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.

[rustbucket]

[me]You want me to attempt to "prove a negative"? lol

The declining federal revenue shows Lincoln was smart to worry about it. As my quotes above indicate the Morrill Tariff started having a negative effect on port businesses even before Lincoln was inaugurated. Lincoln would have been an idiot not to have worried about "his" revenue. And he was no idiot (on that part you probably agree).

Here's data on the change in the value of imports at the Port of New York from 1860 to 1861 on a monthly basis [Source of the data that went into my calculation: the 1865 Appleton's]:

Month ... % change from 1860 to 1861
Jan ..... 23.5
Feb ..... -15.6
Mar ..... -22.8
Apr ..... -12.3
May ..... -11.5
Jun ..... -34.0
Jul ..... -40.0
Aug ..... -65.7
Sep ..... -55.1
Oct ..... -49.2
Nov ..... -37.5
Dec ..... -54.8

Nope, Lincoln had no reason to worry about revenue. < /sarc >

It isn't "sworn testimony" - it is a 3rd hand account of a meeting that was written several years after the fact.

???? It was a first hand account of his meeting with Lincoln given to a Congressional Committee by Colonel Baldwin, a pro-Union delegate at then ongoing Virginia Secession Convention. He had been invited to come meet with Lincoln, which he did on April 4, 1861. (Lying to Congress is a crime, at least it is now.)

Baldwin's testimony to Congress which includes Baldwin's statement: "Well," said he [Lincoln], "what about the revenue? What would I do about the collection of duties?"

That's a reasonable question on Lincoln's part.

Perhaps you are thinking of Baldwin's Memoir as reported by Robert L Dabney in 1876 (based on an 1865 interview with Baldwin) and also reported his book, "Discussions with Robert L. Dabney, Volume 4." Here is an excerpt of the 1876 article and a confirmation of its substantial correctness by someone Baldwin told when he returned from Washington in April 1861. Lincoln's words below are shown in bold red font. [Source: see Link].

Lincoln seemed impressed by his solemnity, and asked a few questions: "But what am I to do meantime with those men at Montgomery? Am I to let them go on?" "Yes, sir," replied Colonel Baldwin, decisively, "until they can be peaceably brought back." "And open Charleston, &c., as ports of entry, with their ten per cent. tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?" This last question he announced with such emphasis, as showed that in his view it decided the whole matter. He then indicated that the interview was at an end, and dismissed Colonel Baldwin, without promising anything more definite.

In order to confirm the accuracy of my own memory, I have submitted the above narrative to the Honorable A. H. H. Stuart, Colonel Baldwin's neighbor and political associate, and the only surviving member of the commission soon after sent from the Virginia Convention to Washington. In a letter to me, he says: "When Colonel Baldwin returned to Richmond, he reported to the four gentlemen above named, and to Mr. Samuel Price, of Greenbrier, the substance of his interview with Lincoln substantially as he stated it to you."

[rustbucket]

Slight correction for clarity:

???? It was a first hand account of his meeting with Lincoln given to a Congressional Committee by Colonel Baldwin, a pro-Union delegate at then (i.e., when he met with Lincoln) ongoing Virginia Secession Convention. He had been invited to come meet with Lincoln, which he did on April 4, 1861. (Lying to Congress is a crime, at least it is now.)

[DoodleDawg]

Here's data on the change in the value of imports at the Port of New York from 1860 to 1861 on a monthly basis.

Do you have that data for 1861 to 1862, or 1862 to 1863, or 1863 to 1864? I'm just curious if the drop in trade was permanent or whether it was a result of the first year of the rebellion.

[BroJoeK]

rustbucket: "Baldwin's sworn testimony was verified by others in Virginia to whom he told exactly the same things shortly after meeting with Lincoln."

There are no contemporary records of Baldwin's conversation with Lincoln, then by the time of CSA Col. Baldwin's post-war testimony Lincoln was dead and manufacturing the Lost Cause myth was well under way.
Non-Confederate sources do not confirm what Confederates said of Lincoln's views.

Of course Lincoln would be concerned about Federal revenues, how could he not be?
But our Lost Causers wish us to believe that was his main concern, indeed his only real issue in deciding a course of action regarding Forts Sumter & Pickens.
Such exaggerated claims are not supported by the verified historical record.

rustbucket: "With respect to the one hour long meeting Lincoln had with the 30 members of the Baltimore Young Men's Christian Associations, have you found any reports that members of that delegation disavowed what the Baltimore Sun and The Daily Exchange of Baltimore said of the meeting were not true or that Baldwin's testimony was false?
No?
We are supposed to believe you instead?"

