Slavery; THE Cause?

[tamaroa]

I really hate to be simplistic here but here goes. Slavery was probably a few percentage points of every other cause of the war we have mentioned on this board over and over again. I don't think anyone can deny that the 3/5th's clause, the tariffs, states rights, the various compromises all were related to slavery to a small degree.

BUT here is the rub, IF we are to take Lincoln at his word then slavery was not the cause, disunion was. If he had not provoked the Confederates into firing the first shots............well, let me ask you a question, why did he trick the rebs into firing the first shots. Unless he's a liar, it was disunion that caused the war. He used the slavery trump card after Sharpsburg when he needed to inject a higher morality into the north's effort to coerce southerners back into the USA.

[unionblue]

Some excellent responses here and some interesting points raised,

Jenna, you raise some excellent points and make some sincere observations I would like to address first. Yes, there are two sides to every story and two sides to every war. And therein lies my primary concern.

I ask that you excuse me, Jenna, as I back track here a bit and try to explain why I feel this subject does need to be 'rehashed' now and again.

If anyone, anywhere, had told me that ten, hell, even four years ago, I would be the so-called 'champion' of the subject of slavery and it being the primary cause of the Civil War, I would not have called them a liar. I would have been laughing so hard that I could not have answered them at all!

First off, I didn't care, not about slavery, not about State's Rights, tariffs, big government, abolishinists, none of it! All I wanted to do was dress up, fire my musket and pretend to die, in the shade where ever possible. Like Tommy, I came to this board expecting to talk primarily about the battles and tactics used during the war, being a retired Army guy, the weapons and tactics of the times fascinated me. Many reasons for the war was given to me by my Confederate reenactor friends which I found to be OK as long as I got to play.

Then it happened. During my reenactments, spectators began to ask me questions besides the ones about if I was hot in that wool uniform or how many steps did it take to load my musket. Why did these men fight? What began the war? Why did so many Americans have to die?

In my own opinion, Jenna, which you have recognized we both have a right to have (a statement I agree with totally, by-the-way), I felt history was too important a thing to try and bluff my way through during these presentations to sincere people asking serious questions, most of them coming from young persons who truly wanted to KNOW.

So I began reading. American Heritage series, Bruce Canton's series of books on the Army of the Potomac, Shelby Foote and then about one Main Public Library section on the Civil War and over two hundred of my own purchased books later on the subject, I pretty much felt I had the answer. My answer, to be exact.

Now, let me state that I feel as you do, no matter how much we discuss the subject of slavery here on this board, even if we come to a dead end with nothing decided, it will not change the world or solve it's ills. I further agree that there are two sides to every war and to every story and that the victor does write the history. To a point.

My primary concern is that slavery is not being viewed at all. Period. Either as the cause of the war or even as a minor cause of the war. That the entire idea of slavery is being swept under a non-important historical rug and frankly, that's wrong.

First of all, it says to every black American, your history does not matter. What happened to you, how you got here, what you suffered is not important to you, your children nor does any heritage you might claim, matter. You meant nothing to this country's history, slavery was not even a minor issue, let alone 'the' issue. I find that monsterous. And I find that attitude dangerous. We are refusing to learn from history, to draw any lessons from it and we are dooming our country to even more pain and suffering down the road that our grandchildren will have to deal with because we did not have the courage to face it in our time. We are today, in this country, living with our past and the choices made there. As the man said, "Fellow citizens, we cannot escape history."

It is only natural not to face issues or conditions that we find troubling or unpleasant. What I find even more troubling is that both sides of this issue can cause even more trouble, by those who wish to ignore it completely and by those who want to lay all evil of the institution at the exclusive door of the South. And this is because both sides have a distorted view of history or have not studied deeply enough to learn about the instituion as it was in the United States up to and during the Civil War and afterwards.

Any time I go to a partisan web site, whether neo-Confederate or PC correct, I shudder at how history is mangled, taken out of context or just simply denied in the face of historical fact and record.

Now, while stubborn, I admit I do not know everything concerning the history of the Civil War. Tommy, Thea, Bill, Bill, Hal and many others have ample evidence of that. I have made mistakes and admitted to them (with a large degree of pain). I enjoy this thread and wanted it mainly to continue to learn, and frankly, to be surprised at what I might learn here.

As you have said Jenna, I have my own opinion, and I know exactly what that is worth in any cafe or coffee shop in the country. I also firmly believe that no one on this board considers slavery a 'good thing' or supports it in any way. I accept the idea that many other do not agree with my views on slavery and have different ideas on its importance as a cause of the late war. I just want to lay out my ideas and my research along side theirs and see if it leads me or anyone else to a different conclusion or consideration, if any.

