Slavery; THE Cause?

[unionblue]

Friends,

Well, here it is. The 'new' thread Bill Torrens and myself have talked about beginning, over the sole issue of slavery. Was it THE primary cause of the Civil War? Or was it merely one issue of many issues that led to the four years of blood shed and destruction that engulfed the nation for four terrible years? One of the many strains and stresses that led to the breaking away of the Deep South or THE primary reason for that break?

I myself have maintained on this board many times that slavery is THE cause, the one and only, that brought this nation to near destruction, that no other issue could bring about the war that has uniquely defined this country we call the United States of America.

How that cause came about and why it sparked this war will be my primary argument here on this thread and I will try to use historical documents and evidence where ever I can to prove that record reinforces that view.

I invite all to participate, to place your views on the subject of slavery and it's effect upon the war.

And with that, I await your pleasure.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[max]

Slavery was certainly a strong friction point. I don't see where state rights and tariffs would have led to the the war. Even though slavery was in the forefront, it wasn't the cause of the war. It was the reason that the south left the union. Union leaders felt that the south didn't have the right to leave, and pushed their agenda till war was the result. With my meager knowledge of the war, I would have to say that secession was the reason for the war..

Max

[mobile_96]

Max, what caused secession.
Although not updated recently Mr. Epperson presents some great material on the topic at one of his highly recommened sites.
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/causes.html
A 2nd site of his, which is tied into the 1st one is also highly imformative.
The Secession Commissioners at http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/commish.htm
Both are a must read in any study of the Causes of the War.
Chuck in Il.

[jenna]

This is my best responce to the whole issue:

We are a band of brothers
And native to the soil,
Fighting for the property
We gained by honest toil;
And when our rights were threatened,
The cry rose near and far--
"Hurrah for the Bonnie Blue Flag
That bears a single star!"

CHORUS: Hurrah! Hurrah!
For Southern rights hurrah!
Hurrah for the Bonnie Blue Flag
That bears a single star.

As long as the Union
Was faithful to her trust,
Like friends and like brothers
Both kind were we and just;
But now, when Northern treachery
Attempts our rights to mar,
We hoist on high the Bonnie Blue Flag
That bears a single star.--CHORUS


To me it says it all. They even wrote a song on how they felt and why they did it. Slavery was an issue that abolisionists and politicians talked about back in the 1830's already, so yes, it was an underlying factor, but it is not the only soul factor.

Jenna

[hawglips]

Mr. Epperson's site is arguably the most biased "objective" site on the subject online.

One only needs look at the section called "selected quotes" to see what his agenda is.

I think it is nearly criminal that though slavery was mentioned in only a very small fraction of letters etc from soldiers as a reason for fighting prior to the EP, yet he searched high and low to find one such rare instance and presented it on his site to mislead innocent seekers of knowledge.

No, Epperson's site should not be recommended unless one goes in there with the realization that what you see is there to further the "slavery was THE cause" argument.

Hal

(Message edited by hawglips on October 04, 2004)

[mobile_96]

Hal, something very important should be done in this thread, to separate the causes of the war from the reasons soldiers fought. They are not the same thing. A bunch of guys didn't decide to become soldiers go out and start a war. A war was initated and men of the North joined together and and men of the South joined together to fight against each other in a war. And until this difference between cause of war and reasons people fought is recognized, this thread will accomplish nothing.
Chuck in Il.

[unionblue]

Dear Jenna,

If we are going to use music and songs from the war to help point out it's causes, then what are we to make of 'The Battle Hymn of The Republic?'

YMOS,
Unionblue

[unionblue]

Hal,

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.

I have often felt the same way when I bump up against certain sites on this information highway that make the same type of claims which state slavery had nothing to do with the war, that Lincoln was a dictator on the scale of Hitler or Stalin and a mass murderer just like the 9/11 terrorists.

And yet, Mr. Epperson, unlike most of the sites I have mentioned above, lists historical documents, articles and writings, generally leaving the documents to speak for themselves, with little or no commentary from himself. And I must say, that I have found more than a small fraction of letters, not many to be sure, but more than a small fraction, from soldiers in other publications and books that show their concern with slavery, even when the war was being lost.

I too, have problems with certain web sites and certain authors and books that present what I consider a poor case for such conclusions on their part. But I would not limit their viewing just because I disagreed with them. To try and limit such viewing of views and sites we find personally objectable limits our search of history and the the ability to draw our own conclusions.

I myself feel that reading the original documents, and not all that I have read are to my own personal liking (As Mr. Torrens and yourself have that annoying habit of producing historical letters, articles and documentation of such), but they do tend to carry the most weight with me as they espouse, more clearly than I ever can, the feelings and attitudes of the people we are studying.

And I will let you in on a little secret. There are already a bunch of us "slavery was THE cause" types, even before we knew about Mr. Epperson's site. We had read a bunch of things called 'books' before we ever got on this new-fangled thing called the 'internet.'