Obviously, you will believe what you wish to believe, but in both cases, the reports are not verified by contemporary accounts and are indeed contradicted by verified reports.
There are no verified reports saying Federal revenues from Charleston Harbor (much less Pensacola!) were the "real issue" behind Lincoln's choice of sending a resupply mission to Fort Sumter.
Indeed, Lincoln's offer to Virginians to surrender Fort Sumter in exchange for their loyalty suggests something far different from mere tariff revenues motivated Lincoln.

rustbucket: "I recognize that Baldwin's testimony and two reports of the meeting with the Baltimore YMCA group lay bare in Lincoln's own words why Lincoln didn't want peace."

First, for sake of discussion, let's begin by reposting your three links to contemporary articles on the Baltimore YMCA meeting:

• Alexandria, VA Gazette, April 24, 1861

• Newburn NC Weekly Progress April 30, 1861

• Raleigh NC Weekly Standard, May 1, 1861

Second, you call it a "one hour long meeting" but I didn't see "one hour" in any of the articles.
Regardless, the news reports reduced that "one hour" conversation to just a few alleged words from Lincoln:

"What is to become of the revenue? I shall have no government, no resources."

This supposedly in response to one Dr. Fuller's advice that Lincoln should immediately recognize the Confederacy.
Any other discussion is hidden behind the comment,

"our informant could not follow the exact turn of remark."

So it appears to me we are talking at best about words taken out of context and thus given importance Lincoln may never have intended.
Certainly there's nothing in Lincoln's prepared remarks suggesting concerns over revenues to the exclusion of all other issues.

Finally, when it comes to CSA Col. Baldwin's post-war testimony -- see here now we're talking about not the generalized subject of recognizing the Confederacy, but the specific issue of Fort Sumter.
And on this Baldwin claimed Lincoln thought he could get "fifty or sixty million per year".
Bottom line: again there's no verified contemporary confirmation that Federal revenues were the prime motivators for Lincoln's actions at Fort Sumter, or elsewhere.

rustbucket: "Thomas Prentice Kettell, in his 1860 book, "Southern Wealth and Northern Profits," estimates on page 74 that based on annual reports of the Secretary of the Treasury on import consumption in the different regions of the US that $106 million of the 1859 total import of $318 million was consumed by the South. "

This will come as disturbing news to Lost Causers like DiogenesLamp who claim that Southerners "paid for", iirc, 75% to 87% of Federal tariff revenues.
Your numbers suggest it was only 1/3 and that was from the entire South, including Union states.
So let's estimate the Deep South original 7-state Confederacy took half of that, generating less than 20% of Federal tariff revenues.
I'd say such numbers put the entire issue in its proper context & perspective.

rustbucket: "In addition to that, he estimates, based on earlier figures for how much the South spent on Northern manufactured goods, that the South bought $240 million worth of those Northern goods in 1859. "

Right, elsewhere I've seen the estimate of $200 million per year of Northern "exports" to the South and such numbers explain how Northerners earned money to pay for at least half of US total imports.

rustbucket: "So, if the South started importing those foreign goods directly into their ports (i.e., Southern ports where the tariff was considerably less than the tariff in New York), Lincoln's tariff revenue could fall by as much as a third and maybe more if imports into Southern ports were smuggled into the North to avoid the Northern tariff. "

And this is the point at which the conversation leaves the grounds of reality and enters into flights of fantasy & hyperbole.
And I'll only grant you that at the time some people also entertained such fantasies or exaggerated fears.
But in reality, nothing like that could happen, for several reasons.

1. The first Confederate tariff passed on March 15, 1861 sets a rate of 15% on several dozen items.
   This was lower than the new Union Morrill Tariff and so might redirect <20% of Union imports from, say, New York directly to their Deep South Confederate customers.

2. However, there would be no incentives for merchants to import first to, say, New Orleans for re-export to, say, Chicago because that would require paying two tariffs -- both the Confederate and Union tariff.
   Goods intended for Chicago would be cheaper imported through Union ports, river, lake & rail transportation.

