Slavery; THE Cause? - Page 4

hawglips · #31 10-06-2004, 12:21 PM

Neil: I have noted your concerns over the web sites of Mr. Epperson. You have stated that you think the site 'nearly criminal' because of it's potential to mislead innocent seekers of knowledge concerning the causes of the Civil War

Not the potential to mislead, but the intent to mislead, while pretending to be an objective site.

Sites that compare Lincoln to Hitler are at least honest with their bias.

I am embarrassed for Mr. Epperson.

Hal

georgiana · #32 10-06-2004, 01:37 PM

I consider secession the cause of the war and slavery the root cause of secession. The Missouri Compromise, The Gag Rule, The Compromise of 1850, Bleeding Kansas, Dred Scot….these were all slavery-related events that certainly fueled increased sectional animosity, but the event that triggered the actual shooting war was secession.

In my mind, there are several approaches to the question(s) of what caused the war. Why did southern states secede and what led to that decision being made? Why did they believe secession was legal? Why did they believe it was justified? Given that secession was attempted, why was the issue resolved by war and not compromise? Given that war had begun, why did men join armies? Why did they remain in service? “Slavery” certainly is not the answer to all of these questions, particularly not the last two. IIRC, it was Jefferson Davis that said something to the effect that the aggressor is not necessarily the first to resort to force, but rather the first to make the use of force necessary. If I ask myself what issue made the use of force inevitable, my answer would not be slavery, but secession.

Slaves were never at the top of anyone’s list of priorities at any time in the nation’s history. I wish that Jefferson had fought as hard on the slavery issue as he did for the separation of church and state. I wish Madison had cared as much or fought as hard on issues respecting slavery as he did with respect to state equality in the Senate, an issue that nearly broke-up the convention in Philadelphia. But such was not the case. They all turned a blind-eye to slavery in order to secure the Union. The precedent was set before the ink was dry and for the next 75 years the United States would continue to be a nation that espoused liberty….but practiced bondage.

There is no doubt that virulent racism was prevalent in the north as well as the south. That is an unfortunate aspect of our national history that should never be forgotten. This, however, has never amounted to a defense of the institution of slavery, which is surely the most violent and degraded expression of racism in any society. Even the vast majority of racists by 1861 saw slavery as an unjustifiably cruel and brutal institution. This includes the Northern U.S., and all the former slaveholding countries in the Western Hemisphere but Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Venezuela. That leaves the southern states holding very backward thinking for the time. Add to this that just about all of the European countries had outlawed slavery at the time, in spite of racists being in the majority there as well, and the argument that Southerners held mainstream beliefs for their time is simply not defensible.

thea_447 · #33 10-06-2004, 01:49 PM

After reading all these posts (which were very enlightening in showing where everybody stands, as if we didn't know!) some salient points come to light (at least for me).

Bill Torrens asks the question "Why did Lincoln have to trick the South into firing the first shot?" Didn't he think that the North would stand firmly behind him when he called his invasion of the South just attempting to send in supplies? (Of course there's that tricky bit about sending warships along that would need explaining. Oh, but that would be overlooked if the South fired first -the North could then clothe itself in righteous indignation. Not a bad first move.)

The question was brought up fairly early in this thread of the attitude of the entire country about the Negro. That is something most people from other countries would not understand. In that era NOBODY considered the Negro to be equal, I don't care how many times one hears the phrase "Die to make men free!" As Neil pointed out, even Lincoln himself wanted to ship them out of the country. He even met with some blacks and told them to their faces that they would never be equal to whites and that they were more suited to a tropical climate. (Sometimes people on this board let their modern views color the real truth about that era. You reenacters like to "get into the moment and become a part of that era" so you should try adopting the attitudes that these folks really felt!)

And while Neil and Jenna have brought up songs that represent the causes espoused by North and South, nobody seems to take offense but me to that little bit about "trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored". Apparently Sherman took it to heart!
So much for the nobility of that song. Frankly I'm a bit surprised that Harriet didn't manage a verse or two about washing around in bloody fountains as hymns of that era are wont to express.

