Legislation passed during Civil War and other issues than slavery causing war

Potomac Pride

First Sergeant
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Messages
1,604
Location
Georgia
Thanks for your response.
So thus far, at least in this thread of over 300 posts, two members have indicated that they believe slavery was the only factor that led to secession. I wonder how that compares with the number of members who have posted in this thread that slavery was not a factor....
Well, you asked me to demonstrate posts which stated slavery was the only factor and I did. I never said that every post stated that.
 

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
11,108
Well, you asked me to demonstrate posts which stated slavery was the only factor and I did. I never said that every post stated that.
Thanks for your response.
Nor did I claim you did. But for those who feel it is an unjustified conclusion held by a particular group of members, from our small sample it seems less than overwhelming.
 

Viper21

Sergeant Major
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Messages
2,246
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
@jgoodguy ,

I will make a prediction.

That any other legislation passed during the civil war will not be free, in word or intent, free from the influence of slavery.

I invite all of my fellow forum members to prove me wrong by posting such legislation/period documentation/sources, IN FULL CONTEXT or with a source/link showing that full context, showing slavery had no impact on such.

I await answers and examples.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
Here's a few....:D

The Homestead Act of 1862
https://www.nps.gov/home/learn/historyculture/abouthomesteadactlaw.htm

The Morrill Land Grant College Act of 1862

The National Banking Act of 1863

Pacific Railroad Acts
https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/pacificrail.html

Revenue Act of 1861 & Revenue Act of 1862
ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1861
ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1862

Establishment of the Department of Agriculture
https://www.nal.usda.gov/act-establish-department-agriculture
 

Potomac Pride

First Sergeant
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Messages
1,604
Location
Georgia

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
28,973
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Here's a few....:D

The Homestead Act of 1862
https://www.nps.gov/home/learn/historyculture/abouthomesteadactlaw.htm

The Morrill Land Grant College Act of 1862

The National Banking Act of 1863

Pacific Railroad Acts
https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/pacificrail.html

Revenue Act of 1861 & Revenue Act of 1862
ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1861
ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1862

Establishment of the Department of Agriculture
https://www.nal.usda.gov/act-establish-department-agriculture
I stand corrected. :smile:
 

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
11,108
The link below is from a previous post about Civil War Historiography that discusses the schools of thought concerning the war. Some of the schools such as the Progressive School and Marxist School did not consider slavery to be a significant cause.

https://civilwartalk.com/threads/overview-of-civil-war-historiography.84163/
Thanks for your response.
Having been introduced to both of those schools of thought at a tender age, I have long since discounted them. Both were highly agenda driven.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Yes, I addressed that matter in Post #191.
#191
I appreciate your concern about Ellie Mae but the Articles of Secession don't claim that slavery was the only reason for secession. As an example, the states of the Upper South had concerns about Lincoln's call for troops to coerce the other southern states. They believed this to be an illegal attempt to subjugate the states and a violation of the Constitution which resulted in their eventual decision to secede. This is even referenced in the Arkansas Secession Ordinance that I have included below.

“…….he (Abraham Lincoln) has, in the face of resolutions passed by this Convention, pledging the State of Arkansas to resist to the last extremity any attempt on the part of such power to coerce any State that seceded from the old Union, proclaimed to the world that war should be waged against such States, until they should be compelled to submit to their rule, and large forces to accomplish this have by this same power been called out, and are now being marshalled to carry out this inhuman design, and to longer submit to such rule or remain in the old Union of the United States would be disgraceful and ruinous to the State of Arkansas.” – Arkansas Ordinance of Secession, May 1861
Interesting Is it your opinion that this is completely absent of any relationship to slavery?
 
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
8,733
Location
District of Columbia
It’s curious that everyone bending backwards to claim that “slavery wasn’t the ONLY factor “, fail to realize that without slavery, there is no PRIMARY cause, there is no sectional division. Simply put, no slavery, no civil war.
I totally agree with this. There is no doubt that there were other conflicts between the North and the South. And there were conflicts between states that were outside of the North/South orbits as well.