But you cannot do that unless you are willing to discuss it, can you? Debate is a healthy thing and talking is considered a good idea as it exchanges ideas and concepts between people. Ignoring a subject has just the opposite effect.

Jenna, you also raise up the idea that the war might have been caused by Southern jealousy. You site that most manufacturing was in the North and that some of the Southern population was moving there for better conditions and such. Yet the South enjoyed more wealth per citizen than those in the North before the war. I'll see if I can find that article and reference it for you. There was much concern in the South about not having the means to manufacture goods there, in fact the writer DeBouis wrote about it and urged Southerners to invest in such enterprises before the war. He was ignored and most men of means in the South continued to invest in Cotton and slaves as it was a sure fire and proven way to make money.

In fact, most in the South considered their way of life superior to the North, as Katherine points out in her post that perhaps it was the North that was jealous of the South and it's standard of living thereby imposing huge tarifs and such on that region. Again, the research on our tariff thread (in my own, coffee shop opinion) does not support this view, nor does Alexander Stephens in his debate before the Georgia legislature over Georgia leaving the Union. The issue of tariffs was brought up and discounted by him as being reason enough to leave the Union.

Katherine also states that she cannot condemn her ancestors for what they felt was a necessity in their lives. I understand that and I feel that is not being asked here on this thread. Bill Torrens has said, along with others, that it is almost impossible for us to understand a 19th century mindset on the subject of race and slavery in the United States of that time. I agree with him. What is considered wrong for me in this time during this century more than likely would have had no meaning for me if I had lived in the 19th century. I am a creature of my times and 140 years from now, I have no idea what those folks up there in the future will have to say about me and my countrymen. It won't be good for the most part, I am willing to bet. But they will learn from us and hopefully not repeat our mistakes. But they will be living their lives with the results of the actions we take NOW.

Sock Knitter asks why didn't Lincoln campaign in the South and considers this to be a big mistake on his part. Anyone know a good answer to that one? My own is Lincoln wasn't even on the ballot in the Deep South and woe to the poor slob that attempted to put him there. He was not allowed to campaign to the degree others were and didn't even bother, knowing he would have to win the office in the more heavily populated North, in my own opinion.

Sorry this has rambled on and on, but as you can guess, this is a subject near and dear to me, but not by initial choice. It has become one out of what I feel is a necessity to present all arguments and all sides of this particular issue.

I apologize if I have offended anyone in anyway, but please, do consider contributing to this thread. It is important and it is really worthwhile. It will help me to learn and I need all the help I can get.

YMOS,
Unionblue
(Message edited by Unionblue on October 06, 2004)

(Message edited by Unionblue on October 06, 2004)

(Message edited by Unionblue on October 06, 2004)

(Message edited by Unionblue on October 06, 2004)

(Message edited by Unionblue on October 06, 2004)

[unionblue]

Hello Mr. Bill Doherty!

Long time it seems! Good to hear from you and good of you to join us on this thread.

OK, enough of the nice guy stuff, let's get dirty, shall we? I'm still looking for a dinner from you some day, my old friend.

Bill, I believe we can take Lincoln totally at his word when he said he was not taking the country to war over the issue of slavery, but that of maintaining the Union. Whether he 'tricked' or 'provoked' the South into firing on the place, I am quite willing to say that he hoped the South would be the first to commit an act of war, and primarily for the cause of maintaining the Union.

But why did the South leave the Union? What was it most stated and debated reason for taking such a huge step whose only result was going to be bloody war? Where you state the 3/5th's clause, State's Rights, tariffs and various compromises had a small degree to do with slavery, I consider those factors motivated largely by the issue of slavery. An issue that had plagued the country for years up until the firing on Ft. Sumter, an issue that loomed larger than any other and was at the base of every other concern faced by the nation. Slavery ended up being the one issue that brought the South to rebellion's doorstep and maintaining and expanding it made it step through that door.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[bill_torrens]

Neil,

I read your posts with considerable interest, as ever. Forgive me if I digress from our topic for just a moment: I just want to say how much pleasure I get out of being able to discuss the Civil War with people thousands of miles away through a forum like Civilwartalk.com. It still seems miraculous to me that one can exchange thoughts with people on other continents in such a quick and easy way. People who criticise new technology are talking out of the place where John Pope kept his headquarters.

If I understand you correctly, you believe that

1. slavery was the only meaningful cause of secession

2. neither Northern public opinion nor the Republican Party posed any serious threat to the longevity of slavery in the South, and

3. secession was masterminded by wealthy slaveowners who were solely concerned with their own commercial interests.


