Poll: Many discount slavery as main cause of Civil War

Poll: Many discount slavery as main cause of Civil War

http://www.al.com/news/mobileregiste...0.xml#continue

[rin1]

Main cause? Heck, the issue is so complex it will never be truly understood. So few actually study history, it is preferable (apparently) to simply hit the minimum required by a public education, then form an opinion. What a shame.

The economic and demographic profiles of our country from the late 17th century until 1885 were frought with many factors that contributed to the American Civil War. Slavery was one of them.

What tickles me are those who want to put forth the propsition that slavery had nothing to do with the reasons the war was fought. Right.

[Cpt. Steinhauer]

Originally Posted by aphillbilly

Poll: Many discount slavery as main cause of Civil War

http://www.al.com/news/mobileregiste...0.xml#continue

yes i agree. slavary was never mentioned in the begining of the war. Congress and Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union. slavary ain't a reason.

[larry_cockerham]

Union Blue, alias Neil, has long ago convinced me that slavery was a central consideration in the mostly political jousting that occurred when the war was set in motion. I have long offered the opinion that a considerable number, perhaps a majority, of southern and Union soldiers were drawn into the conflict for far more diverse reasoning. A major war was occurring in the southern United States, not so united at the time. War was a reason to enter war. Slavery was of far lesser importance to the southern fighting man.

[unionblue]

Originally Posted by Cpt. Steinhauer

yes i agree. slavary was never mentioned in the begining of the war. Congress and Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union. slavary ain't a reason.

Cpt. Steinhauer,

Slavery was NEVER mentioned in the beginning of the war?

We are talking about the Civil War, aren't we?

You mention that Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union and I believe that to be so.

But WHY did the South leave via unilateral secession provoking the North into preserving said Union?

You look at every reason, every cause and read the secession ordinances, slavery stares right back at you.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
PS Welcome to the board.

[unionblue]

Originally Posted by larry_cockerham

Union Blue, alias Neil, has long ago convinced me that slavery was a central consideration in the mostly political jousting that occurred when the war was set in motion.

After all my years of posting here, Larry, I am indeed flattered that I have convinced you of such.

May I return the compliment and say that your thoughtful and informative posts have made me pause many a time over why the majority of Southern men fought during that terrible time. You have convinced me the majority of those men did so with honor, conviction, and courage nothing short of miraculous on the field of battle. They deserve to be remembered and honored.

I have long offered the opinion that a considerable number, perhaps a majority, of southern and Union soldiers were drawn into the conflict for far more diverse reasoning.

To any reading this post, here is where Larry and I are currently butting heads. I am of the opinion the system of slavery was far more pervasive in both the legal, social, and economic spheres of everyday life in the South. I think its preservation was far more on the minds of the average Southern fighting man than some would believe.

A major war was occurring in the southern United States, not so united at the time. War was a reason to enter war. Slavery was of far lesser importance to the southern fighting man.

And here is where we really start to part company. Larry mentions that the majority of Southern men were fighting for the homes and hearths, their land and their families. I believe that also, but again, the spector of slavery is one of, if not the main cause, of those men doing so. I am of the personal belief that it was instilled almost from birth the line between master and slave, between whites and blacks.

Blacks were slaves, property, a sign of wealth, never really trusted, and held to a certain social status that the poorest white man in the South knew he would never occupy due to the color of his skin.

I am also of the opinion the idea of protecting one's home and family figured in there because would any white man in his right mind suddenly want around four million former slaves, forced into subserviance, freed and suddenly turned lose upon those families and homes?

Therein, my fellow members, lies my viewpoint and Larry's, and the debate between us has continued for as long as I have known the man. He is honorable, sincere, and defends the Southern fighting man with honor and dignity.

He is well worth listening to.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[TheGallantPelham17]

Originally Posted by Cpt. Steinhauer

yes i agree. slavary was never mentioned in the begining of the war. Congress and Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union. slavary ain't a reason.

Exactly. The Union was certainly not fighting to end slavery; there were five slave states in the Union (Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Missouri). The Union was trying to preserve the United States. Lincoln made slavery a desperation, wedge issue when it appeared that the Confederacy was on the verge of securing victory with possible help from Great Britain and France and because the majority of residents in the North were growing restless with the War.

It would be more accurate to say that the Confederacy was partially fighting to preserve slavery, but even that reason was not at the top of the list. The vast, vast majority of Confederate military men came from families that did not own slaves.

