Conspiracy Theories

[White Flint Bill]

Here's something I wrote a few years ago, when trying to make sense of the cause of the War. I settled upon unfounded conspiracy theories as the principal cause. There are plenty of things to find fault with in this, but some may find it interesting:

If you look at a map of the so-called Red States and Blue States in America today, you'll notice something very interesting. It looks a lot like the way the country divided during the civil war. Now if you take the intensity of the feelings that divide us into Red and Blue today, and multiply them by about 1,000, you may come close to approximating what existed in 1861.

But why? If it wasn't an evangelistic desire on the part of Northerners to free Southern slaves, what was it that motivated hundreds of thousands of nothern and midwestern boys and men to enlist and die in a war to subdue the south?

I believe the answer lies in the slave-power conspiracy theories that were then prevalent.

Despite the fact that it was plainly untrue, many Southerners were convinced that there existed a Northern conspiracy to strip them of their rights and liberties, impose taxes and tariffs on them to benefit northern industry (well OK, that part was true), and to incite a bloody slave uprising, following which there would be black rule, interracial marriage and social equality between the races. At the same time, it was widely believed in the North and Midwest that there existed a Southern conspiracy to put the country under the control of wealthy aristocratic Southern slaveholders, who would bring gangs of black slaves into their states and communities to take their jobs and demean their labor.

Those who believed these competing conspiracy theories had no shortage of evidence, in those tumultous days, upon which to base their claims.

For the Southerners, John Brown's raid was first and foremost. John Brown was already notorious for mass murders in Kansas when he and 20 men under his command slipped into Virginia in 1859, armed with carbines supplied by Northern abolitionists, and seized the federal arsenal at Harper's Ferry. Brown's plan was to arm Southern slaves and lead them in an insurrection. His plan failed, of course, but it brought to Southern minds the Nat Turner massacre. And the fact that Brown had been financed and armed by Northern abolitionists convinced many Southerners that there was a widespread Northern conspiracy to foment a slave uprising in the South. Southerners were horrified that much of the northern press treated Brown as a martyr rather than a terrorist. It was as if they were threatened by terrorists, yet the North was indifferent, or even sympathetic to the terrorists. Many Southerners became convinced that they just couldn't trust their northern countrymen.

The runaway success in the north of the novel Uncle Tom's Cabin also fueled Southern fears, as did the northern advocacy of increased tariffs on imported goods, paid by the agricultural south, but benefitting the industrial north. Of course the election of Abraham Lincoln, without a single vote in most Southern states, firmly convinced many that Northern tyranny over them was imminent.

Many Northerners were also convinced that a tyranny-seeking conspiracy was underway, but they read the signs of the times to indicate a Southern conspiracy. To them the Dred Scott decision was proof that the "slave power" or "slaveocracy" controlled the Supreme Court. They believed the decision forbode a day when Southern slaveholding aristocrats would bring their slaves into free states (particularly in the midwest where black immigration, free or slave, was illegal) to steal their jobs and degrade their labor. They imagined themselves laboring alongside black slaves, while being lorded over by aristocratic white slavemasters. Many northerners were also convinced that southerners were violent and arrogant, disrespectful of their rights and contemptuous of the law. Their counterpart to John Brown's raid occurred in 1856 when South Carolina congressman Preston Brooks attacked Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner on the floor of Congress , beating him brutally. Just as Southerners were horrified at the Northern reaction to John Brown, Northerners were outraged that Brooks' attack made him a folk hero in the South. The attack demonstrated to the them the arrogance of the slaveocracy, its indifference to the law and its contempt for the North.

