Slavery; THE Cause?

[RebProf]

Originally Posted by cash

Speculation on your part. You must be talking about Edward Ayers' book. I find that the "multicauses" all can be traced back to the umbrella issue of slavery. There were different aspects of slavery that might be considered different causes, and there were different effects of the presence of slavery that might be considered different causes, but it all comes back to what Mississippi very clearly said. "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery."

Regards,
Cash

The estimate of ten years is indeed speculation. The rest is solid history. Cash may see all causes tracing back to slavery but I know of no Multicausalist historian, form the present or the past, who agrees. To say all causes trace back to salvery is to say there is only one cause. This circular reasoning is not acceptable. Multicausalist means just what it says. We are not speaking of several facets of one cause (Cash), we are talking about several causes.

I am glad you warned about taking the autobiographies of freed slaves at face value. Historians don't know how much of the material comes from the slave and how much from the editor, most of whom were Abolitionists.

You might also look at plantation records to gain some degree of information about such items as food, clothing, work demands, etc. These give only the view of the slave owner but they do speak to the matter of living conditions.

[Alabaman]

Hi RebProf,

I've read some of the Plantation chronicles from U. of N.C., to which you speak, I think? Some of the Slave Narratives seem reasonable and some seem very strange in context. I thought the naarratives were taken strictly for historical purposes and held no agenda. On the other hand..?

Many times it has passed my mind as to the validity of all these narratives. The interviewer could certainly ask questions in a "certain" manner in order to derive a "desired" answer. Would you please tell me who offically started the narratives? I'd appreciate this!

I was unaware of the slave narratives being taken by abolitionist folk. This is very interesting.

Sincerely,
Rob Adams

[RebProf]

The copies of the slave narratives with which I have worked are at Fisk University in Nashville. The original tapes have been duplicated and are available widely.
The point you raise is a very good one and is the key to any historical discussion; "How reliable are the sources?" All sources contain a point of view and are thus "contaminated." The task of the historian is to recognize the reality of this bias and to try to separate the facts from the opinion. Having done so, the historian goes on to produce his own opinion--quite a game, huh?
It it because of the nature of the game that history IS revision; the constant review, reevaluation, and rewriting of our understanding of the past. In doing this the historian is often influenced by the times in which he lives. The old veterans who put up the monuments in the 1880's and '90's were influenced in their interpretation of the war by a desire to reunite the North & South; those who see slavery as the only cause are influenced by a view of the South which emerged during the Civil Rights Movement when the South was (again) seen as the "bad boy" of the nation. But, because of the nature of the game no historical interpretation is totally valid or permanent in its acceptance. That is why I say monocausalism will disappear, ten years maybe or perhaps longer, but it too will pas because it is not the only way in which the past can be or should be understood.

[samgrant]

RebProf,

I'm trying to understand exactly what you are saying.

Do you think that, all other things being as they were, but with the absence of slavery, that there would have been the secession that led to the war?

Respectfully, SamG

[MobileBoy]

Samgrant,
It's not like the Northern politicians weren't guilty of their own sins,their own economic agenda, and selfishness.Blaming slavery as the sole cause is about as intelligent as blaming the Republican party for the whole war.If a Republican candidate wasn't elected the Southern states wouldn't have seceded.So by your logic the entire blame of the war can be attributed to the Republican party.If you analyze the voters a much higher percentage were Republicans amongst Northerners than slaveowners were amongst Southerners.I don't blame everything on the Republicans though.Simply blaming Southerners or slavery for the war is lazy and not a very educated conclusion in my opinion.Though it is very convenient if someone is just determined to ignore any role the North played in the conflict.

[Admiral_Porter]

If a Republican candidate wasn't elected the Southern states wouldn't have seceded.

Because the Republicans were founded in response to the Kansas-Nebraska Act to stop the expansion of slavery.

Lincoln's election just played into the planters' fears about losing their "property."

So by your logic the entire blame of the war can be attributed to the Republican party.

The Republicans won a fair election. The south pulled a temper tantrum and seceded. It's not the Republicans fault that the Democrats split in half over the slavery issue.

The south then confiscated civil, monetary, and military property of the US and fired on Federal troops in a Federal installation leading to war.

[johan_steele]

"...those who see slavery as the only cause are influenced by a view of the South which emerged during the Civil Rights Movement when the South was (again) seen as the "bad boy" of the nation. But, because of the nature of the game no historical interpretation is totally valid or permanent in its acceptance."

Rebprof; Could you clarify for me what you think the Civil Rights Movement was about and whether or not it was neccesary.

[samgrant]

OK, MobileBoy,

Didn't say it was the sole cause, but, I'll ask you the same question:

Do you think that, all other things being as they were, but with the absence of slavery, that there would have been the secession that led to the war?

Hint: If there was no slavery, there would have been no abolitionists.

[MobileBoy]

Samgrant,
Honestly no I don't think there is secession without slavery but it's not a provable fact.I also think with no sectional party there is no secession.Slavery came first so its critical, but I'm also of the opinion that the ammunition the die-hards needed to rile up the masses was due to the Republicans beliefs and actions.I'm sorry for being rude.I detest slavery and I could pretty much go along with the motives of Southern slaveowners being definitely less than honorable.I just make a clear distinction between the will of politicians and the will of the average Confederate citizen.I think the war from the Northern perspective in a political sense was about economics .I don't think the average citizens of the North were motivated in any way by thoughts of subjucation of exploiting the South economically.As for the Republicans I think they were a greedy power hungry lot.No worse than the slaveownwers interested in their own benefit but no better either.

[bill_torrens]

The Republicans won a fair election. The south pulled a temper tantrum and seceded.

The last sentence of the above is the expression of a regional stereotype rather than an historical argument. I doubt very much whether you can produce evidence to show that the majority of the individuals who signed the various ordinances of secession were in a flaming temper as they did so.

Why is it that stereotyping the South is still permissible in polite society but stereotyping any kind of minority isn't?

The reason why the Republican Party's advent to power was not acceptable to the South was that it was a purely regional organization. It existed to look after the interests of one section of the nation, and one only. No democracy can survive such a party coming to office. The election of a Republican president killed the United States; the South disassociated itself from a corpse.