[Dred]

Once again my gallant friend, it is necessary to note what caused the war, separately from why they fought. I don't think you can really appreciate the causes for either, if you can not make the distinction. If you do not, even one man NOT fighting for slavery can negate the case that that is why the war started. The soldiers fought because the southern states seceded, and their desired way of life was being threatened. As it pertained to social, economical, and personal rights. But the REASON those rights were under attack, and an "invading" army was on the march, was because the southern states attempted to unilaterally secede. Then you must ask yourself, why then did the states secede? Listen to the men who ran the states themselves.. . Any state that gave a declaration of secession lists slavery outright, and even warns those who think to say it is about anything else.

[TheGallantPelham17]

Originally Posted by Dred

Once again my gallant friend, it is necessary to note what caused the war, separately from why they fought. I don't think you can really appreciate the causes for either, if you can not make the distinction. If you do not, even one man NOT fighting for slavery can negate the case that that is why the war started. The soldiers fought because the southern states seceded, and their desired way of life was being threatened. As it pertained to social, economical, and personal rights. But the REASON those rights were under attack, and an "invading" army was on the march, was because the southern states attempted to unilaterally secede. Then you must ask yourself, why then did the states secede? Listen to the men who ran the states themselves.. . Any state that gave a declaration of secession lists slavery outright, and even warns those who think to say it is about anything else.

Like I stated above, slavery was more of an issue for the elite Confederate leadership (not the rank and file soldier). Marse Lee did free all of his slaves prior to the War.

The Union was not fighting to end slavery, but to save the country from breaking apart.

[Parrott Gun]

Originally Posted by TheGallantPelham17

It would be more accurate to say that the Confederacy was partially fighting to preserve slavery, but even that reason was not at the top of the list. The vast, vast majority of Confederate military men came from families that did not own slaves.

You make the mistake of assuming that a southern man who didn't own slaves, had no stake in slavery, which couldn't be further from the truth. The average southerner was horrified by the thought of emancipation, because it would put him on an equal level with blacks. In fact, in many areas of the deep south, white southerners would be a minority. They thought that emancipation would lead to amalgamation or perhaps even a race war. Here are some quotes from the secession commissioners that explain the non-slaveholders' perceived stake in slavery.

"If the policy of the Republicans is carried out, according to the programme indicated by the leaders of the party, and the South submits, degradation and ruin must overwhelm alike all classes of citizens in the Southern States. The slave-holder and non-slave-holder must ultimately share the same fate-- all be degraded to a position of equality with free negroes, stand side by side with them at the polls, and fraternize in all the social relations of life; or else there will be an eternal war of races, desolating the land with blood, and utterly wasting and destroying all the resources of the country.
Who can look upon such a picture without a shudder? What Southern man, be he slave-holder or non-slave-holder, can without indignation and horror contemplate the triumph of negro equality, and see his own sons and daughters, in the not distant future, associating with free negroes upon terms of political and social equality, and the white man stripped, by the Heaven-daring hand of fanaticism of that title to superiority over the black race which God himself has bestowed? In the Northern States, where free negroes are so few as to form no appreciable part of the community, in spite of all the legislation for their protection, they still remain a degraded caste, excluded by the ban of society from social association with all but the lowest and most degraded of the white race. But in the South, where in many places the African race largely predominates, and, as a consequence, the two races would be continually pressing together, amalgamation, or the extermination of the one or the other, would be inevitable. Can Southern men submit to such degradation and ruin? God forbid that they should." [Letter of Stephen F. Hale, Secession Commissioner from Alabama, to Gov. Magoffin of Kentucky, 27 Dec 1860]

"This population outstrips any race on the globe in the rapidity of its increase; and if the slaves now in Alabama are to be restricted within her present limits, doubling as they do once in less than thirty years, the children are now born who will be compelled to flee from the land of their birth, and from the slaves their parents have toiled to acquire as an inheritance for them, or to submit to the degradation of being reduced to an equality with them, and all its attendant horrors. Our people and institutions Must be secured the right of expansion, and they can never submit to a denial of that which is essential to their very existence." [Letter from Isham Garrott and Robert H. Smith of Alabama to the Governor and legislature of North Carolina]

"She [Mississippi] had rather see the last of her race, men, women and children, immolated in one common funeral pile [pyre], than see them subjected to the degradation of civil, political and social equality with the negro race." [Address of William L. Harris, Secession Commissioner of Mississippi, to Georgia Legislature, 17 Dec 1860]



I will concede that slavery was not necessarily the reason that men went to war, but it is the reason that they voted for secessionist delegates to send to their convention, which is what caused the war.

I also think you underestimate the importance of the slavery issue in the north. While it's certainly true that they were fighting to preserve the union and not to abolish slavery, let's not forget that they could have also preserved the union by voting for Breckinridge or perhaps Douglas instead of Lincoln.