War Between the States about slavery? No way

The Tampa Tribune ^ | April 25, 2011 | Al Mccray

[Iron Munro]

I am responding to a column by Leonard Pitts Jr., a noted black columnist for The Miami Herald, entitled, "The Civil War was about slavery, nothing more" (Other Views, April 15).

I found this article to be very misleading and grossly riddled with distortions of the real causes of the War Between the States. I find it so amusing that such an educated person would not know the facts.

I am a proud native of South Carolina. I have spent my entire life in what was once the Confederate States of America. I am currently associated with Southern Heritage causes, including the Sons of Confederate Veterans in Tampa.

It's been 150 years since brave, patriotic Southerners drove the imperialist Yankee army from Fort Sumter, S.C. It also marked the beginning of the Confederates' fight to expel this foreign army from the entire Southern homeland.

After all these years, there still exists national historical ignorance and lies about this war. The War Between the States was about states' rights — not about slavery.

Remember, the original colonies voluntarily joined the union and never gave up their individual sovereignty. These independent states always retained their right to manage their domestic affairs and to leave this voluntary association at any time.

This voluntary union was for limited reasons such as national defense from the foreign powers, one language, interstate commerce, disputes between the sovereign states and matters of foreign affairs.

When the Southern states tried to leave this union, the Northerners had to put a stop to this. The slavery issue was masterly inserted into the movement of Yankee aggression.

We are a union of independent and sovereign states free to determine our own destiny. This sovereignty is meant to be free of Yankee federal domination and control. This should still be in principle and practice today as it was before the first cannon shots at Fort Sumter.

Slavery of any people is wicked and morally wrong. Domination of one people over another is just as evil and morally wrong.

The facts are that throughout history, just about every race of people has been slaves to another people. Slavery has always been a failed institution and a dark mark in history. One-hundred years before the first slave made it to the auction blocks in Virginia, African kings were running a booming enterprise of selling their own people into slavery. It was also customary that defeated people became slaves.

Slavery as an institution worldwide was coming to an end before the War Between the States. Slavery in America would probably have come to an end within 50 years.

The great eternal lie — that the war was to "free the slaves" — is still being propagandized today by modern spin-makers, schools and even scholars. But the facts are plain and quite evident if you were to take off your Yankee sunglasses.

The Army of the Potomac invaded the South to capture, control and plunder the prosperity of Southern economic resources and its industries. This army also wanted to put a final nail in the coffin of states' rights.

If, and I say this with a big if , the War Between the States was to free the slaves, please answer these simple questions:

Why didn't President Lincoln issue a proclamation on day one of his presidency to free the slaves? Why did he wait so many years later to issue his proclamation? Why was slavery still legal in the Northern states? Before 1864, how many elected members of the imperialist Yankee Congress introduced legislation to outlaw slavery anywhere in America?

The slaves were freed — and only in territories in rebellion against the North — because the Army of the Potomac was not winning the war and Lincoln was fearful of foreign nations recognizing the Confederacy.

The Northern states needed a war to fuel their economy and stop the pending recession. The North needed rebellion in the South to cause havoc in the Confederate states. The North wanted the hard foreign currency being generated by Southern trade.

I hope this year not only marks the celebration of the brave actions of Southerners to evict the Northern Army at Fort Sumter but leads to the truthful revision of history about the war. Future generations should know the truth.

Al Mccray is a Tampa businessman and managing editor of TampaNewsAndTalk.com

[Little Ray]

The value of the cotton is still affected. The brokers would take that tariff out of what they paid for the cotton because they know that they’ll be paying a large tariff when the goods they purchase in Europe and send to the US.
And money wasn’t as fungible back then as it is today, so they couldn’t just send money back.

[Sherman Logan]

See my post 22.

Congress outlawed slavery in the territories in early 1862.

I have no idea how this interacted with Dred Scott. I would suspect during the war nobody paid much attention to rulings by Taney. I also don’t know if there was compensation, as there was for the slaves freed in DC.

[phi11yguy19]

Here's what you said...Your point was...

Indeed, the only way to "win" a debate is to take snippets out of context, and tell the other side they meant something you think you can win a debate over.

I've already conceded you'll always win with that strategy. But your deflections and pi$$ing and moaning over anything someone says here doesn't change the facts of history, doesn't change the realities of war, doesn't erase the carnage and long-term effects on our government and society cause by those who felt righteous enough to ignore the laws at the time.