As to the North not being gung ho about Abolitionism, Lincoln certainly jumped on their bandwagon fast enough when he issued the EP,but he did it strictly as a military maneuver. He needed something to bolster the Northerners who were becoming disgruntled with the war after losing battle after battle.

I also find Max's idea that secession was the cause of war intriguing. I have often thought about what it would have been like if the North had let the South go peacefully. After all, the North had made absolutely no provisions for what to do with all those slaves if and when they freed them. Isn't that BIZARRE? They didn't want them in the North or anywhere else except the South. This moralistic attitude while they turned a blind eye to child labor in factories just stuns me!

Why not just let the South figure that out by themselves. From this board I've been told that the South would not have been recognized by any substantial countries as long as they held onto slavery, so who were they going to trade with? No matter that all those lives would have been saved, what if the two countries had learned to get along peaceably and respected each other enough to trade amongst themselves on EQUAL footing.

I truly believe that Lincoln had no right to invade the South.
I also believe the South had the absolute right to secede from an institution which they felt was injurious to them.
I also believe that nobody on either side tried hard enough to offer a reasonable "out" for the Southerners AND for the Negroes. (They were both caught in a spider's web, each dependent on the other.)In every other country this had been done without causing a catastrophe of the magnitude of the WBTS. And I also believe like those "prophets" of long ago that no section of a country can be held by the use of the bayonet. Did anyone THINK that the winner would not really win anything except the undying hostility of the loser? The South wanted to be let go and she should have been allowed to leave, but the monies, etc. that the North got from her were too big an incentive for those higher latitude-minded people.

And from what I have read, all this ballyhoo about blacks leaving and going North isn't quite right. In fact most stayed in the South and by the 1940s descendents of those who'd left were returning in droves.

I don't think but one person on these boards has said that blacks actually liked being slaves. He's since left the boards so I don't know why this is espoused as the voice of Southerner opinion, anymore than the drivel about all slaves being beaten to a bloody pulp or traded away from their families. Thinking realistically you wouldn't beat a valuable slave, how could he perform optimally? The same can be said for keeping them happy by keeping families intact. Common sense would dictate these things. The "Simon Legree mentality" is always attached to Southerners by those who would deride. Southerners are either labeled simpletons or red-faced whiskey loving plantation owners (think "Big Daddy in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof) leering at everything from young black girls to billy goats! This mental picture is carried over into every movie or sitcom produced by Hollyrot today.

It makes one wonder why the small-time farmers with only themselves and their children to till the soil would stoicly march off to war. It certainly was not for slavery. They didn't OWN any slaves! And I don't believe that such a mass of men were herded like sheep by the big plantation owners! Whoever gave the mental picture on this thread of Northerners ALL being well read and marching to free the slaves while those simpletons from the South did the same for slavery should read some of the letters I've read from both sides. Neither side was exactly the next Einstein.

Wrapping this up (momentarily) I would say that secession was a cause for war. Fort Sumter lit the keg. States rights and tariffs were more of a reason than slavery since the South would have been better served by staying than leaving if that was the case. The continued trashing of the Constitution was a big reason. And the very apparent buildup by the North of railroads, factories, etc., all financed on the South's "dime" was cause for concern. The bottom line: the South was sick of being pushed around by the North and just wanted out! They had lost power in government and knew this was a death knell for any equality in business,etc.,etc.

On Lee: Like you, Neil, I was at first puzzled but then I re-read his statement when he declined the offer to command the Northern forces. He said: "Save in the defense of my native State, I never desire again to draw my sword." He didn't believe in secession but he obviously thought the North was wrong in their dealings with the South. Too bad nobody understood that he meant LITERALLY to defend his native state. This tunnel-vision was his Achilles heel, in my opinion.

