Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
I will try to answer your excellent post above and no, I do not mind that you copy the bulk of your post from the CSA thread. You raise many excellent points and concerns.
I agree with most of your observations that you make above. I too, believe that the majority of Americans, be they from the South or North, believed in the idea the negroes, not just slaves, were social and mental inferiors. I further agree that there were many who did not want negroes near them and if they were, there had to be some form of control over them (i.e. Ohio's Black Codes, restricting where blacks could live, etc.).
It is at the end of your third paragraph that we begin to digress or separate a bit on our opinions. Not much, but a bit. As a matter of fact, the last line of your third paragraph is were I begin my disagreement. A slight one, to be true, but here it begins. I believe money was the overriding factor, not 'merely' a factor.
From that point on I have trouble agreeing with your conclusions and I must say that the trouble stems from what I have heard from others who support the idea that the Civil War was about ANYTHING other than slavery. Even the idea that the North did NOT go to war with the South over the issue of slavery, that slaves were content in their condition or that slavery was on the verge of being given up by those in the South as it was a dying institution that could not compete with the industry of the North. Then those same folks turn around and get angry with the abolitionists of the North for stirring up the slaves and making them feel unsafe in their homes and fear for their lives. Well, which is it?
And I have always wanted to ask this question; if slavery was on its last legs and about to go away, where were all these slaves going to go? Did the South have any more idea what to do with them than the North did? Were the millions upon millions of dollars needed to ship these people back to Africa going to come from reduced sales of cotton or rice to finance this possible solution? You speak of the fear of Nat Turner and other possible revolts that threatened the lives of white Southerners and yet this argument still floats around that the problem did not exist as the institution was on its last legs anyway!
I also contest your idea that the majority of the North in anyway took up the Abolitionists cause with any kind of fervor or in any large amount of numbers. I feel that I have found enough evidence that this group was not taken seriously until well after the war was started. My God, Bill, Lincoln was still talking about colonization to black representatives early in his administration! Many here on this board will inform you that his ideas before emancipation were mainly that the black man should leave the US and go elsewhere. Does that sound like Garrison or any other abolitionist had any sway over the man at that time? The Northern anti-slavery sentiment you feel was there simply did not have the impact nor the power to do the harm you indicate.
I really feel in my gut and in my heart, that the South was not so totally concerned with the idea of being left with millions of freed slaves in their midsts as a few hundred thousands slave owners were more concerned with losing their profits and their status if those millions were freed. And that pesky historical record shows that slavery was not only the short-term cause of secession, it had been a long-term possible cause since the War with Mexico and the Wilmont Priviso. Slavery had been the biggest source of strife and contention in this country LONG before the election of Lincoln.
While I may find substance in your observations that a vast majority of Northerners would not have been comfortable living 'cheek to jowl' with large numbers of Negroes themselves, I do not find sufficient evidence that a large majority of the North was willing to go to war over slavery.
BUT, there was a considerable amount of men, in power, who would go to war over the issue of slavery, it's protection, it's expansion and it's political advantages of keeping it forever.
I look forward to hearing from you, even if it is only a 'bit' at a time!
Sincerely,
Unionblue
(Message edited by Unionblue on October 05, 2004)
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
Neil: there are two sides always to every coin. Yes the Battle Hymn talks of the Northern cause, the Bonnie Blue talks of the Southern. You can debate this topic till the end of time, and with new research coming out every day it to me is pointless to rehash and rehash the same thing. It is like todays war, any war, there is two sides, and the side who wins writes history. So, with the North being victorious in this case, it is easy for one to say that slavery was the main issue and nothing else mattered. But I don't feel that way, and I know allot of others out there don't either.
The South Carolina declaration of secession states:
Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union
The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue......Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. And concurrent with the establishment of these principles, was the fact, that each Colony became and was recognized by the mother Country a FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATE....
Now I do realize that the document of South Carolina's secession does also include remarks on their right to slavery (so you don't need to posting those parts for I have read the document), but it was not the first issue of the board.
Let's just all face it here, everyone in entitled to their opinion, I have mine, you have yours and that is where it stands. I don't think that by rehashing and rehashing that you will solve all the problems of the world, or the issue of the Civil War. I know it's fun to debate the topic, so I will leave what I have said and move on, because I do feel like, as my father has always said, this may be a conversation going no where. But I did just want to point out that if they wrote a song that told specifically that they were fighting for state's rights, how then can slavery be THE issue that started the war?
A thought for you: could the war actually have been fought because of Southern jealocy of the North, and that slavery was "used" as an issue? Think about it. At the begining of the 19th century the population of North and South was pretty equal, but by the 1850's, with all the factories, many southerners were moving north for better opportunities and look at the hords of immigrants that came to the north and started working there. The North had a population boom, and the South suffered. It may have been a case of "I want what he has" and keeping up with the Jones'. So instead of playing with the North, they decided to dispute all the North had to offer and acted like a little 2 yr. old and went kicking a screaming that the North wasn't playing fare. And so they fought for their right to play the way they wanted to, and that was to get "Big Brother" out of the picture and move on.
I thought by now that I might have formulated a concrete opinion as to whether slavery was the main cause of the Civil War, but I find that I remain agnostic in my beliefs. I trust that you will bear with my musings as they are still in their infancy stage and very limited in scope.
I do believe that the main issue dividing both sides was slavery, but it was not the only one, nor was it the issue of the Civil War. But since democracy does not work on the acception of secession, I honestly believe that President Lincoln had no choice but to invade the South. I've often wondered how a civil war could be fought and won to end slavery, but full civil rights not be granted to blacks until a century later.
