Slavery; THE Cause?

[hawglips]

Instead of another deciding for them, by using one's own personal standards, would it not be the better choice of letting folks decide for themselves?

Neil, thank you for your sermon on the benefits of free speech. And I appreciate your defense of my right to it.

But if you were interested in folks deciding for themselves on any question, wouldn't you think it beneficial to give them all sides of the issue instead of just one little corner of it?

In my opinion, it is difficult to make a rational decision when the sole information provided is so blatantly biased.

But, you have given me an idea. I think it would be lots of fun to create a web site mirroring Epperson's, calling it Causes of the Civil War, and reverse his bias in every aspect. Would you assist me in this project?

I can see it now -- a "Selected Quotations of the Period" link to a page called Selected Quotations from 1830 to 1865, and include the following, (which I'm sure you will defend as vigorously as you defend Epperson's):

" The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government, from a confederated republic (a voluntary union of states) to a national sectional despotism." 1860 editorial in the Charleston Mercury

New York Evening Post, 2 Mar. 1861: "That either the revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the port must be closed to importations from abroad, is generally admitted. If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe. There will be nothing to furnish means of subsistence to the army; nothing to keep our navy afloat; nothing to pay the salaries of public officers; the present order of things must come to a dead stop."
What, then, is left for our government? Shall we let the seceding states repeal the revenue laws for the whole Union in this manner? Or will the government choose to consider all foreign commerce destined for those ports where we have no custom-houses and no collectors as contraband, and stop it, when offering to enter the collection districts from which our authorities have been expelled."

An editorial in the February 19, 1861 Manchester, New Hampshire Union Democrat voiced the common concerns of Northern shipping interests.
"The Southern Confederacy will not employ our ships or buy our goods. What is our shipping without it? Literally nothing. The transportation of cotton and its fabrics employs more ships than all other trade. It is very clear that the South gains by this process, and we lose. No-we MUST NOT let the South go!" (JRK p. 52)

Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address: "The power confided in me," he said, "will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property, and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion--no using force against, or among the people anywhere."

Newspaper Mobile, Alabama, 30 Mar. 1861, after Lincoln's Inaugural Address: "It is impossible to doubt that it was Mr. Lincoln's policy, under the name of reinforcing the laws, to retake the forts, to collect the revenue of the United States in our Ports and to reduce the seceded States to obedience to the behests of his party. His purpose therefore was war upon and subjugation of our people."

South Carolina's Address to the Slave Holding States: The one great evil, from which all other evils have flowed, is the overthrow of the Constitution of the United States. The Government of the United States is no longer the Government of Confederated Republics, but of a consolidated Democracy. It is no longer a free government, but a Despotism. It is, in fact, such a Government as Great Britain attempted to set over our fathers; and which was resisted and defeated by a seven years' struggle for independence....The Southern States now stand exactly in the same position towards the Northern States that the Colonies did towards Great Britain. The Northern States, having the majority in Congress, claim the same power of omnipotence in legislation as the British Parliament. "The General Welfare," is the only limit to the legislation of either; and the majority in Congress, as in the British Parliament, are the sole judges of the expediency of the legislation this "General Welfare" requires. Thus, the Government of the United States has become a consolidated Government; and the people of the Southern States are compelled to meet the very despotism their fathers threw off in the Revolution of 1776.... And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British Parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States, have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue - to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.... The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected, three- fourths of them are expended at the North....Yet, by gradual and steady encroachments on the part of the people of the North, and acquiescence on the part of the South, the limitations in the Constitution have been swept away; and the Government of the United States has become consolidated, with a claim of limitless powers in its operations.

"Stripped of all its covering, the naked question is, whether ours is a federal or consolidated government; a constitutional or absolute one; a government resting solidly on the basis of the sovereignty of the States, or on the unrestrained will of a majority; a form of government, as in all other unlimited ones, in which injustice, violence, and force must ultimately prevail." -- John C. Calhoun, 1831

Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): "An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful could produce nothing but evil -- evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content."

New York Herald, Nov. 23, 1860
"Coercion, in any event, is out of the question. A Union held together by the bayonet would be nothing better than a military despotism."

The New York Evening Day Book, April 17, 1861 : the event at Fort Sumter was "a cunningly devised scheme" contrived to arouse, and, if possible, exasperate the northern people against the South."