Till we meet again, I remain YMOS,

mobile_96 · #34 10-06-2004, 03:06 PM

Thea,
And the very apparent buildup by the North of railroads, factories, etc., all financed on the South's "dime"
Is there any documentation that Northern interests in the Southern Controlled government prevented railroads and factories from being built in the South. Say something in the congressional records?
The truth is, in the 1850's there were attempts to get the South to build more factories. But most efforts came to nothing, as factories and workers were considered below the dignity of the southern culture.
As far as railroads go, Southern interests were fighting to get the transcontinental run to Memphis. One of the last speeches Davis made in Congress was in this interest, protesting the possible use of St.Louis.
So, in everyone's research here, what material do we have access to that proves the 'South' was denied use of public funds for internal improvements.

blacks leaving and going North isn't quite right. In fact most stayed in the South and by the 1940s descendents of those who'd left were returning in droves.
I consider this to be a natural thing. Just because they wanted to stay didn't show they were willing to be slaves, but something else was on their minds.
It was Home to them, not so much the plantations and farms, but the South. It should be remembered that by the 1860's almost all the blacks in this country had been Born here. Africa was not home, American was. And for the slaves, the South was home.From Diaries I've read, many of the slaves that did excape to the North, wished they could return to their families and friends, to home, but Not to slavery.

dawna · #35 10-06-2004, 04:29 PM

Bill T:

If I might address a few comments to you, I would first of all like to suggest that a minority of secessionists did "lead the people of the South astray from the path of good citizenship." The aristocracy greatly influenced the political stance of the South, while the Slave Codes and slave patrols protected their interests. When one considers Jefferson Davis' sectionalist arguments while he was still a Senator, it's not difficult to imagine a certain hysteria setting in, and the growing impossibility for a more "temperate language":

"It is not humanity that influences you… it is that you may have a majority in the Congress of the United States and convert the Government into an engine of Northern aggrandizement… you want by an unjust system of legislation to promote the industry of the United States at the expense of the people of the South.”

I can't help but think that the debate regarding slavery for the Southerner gradually evolved into an economic based question of money and power, since only one third of the South's population owned slaves. For this same reason, I still question the importance of slavery as the cause of the Civil War. It's curious to me that the North and South opposed each other so vehemently over whether the new states should be free. It is apparent that the North did not want an influx of ex-slaves into their exclusive white territories, but the Southern point of view mystifies me since the climate of the Western Territories was unsuitable for growing cotton or tobacco. This would have made it impossible for slavery to become economically viable, or widespread.

In a previous thread we briefly discussed racism of the 19th century, and I am realizing that the North was equally racist but hid their racism behind indifference and abolitionist propoganda. It seems that the abolitionists were only a small minority who puffed themselves up like adders in order to be taken as a serious threat to the South. Most Northerners held no opinion regarding slavery but those who did were still happy to use the products that resulted from the slave industry. And if slavery was such an issue for the North, why were McClellan and Halleck ordered "not only to defeat Southern armies, but also to prevent slave insurrections?" I firmly believe that Northerners were as uneasy about slave rebellions as Southerners.

It is also difficult to discuss the context of slavery without pointing a finger towards the many Northern factories that employed women and children, which Thea has eluded to. Fourteen to sixteen hour days with lack of heating, cooling, ventilation, the constant threat of fire, and lack of medical care recognizes a different breed of slave labour.

Hal, I agree that Mr. Epperson's site is completely biased and found these quotes equally disturbing:

The Richmond Inquirer, 1856 -"Democratic liberty exists soley because we have slaves...freedom is not possible without slavery."

Rev. John T. Wightman, preaching at Yorkville in S.C. - "The triumphs of Christianity rest this very hour upon slavery, and slavery depends on the triumps of the South."

Again, it is my opinion that slavery provided an explosive rallying card for both sides in the Civil War, but it's actual role was not the main one. No legal action or the most zealous of abolitionist could have accomplished what the reaction was to the abolition of slavery.