In my opinion, extremists and politicians on both sides sought to exaggerate the differences between the northern and southern states and prior to the Civil War, a sufficient amount of distrust and suspicion had already been established. Regional governments did nothing to ease the growing discontent but used it to profit politically. This certainly set the stage for conflict to erupt.
It appears that the North had been making concessions to the South time and again, but I'm wondering if Lincoln didn't commit a grave error by not campaigning in the South prior to his election? I think by not doing this, the wrong message was sent to the wrong people, and Lincoln's promises to not interfere with slavery fell on deaf and slighted ears.
In Jenna's post, she mentioned that the main Bills of concern for the Southern Senators were that of high tariffs and state's rights, and I agree that these issues were important, legitimate concerns for Southerners. In examining Southern culture and economics of that time, it appears that the South was in a state of stagnation as the wealth that had been created and consumed was not being re-invested.
As a result of the above, the South had become an exclusive society and slavery had become the reason that the South had fallen back in economic development in the first place. The peculiar industry that had made so many wealthy, also made it impossible for white settlers or the average farmer to prosper. Slavery prevented the creation of sound, economic politics so eventually it would have had to be dealt with.
I'm suggesting that the underlying causes of the civil war were both social and economic, and that slavery was the yoke chosen to drive the oxen. It's apparent that slavery was abolished elsewhere without such horrendous carnage, and it seems to me that both sides gave up far too quickly on conciliation.
A thought for you: could the war actually have been fought because of Southern jealocy of the North, and that slavery was "used" as an issue?
If I might interject into this thought you posed to Neil, Jenna, please pardon my intrusion.
I think you make a valid bid at the fact that jealousy was a factor in the issue of the conflict BUT couldn't it have been the other way around? If anything the Northern people could have been jealous of the Southern way of life. Hence the tariffs and taxes that were issued against that very way of life.
I want to make myself very clear on one point. I do not believe that slavery was an institution that was moral or right. BUT I can not condemn my ancestors for what they felt was a necessity in THEIR lives. I do not believe that Slavery was the sole issue that brought about the war. I do believe tho that it was the smoking gun used by the North (and SOME Southern factions) to bring about the total and complete submission of the South to a Government rule that they could not support willingly.
This said I will now sit back and read some more of your very interesting comments on this subject.
Kat
I found myself figuratively nodding agreement with everything Dawna Hepburn wrote in the post above until I got to
“As a result of the above, the South had become an exclusive society and slavery had become the reason that the South had fallen back in economic development in the first place. The peculiar industry that had made so many wealthy, also made it impossible for white settlers or the average farmer to prosper.”
That made me wonder: why then did Southern volunteers fight so determinedly in battles they knew would be awful? If it the war was a rich man’s war and a poor man’s fight, I don’t think it would have been supported by poor men if they didn’t individually feel driven to take up arms against the Federal army. It is important to remember the South was invaded, regardless of the cause. As well, I haven’t read of any Southern Americans packing up and emigrating to other countries—apparently they were content with conditions in their homeland.
And maybe I’m ignorant but it was a new notion to me to consider that Lincoln did not campaign in the South. That would appear to be a big mistake.
I realize in those days candidates didn’t think it was becoming to go out campaigning, and left that to their supporters. Does anybody know if Lincoln’s handlers were organized enough to compose a strategy for Southern publicity?
My suggestion regarding why many Southern men fought so determinedly is that although most did not have a financial investment in slavery, they deeply believed in the Southern way of life. I further suggest that the typical Southern male was convinced that Northern threats to undermine slavery would unleash the pent-up hostilities of millions of slaves who had been subjugated for centuries.
Dawna,
I have no real desire to enter into this thread's debate but since I feel sure no one from the Higher-Latitude-Placed-Persons-Living-On-Continent-Of-North-American-Living-With in-The-Borders-Of-The-United-States school of thought will object to this statement on their own I guess I will have to do so.
You said "I've often wondered how a civil war could be fought and won to end slavery, but full civil rights not be granted to blacks until a century later."
This is indeed the big myth presented in schools today. The war was not fought to end slavery. Regardless whether one might believe it was the cause of the war. Even Lincoln admitted the EP was just a military move.
As to the ending of slavery, again, another big myth. The Amendment 'ending' slavery... doesn’t. You cannot end slavery if you insert an exception. So basically it still allows slavery. In fact now it is promoted by the State. And much more profitable to the business owner as the State pays for upkeep.
As to civil rights. No excuses although there was a cause and effect. Reconstruction set many of the legal precedents and the incalculable resentments created during the war and especially during reconstruction topped with natural fear for making a living. Racism was the cherry on the top. In fact there is a solid school of thought that says racism as we know it did not exist before the war. That the war and reconstruction created it.
Sock Knitter, there are numerous accounts of families moving out of the South, before, during and after the war. Generally this was to the west, of note after the War quite a few couldn't/wouldn't live under Union rule so they left the Country to Canada, Mexico etc. Of note American Mercenaries (many former Confederates) served w/ distinction in several European Armies. Of note, the last known Rebel Yell sent up on the Battlefield was at Plevna... fighting for the Turks against the Russians.
Also of note the Confederacy was the first to start conscription... desertion rates for CSA Regiments were considerably higher than their Union counterparts. A variety of reasons from defeatism tnot agreeing w/ the why of the fight.
__________________
Shane Christen
American Legion Post 352
SUVCW Camp Abernethy# 48
Lifetime NRA member
3rd MN VI
For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. Eccl 1:18
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