My first reaction is that there is a clear tension between points 2 & 3 above. If 2 is correct, the surest way of protecting a planter’s financial interests was to remain in the Union. Your hypothesis depends on these planters being clever enough to manoeuvre the people of several states into secession while at the same time being stupid enough not to understand that the North represented no actual threat to them. For me this lacks all plausibility.

In any case, I have a problem with the oft-repeated assertion that a minority of secessionists led the people of the South astray from the path of good citizenship. We never hear anyone assert that the people of the North were misled and manoeuvred by their political leaders; it is taken for granted that each Northerner came to his or her own independent conclusions about the issues of the day. This interpretation casts Northerners in the role of rational adults and Southerners as credulous children. It is extremely condescending.

But, just for the sake of argument, let’s assume that the yeoman farmers and labourers of the South were mere putty in the hands of the planters. What of educated Southerners? According to your theory, only those who had a vested financial interest in slavery should have supported the Confederate cause. Er, what about Robert E. Lee? He wore the grey because he believed that Virginia was his country, and I contend that this simple fact is a profounder cause of secession than Negro slavery.

And what was true of Lee was true of countless soldiers of lower rank. Consider Noah Dixon Walker. He wasn’t a planter. He was the son of a successful Baltimore tradesman. At the beginning of the war, knowing his Southern sympathies, Walker Sr. offered him a cool $250,000 if he would agree to sail to England and sit out the hostilities. He refused the money, joined the 44th Virginia and was ultimately killed in action. He wrote to his father to explain his decision:

I perceived that it was a struggle between Liberty, on the one side, and Tyranny on the other. I believed that Abraham Lincoln had been placed in power by an insane political faction, upon the ruins of our once sacred Constitution, and that he and his party, to possess and hold the political power of the country, would perpetrate any act…” [Ruffner, Maryland’s Blue & Gray, pp. 48-49.]

I cannot see how your “selfish planter” theory explains the sheer diversity of people who espoused the Confederate cause.

We have previously discussed the impact of abolitionist propaganda on the South, and it does seem clear that our interpretations are a world apart. I have no ambition to try to change your mind, but I would like to know what you make of the following, which is an extract from a celebrated speech on slavery which the famous British emancipationist William Wilberforce gave in the House of Commons on 12th May 1789:

I wish exceedingly, in the outset, to guard both myself and the House from entering into the subject with any sort of passion. It is not their passions I shall appeal to—I ask only for their cool and impartial reason; and I wish not to take them by surprise, but to deliberate, point by point, upon every part of this question. I mean not to accuse any one, but to take the shame upon myself, in common, indeed, with the whole parliament of Great Britain, for having suffered this horrid trade to be carried on under their authority. We are all guilty—we ought all to plead guilty, and not to exculpate ourselves by throwing the blame on others; and I therefore deprecate every kind of reflection against the various descriptions of people who are more immediately involved in this wretched business.

Did you notice how Wilberforce emphasised his desire to appeal to his audience’s intellects rather than to their emotions? And how he also went out of his way not to apportion blame to any individual involved with slavery? What a contrast to the language of American abolitionism, which shamelessly appealed to sentiment and emotion, and poured constant abuse on slaveholders. One can only speculate as to how differently things might have turned out in America if Garrison and his cronies had used Wilberforce’s temperate language.

Just a few thoughts.

Bill

[unionblue]

Tommy,

There is much I would like to address in your post above, but in part, I agree with some of your observations.

In part. The war was not begun by the North in order to free the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation was a war measure by the President at the time.

However, the aim of the administration was, after the EP, to eliminate slavery by a Constitutional amendment, which did happen. I assume what you are alluding to in your statement that slavery is still allowed is the use of prison labor today in this country.

As to your last paragraph in which you state there is in fact a solid school of thought that says racism as we know it did not exist before the war, I beg to differ.

Sections from the Speech of Alexander H. Stephens to the Virginia Secession Convention, April 23, 1861.