But feel free to sidetrack any meaningful discussion over principles or lessons so you can continue to feel like you have all the answers.

[phi11yguy19]

Vietnam provided several more recent examples of unwritten armistices - which N.Korea violated, at which point we "shelled" them

Typo, N. Vietnam. Thanks for the catch

[phi11yguy19]

Yeah, your desire for the courts to speak on issues that haven’t actually come before it is well established.

As is your acceptance of the federal government invading states over "illegal" actions as dictated by the executive, and have no legal or judicial backing. So much for separation of powers.

[phi11yguy19]

"[R]ace prejudice seems stronger in those states that have abolished slavery than in those where it still exists, and nowhere is it more intolerant than in those states where slavery was never known."

Ping for one of Tocqueville's most important quotes.

[central_va]

If you would defend your secessionist state that wanted to put captives on the auction block, you are the thuggish fascist. What a morally confused piece of refuse you are.

Back at you. I live in republic. If my state legislature chooses to leave and the Governor agrees then I will do my duty. Is that clear? Any state has the right of secession for any reason.

[phi11yguy19]

the deciding factor for secession by the Southern states was slavery

This is still not true...

The Northern and Southern states were different in culture, climate and economy from the start, and that was acknowledged repeatedly in the Constitutional conventions. The goal was to create a pact that would provide a mutual benefit, but it was acknowledged it was also a "great experiment" to have a common government over such a vast land. Everyone also knew though that each state had to preserve its sovereignty because there was no one Philadelphia/NYC/D.C. would/could ever fairly represent the people of SC, FL or TX (and v.v.), and each had to be vigilant for encroachments of power.

Slavery was brought into the Southern States via years of British/Northern slave trade, which continued even just after the war. From the 3/5 compromise to those of Missouri and Kansas, the North was always trying to limit the federal representation of the South, while increasing its economic oppression with redistributive tariffs and trade embargoes. The plan to ban all future expansion through the territories meant the Southern representation would eventually become insignificant and everyone knew it.

So when a Party created on that agenda gets their president elected within only a few years of existence, the writing was on the wall.

After the election, of the 13 "slave" states, 7 seceded, but 6 remained and wanted to preserve the union as well. When Lincoln invaded the south, 4 more left (and 2 still remained in the North). The reason was the destruction of their mutual agreement (the only thing that changed since the inception of the union) - the institution of slavery was legally exactly what it always had been.

That controlling slavery was the North's means to the end of controlling the states is hardly debatable, but it was simply a means to an end that violated the spirit of mutual cooperation that formed the Constitution. Turning the whole discussion to the issue of slavery does the real history no justice.

[catfish1957]

I bet you like defacing confederate monument and grave stones as a hobby too, don’t you?

[tanknetter]

There were 5 main reasons of the war. Go to this site:

Yup, that's a good one to go to in order to start exploring the issue.

I've never really liked that, all my life and especially throughout my education, the issue of Southern Secession has been boiled down to soundbites and argument via slogans.

The Civil War, and what led up to it, are incredibly complex issues that trace their origins back to before the founding of our country, going well beyond the calls of "Slavery" and "States Rights".

Given the amount of American blood that was shed on both sides it deserves to be treated and discussed as such. We dishonor the dead by doing otherwise.

[phi11yguy19]

with no secession, no civil war.

another logical fallacy.

playing that game, you could also say if there was no constitution, there'd be nothing to secede from, so it's the constitution's fault. or you could say that since buchanan presided over secession and refused to go to war, it's the fault of even having elections. (no elections, no lincoln, no war! (but i guess that's also the constitution)

war is the failure of diplomacy. southern diplomats were still in D.C. pleading for meetings and getting cast away because the wheels were already in motion.

[central_va]

war is the failure of diplomacy. southern diplomats were still in D.C. pleading for meetings and getting cast away because the wheels were already in motion.

If you read Lincolns second inaugural, he admits to what you wrote. Especially paragraph 2.

[tanknetter]

If you read Lincolns second inaugural, he admits to what you wrote. Especially paragraph 2.

Sort of. At that point, war was inevitable because both sides had reached the point of irreconcilable differences that could only be settled through armed conflict.

