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.

[OIFVeteran]

You always want to lay this on Lincoln. What you keep forgetting is he was supported by the Republican lead congress. They passed laws and resolutions supporting his actions to suppress the rebellion.

The Republican party was founded, in part, on the destruction of slavery. It said so in their platforms of 1856 and 1860. No Republican (chase, seward) who won the nomination and the presidency would have just let the southern states go. Hell, President Buchanon, who was a pro-southern democratic, wouldn’t even let them go.

[DiogenesLamp]

The draft riots were not about Irish immigrants being impressed into the army straight off the boats, since they were not citizens.

I'll have to check on your claim that they weren't drafting them as soon as they got here. "Off the boats" may have been a creative way to put it that is close enough.

In any case, if there were riots, i'm pretty sure the Irish were involved.

No amount of you repeating this is going to make anyone believe it.

Because they don't want to. Not because it isn't true, but precisely because it is.

People want to believe what they want to believe, and even though you can show them the numbers in black and white, they still don't want to see it because it just "can't be true! It just can't!"

This is commonly known as "denial."

[DiogenesLamp]

What you keep forgetting is he was supported by the Republican lead congress.

Which voted to strengthen protection for slavery through the Corwin amendment. This action makes it clear that neither side cared about slavery.

Both sides accepted it as the norm going forward.

No Republican (chase, seward) who won the nomination and the presidency would have just let the southern states go.

I'm glad you said this. I interpret it to mean that one way or another, the Union was going to fight them to stop them from leaving.

No one was going to let them leave in peace. And why is that? We let the Philippines go. We let Cuba go. We still tell Puerto Rico they can leave if they wish.

What was it about the money producing Southern states that made them so important to the Union government?

[donaldo]

Shelby Foote had an interesting observation about the odds the South faced:

“I think that the North fought that war with one hand behind its back. At the same time the war was going on, the Homestead act was being passed, all these marvelous inventions were going on... If there had been more Southern victories, and a lot more, the North simply would have brought that other hand out from behind its back. I don’t think the South ever had a chance to win that War. “

Not sure I agree with this entirely. I believe Grant going East sealed the deal. That and Sherman taking Atlanta. Without Grant and Sherman Lincoln probably loses the 1864 election. That would have almost certainly resulted in a negotiated end to hostilities with the South leaving the Union.

Lincoln, Grant, and Sherman were the great trifecta. Before Grant there was chaos. Grant likened Union strategy to a balky mule team, no two pulling in the same way. Grant made sure everyone was on the same page moving toward a common center. He brought the full weight of the North to bear on the very heart of the Confederacy, Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia.

[BroJoeK]

Diogeneslamp: " People want to believe what they want to believe, and even though you can show them the numbers in black and white, they still don't want to see it because it just "can't be true!
It just can't!"
This is commonly known as "denial." "

Our great history denier here is DiogenesLamp, who reject all of real history in favor of concocted fake history, misusing numbers & quotes drawing conclusions from thin air and accepting all Confederate propaganda as gospel.

And to further convince himself, if nobody else, like any Democrat he projects his own mental state onto others.
"money, money, money" says Diogeneslamp.
"Russia, Russia, Russia" say other Democrats.

Same evidence, same mindset.

[BroJoeK]

OIFVeteran: "...he was supported by the Republican lead congress."

DiogenesLamp: "Which voted to strengthen protection for slavery through the Corwin amendment.
This action makes it clear that neither side cared about slavery."

Totally false, which Diogeneslamp would well understand if not so blindly denying history.

1. Corwin began as one of many Democrat "compromise" proposals to keep their fellow Democrats from seceeding.

2. Corwin was supported by 100% of Democrats and signed by Democrat President Buchanan, not Lincoln.

3. Corwin was opposed by the majority of Republicans in Congress.

4. Lincoln did not oppose Corwin because, he said, it made no real change to the Constitution.

So Diogeneslamp thinks he's found in Corwin a mighty weapon he can wield against Lincoln and Republicans generally.
But as with everything else Lost Cause, it's only a "weapon" if you first buy their lies.

