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.
Slavery was not threatened in states where it already existed.
What was threatened was slavery's ability to expand into the territories.
Yes the radical abolitionists were a minority but still most northerners didn't want slavery coming into their states or free territories because the big planters would be competing against a free labor system.
Lincoln did indeed want to destroy slavery but at the same time was not willing to take radical means to do it. His frequent trips down the Mississippi to New Orleans in his youth made him anti-slavery. The Lincoln-Douglas debates further clarified Lincoln's position on slavery.
I often see neo-confederate websites using the Lincoln quote of "I have never been in support of making the white and black man equals." If they did their research they would realize that Lincoln made that statement in southern Illinois which was heavily populated by southerners from Kentucky. He made that statement simply for their political support and not because he believed in it.
The Republican Party was founded as a direct result of the Kansas-Nebraska Act which created the idea of Popular Sovereignity in regards to slavery in the territories. The party was unified in one respect: preventing the expansion of slavery.
The Whig party, the Methodist Church, and the Democrats in 1860 all broke apart because they were divided over slavery.
The 1860 Republican Platform was anti-popular sovereignity which made the big southern planters worry. Even before the election took place the south made threats that they would secede if the Republicans won. Lincoln did not get even one single vote in 10 southern states.
The south believed that if Lincoln were elected he would prevent them from creating a vast slave empire which was steadily moving westward.
In addition, I find it hard to ignore statements like the secession declarations and Stephens' Cornerstone Speech, southerners who actively assisted in creating the Confederacy, when they say that the cause of the separation was slavery.
Take slavery out of the equation and what other issue was so important to southerners that they felt they needed their own country to protect their interests? I can't think of any that guided their society as much as slavery did.
Last edited by Admiral_Porter; 11-03-2005 at 09:23 PM.
Some one posted an answer that very nearly satisfied me: The southern power elite saw clearly that they would lose that power within not many years. Rather than lose that power and all it entailed, they determined to maintain it separately. Slavery pertained in that they feared losing it and their way of life with the power.
It might be concluded that the war was waged to avoid the change that was surely coming. Fear.
It is equally nonsensical to say that the planter elite fought just to preserve slavery. Slavery wasn't threatened. Abolitionists were a radical minority. The Northern public and most Northern politicians had no interest in destroying slavery, Lincoln included. Why would the South fight to preserve something that was not threatened? Wishful thinking, but makes no sense.
In a way, you ask the right question, but draw the wrong conclusion.
I've recently finished Charles Dew's "Apostles of Disunion: Southern Secession Commissioners and the Causes of the Civil War", which describes the speeches and other communications of commissioners appointed by seceding states to encourage other southern states to secede. It is utterly striking how convinced the commissioners were that the election of Lincoln and the "Black Republicans" would lead to abolition, equality of the races, race war, rape, pillage, murder (or worse miscegenation), leading to destruction of the white race and leaving the South a devastate wasteland. By way of example, here is an Alabama Commissioner writing to the Governor of Kentucky:
"Therefore it is that the election of Mr. Lincoln cannot be regarded otherwise than a solemn declaration, on the part of a great majority of the Northern people, of hostility to the South, her property, and her institutions; nothing less than an open declaration of war, for the triumph of this new theory of government destroys the property of the South, lays waste her fields, and inaugurates all the horrors of a San Domingo servile insurrection, consigning her citizens to assassinations and her wives and daughters to pollution and violation to gratify the lust of half-civilized Africans. Especially is this true in the cotton-growing States, where, in many localities, the slave outnumbers the white population ten to one."
As divorced from reality as these dark fantasies may have been, there is no doubt that the southern radicals held them, and believed them fervently. As Professor Dew concludes:
"Did these men really believe these things? Did they honestly think that secession was necessary in order to stay the frenzied hand of the Republican abolitionist, preserve a racial purity and racial supremacy, nad save their women and children from rape and slaughter at the hands of 'half-civilized Africans'? They made these statements, and used the appropriate code words, too many times in too many places with too much fervor and raw emotion to leave much room for doubt. They knew these things in the marrow of their bones, and they destroyed a political union because of what they believed and what they foresaw.
"But, we might ask, could they not see the illogicality, indeed the absurdity, of their insistence that Lincoln's election meant that the white South faced the sure prospect of either massive miscegenation or a race war to the finish? They seem to have been totally untroubled by logical inconsistencies of this sort."
To give the southerners a little more credit, I guess I'd put it this way. For all their protestations that they believed their slaves loved them, they knew the opposite was true. Particularly those in areas where slaves outnumbered whites, they believed with all their heart they were sitting on a powderkeg that was ready to explode given the slightest spark. That spark, they believed, was Lincoln.
Slavery was only a symptom of the larger issue that can be traced back to Jeffersonian Democrats and Federalists.
Even assuming the planter elite fought the war for slavery (which I don't think they did) it makes no sense that the mostly non slave holding population of commoners would go into war.
Why not? They supported the existence of slavery as well.
That makes no sense. The Jefferson/Federalist debate began in a time when slavery was on its way out. The reason the issue got ignored because everyone saw that slavery was dying out. Old Eli Whitney and the cotton gin changed that.
The problem is you've misidentified the cause. State rights was the vehicle used for secession, not a reason for secession. Southerners were quite willing to trample all over state rights if it helped the institution of slavery. Look at all their demands for Northern states to repeal Personal Liberty Laws. From 1820 to the end of the Civil War, the one constant issue being argued over was the institution of slavery. What makes no sense is to try to argue slavery was anything but the root cause of the Civil War.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nbforrest
It is equally nonsensical to say that the planter elite fought just to preserve slavery. Slavery wasn't threatened.
That's what today's PC [politically confederate] version would try to have you believe. It's not supported by the actual historical record.