Dawna

johan_steele · #36 10-06-2004, 04:29 PM

Some are wont to confuse facts... since when does a supply run make an invasion? Pray tell, please do explain this to me as I am truly mystified how in Gods name were 16,000 Regular troops (most spread out along the frontier)going to force the South to do anything. Were they going to just stand up and tell the 100,000 troops called up by the Confederacy to go home? Those 100,000 were just called up to... what fight the spring floods? And yes the 100,000 were called up prior to the firing on of Ft Sumter.

So you are saying that because many black families wanted to go home to the land they grew up in and be among friends that they were content w/ slavery or that they were better off in a land dominated by Slaveowners?

I believe the Confederate Politicians did a wonderful job of spin, an advantage we have today is the bloggers, and various opinions available from both sides. The average farmer and laborer in the South had only the word of his local paper, the word of his elected politician. It was a War over money, in that I agree. The money of the slave society. As to tariffs, oh no we're paying the same tariffs as New York... oh the tragedy of being treated so unfairly. If the South was being so poorly treated... why didn't states like Wisconsin, Iowa or Minnesota eagerly join the CSA? Slavery was a money making industry... anything that would cut into that would impact those in power.

As to the droves going to volunteer to defend States Rights... I understand why. I myself don't like the Federal Govt telling me and mine how to live. If I were told that by my State Representative and by the men who owned all of the business I think I'd likely believe them. The desertion rates w/in the CSA Army at least indicate several things: the soldiers realized the men who had sent them off to suffer and die were happily siping mint julips back on the Plantation, realized the War was a lost cause, knew the CSA govt was doing squat to defend their homes etc. Unlike some men, many of those same soldiers put stock in their word when they gave the oath to serve. The continued to serve even after not being paid (some for more than a year) they continued to serve through inept quartermaster dept... because they gave their word. Amazing that, Gen Grant was willing to take their word on a parole. Most kept that word because it meant something to them, even if given to a Yankee.

The average Southerner didn't start the War, he fought it. Those that started the War got away with it.

Slavery the only cause? No. The root cause... yes.

jenna · #37 10-06-2004, 05:25 PM

Neil: I never inteded to offend when I made referance to 'rehashing' the same topic. I know from past boards that is a topic that is near and dear to your heart. I too see many re-enactors come out and all they want is to go out and play war, and not dive into the history of it. That is wrong. We are living historians out there and we convey a time and a place that no longer exists. So we have to do it to the best of our ability. But we also have to be open minded and respectful, so if I have not been, I apologize.

My area of passion is the "life" of the Civil War, how did they live and what did they do. Especially the women. Being one myself, sorry, but the war and the generals and the maneuvers are not that interesting to me. But I do believe, like you have said as well we are allowed to believe what we want, but I believe that slavery was not the cause of the war. And that is what I meant by rehashing.

The actually freeing of slaves did not fully occure until the Constitutional Amendment was sighned doing so after Lincoln had died. So the EP really did nothing. A referance was made above, don't remember where I saw it, but that slaves raced to the north after the EP was issured. I think that is a bit fictious. It's like all slaves being beaten as portrayed in Uncle Tom's cabin. I have heard tell that many slaves actually went and fought right along side their masters. Not in fighting for the institution of slavery, but because they were loyal to their masters and that was where they belonged.

I do agree with the fact that slavery was in the back of everyone's mind, and that it was the state's right to deal with "property" as they wished, and that is unfortunately what they looked at slaves as, property. And today that is wrong on so many levels.

Yes, wouldn't it have been interesting to see what would have happened if the south had been allowed to go. Might be interesting to see if Bush would have been the current President of the Southern states, but that is today, and we are not talking in that rehlem

Katherine, you bring up a very interesting point, about the North being jealous of the South. Sorry, but I had never taken that view, and it's interesting. Yes, I guess we could have been a bit jealous of the lifestyle, not having to work, every whim taken care of for us by someone else. Lots of land, lots of soirees, life of leisure, but then again, there was that upper crust of Northern society that had that as well, they just paid their help. They had servents, normally women who needed work, paid them, and they lived with them. There in lies the difference in society.