[BroJoeK]

Diogeneslamp: "No one was going to let them leave in peace.
And why is that?
We let the Philippines go.
We let Cuba go.
We still tell Puerto Rico they can leave if they wish.
What was it about the money producing Southern states that made them so important to the Union government?"

And yet another dud argument which should embarrass Diogeneslamp to make.
None of those were states who'd ratified the Constitution.

And none declared unilateral secession at pleasure.

[BroJoeK]

Donaldo: " Lincoln, Grant, and Sherman were the great trifecta.
Before Grant there was chaos. "

I agree the Union might easily have lost the war.
Democrat generals like McaClellan and shortsighted generals like Hallack could have turned Northerners against the war and so lost it.

[Team Cuda]

So, now we’re arguing about the context of your statement that “nobody gave a shi*t about slavery”. When I proved, by citing multiple official texts, that the south DID “give a sh*t about slavery”, you claimed that you meant to say nobody in the north gave a sh*t about slavery. The only answer I can give to that is “No sh*t, Sherlock”. To reiterate, for the nth time, the North went to war the preserve the Union. They did not go to war regarding slavery in any way. Yet, you persist in pointing out this obvious fact (Corwin Amendment!, Boston newspaper editorial! Some guy overheard in a bar in Montpelier!) as if this proves the Southern secession (and the war) was not about slavery. The reason the southern states seceded (maintain slavery in the existing states, expand slavery into the territories, and enforce the fugitive slave act) were their reasons, and the opinion of anybody in the North was immaterial to those reasons – which they stated in the Articles of Secession, in case you’ve forgotten.

It’s somewhat amusing how you go from arguing that the 4 states who listed slavery as their reason for seceding were; a) a teeny-tiny minority to arguing that “in a Democratic Republic, it takes over 50% to have any significance.”. So, my question to you, it when was a vote taken by the Confederacy on whether or not Slavery was the reason for secession? I don’t remember any such vote being taken. I mean, did all the states get together in a Reasons for Secession Convention and vote on the reasons? Did they say, only 4 of you voted for slavery being the reason. Since that’s less than 50% you’re wrong and that’s not your reason? All levity aside, those 4 states did explicitly state that protection of slavery (in all its parts) was the reason for their secession, and they obviously considered it important. Are we to ignore them because they were less than 50%? By that logic (using that word loosely), the majority of the states not voting for secession would be free to totally ignore the position of those states voting for secession, since they were less than 50% of the total of states.

When I asked why the South felt the need to hide their “real” reasons for seceding behind the blather of slavery, you responded as follows: “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?” Then, you followed by stating: “Of course, anyone thinking that the top businessmen in America wouldn’t notice a serious threat to their pocket book is just a fool.”. This whole line of logic (again, using the term extremely loosely) confuses me. You’re saying that the Articles of Secession were a cynical attempt to hide what was basically an attempt to steal (I’m sorry. You said “screw them over financially”) the United States out of $230 Million. Then you followed up by saying that of course it wasn’t fooling anybody. Do you have such a poor opinion of the Southerners who seceded? You’re always comparing them to the Patriots of 1776. We went a long way from “our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred Honor” to “We’re going to lie about how we’re screwing them out of money, but we’re going to do it so incompetently that everyone will see through it.” And, I notice that you have never answered the question of why they thought that using slavery as an excuse would play better with Western Europe than tariffs? I personally have a better opinion of the honesty and honor of the secessionists

[DiogenesLamp]

you persist in pointing out this obvious fact (Corwin Amendment!, Boston newspaper editorial! Some guy overheard in a bar in Montpelier!) as if this proves the Southern secession (and the war) was not about slavery.

Yes, it pretty much does. Any effort to grant states unlimited rights to have slavery pretty much means that the North was *NOT* fighting over the issue of slavery.

I don’t remember any such vote being taken.

The votes in the Secession conventions were about leaving the Union. People voted in favor of it.

You’re saying that the Articles of Secession were a cynical attempt to hide what was basically an attempt to steal (I’m sorry. You said “screw them over financially”) the United States out of $230 Million.

Mostly correct. Your only mistake is in asserting the Confederates were stealing from the Northern states. The reality was the other way around. The Confederates were just trying to get back their money, while the Northern power blocks insisted on keeping it.