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery." [Mississippi Declaration of Causes]
"For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery." [Georgia Declaration of Causes]
"Our people have come to this on the question of slavery." [Lawrence M. Keitt in the South Carolina Secession Debate]
"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact." [Alexander H. Stephens, Savannah, Georgia, 21 Mar 1861]
"What was the reason that induced Georgia to take the step of secession? This reason may be summed up in one single proposition. It was a conviction, a deep conviction on the part of Georgia, that a separation from the North was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery." [Henry Benning to Virginia Secession Convention, 18 Feb 1861]
"Upon the principles then announced by Mr. Lincoln and his leading friends, we are bound to expect his administration to be conducted. Hence it is, that in high places, among the Republican party, the election of Mr. Lincoln is hailed, not simply as a change of Administration, but as the inauguration of new principles, and a new theory of Government, and even as the downfall of slavery. Therefore it is that the election of Mr. Lincoln cannot be regarded otherwise than a solemn declaration, on the part of a great majority of the Northern people, of hostility to the South, her property and her institutions-- nothing less than an open declaration of war-- for the triumph of this new theory of Government destroys the property of the South, lays waste her fields, and inaugurates all the horrors of a San Domingo servile insurrection, consigning her citizens to assassinations, and her wives and daughters to pollution and violation, to gratify the lust of half-civilized Africans." [Stephen F. Hale of Alabama to Gov. Beriah Magoffin of Kentucky, 27 Dec 1860]
In the words of Prof. James I. Robertson, it is "incontestable" that slavery is the root cause of the war.
Elektraig,
I wouldn't think it would be wise to assume that the majority of Southerners or even slaveowners felt exactly as this man did or other radicals.True there was a severe fear of slave insurrection which the John Brown situation only made worse.Many Northerners openly praised John Brown and of course though they were the minority, but I'm not sure Southeners knew that.It's easy to sit in judgement now but look at how mislead Americans still our today with television and news, the internet etch...At least where I live everyone was convinced Saddam still had these quote weapons of mass destruction ready to hand out to Al Quaeda.Millions of Americans still think the Iraqui poeple are better off today than they were a few years ago.Poeple are killed and maimed their by terrorist bombs daily and the Sunnis and Shiites will never all get along.They don't seem better off to me.You also had(at least in Alabama) most poeple blaming 911 on Muslim extremist being jealous of America's finances, glory etch...Right and it had nothing to do with our support(arming) of Israel(their enemies).Sorry for the distraction just wanted to make a point.The vast majority of Americans in the 1860s got their news of the outside world from the newspapers.Seeing how they were hardly accurate and mistakenly believed as truth it's easy to see how some poeple may have gotten misled.You better believe the diehard-secessionist used every trick in the book to stir public support for secession.I was always amazed at how many slaves remained on the plantation for so long with the men off fighting.Apparently many slaves did love their owners though I can't understand why.There was hardly any slave massacres of whites at all reported during the war.While they wanted freedom it doesn't seem to me that most slaves hated their masters.That leads me to believe the vast majority of slaves weren't bound and beaten often for white supremacy kicks as propraganda pushers would love for us to believe.
Regards,
Ashley
"I was always amazed at how many slaves remained on the plantation for so long with the men off fighting.Apparently many slaves did love their owners though I can't understand why.There was hardly any slave massacres of whites at all reported during the war.While they wanted freedom it doesn't seem to me that most slaves hated their masters.That leads me to believe the vast majority of slaves weren't bound and beaten often for white supremacy kicks as propraganda pushers would love for us to believe."
Until Union troops came by, there was nowhere for a slave to go. It was extremely dangerous for a slave to wandering around in unoccupied territory. That alone would tend to fix adventurous slaves to the plantation. And, as today, a percentage of the people would prefer the devil they knew to the devil they didn't.
Certainly in a population as large as the slave population, you will find some with attitutdes at both extremes -- those who worshipped their masters as well as those who waited for the opportunity to murder them. And yes, the beating "for kicks" was likely as rare as those owners who permitted no whips at all, but Standard Operating Procedure was to ensure that field hands met their work quota throught the use of whip-wielding crew bosses.
On the lack of slave uprisings, it seems obvious that having been born and raised in subjugation, a certain amount of fear of and respect for white power would have been a powerful deterrent.
.....a severe fear of slave insurrection which the John Brown situation only made worse.Many Northerners openly praised John Brown and of course though they were the minority, but I'm not sure Southeners knew that.
I was always amazed at how many slaves remained on the plantation for so long with the men off fighting.
If credible information was a problem for white Southerners, imagine how hard it might have been for the slaves to know what was going on, or how easily they could have been fooled with disinformation. I suspect that could have contributed to slaves remaining on the plantation voluntarily.
Of course, maybe the bloodhounds had something to do with it too.
On the lack of slave uprisings, it seems obvious that having been born and raised in subjugation, a certain amount of fear of and respect for white power would have been a powerful deterrent.
I recall reading the accounts of one southern woman who described Sherman's troops passing through on their infamous march. A guard was posted to protect the house while other soldiers destroyed some cotton, ran off or killed most of the livestock, raided the smokehouse, etc. I remember that the slaves had earlier run their hogs off to a place in the woods where they would be safe, and done their best to hide meats and food before the troops arrived. As the slaves grew their own food and meats on this plantation, it was easy to get the idea that troops foraging and destroying supplies meant they were taking the slave's food too, and therefore they must have been seen not as a liberator, but as the enemy.
It must have taken a fairly well informed slave community to understand the big picture, something I can't imagine existed very often.
One other thing I remember is that the woman was sure they all would be killed, especially a man who lived on the next plantation. In the end, no one died, but she was angry that the guard who stayed behind to protect her house asked for something to eat.
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