The Commericial (Cincinatti, OH – a Republican newspaper) March 1861, after Lincoln's inauguration: "We are not in favor of blockading the Southern coast. We are not in favor of retaking by force the property of the United States now in possession of the seceders. We would recognize the existence of a government formed of all the slaveholding States and attempt to cultivate amicable relations with it."

Secretary of State William Seward, during a Cabinet meeting in the first month of the Lincoln administration, stated that "[t]he attempt to reinforce Sumter will provoke an attack and involve war. The very preparation for such an expedition will precipitate war at that point. I oppose beginning war at that point. I would advise against the expedition to Charleston. I would at once, at every cost, prepare for war at Pensacola and Texas. I would instruct Major Anderson to retire from Sumter.”

"Mr. Lincoln saw an opportunity to inaugurate civil war without appearing in the character of an aggressor." ~ Providence Daily Post, April 13 1861

Lincoln's letter to Gustavus Fox on 1 May, 1861, "You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Ft Sumter, even if it should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result."

On April 16, 1861, the Buffalo Daily Courier editorialized that "The affair at Fort Sumter ... has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified."

"We are to have civil war, if at all, because Abraham Lincoln loves a [the Republican] party better than he loves his country.... [He] clings to his party creed, and allows the nation to drift into the whirlpool of destruction." ~ The Providence Daily Post, April 13 1861

"The day before Sumter was surrendered two-thirds of the newspapers in the North opposed coercion in any shape or form, and sympathized with the South. These papers were the South's allies and champions. Three-fifths of the entire American people sympathized with the South. Over 200,000 voters opposed coercion, and believed the South had the right to secede."---Horace Greeley, New York Tribune, April 15, 1861.

Bangor Daily Union wrote on November 13, 1860: "The Union depends for its continuance on the free consent and will of the sovereign people of each state, and when that consent and will is withdrawn on either part, their Union is gone." A state that is coerced to remain in the Union becomes a "subject province" and can never be "a co-equal member of the American Union."

"I do not know what the Union would be worth if saved by the sword."
~ Senator William H. Seward, New York

"As to my own position, I hope to see the Union preserved by granting the South the full measure of her constitutional rights. If this can not be done, I hope to see all the Southern States united in a new confederation and that we can effect a peaceable separation. If both of these are denied us, I am with Arkansas in weal or woe. I have been elected and hold a commission of captain of the Volunteer Rifle Company of this place and I can say for my company that if the Stars and Stripes become the standard of a tyrannical majority, the ensign of a violated league, it will no longer command our love or respect but will command our best efforts to drive them from our state.
I am with the South in life or in death, in victory or in defeat...... I believe the North is about to wage a brutal and unholy war on a people who have done them no wrong, in violation of the Constitution and the fundamental principles of government. They no longer acknowledge that all government derives its validity from the consent of the governed. They are about to invade our peaceful homes, destroy our property, and inaugurate a servile insurrection, murder our men and dishonor our women. We propose no invasion of the North, no attack on them, and only ask to be left alone." Major General Patrick Cleburne

NASHVILLE, TENN., April 17, 1861.

Honorable SIMON CAMERON,

Secretary of War;

SIR: Your dispatch of 15th instant, informating me that Tennessee is called upon for two regiments of militia for immediate service, is received. Tennessee will not furnish a single man for purpose of coercion, but 50,000, if necessary, for the defense of our rights and those of our Southern brethren.

ISHAM G. HARRIS,

Governor of Tennessee.



EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, Richmond, Va., April 16, 1861.

Honorable SIMON CAMERON,

Secretary of War:

SIR: ...In reply to this communication I have only to say that the militia of Virginia will not be furnished to the powers at Washington for any such use or purpose as they have in view. Your object is to subjugate the Southern States, and requisition made upon me for such an object--an object, in my judgment, no within the purview of the Constitution or the act of 1795-will not be complied with. You have chosen to inaugurate civil war, and having done so, we will meet it in a spirit as determined as the Administration has exhibited toward the South.

Respectfully,

JOHN LETCHER.