The South produced between 73-85% (depending on what source you consult) of all the European trade with the US. Almost all of it came back through New York, where the combined total between New York and Washington DC exceeded the value that the Southerners actually received for producing the products! New York and Washington DC were making more off of slavery than were the people running it!

Then you followed up by saying that of course it wasn’t fooling anybody.

It wasn't fooling anyone in economic power in the North. They clearly knew what the game was, but it was certainly fooling ignorant and simpleminded yahoos that thought the issue really was slavery, and it is still fooling modern ignorant and simpleminded yahoos that *still* think the war had something to do with slavery! :)

Here is what the war was about.

This map is a map of tariff collections, but it represents where all the *MONEY* was coming into the nation most of which was produced by *SLAVERY* in the South.

The *MONEY* represented by that pile of coins on New York, Boston and Washington DC, is what the war was fought about.

If the South had gotten independence, *MOST* of that money pile would be transferred to Southern port cities like Charleston.

You've been *LIED* to my FRiend. It always was about the *MONEY*.

[FLT-bird]

Rich man's war. Poor man's fight. And yes, it's tragic. It's all the more tragic because it destroyed our original constitutionally framed government and replaced it with one that claimed greatly expanded powers.

This is what they just can't handle. They want so desperately to believe in the revisionist fantasy of "dying to make men free" when it is clear from Lincoln's own statements as well as the statements of everybody from ordinary people at the time to the opinion shapers of the day and the politicians that freeing the slaves was the last thing they were fighting over. Some perfectly well understood they were fighting for money and empire. As always I suspect a lot of the average footsoldiers were sold the usual BS about nationalism and glorious adventure.

[rustbucket]

Isn’t it interesting that every pro-unionist sees that quote [rb: Lincoln's reported remarks about not having enough revenue] and immediately says, “That doesn’t sound like something Lincoln would say”? Isn’t it equally interesting that every pro-confederate gloms onto that quote as an absolute article of faith?

Indeed, there is much truth in that statement. I remember the uproar I caused by pointing out the Lincoln had drafted his own fugitive slave law while a Congressman in 1849. Here is the fugitive slave part of his proposed bill:

Section 5 That the municipal authorities of Washington and Georgetown, within their respective jurisdictional limits, are hereby empowered and required to provide active and efficient means to arrest, and deliver up to their owners, all fugitive slaves escaping into said District.

Here is Lincoln's entire proposed bill: Lincoln's proposed 1849 bill.

The US Capitol Visitor Center's online link to a handwritten version the bill [Link] only shows the first page of it, which containing Sections 1, 2, and parts of 3. They did not show the Section 5 fugitive slave part of the bill. That omission reminded me that one of the Lincoln societies changed Lincoln's use of the n-word in their version of one of Lincoln's speeches to something less offensive. Apparently, some folks don't want to present negative things about Lincoln.

With respect to Lincoln's revenue statements, here is some information about the sad state of the US Treasury at that time that may help explain his concern about revenue [Excerpts from Abraham Lincoln's Classroom.org about "Abraham Lincoln and Civil War Finance,"; my bold below (Abraham Lincoln's Classroom is "An American History Project of The Lehrman Institute. Please acknowledge The Lehrman Institute when using this research."):

“The credit of the government had been undermined by the preceding administration. The revenues had withered away without concern, the public indebtedness had been increased, and money could be borrowed only at very high rates. When Congress met in December 1860, ‘the treasury was empty – bankrupt. There was no money to pay the public creditors, who were then pressing for payment. There was not money enough even to pay members of Congress.'”

On the 4th of March, 1861, there was not money enough left in its vaults to pay for the daily consumption of stationery; no city dealer would furnish it on credit,” remembered Treasury official Lucius Chittenden.