3. Confederate imports of Union goods would suffer from Confederate tariffs, but such tariffs applied equally to goods produced in Europe, so it's not at all clear which products might win competitive advantages.

rustbucket: "But you seem convinced that Lincoln somehow wasn't concerned about that potential loss in federal revenue.
If so, would you please explain how you reach that conclusion. "

No, you have it backwards.
It's our Lost Causers who post insane graphics maniacally insisting Lincoln's actions were all about, only about, only ever concerned with "money, money, money".
They tell us Lincoln didn't care a whit about preserving the Union, certainly didn't give an Adam Schiff about slavery, and totally trashed our Founding Fathers in his utter devotion to "money, money, money".

I have merely pointed out that Lincoln never gave "money, money, money" as his reasons for any specific action or inaction.
What he said instead was:

1. Suppress the rebellion
2. Preserve the Union
3. New birth of freedom

[rockrr]

What reason would a New York newspaper have to lie about it?

You should know better than that by now.

[rockrr]

No warships. No war.

I guess you don't know better than that ;'}

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Inevitably, there were contests for the limited resources for these projects.
Welles intended the navy’s most powerful steamer, the Powhatan, to be part of Fox’s fleet, but Seward wanted it for Meig’s expedition.
Placing an order assigning the ship to the Pickens fleet before the President in a pile of other documents, he got Lincoln’s signature."

A careful reading of the history shows that orders for the Seward/Porter/Powhattan mission to Pensacola came before the Welles/Fox/Powhattan mission to Charleston.
It also shows that Navy Secretary Welles didn't know about the Pensacola mission when he assigned Powhattan to Charleston.
And when Lincoln first learned of the confused orders he himself accepted responsibility and revoked Powhattan's mission to Pensacola.
But the order revoking his Pensacola mission was ignored by Lt. Porter because, he said, they were from just Seward, not the President.

Regardless, as it all turned out:

1. Powhattan proved irrelevant to the success of the Pensacola/Fort Pickens mission -- it would have succeeded without Powhattan, much to Lt. Porter's chagrin.

2. Powhattan also had nothing to do with the failure of the Charleston/Fort Sumter mission -- it would have still failed, even with Powhattan on site.

DiogenesLamp: "It's as if we aren't even speaking the same language.
I just showed you conclusive proof that the reassigning of the Powhatan with secret orders was deliberate, because Lincoln hand wrote the orders relieving Captain Mercer of his duty, and what do you do?
You come right back with that "accident" bullsh*t. "

Lincoln's orders to Porter/Powhattan were indeed kept secret from Secretary of Navy Welles, but by Secretary of State Seward, whom Lincoln directed to coordinate with Welles.
Seward failed to do it and Lincoln failed to notice Powhattan in the orders Welles handed him to sign.
And from this typical bureaucratic SNAFU DiogenesLamp has concocted yet another cockamamie Lost Cause fantasy.

DiogenesLamp: "Why should I even bother trying when your willingness to believe something contradicted by facts is so overpowering for you?"

DiogenesLamp's legendary devotion to Lost Cause fantasies over mere historical facts is simply outside the realm of any credible explanation.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "I'm not interested in reading something that is irrelevant to the point I made.
Keep your focus on Porter, and Porter alone.
Do not attempt to side track this discussion with details irrelevant to the point I am trying to make.
Porter went to Pensacola with the intent to start the war.
He did so with hand carried secret orders hand written by Lincoln himself."

Union Col. Brown and Capt. Meigs were both in on Porter's secret mission to Fort Pickens.
They arrived aboard USS Brooklyn a day before Porter & Powhatan and completed their mission without Powhatan's help.
When Porter & Powhatan arrived on April 17, Brown sent Meigs in a boat to physically stop Porter from entering the harbor there because, he said:

"It will bring the fire of the enemy on the fort before we are prepared."

So, there's no actual record of shots being fired near Fort Pickens by either Porter or Confederates.
So whatever "secret orders" Porter had, his actual mission to Pensacola was accomplished without them.

Of course DiogenesLamp's devotion to Lost Cause fantasies is so strong it cannot be dampened by mere facts or lack of evidence.

[DiogenesLamp]

You should know better than that by now.

From this response it appears that you do believe a Northern Newspaper lied about it. With that bit of information, I assume you believe this New York Newspaper was some sort of ally to of the Cotton states.

Okay then. I really don't have any counter to that sort of response.

[DiogenesLamp]

I guess you don't know better than that ;'}

There are a half dozen people saying that sending those warships would trigger a war. Lincoln was informed, and chose to do it anyway.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Still noise. Not going to read it. Waste of time."