"One good and wise feature in our new and revised Constitution is, that we have put to rest the vexed question of slavery forever, so far as the Confederate legislative halls are concerned. On this subject, from which sprung the immediate cause of our late troubles and threatened dangers, you will indulge me in a few remarks as not irrelevant to the occasion. The condition of the negro race amongst us presents a peculiar phase of republican civilization and constitutional liberty. To some, the problem seems hard to understand. The difficulty is in theory, not in practical demonstration; that works well enough--theories in government, as in all things else, must yield to facts. No truth is clearer than that the best form or system of government for any people or society is that which secures the greatest amount of happiness, not to the greatest number, but to all the constituent elements of that society, community or State. If our system does not accomplish this; if it is not the best for the negro as well as for the white man; for the inferior as well as the superior race, it is wrong in principle. But if it does, or is capable of doing this, then it is right, and can never be successfully assailed by reason or logic. That the negroes with us, under masters who care for, provide for and protect them, are better off, and enjoy more of the blessings of good government than their race does in any other part of the world, statistics abundantly prove. As a race, the African is inferior to the white man. Subordination to the white man is his normal condition. He is not equal by nature, and cannot be made so by human laws or institutions. Our system, therefore, so far as regards this inferior race, rest upon this great immutable law of nature. It is founded not upon wrong or injustice, but upon the eternal fitness of things. Hence, its harmonious working for the benefit and advantage of both. Why one race was made inferior to another, is not for us to inquire. The statesman and the Christian, as well as the philosopher, must take things as they find them, and do the best he can with them as he finds them.

The great truth, I repeat, upon which our system rests, is the inferiority of the African. The enemies of our institution ignore this truth. They set out with the assumption that the races are equal; that the negro is equal to the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be legitimate. But their premises being false, their conclusions are false also. Most of that fanatical spirit at the North on this subject, which in its zeal without knowledge, would upturn our society and lay waste to our fair country, springs from this false reasoning. Hence so much misapplied sympathy for fancied wrongs and sufferings. These wrongs and sufferings exist only in their heated imaginations. There can be no wrong where there is no violation of nature's laws. We have heard much of the higher law. I believe myself in the higher law. We stand upon that higher law. I would defend and support no Constitution that is against the higher law. I mean by that the law of nature and of God. Human Constitutions and human laws that are made against the law of nature or of God, ought to be overturned;...

...Some years ago in the Hall of the House of Representatives, a very prominent gentleman from Ohio, announced with a great deal of effect, that we in the South would be obliged to yield upon this question of slavery, because we warred against a principle; and that it was impossible to war successfully against principle in politics as it was in mechanics. The principle, said he, would ultimately prevail. He announced this with impossing effect, and endeavored to maintain that we were contending against the great principle of equality in holding our fellow men, in that unnatural condition of bondage. In reply, I stated to him, that I admitted his proposition as he announced it, that it was impossible to war successfully against a principle in mechanics and the same was true in politics--the principle would certainly prevail--and from that stand point I had come to the conclusion that we of the South would ultimately succeed, and the North would be compelled to yield their ideas upon this subject. For it was they who were contending against a principle and not we. It was they who were trying to make the black man a white man, or his equal, which was nearly the same thing. The controlling laws of nature regulate the difference between them as absolutely as the laws of gravitation control whatever comes within their action--and until he could change the laws of gravitation, or any other law of nature, he could never make the negro a white man or his equal. No human efforts or human laws can change the leopard's spots or the Ethiopian's skin. These are the works of Providence--in whose hands are the fortunes of men as well as the destiny of nations and the distinctions of races."

I submit that the racism was just more open and justified and not considered a 'bad' thing by some.

This entire speech may be found at the following website:

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/cva.htm

YMOS,
Unionblue

[unionblue]

Bill,

A pleasure as always.

I will answer your numbered sections first.

1. Yes, you have caught my intentions plainly here. Slavery was the cause, the big one, the most important issues and the one that caused the war.

2. No, I did not mean to imply that the South did not feel threatened by the Republican Party or by the statements being made by anti-slavery folks up North. When you are told you can no longer expand your institution into the territories by the incoming Party of Power, you are going to have concerns, real ones. But again, that seems to turn on that issue of slavery again, doesn't it?

3. Masterminded? Maybe a bit further down the road than I would like, but I do believe that those who benefited most from the institution would have backed any play or plan to keep it and their power intact. When you look at the secession conventions and those who were sent to them and those who were able to vote for those representatives, I consider slavery and those whose interests in it were in the catsbird seat, able to push their agenda ahead of anyone else.

While you may find it a problem where you find the yeoman farmer able to be lead by his social and political leaders, I still contend that most of those folks were led down a garden path by the men they considered the most successful and powerful in their society. I also point to the fact that the South had pretty much closed their 'hearts and minds' to any other outside influences concerning the issues of slavery and that it was pretty much political and social suicide to suggest any other path than that of the protection and expansion of slavery.

As for the reactions of Northerners, I point to many of my loyal opposition here on this board. They have told me time and time again that many in the North were willing to let the South depart. Countless newspaper articles to include that of Mr. Greely stated such sentiments. It was only after the firing on Ft. Sumter and the 'Old Flag' that got most of the North up in arms about secession.