Requisitions from the various departments, to the extent of nearly $2,000,000, were on the table, with no funds to meet their payment; the Treasury notes overdue amounted to about $350,000. Not a dollar could be had from the bankers and capitalists of Wall Street.” Historian Jane Flaherty noted that Dix “notified Congress on February 11, 1861 that ‘little more’ than $500,000 remained in the central depository in Washington. Demands for $2 million ‘unanswered’ requisitions had accumulated in the department, with $6 million more due to public creditors in early March. Dix predicted a $21.6 million shortfall by the end of the fiscal year.” Many government employees, including members of Congress, had not been paid in more than a month and the Civil War had not even started. According to the New York Herald, “Soldiers, sailors, employees in every department of the government had been cooly informed by Mr[.] Dix’s predecessors that there was no money for them and no remedy.”

In short, the incoming Lincoln Administration inherited a fiscal mess.

I have posted before about the large increase in government debt created by the previous two Congresses spending money. As the New York Day Book reportedly said after noting drastically lower import figures for the port of New York, "Well may Mr. Lincoln ask, "What will become of my revenue?"

Perhaps the bad state of federal finances explains why the government had not paid Major Anderson's beef supplier for seven months. Anderson would have been better off to have accepted the SC Governor's kind offer of daily beef and vegetables for his troops than to rely on a bankrupt government to pay for the food they needed.

I’ve noticed some similarities and a discrepancy between the links to the infamous “Conversation with Lincoln”. The North Carolina Standard and the Alexandria Gazette post the editorial as though it were their own composition. The Newbern Weekly Progress (correctly) attributes it to the Baltimore Sun. They all give essentially the same narrative - a conversation between the president and Dr. Fuller.

You need to read a little more carefully. The Standard and Gazette also credit the Baltimore Sun, but they do it at the end of their article. I had noted in the post in which I provided links to those three papers, that the first two were missing a paragraph. The Newbern paper included all paragraphs of the Sun article. Here is an Indiana paper that includes all but the last paragraph, just like the Standard and Gazette papers did: Indiana State sentinel (of Indianapolis)

I posted those three links to the Sun article back when pro-Union folks on some web sites would ask for a copy of the Sun article. When they didn't get it, they could claim the Sun article must just be an unsubstantiated claim by Southern posters. The copy I had of the original Sun article was made for me by a university library because the library had moved the Sun microfilm to a floor where only students and university professors and staff could access it. Fine print on the image they made for me said the print was copyrighted. The words of the article are not copyrighted, however, so they can be published. I took the next best approach to prove that the Sun published such an article, and that was finding copies of the Sun article in other newspapers of the time that I could link to. I searched the online Library of Congress collection of old newspapers for words from the Sun article. The Library of Congress online copies of old newspapers are available to everyone.

It turns out that there were two “Conversations with Lincoln”, one on April 4th, 1861 with Baldwin and one on April 23th, 1861 with Dr. Richard Fuller and representatives of the YMCA.

The fact that there were two meetings with Lincoln has been discussed on these threads before. I even sent you a link to Baldwin's testimony some years ago. Are you just now realizing that Baldwin's meeting with Lincoln was not the same meeting as the one Lincoln had with the 30 members of the Baltimore YMCA?

Rusty: Perhaps you could answer a question (or two) for me. Have you encountered any other similar quotes from Lincoln where his paramount interest was in maintaining the flow of revenues? If it was as important as Baldwin claims I’m sure that he must have mentioned it in some pronouncements, edicts, official communiques, or speeches?

I am not aware of Lincoln saying it to others, but him saying it is consistent with what a number of newspapers were also saying, like this from the New York Herald of March 14, 1861:

Collecting the Revenue. -- The evacuation of Fort Sumter is an act of necessity on the part of the government at Washington; but the collection of the revenue from the customs in the seceded States is also a matter of necessity. President Lincoln must interpose, or the low tariff of the Confederate States will attract a large portion of the European goods intended for the United States, and thus cut off a considerable slice of the revenues of the latter. Upon this issue then, on collecting the import duties on foreign goods, the conflict of jurisdiction between President Lincoln and President Davis will be put to the test ...

Do you think the revenue question was not a crucial one for the North and for Lincoln? If you think revenue was not crucial, I'd like to hear your argument supporting your conclusion.

Well, man-made global warming is like a religion to some of its proponents, and Lincoln worship apparently is a similar religion.

[HandyDandy]

Good post.

[DiogenesLamp]

Lincoln was a masterful politician. He sold this scenario, and people bought it. It just goes to show, you can fool most of the people, all of the time.