DiogenesLamp, like FLT-bird you're a bully and a coward.
You love to lord it over posters you imagine susceptible to your lies, but run for the hills when actual facts get posted here.

In short, you're a typical Democrat, nothing but lies.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Lincoln started the war for power and money.
The reason they cannot see it is because they do not wish to see it. "

Like all Democrats DiogenesLamp simply projects his own inner-psyche onto Republicans, regardless of lack of evidence & evidence to the contrary.

[DiogenesLamp]

"Pearl Harbor" is all I need to know about your sort of "facts."

You just don't have much credibility. You are a cheerleader, and pretty much nothing else.

[rockrr]

You just don't have much credibility.

Pot=kettle. Now what?

[donaldo]

“THE CAUSE of the great War of the Rebellion against the United Status will have to be attributed to slavery. For some years before the war began it was a trite saying among some politicians that “A state half slave and half free cannot exist.” All must become slave or all free, or the state will go down. I took no part myself in any such view of the case at the time, but since the war is over, reviewing the whole question, I have come to the conclusion that the saying is quite true.”

Ulysses S. Grant, Personal Memoirs

[DiogenesLamp]

Pot=kettle. Now what?

Your informing me that I have no credibility with you is not a new revelation. I figured that out years ago. I never expect any discussion between us to be serious. It's almost always some version of snark. :)

Though you did surprise me a week or so ago with something I thought was the most rational thing i've ever seen you write.

[donaldo]

Sherman issues a warning:

In a 24 Dec 1860 conversation with David Boyd, one of his professors at the Louisiana Seminary [which would later become LSU] regarding South Carolina’s secession, Sherman is reported to have said:

“You, you the people of the South, believe there can be such a thing as peaceable secession. You don’t know what you are doing. I know there can be no such thing. ... If you will have it, the North must fight you for its own preservation. Yes, South Carolina has by this act precipitated war. ... This country will be drenched in blood. God only knows how it will end. Perhaps the liberties of the whole country, of every section and every man will be destroyed, and yet you know that within the Union no man’s liberty or property in all the South is endangered. ... Oh, it is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization. ... You people speak so lightly of war. You don’t know what you’re talking about. War is a terrible thing. I know you are a brave, fighting people, but for every day of actual fighting, there are months of marching, exposure and suffering. More men die in war from sickness than are killed in battle. At best war is a frightful loss of life and property, and worse still is the demoralization of the people. ...

“You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people, but an earnest people and will fight too, and they are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it.

“Besides, where are your men and appliances of war to contend against them? The Northern people not only greatly outnumber the whites at the South, but they are a mechanical people with manufactures of every kind, while you are only agriculturists—a sparse population covering a large extent of territory, and in all history no nation of mere agriculturists ever made successful war against a nation of mechanics. ...

“The North can make a steam-engine, locomotive or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical and determined people on earth—right at your doors. You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with.

“At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, and shut out from the markets of Europe by blockade as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. ... if your people would but stop and think, they must see that in the end you will surely fail.”

See Lloyd Lewis, Sherman: Fighting Prophet, p. 138

[DiogenesLamp]

So Grant eventually came to have the opinion that the states must all be free or must all be slave?

That ignores a lot of history for "four score and seven years" when they coexisted.

It also ignores the fact that the Northern states had rigged the game to get the Southern states paying almost all the taxes, while most of the money ended up in the North.

I would think that would be something most people would find intolerable were it to happen to them.

[DiogenesLamp]

The Northern people not only greatly outnumber the whites at the South...

That is pretty much the extent of it right there, and the South d@mned near won anyway. Anything like equal odds in manpower, and the South would have won.

Mechanical ingenuity? CSS Virginia. CSS Hunley.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "You just don't have much credibility.
You are a cheerleader, and pretty much nothing else. "

It's not me, it's the facts which have no credibility to you, DiogenesLamp.
You're a Lost Cause Kool-Aid drinker, a bully when you can and then a coward when real facts show up.
You can't face them, you won't respond to them.

As for "cheerleader", of course, I am -- I cheerlead for our western heritage, including Christianity, for our Founders, their Declaration & Constitution and for all the leaders who Made America Great.

I am opposed to Democrat posers like you, DiogenesLamp, who hate your country, hate your history, hate the Founders' ideals and will tell any lie necessary to drag us all down to your own miserable levels.