"It was in defence of this that the people of the South sprang to arms 'to defend their homes and families, their property and their rights, the honor and independence of their States to the last, against five fold numbers and resources a hundred fold greater than theirs. The cause [of the North] seems to me as bad as it well could be; the determination of a mere numerical majority to enforce a bond, which they themselves had flagrantly violated, to impose their own mere arbitrary will, their idea of national greatness, upon a distinct, independent, determined and almost unanimous people." - Percy Greg, English Historian, pub. 1864

"The North fought for empire which was not and never had been hers; the South for an independence she had won by the sword, and had enjoyed in law and fact ever since the recognition of the thirteen 'sovereign and independent States,' if not since the foundation of Virginia." - Lord Russell

"Again, all that the South is asking is that it be left alone and permitted to govern itself as it sees fit. It will not attack except in its own defense …Besides, the North's blindness has reached such a point that it wants to fight the South regardless, and hopes to conquer it by blockading its ports." Salmon De Rothschild

London Times:
"If Northerners… had peaceably allowed the seceders to depart, the result might fairly have been quoted as illustrating the advantages of Democracy; but when Republicans put empire above liberty, and resorted to political oppression and war rather than suffer any abatement of national power, it was clear that nature at Washington was precisely the same nature as at St. Petersburg. … Democracy broke down, not when the Union ceased to be agreeable to all its constituent states, but when it was upheld, like any other Empire, by force of arms."

Neil, I also trust that you will post my link at often as you do Epperson's. After all, every word I'll be posting is accurate, and there will be nothing but lots of such good primary source documents and quotes to demonstrate what the Causes of the Civil War were.

Hal

[hawglips]

Charles, I have no personal vendetta against Epperson or anybody else. I've never met him, nor spoken to him outside of inviting him to include some things on his site.

Though I am disappointed in your off-base accusatory comments concerning my motivation for pointing out Epperson's extreme bias, I must point out that you are accusing me of doing to Epperson exactly what you just did to me!

Epperson's agenda is obvious to any semi-educated CW junkie who ever went to his "selected quotes" page. It's just a matter of whether they will admit it or not. Apparently, there are some among us who will not.

I am sure you will join Neil in recommending my site with the above page mirroring Epperson's? Surely you will applaud my choices for inclusion in my site? And most certainly, you would not find the facts I'm presenting to be less than a complete and thorough and fair representation of the Causes of the Civil War?

If not, then you understand my problem with Epperson's site.

Hal


(Message edited by hawglips on October 08, 2004)

[unionblue]

Hal,

I would be delighted for you to present a site and would recommend it to anyone who wishes to explore explanations for the causes of the Civil War. In what way to you wish me to assist you?

And might I suggest a format for your proposed site? Under 'Causes of the War' have seperate categories. One could be labeled 'Slavery' another 'Tariffs', 'States Rights', 'Violations of the US Constitution', and any other titles that come to mind of yourself and fellow board members. That would be a balanced and fair approach, don't you think? You could even offer a links secion under each category and have Mr. Epperson's site under the slavery one and list other sites to each category that support that particular one.

Comments?

Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on October 08, 2004)

[bill_torrens]

Dawna,

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.

Thanks for the thoughts which you addressed to me. Of course the planters were a prominent and influential element in Southern society. I dislike the term “aristocracy” because it is simply inaccurate. There was no Duke of Vicksburg, or Marquess of Selma. This term is used to indicate disdain for wealthy people in the ante-bellum South, while no correspondingly abusive term is used for the rich of the North. (Yet another example – one of several hundred, it seems to me – of double standards.) But if you look at the wealthiest class of planter – the Wade Hamptons of this world – you have to acknowledge that many of them fought in the war. Unlike the Rockefellers and Pierpoint Morgans in the North. Those particular piggies had their snouts so deeply in the trough that fighting for their country didn’t appeal. If the term “aristocrat”, with its implications of parasitical behaviour and greed, is to be applied to any group of 19th century Americans then I would suggest that these bloated Northern capitalists deserve it most.