However, the Southern diplomacy taking place in Washington can be seen as rough (inexact) analog of what the Japanese were trying to do at the end of World War Two with their outreach to the Soviets and through the Swiss and other avenues. Which was end the war on their terms (preservation of the Japanese militaristic/nationalistic ruling class being key)

WRT the ACW, I've never seen any evidence that either side was prepared to avoid war at any/all costs. IOW by making the kinds of major concessions that were necessary to actually prevent it. So given that, what use was continued diplomacy?

[phi11yguy19]

If you read Lincolns second inaugural, he admits to what you wrote. Especially paragraph 2.

Scary read. Letting 7 states leave would mean letting the nation "perish". Uhhh, no - it would mean going from 34 states in 1861 back to the 27 states just 16 years earlier in 1845. If ALL 13 eventually wanted to go, we'd have to roll back the clock 43 years to 1818. Funny, both scenarios existed in Lincoln's own lifetime, yet somehow the union didn't "perish". Could it be he was just a ideological demagogue???

Then again, f faced with a choice between those awful scenarios and war, who wouldn't choose war?!

[central_va]

Scary read. Letting 7 states leave would mean letting the nation "perish". Uhhh, no - it would mean going from 34 states in 1861 back to the 27 states just 16 years earlier in 1845. If ALL 13 eventually wanted to go, we'd have to roll back the clock 43 years to 1818. Funny, both scenarios existed in Lincoln's own lifetime, yet somehow the union didn't "perish". Could it be he was just a ideological demagogue???

I think you are referring to the first inaugural, I was referring to the 2nd inaugural, para 2.

[rockrr]

The Lost Causers are always so quick to seize upon the 3/5 compromise as some sort of mystic indicator of disingenuousness on the part of northerners, but it really exposes their own hypocrisy. You'll find the more dim-witted uttering inanities such as: "you'll have to ask your yankee forefathers why a antebellum black man was only worth 3/5's of a free white man. (FWIW, your yankee forefathers didn't want blacks to count at all."

The issue came about as the government attempted to apportion tax liabilities, which was accomplished through the census. The south balked at counting slaves since they had no vote and no rights. They didn't want the slaves counted at all. The north said to count everyone. However, when the question of representation in congress reared its head the south wished that every slave counted in full. The north only said that since they weren't allowed the vote and thus no representation, they should not be counted. The south really wanted their cake and to eat it too!

The 3/5 compromise came about as a settlement between the two competing interests with the slaves (again) losing in the bargain and the south getting more than it deserved.

[central_va]

I am referring to the 2nd inaugural address, not the first.

[Hoodat]

Is that what you would call the unprovoked and unwarranted invasion of the Commonwealth of Virginia by the Union Army?

[phi11yguy19]

Sort of???

On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. (Those b@stards! Trying "negotiation" and "without war-seeking" - how dare they!) Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came. (Contradictory, no? They were not "war-seeking", but they'd rather "make war" - a 180 in only 2 sentences...impressive!)

The statements only make sense if political boundaries are sacrosanct, and mutual agreements can justifiably be controlled by force and death if need be.

As for "major concessions", what do you suppose was on the table? The North wanted to ban expansion of slavery and cripple Southern representation in Congress (which had always tried to hover around 50% but was destined to drop to insignificance per the Republican platform.). They wanted redistributive taxes from the South to subsidize their own economy. The South tried fighting both of those issues for years and lost, and with the slavery ban, they'd lose in perpetuity, so they wanted out. Was there an option to stay in and still remain in a mutually beneficial compact? Was allowing them to leave without war really NOT an option?

[tanknetter]

Scary read. Letting 7 states leave would mean letting the nation "perish". Uhhh, no - it would mean going from 34 states in 1861 back to the 27 states just 16 years earlier in 1845

I don't think Lincoln was speaking in the way you think he was. Sure, there still would have been a "Union" of sorts because it made sense for the states to band together into larger confederacies (small c, not large C) for trade, self-defense and other purposes. Which is exactly what the Southern states did after they seceded (hell, even Texas - which could have gone back to being its own Republic if it wanted to - saw the benefits of being part of a larger governmental entity).

But conceptually, if states could leave that "Union" whenever and for whatever reason they wanted to, there really wouldn't really be much of a "Union" at all. There would just be several varieties of floating alliances of convenience calling themselves a "Union" (or "Confederacy" or some play on that theme), with States coming and going (or attempting to exploit political situations through the threat of such) whenever it suited their parochial purposes.

In this regard it bears noting that the ACW was not the first secession crisis in US history, calling attention to the threats of the Northern states succeeding a number of years before.