And you are right again, we are worlds apart on the idea that the Abolitionists had any of the power and influence you credit them with prior to the Civil War. They were pretty much ignored by Lincoln and the administration as too radical and getting in the way of reestablishing the Union. The Union was Lincoln's primary goal, not slavery, not until after the EP did slavery become a war aim of the Union.

Myself, I find Lee completely a puzzle. Here is a man that on one hand states that secession is nothing but rebellion, who further states that he does not believe that secession was ever seriously entertained by the founding fathers and considers slavery an evil. Yet he joins the rebellion, as he himself termed it. And Bill, there are exceptions on every side, to include my own home State of Ohio, where 5,000 men signed up in the Confederate army. But does that in any way detract from the fact that enough men from the South joined the Union army, enough in fact to have made up ALL of Lee's loses during the entire course of the war? Does that have any greater impact then the examples you give?

I cannot say if the example of William Wilberforce is entirely without example during the US Abolishionist movement in the US. I am sure that you realize that many in that movement for years advocated a policy of non-violence when pushing its goals. It was only later that other courses of action were considered when this approach was not considered viable any longer.

A few thoughts more, my friend.
Unionblue

Neil,
I was not saying there was not racism. Just the form and effect it took changed from before the war and reconstruction to the after effects..It went from one of racial superiority, often treating them as children, or as property to a form often of fear, hatred, antipathy, animosity and resentment. Reconstruction did more to create a hostility that forged a division than anything prior. It is hard for me to see how that fact can be denied. To blame those feelings on the slaves being freed just is not fair. Freed slaves had lived in non-segragated side-by-side with whites prior to the war. They were not treated with hostility as they were after the reconstruction government was through or after the carpetbaggers had laid waste to everything.

[unionblue]

Tommy,

What about all those slave patrols? What about that passport system for slaves? What about all those fears after rumored slave uprisings? I contend that the fear, hatred, resentment and animosity were again a bit more evident at certain times and places during that time, just not considered as wrong as they are today.

And I can find some books that claim just the opposite of what you say about Freedmen living in the South. That they were viewed with concern and fear as they might be focal points for unrest for those still in the bonds of slavery. They were never fully trusted.

Unionblue

Neil,
Funny then that those freedmen did not flee the south to the North. In fact, most slaves freed in the north moved to the South. (Or the North sold them to the South when slavery was done away with, There is an irony there, after selling their slaves when their states banned slavery, they then condemned the South for buying them I guess) The PBS program History Detectives tracked down the life story of a freedman from Maryland who moved to New Orleans then to Jackson. He was just two steps from the North wasn’t he? In each place he made good money, ran his business well and profited to the day he died. Yes, there were patrols when uprisings were rumored or real. There were patrols for a reason. Hatred wasn't one of them. Protection was. As to freedman, there were several who did hatch plots, Denmark Vesey's ( a fairly wealthy freedman himself) had created a fairly brilliant plot. That was one reason for such concerns. Not racism itself. To defend against criminal behavior. To protect life and property. But none of those denote the same attitudes as after reconstruction ended.

(Message edited by aphillbilly on October 06, 2004)

[johan_steele]

To those who would defend slavery, visit Charleston and see some of the building modifications that were done to prevent or defend against slave uprisings. As to non segregation prior to reconstruction... you're kidding right? God forbid that a black man should ask to learn to read, or not to be sold away from his family... Property has no rights. The fear was very real of slave revolts and when they happened or even the thought that they were being planned came to the attention of the owner an example was made. I doubt that example was pleasant.

Such a crime that a freedman might make a profit, where was he more likely to make a profit, in the South where the cost of living was cheaper, labor was plentiful and cheap or where he would have to hire white immigrants and actually pay them...

A freedman could go anywhere he wished, unless he failed to pay a fine in which case he would be returned to slavery or God forbid a bounty hunter might decide he looked like a runaway slave... After all, the word of a black man vs a white...

A pity the patrols were needed don't you think? If slavery was such a benevolant and loved system why on earth were those patrols needed? Bounty Hunters, a profitable career retrieving runaways.

"We took a dim view on slavery when we began to discover shackles and whips present in every overseer house. Seeing the scars of a life under the whip endeared it less to us and seeing those scars on the back of a child was what changed our outlook from one of apathy to disgust and anger. To see a child as white as my own called a slave simply because of a black mother turned that disgust to rage. Burn it, scourge it from the earth. I say reverse the role and put the slave over the master and see how these rich cowards like it." Sgt Cyrus Oleson, Iowa Regiment

Defend slavery and defend the moral supremecy of the South... slavery is quite the scar and not easily glossed over. More so when it's realized how benevolant it wasn't.