I also have a problem with the somewhat prejudiced assumption that ordinary Southerners were stupid and gullible enough to be led to the slaughter by their political masters while Northerners were robust and intelligent enough to follow their own personal convictions. One can tell quite a lot about Southerners from they way in which Confederate soldiers behaved (armies reflect the societies from which they spring). Far from being brow-beaten and docile, the rebel soldier was one of the most assertive individualists in the history of the Anglo-Saxon race:

There was a tale of General Wigfall finding a soldier on guard taking things with undue ease. “What are you doing here, my man? Asked the general. “Nothin’ much,” replied the man, “jes’ kinder takin’ care of this hyar stuff.” “Do you know who I am, sir?” asked the general. “Wall, now ‘pears like I know your face, but I can’t jes’ call your name - who is you?” “I’m General Wigfall,” said the officer irritatedly. Without getting up or giving any other sign of being impressed the sentry extended his hand and said, “General I’m pleased to meet you – my name’s Jones” – and all this with impunity, according to the yarn. [Wiley, The Life Of Johnny Reb, p.240.]

What you and Neil are asking me to believe is that, despite his cheerful insolence as a soldier, Private Jones as a civilian was so cowed by the likes of Wigfall that he was led to secession more or less against his will. I’m sorry, but it just won’t wash.

And once again I would like to cite the example of the 1862 reorganization of the Confederate armies. Has any other nation in all history allowed its common soldiers – in the middle of a war – to throw out their company officers? If you ever get the chance to examine the muster rolls of a rebel regiment, make a note of the ages and occupations of the original regimental and company commanders, and then observe how many of them were voted out of office at the re-elections a year later. It really is most instructive. An oligarchy at war? Not by a long shot, and the muster rolls prove it.

Bill

[dawna]

Bill:

Thank you for your comments and I agree that the term aristocracy has been widely misused when referring to wealthy landowners of the antebellum South...perhaps gentry is a more suitable connotation.

Sherman often complained that rich men of the South were much more willing to fight than their Northern counterparts. This is not difficult to believe since these men were defending their vested interests and Southern way of life.

Am I to understand then that you do not agree that Planters had enormous influence over how yeoman voted, and that it was the needs and beliefs of the Planter class that shaped Southern politics on all levels? It makes perfect sense to me Bill since most of the non-wealthy free whites were rural, uneducated farmers who also feared the consequences of freeing black slaves.

Southern Planters wanted more slaves and the growth in the slave population from 1800-1860 (1.2 million to almost 4 million) was largely due to the illegal importation of new slaves from Africa. Cotton production grew from 160 million in 1820 to 1 billion in 1850, and to 2.3 billion pounds by 1860. With a colossal increase in profits such as this, it's not surprising that suspicious Southern politicians may have reacted to Lincoln's election with fear, emotion, and panic.

I am not discounting the tariff or state rights issues, but focusing more on the issues that you raised in your posting. I also agree that slavery issues and Southern gentry cannot be discussed without fostering the injustices which were rampant in Northern factories that exploited women, children, and immigrants in dreadful, unsafe working conditions.

I will look forward to researching the army muster rolls of rebel regiments...thank you for the suggestion.

Dawna

[johan_steele]

Gentlemen... do you know what scares the hell out of me... that someone will take the editorial page of the Star Tribune, NY Times, CNN, Dan Rather & his political agenda and 140 years from now use it as proof that the US as a whole not only hated itself but was willing to lie to hurt itself. Or that they will think that the Blame America First crowd are representative of the entire US population.

Taking the words of established leaders in a nation/community is one thing. Using the words from letters, diaries is also worthwhile. BUt obnoxious propoganda from the press both North & South as concrete evidence of anything... I'd rather have a bag full of rats tied around my head and be lowered headfirst into a well. (apparently a popular end to slaves that planned an uprising according to one Columbia SC editorial)

Bill and Dawna,

Excerpt from a post of mine on the personal opinion threads

''“J.P. Morgan, John D Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, Philip Armour, Jay Gould, and James Mellon to name a few......All these paid for substitutes....as James Mellon’s father pointed out to him in a letter....””a man may be a patriot without risking his own life or sacrificing his health. There are plenty of lives less valuable.”
Yet I still see the claim the war was due to ““Southern Aristocracy”” ....Hummmmmph...”''

Lives less valuable... Very egalitarian indeed. Not aristocratic at all.

From our esteemed colleague Steven Cone's post of Jan 2003
"Profiteers" The Civil War era saw the rise of the so-called robber barons, among them John D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, and Andrew Carnegie. They made fortunes speculating in war material, oil, and the railroads but were not above grubbing for small potatoes. Morgan financed the purchase of 5,000 defective rifles for $3.50 each from a Union Army arsenal in New York and sold each for $22 to Union soldiers in Virginia. The rifles often blew off the thumbs of those who fired them, but a judge ruled the deal legal."