I am sure I have more, but my brain has turned to mush, and I shall have more but can't think. Pregnancy hormones at work I'm sure.

thea_447 · #38 10-06-2004, 05:45 PM

If everyone on these boards would read ALL of my paragraphs and not just take a snippet and try to make something out of it, life would be simpler. Alas, it hasn't happened yet. MY sentence concerned warships that accompanied the provisions for Fort Sumter. I said absolutely nothing about 16,000 Regular troops spread along the frontier. Unless of course that poster meant to imply that those 16,000 were loaded onto those warships! At any rate, for Lincoln to have sent warships to accompany provisions his message was crystal clear to Southerners.

Next it is implied that I have intimated something about black families returning home to be content with slavery. Re-read that paragraph too, and see that I was talking about the 1940s, for God's sake, long after the war ended.

Everyone on these boards has a right to their own opinions. It is easy to get overwrought when trying to express opinions. It is to be hoped that before writing what is obviously a rebuttal to a post, one would read and re-read that post to make absolutely sure it is perfectly understood.

The average Southerner didn't start the War, he fought it. Those that started the War WON it.

thea_447 · #39 10-06-2004, 08:24 PM

Chuck,

Tommy's information on the CSA Constitution vs. the US Constitution thread of Sept.30, 2004 gives conclusive evidence concerning this constant myth that the South had control of the government. Also, check who appointed the Supreme court justices. Most of them were not pro South either. Paraphrasing something Tommy said to me: Never mind that they are not supposed to be political but uphold the Constitution; if they made pro south decisions it was because the Constitution said so but eh, they are political). Taney was appointed by Jackson, not exactly a pro south guy. As to the senate, They were not pro south either. Just because someone is a democrat means little."

For information on the railroads, go to: http://alpha.furman.edu/~benson/docs/#Statistics
Then try: http://alpha.furman.edu/~benson/docs/rr5060.htm
There you can see that the total numbers show the real state of affairs: Total miles in 1861 for the North: 21,005;
total number for the South in 1861: 9512

Although in the first few years of railroad building the South didn't try to get them, by 1850 the South was trying desperately to get as many railroads as they could. But the charters to get them built had to be done by the Northerners and the South could not get the charters.

The myth of the South controlling the government has been discussed ad infinitum on various threads so I will not attempt to just rehash this. In the end, it's all in the eye of the beholder.

Hope this helps in some small way to show you the true nature of affairs as concerning the railroads in that period.

What amazes me is that even though the South didn't have nearly the railroads and produced on 3 percent of the firearms in 1861, they STILL decided on War. Hot tempers and little patience is one thing but with all the brilliant orators of that time, on BOTH sides, for the life of me, I cannot understand why the two factions didn't sit down and try to discuss this situation rationally. My conclusion: Women should have been involved in government. It certainly couldn't have HURT the situation if they had been!

Your servant, sir.

johan_steele · #40 10-06-2004, 08:43 PM

Sorry Maam, I'll have to verify my history but I'm rather certain the Union won the War. I know some would have it otherwise and often worship at the Jeff Davis shrine praying and burning incense in an effort to get closer to him; but to rewrite history for the South to have won... that's pushing it.

Tricked into shooting first by Lincoln? I thought such a thing impossible as the South was above being manipulated. So if Lincoln manipulated the situation for his benefit... what are the chances Southern politicians did the same. Who was really manipulating who into war?

Back to the original question of the thread was slavery the root cause of the war? Stephens certainly seemed to think so. There is mention of slavery being a stumbling block in European intervention and recognition by no other august personage than Slidell... if Slavery wasn't important as some on this board suggest why was their such resistance to abolition of any sort? A simple emancipation by the CSA might well have pushed France & Britain to recognizing the CSA.

In its simplest form the problem w/ slavery compounded by the rise of abolitionism intensified Secession fever. The election of a President that Southern politicians thought would support and accomplish abolitionist goals was too much for them. So they adopted an all or nothing approach. A pity they didn't wait to see if Lincoln was going to force the South to give up their slaves.