What galvanized the working classes of the north against the south wasn't sympathy for the slave (indeed, by modern standards they were shockingly racist), but rather antipathy for slaveholders. They objected fiercely to the idea that a man could become rich upon the labor of another. Lincoln frequently referred to the Bible's pronouncement that "by the sweat of thy brow shalt thou earn thy bread," reversing it to insist that a man shouldn't earn his bread by the sweat of another man's brow. Of course this is poignantly ironic in light of the post-war ascendancy of industrialism and the Robber Barons in the North. And nevermind that it was a myth that Southerners were lounging in the shade sipping juleps while their slaves made them rich. The vast majority of Southerners, including most slaveholders, were sweating away earning bread much the same way their Northern countrymen did. But in the deep South states particularly, those few who were wealthy off huge plantations dominated the political establishment, and arrogance was part of the creed of this faux aristocracy. That is what Northerners saw, read about in popular novels and hated to their marrow. Many were convinced that this "slaveocracy" intended to someday dominate the entire nation, remaking it all to look like South Carolina.

Of course there was a delicate political balance of power in the country, that had always depended upon careful compromises with respect to the admission of new states. Both the industrial north and the agricultural south feared that the other region intended to impose unfair tax burdens on them once they could control Congress. And many in the North deeply resented the fact Southern states' representation in the House was increased by inclusion of 3/5 of their slaves in the calculation of representation. Men like Henry Clay, through compromises and skillful balancing of power, had managed to keep the animosity and fears in check. But unfortunately for the country, there was no Henry Clay in 1860.

When the Confederates fired on Fort Sumter, Northern minds, already conditioned by years of distrust, immediately attributed it to the arrogant conspiracy of the slaveocracy. When Lincoln called for an army to respond, Southern minds, already also conditioned by years of distrust, concluded immediately that this was part of the Northern conspiracy and plan of conquest that they had long feared.

The fuse had been burning for a long time. In 1861 the flame finally reached the powder.

The sad fact is that neither North nor South were truly conspiring to overrun the other. There was no Slave Power conspiracy, but most of the hundreds of thousands of Northerners who marched off to war truly believed there was.

And hundreds of thousands of men on both sides died fighting threats that had never existed in the first place.

 

[thomas aagaard]

At the same time, it was widely believed in the North and Midwest that there existed a Southern conspiracy to put the country under the control of wealthy aristocratic Southern slaveholders, who would bring gangs of black slaves into their states and communities to take their jobs and demean their labor.

Well change that to "put the country under the control of wealthy aristocratic Southern slaveholders, who would bring gangs of black slaves into The NEW states that would be created in the west at take their land and opportunity."

And you got something that was no conspiracy... just politics.
Just like most in the North wanted the new states to be for free white men only.

The real issue was if the new states would be free, slave or a mix. And Blocking slavery from the territories was something Lincoln could do. (and that could put slavery on the road to extinction)

 

[matthew mckeon]

There is a school of historians who call the politicians of the 1850s the "blundering generation" that they misread the situation and stumbled into an avoidable war, which is kind of what the OP is saying.

But did the secessionists in fact read the situation accurately? I think they did. Slavery had a limited future in the United States, the majority wouldn't allow it to expand. The West would be for free labor. Rather than accept a diminished role and influence in the USA, they chose secession.

 

[White Flint Bill]

Well change that to "put the country under the control of wealthy aristocratic Southern slaveholders, who would bring gangs of black slaves into The NEW states that would be created in the west at take their land and opportunity."

And you got something that was no conspiracy... just politics.
Just like most in the North wanted the new states to be for free white men only.

The real issue was if the new states would be free, slave or a mix. And Blocking slavery from the territories was something Lincoln could do. (and that could put slavery on the road to extinction)

Lincoln was convinced that the country could not exist half slave and half free. He very much believed there was a risk it would become all slave, and said so many times.

 

[matthew mckeon]

Richard Hofstader wrote an interesting book called "The Paranoid Style in American Politics." In John C. Calhoun's speech during the 1850 debates(resulting in the Compromise of 1850), he painted a picture of a conspiracy of free staters to diminish the South, attributing the increase of the North's population to immigration that was somehow being diverted to the North unfairly. In the various secession documents, the idea of a Northern policy to eliminate slavery is taken as given.

While some aspects of this are exaggerated, in fact the clearly spelled out Republican policy was to confine slavery, and at a future date, the slave states themselves would abolish it.

 

[matthew mckeon]

Lincoln was convinced that the country could not exist half slave and half free. He very much believed there was a risk it would become all slave, and said so many times.