[DiogenesLamp]

Indeed, there is much truth in that statement. I remember the uproar I caused by pointing out the Lincoln had drafted his own fugitive slave law while a Congressman in 1849. Here is the fugitive slave part of his proposed bill:

Section 5 That the municipal authorities of Washington and Georgetown, within their respective jurisdictional limits, are hereby empowered and required to provide active and efficient means to arrest, and deliver up to their owners, all fugitive slaves escaping into said District.

Wait, what? Lincoln proposed his own fugitive slave bill? Are you kidding? This makes Lincoln seem like an opportunistic liar who just tells each crowd what they want to hear.

No wonder he urged passage of the Corwin amendment.

[Team Cuda]

So, we’ve all agreed that the North was not fighting about slavery. Of course, that point was not in contention. The North always stated that they went to war to preserve the Union. Congratulations on tying down a point that was never in doubt.

You’re right, the votes in the Secession conventions were about leaving the Union. The question is, why did they vote to leave the Union? The position of at least 4 states (a teeny-tiny minority) were that they did it over the issue of slavery, as they clearly stated in their Article of Secession.

You attempt to discredit this by first saying that their opinions didn’t matter, as they were a minority, then by saying they were cynically hiding their real issue. Yet, you have never answered the question as to why they chose slavery to hide their “real” reason. I mean slavery was not practiced anywhere in Europe (and was in fact illegal), so why did they think this was more likely to get their support (which they needed in order to beat the Union), than the issue of high tariffs? Was this part of the conspiracy to lie to the rubes but fool nobody in power? Please tell me why you think the British Empire would not support the South over reducing tariffs (which would help their merchants) but would have no trouble supporting them over slavery (which was illegal in the British Empire). Remember, without British support, the Confederacy could not win the war, and they knew it.

By the way, I really don’t disagree with you that the war was ultimately about money, but this is like saying that the cause of death is always heart failure (He died of heart failure. I mean, the 7 bullets didn’t help, but what caused his death was that his heart stopped beating). Where I disagree, somewhat vehemently, was the contention that slavery had nothing to do with it. Where did the South get its money? SLAVERY. If slavery went away (which is what they feared would happen eventually) what would also go away? MONEY.

[DiogenesLamp]

The US Capitol Visitor Center's online link to a handwritten version the bill [Link] only shows the first page of it, which containing Sections 1, 2, and parts of 3. They did not show the Section 5 fugitive slave part of the bill. That omission reminded me that one of the Lincoln societies changed Lincoln's use of the n-word in their version of one of Lincoln's speeches to something less offensive. Apparently, some folks don't want to present negative things about Lincoln.

To DoodleDawg.

And *THIS* is why you can't trust biographers to accurately tell about Lincoln's worrisome actions which reflect badly on him. There are a large number of people out there who want to cover up the really ugly side of Lincoln and only present the saintly view of him.

[DoodleDawg]

And *THIS* is why you can't trust biographers to accurately tell about Lincoln's worrisome actions which reflect badly on him.

Yeah there are no more noteworthy biographers than the Capitol Visitor Center. </sarcasm> Except maybe a newspaper editorial.

[DiogenesLamp]

So, we’ve all agreed that the North was not fighting about slavery.

And therefore neither was the South. Both sides agreed slavery would continue unchanged. (When the war began)

Where I disagree, somewhat vehemently, was the contention that slavery had nothing to do with it.

Slavery was the source of the money. The fight was over the money the slaves produced. The fight was *NOT* over whether black people should remain slaves. Both sides agreed to that.

The only reason the North decided to break slavery was because they were mad the South put up such a fight, and by the time the war ended, people had become so bitter that they just wanted to hurt the people they were fighting in any way the could.

Also, they wanted to break them financially so that they could not get revenge for what had been done to them by invading armies from Northern states.

[DiogenesLamp]

You dismiss the phenomena, but people will cover up for their political heroes, as events surrounding that other Racially obsessed Liberal Lawyer from Illinois who became President illustrates. Saint Barack can do no wrong in the eyes of the media, the publishing world, and Academia.

Same thing with Saint Lincoln.