[hawglips]

Speaking of substitutes, etc, I have read that 25% of the Northern army consisted of foreign born soldiers. How accurate is that figure?

Bill, have you come across any interesting tidbits of information on the foreign makeup of Southern armies?

Hal

[8thvacav]

Hal,
I think James Robertson said it was 26%. You can hear him here on your PC. http://www.worldtalkradio.com/archive.asp?aid=2492

[georgiana]

Dawna –

I'm curious about your statement that “the growth in the slave population from 1800-1860 (1.2 million to almost 4 million) was largely due to the illegal importation of new slaves from Africa.” The importation of slaves was sanctioned by law until 1808 and it’s my understanding that no more than 100,000 were brought into the country illegally thereafter. Do you have information that suggests otherwise? One aspect of slavery that receives little attention is the marked improvement in the treatment of slaves following the ban on importation in 1808. As the economic value of slaves increased, planters were much more concerned with the health and well-being of their slave property. During the 50 years leading up to the war, there were fairly significant increases in the average life expectancy of a slave, infant mortality rates improved, and voluntary marriages were more respected - as they tended to produce more offspring than forced unions. Slaves were living longer and being encouraged to have increasingly large families. Most of my reading tends to support this as the reason for the tremendous growth in the number of slaves during the first half of the 19th century.

In light of the history of his own state (not to mention his own family), it also seems odd to me that Sherman would make a statement disparaging the participation (or lack thereof) of prominent men from private industry in the North. I just spent about five minutes scanning the list of names from Ohio, quickly eliminated those who were already in active service in 1861 and looked for men that had the means and/or influence to have easily obtained an exemption, or pay a substitute. The list is fairly lengthy and includes such men as Wm. S. Rosecrans, George B. McClellan, Senator James A. Garfield, future presidents Rutherford B. Hayes, William McKinley, and Benjamin Harrison, all four of Senator Thomas Ewing’s sons (and one rather famous son-in-law), and hundreds of others of less notoriety but ample means and influence. (See Whitelaw Reid’s first volume of “Ohio in the Civil War” for a list of others.)

I also believe there were plenty of profiteers on both sides – Davis certainly complained of them often enough. Blockade-runners made millions of dollars paying, for example, .15 cents a gallon for Havana rum (critically needed for medical purposes) and selling it for $45 a gallon. Salt went from $3 to $20 a bushel, and when the government gave draft exemptions to saltmakers, hundreds of able-bodied men flocked to the seashore to make salt, most of which was sold to speculators. Early in the war, South Florida cattlemen supplied the rebel army with beef, but later found the lure of Spanish gold in the Cuban markets a little stronger than their loyalty to “the cause”. The Sentinel in Tallahassee soon declared that "speculation and extortion are going to ruin us if anything does."

The Impressment Act of 1863 was highly controversial in the South. Agents were permitted to seize food and property from citizens, at prices far below market and pay for it with worthless Confederate currency. Many such “loyal” men posed as agents, seizing food to be sold on the black market – which was going gangbusters in the South. Pleas by Governor Milton to secessionist planters to raise desperately needed food, instead of cash crops like cotton and tobacco, fell on deaf ears. Even John Pemberton warned that "planter indifference to both the war effort and the well-being of citizens has reached ominous proportions."

Then, of course, we have the overwhelming support for Negro impressment. When the Confederate government offered to pay owners for the temporary use of their slaves, more than 150,000 of them were marched to Texas so fast that thousands of them died along the way. This caused none other than Louis T. Wigfall himself to complain that “Patriotic planters wittingly put their own flesh and blood into the army, but asking them to part with a Negro is like pulling an eye tooth.” It seems not all planters were Wade Hamptons.

Although I still maintain secession as the cause of the war, I am generally suspicious of those who seek to expunge slavery from the record of the Confederacy – removing African Americans from their rightful place as the central issue in the conflict – and characterizing them as basically irrelevant. The historical record certainly doesn’t support such a view.



(Message edited by GEORGIANA on October 12, 2004)

(Message edited by GEORGIANA on October 12, 2004)