Sumter could control Charleston Harbor and enforce a blockade, if one were needed. And a blockade might indeed be needed if the high tariff the Republicans wanted became law and the South became an independent country with a lower tariff (both of which came to pass).

How was Lincoln to protect the revenue of his Northern government? His answer was answer was to let Congress adjourn sine die on March 28, 1861 (Link on meaning of sine die) in March 1861. This meant that Congress could not legally reconvene until December unless Lincoln called them into session, which he didn't until July 4th after he had declared a blockade, called for 75,000 troops to invade the South, and did invade the South. Lincoln's blockade proclamation was the start of the war according to the US Supreme Court.

The same day that Lincoln told the Senate he had nothing further of importance to tell them and they could adjourn (which they did sine die), Lincoln had a draft prepared of the then secret plan to resupply (and if you believe General Scott, "reinforce") Fort Sumter.

Lincoln did not want peace. As he told a delegation of 30 people from Baltimore who urged peace after the attack on Fort Sumter Link to the full content of the Baltimore Sun article in post 328:

"And what is to become of the revenue? I shall have no government -- no resources."

So, how could Lincoln provoke war with the South so that he could blockade Southern ports and not have the war be blamed on him? He tried to start war at Fort Pickens by without telling the other side thereby breaking a truce there that had been negotiated by the previous US administration. When that did not happen at Fort Pickens, he focused on Fort Sumter. He sent warships, soldiers, and supplies to Fort Sumter knowing that the South would fire on those ships and/or attack the fort. He got his political objective by putting Major Anderson and the US soldiers in Fort Sumter at the risk of being killed by the bombardment.

As I have posted before, Lincoln's cabinet and generals had told him that sending such an expedition to Fort Sumter would result in a shooting war. According to the essay I referred to above, a March 27 letter to one of the cabinet members was, according to the essay, "undoubtedly discussed" with the cabinet along with other letters and editorials. The essay quotes the letter as follows:

In the name of God! why not hold the fort? Will reinforcing & holding it cause the rebels to attack it, and thus bring on "civil war"? What of it? That is just what the government ought to wish to bring about, and ought to do all it can ... to bring about. Let them attack the Fort if they will - it will then be them that commence the war.