And not only Lincoln, and the house divided speech, not the only time. The Dred Scot decision would be the first step in claiming slave owners had a right of transit, or the West would be open to slavery, or we would conquer Central America to plant more slave colonies. There were kernels of truth in all these of course, although the idea that the states had the final say on slavery was pretty fixed. The real issue seemed to be that the country was not half slave and half free: it was majority free state and going to become more lopsided as time went on. For slave owners, they could see themselves becoming shrinking minority. For free soilers, to continue to kowtow to this shrinking minority seemed unfair.

 

[thomas aagaard]

But did the secessionists in fact read the situation accurately? I think they did. Slavery had a limited future in the United States, the majority wouldn't allow it to expand. The West would be for free labor. Rather than accept a diminished role and influence in the USA, they chose secession.

I actually do too. And I understand why they wanted to set up their own country...
Just don't understand why they didn't try the political way out first...

 

[NH Civil War Gal]

In 1850 President Zachary Taylor's experience since he took office was that Southerners were aggressive and intolerant and he said his son-in-law Jefferson Davis was their "chief conspirator." And President Taylor changed his opinion because he previously thought that Yankees were the aggressors. And there were congressman that thought the Union would split back then and it was a very dangerous time. Calhoun wrote (privately) on Feb. 16, 1850 that the South "cannot with safety remain in the Union...and there is little or no prospect of any change for the better."

I've been reading about this recently in Macpherson's book, "Battle Cry of Freedom." What was put off in 1850 got pushed out to 1860.

And I didn't realize that some southern leaders back then wanted to carve out a separate slave state from Texas.

Calhoun felt that crisis had come about because the equalibrium between the north and south had been destroyed. The north was growing faster than the south in population, wealth, and power. Already the Methodist and Baptist churches had split into north and south. The south (in general - planters, not the average poor white farmer) started to get a bee in their bonnets about the "North had always been the aggressor, it must stop criticizing slavery and return fugitive slaves, etc."

If California was admitted as a free state, the south felt it could not "remain in the Union consistently with their honor and safety."

 

[leftyhunter]

Here's something I wrote a few years ago, when trying to make sense of the cause of the War. I settled upon unfounded conspiracy theories as the principal cause. There are plenty of things to find fault with in this, but some may find it interesting:

If you look at a map of the so-called Red States and Blue States in America today, you'll notice something very interesting. It looks a lot like the way the country divided during the civil war. Now if you take the intensity of the feelings that divide us into Red and Blue today, and multiply them by about 1,000, you may come close to approximating what existed in 1861.

But why? If it wasn't an evangelistic desire on the part of Northerners to free Southern slaves, what was it that motivated hundreds of thousands of nothern and midwestern boys and men to enlist and die in a war to subdue the south?

I believe the answer lies in the slave-power conspiracy theories that were then prevalent.

Despite the fact that it was plainly untrue, many Southerners were convinced that there existed a Northern conspiracy to strip them of their rights and liberties, impose taxes and tariffs on them to benefit northern industry (well OK, that part was true), and to incite a bloody slave uprising, following which there would be black rule, interracial marriage and social equality between the races. At the same time, it was widely believed in the North and Midwest that there existed a Southern conspiracy to put the country under the control of wealthy aristocratic Southern slaveholders, who would bring gangs of black slaves into their states and communities to take their jobs and demean their labor.

Those who believed these competing conspiracy theories had no shortage of evidence, in those tumultous days, upon which to base their claims.

For the Southerners, John Brown's raid was first and foremost. John Brown was already notorious for mass murders in Kansas when he and 20 men under his command slipped into Virginia in 1859, armed with carbines supplied by Northern abolitionists, and seized the federal arsenal at Harper's Ferry. Brown's plan was to arm Southern slaves and lead them in an insurrection. His plan failed, of course, but it brought to Southern minds the Nat Turner massacre. And the fact that Brown had been financed and armed by Northern abolitionists convinced many Southerners that there was a widespread Northern conspiracy to foment a slave uprising in the South. Southerners were horrified that much of the northern press treated Brown as a martyr rather than a terrorist. It was as if they were threatened by terrorists, yet the North was indifferent, or even sympathetic to the terrorists. Many Southerners became convinced that they just couldn't trust their northern countrymen.