Hal, you share one of my greatest concerns, that history can be bent or twisted to present one, very slanted side of a story or cause, while excluding other facts and reasons of that same story or cause. While it is right to question and doubt and even speak against another's version or presentation of the facts, it is just as important to hear them and let others make up their own minds if it is what they wish to believe or disbelieve, is it not?

I look forward to the continued debate and discussion on this thread, as I think it will present many sides and arguments that will make all who check in here, think and reason in their own minds and come their own conclusions. Things said here might even cause some to reconsider and rethink their positions on the subject, maybe even reverse a few.

Exciting, don't you think?

Sincerely,
Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on October 04, 2004)

(Message edited by Unionblue on October 05, 2004)

[bill_torrens]

Neil,

If you don't mind, I'm going to copy the bulk of my post on this subject which I put on the Constitutions thread. I'd be interested to receive your thoughts in due course.

As I have argued before, I believe that the simple truth is that all white Americans in this era (bar perhaps a few hundred) believed implicitly in the moral and intellectual inferiority of negroes; they also believed that it would be quite impossible for the two races to co-exist unless negroes were forcibly kept in a condition of subordination. The steps taken to enforce subordination varied, and the main variable appears to have been the ratio of blacks to whites in the population of each region.

New Englanders had almost no contact with negroes and no practical knowledge of slavery; they were the likeliest to favour abolition because they had absolutely nothing to lose if the great social experiment backfired. A Princeton chum of Marylander McHenry Howard admitted to him: “certainly if this slavery question is to be the touch stone in our political battles, I am tired of it. In the first place not one man in a thousand with us knows any thing about it except by hearsay and in the abstract.” [Ruffner, Maryland’s Blue & Gray, pp.49-50.] Midwesterners often favoured abolition because they thought their indigenous negro population would then move south; and they opposed slavery in the territories mainly because they did not want any social interraction with a race they loathed. As the Illinois State Journal put it, “we have, in common with nineteen twentieths of our people, a prejudice against the n---er.” [Voegeli, Free But Not Equal, p.28.] Southerners were the most conservative on this issue for the good and simple reason that they had the most to lose: not merely money but also – potentially – their homes and their very lives.

Here’s the rub. If you accept the premise that Negroes have to be kept in a subordinate role if you wish to avoid murderous anarchy, slavery is the most logical way of subordinating several million of them. Indeed, it is difficult to see any viable alternative. And that is why Garrisonian Abolitionism caused such terrible harm: the zealots in Boston never did suggest a viable alternative. Private David Holt of the 16th Mississippi wrote that “the abolitionists never showed a way to get rid of slavery, nor a way to provide for the negroes after they were free.” [Holt, A Mississippi Rebel in the Army of Northern Virginia, p.62.] From a Southern perspective, mindful of Nat Turner and the massacres in the Caribbean, Garrison stood over a metaphorical open barrel of gunpowder and spent thirty years trying to strike a match. So when you criticise Southerners for their stubborn refusal to compromise over slavery, you are criticising ordinary Americans for refusing to take huge risks with their future livelihood and safety at the behest of people who were risking precisely nothing. Not only were these other people risking nothing but – and this is what made it absolutely insupportable – they also had the gall to strike a pose of sanctimonious moral superiority.

I have no difficulty in accepting that slavery was the short-term cause of secession in 1861. As you and others have pointed out, it is mentioned often enough in the primary source materials of the time. I simply state that, on this issue, the South was genuinely the aggrieved and injured party. Because over the course of thirty years an increasing proportion of the Northern population came to favour making a change in Southern society that they would never have stomached in their own states. They would not live cheek by jowl with large numbers of Negroes themselves, but they were largely indifferent to the problems and dangers which this experience might cause their Southern fellow citizens. That is the fundamental hypocrisy of Northern anti-slavery sentiment. In one debate Representative Albert G. Porter of Indiana argued that his state had “elected in favor of the white race by prohibiting slavery” while Missouri had chosen slavery and thereby agreed to accept its disadvantages. If any “inconveniences” should follow emancipation, “the duty to be just to the freedmen is yours, and you cannot fairly shift either the burden or the duty to us.” [Voegeli, Free But Not Equal, p.20.] And so Pilate washed his hands.

Accepting that slavery was the main short-term cause of secession in no way invalidates the argument that the long-term causes were issues which were, quite frankly, much more important than slavery.

Bill

[unionblue]

Bill,

Before I reply, could you please tell me what time it is in England right now? I am always a bit pleased, yet disoriented when I get one of your posts at 04:09AM in the morning here!

Bill, never mind, looked it up on the inter net. As close as I can figure, your 4 hours 'ahead' of me here in Columbus, Ohio, so that makes it around 9:09 AM there for you, right? And I am asuming you are on 'London' time.

Curious,
Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on October 05, 2004)