The runaway success in the north of the novel Uncle Tom's Cabin also fueled Southern fears, as did the northern advocacy of increased tariffs on imported goods, paid by the agricultural south, but benefitting the industrial north. Of course the election of Abraham Lincoln, without a single vote in most Southern states, firmly convinced many that Northern tyranny over them was imminent.

Many Northerners were also convinced that a tyranny-seeking conspiracy was underway, but they read the signs of the times to indicate a Southern conspiracy. To them the Dred Scott decision was proof that the "slave power" or "slaveocracy" controlled the Supreme Court. They believed the decision forbode a day when Southern slaveholding aristocrats would bring their slaves into free states (particularly in the midwest where black immigration, free or slave, was illegal) to steal their jobs and degrade their labor. They imagined themselves laboring alongside black slaves, while being lorded over by aristocratic white slavemasters. Many northerners were also convinced that southerners were violent and arrogant, disrespectful of their rights and contemptuous of the law. Their counterpart to John Brown's raid occurred in 1856 when South Carolina congressman Preston Brooks attacked Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner on the floor of Congress , beating him brutally. Just as Southerners were horrified at the Northern reaction to John Brown, Northerners were outraged that Brooks' attack made him a folk hero in the South. The attack demonstrated to the them the arrogance of the slaveocracy, its indifference to the law and its contempt for the North.

What galvanized the working classes of the north against the south wasn't sympathy for the slave (indeed, by modern standards they were shockingly racist), but rather antipathy for slaveholders. They objected fiercely to the idea that a man could become rich upon the labor of another. Lincoln frequently referred to the Bible's pronouncement that "by the sweat of thy brow shalt thou earn thy bread," reversing it to insist that a man shouldn't earn his bread by the sweat of another man's brow. Of course this is poignantly ironic in light of the post-war ascendancy of industrialism and the Robber Barons in the North. And nevermind that it was a myth that Southerners were lounging in the shade sipping juleps while their slaves made them rich. The vast majority of Southerners, including most slaveholders, were sweating away earning bread much the same way their Northern countrymen did. But in the deep South states particularly, those few who were wealthy off huge plantations dominated the political establishment, and arrogance was part of the creed of this faux aristocracy. That is what Northerners saw, read about in popular novels and hated to their marrow. Many were convinced that this "slaveocracy" intended to someday dominate the entire nation, remaking it all to look like South Carolina.

Of course there was a delicate political balance of power in the country, that had always depended upon careful compromises with respect to the admission of new states. Both the industrial north and the agricultural south feared that the other region intended to impose unfair tax burdens on them once they could control Congress. And many in the North deeply resented the fact Southern states' representation in the House was increased by inclusion of 3/5 of their slaves in the calculation of representation. Men like Henry Clay, through compromises and skillful balancing of power, had managed to keep the animosity and fears in check. But unfortunately for the country, there was no Henry Clay in 1860.

When the Confederates fired on Fort Sumter, Northern minds, already conditioned by years of distrust, immediately attributed it to the arrogant conspiracy of the slaveocracy. When Lincoln called for an army to respond, Southern minds, already also conditioned by years of distrust, concluded immediately that this was part of the Northern conspiracy and plan of conquest that they had long feared.

The fuse had been burning for a long time. In 1861 the flame finally reached the powder.

The sad fact is that neither North nor South were truly conspiring to overrun the other. There was no Slave Power conspiracy, but most of the hundreds of thousands of Northerners who marched off to war truly believed there was.

And hundreds of thousands of men on both sides died fighting threats that had never existed in the first place.

Actually tarrifs since the 1840s were very low. We have many tariff threads and if the,South did not succeed tarriffs would of remained low. Also we had a thread a while back and their showed the average American simply didn't buy that many foreign products to begin with.
Leftyhunter