But I do believe that without the conflict over slavery, there would been no war. Earlier I cited a quote from the historian Avery Craven that "neither the North nor the South could you yield its position because slavery had come to symbolize values in each of their socio-economic structures for which men fight and die but which they do not give up or compromise." Slavery vs anti-slavery had become a non-negotiable, uncompromising conflict.

The men of this era have been called the "bungling generation" in part because they could not find a way to compromise on the issues. But there was no middle ground in the slavery vs anti-slavery conflict. Not only that but the conflict stirred passions and emotions on both sides that can properly be called irrational. There was no peaceful way out of it.

That doesn't mean that a war was inevitable. Some way to get out of it is imaginable. One problem is that, for people to get out the situation they were in, they had to act rationally. I have come to understand from studying history and the social sciences that people often do things that don't make sense. These men did not bungle, rather, they suffered human flaws which defied a certain logic. Of importance is that they had the notion that war was a way to solve conflict, and they were quite willing to fight and die for what they believed in. That attitude helped to cause the war as well, although we often don't acknowledge it.

- Alan
 
Last edited:

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
28,973
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Here's a few....:D

The Homestead Act of 1862
https://www.nps.gov/home/learn/historyculture/abouthomesteadactlaw.htm

The Morrill Land Grant College Act of 1862

The National Banking Act of 1863

Pacific Railroad Acts
https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/pacificrail.html

Revenue Act of 1861 & Revenue Act of 1862
ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1861
ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1862

Establishment of the Department of Agriculture
https://www.nal.usda.gov/act-establish-department-agriculture
I stand corrected. :smile:
@Viper21 ,

I also note that this legislation passage did not include participation of the states making up the Confederacy.

Perhaps that is why slavery is absent from the examples of legislation you provide?

Unionblue
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
@Viper21 ,

I also note that this legislation passage did not include participation of the states making up the Confederacy.

Perhaps that is why slavery is absent from the examples of legislation you provide?

Unionblue
Looks to me that the history of the homestead act is intertwined with slavery.

Homestead Act

The Homestead Act (May 20, 1862) set in motion a program of public land grants to small farmers. Before the Civil War, the southern states had regularly voted against homestead legislation because they correctly foresaw that the law would hasten the settlement of western territory, ultimately adding to the number and political influence of the free states. This opposition to the homestead bill, as well as to other internal improvements that could hasten western settlement, exacerbated sectional conflicts. Indeed, the vision of independent yeomen establishing homesteads on the prairies was offered in the political rhetoric of the 1850s as a vivid contrast to the degradation of slave labor on southern plantations. A homestead bill passed the House in 1858 but was defeated by one vote in the Senate; the next year, a similar bill passed both houses but was vetoed by President James Buchanan. In 1860, the Republican platform included a plank advocating homestead legislation.​
After the southern states had seceded, homestead legislation was high on the Republican agenda. The Homestead Act of 1862 provided that any adult citizen (or person intending to become a citizen) who headed a family could qualify for a grant of 160 acres of public land by paying a small registration fee and living on the land continuously for five years. If the settler was willing to pay $1.25 an acre, he could obtain the land after only six months’ residence.​
Homestead Acts

An extension of the Homestead Principle in law, the Homestead Acts were an expression of the "Free Soil" policy of Northerners who wanted individual farmers to own and operate their own farms, as opposed to Southern slave-owners who wanted to buy up large tracts of land and use slave labor, thereby shutting out free white farmers.​
The "yeoman farmer" ideal of Jeffersonian democracy was still a powerful influence in American politics during the 1840–1850s, with many politicians believing a homestead act would help increase the number of "virtuous yeomen". The Free Soil Party of 1848–52, and the new Republican Party after 1854, demanded that the new lands opening up in the west be made available to independent farmers, rather than wealthy planters who would develop it with the use of slaves forcing the yeomen farmers onto marginal lands.[5] Southern Democrats had continually fought (and defeated) previous homestead law proposals, as they feared free land would attract European immigrants and poor Southern whites to the west.[6][7][8]
 

16thVA

First Sergeant
Joined
Dec 8, 2008
Messages
1,328
Location
Philadelphia
The least slaveholding section, West VA, remained loyal.
That's really not quite right. Perhaps half of West Virginia supported the Union, half of West Virginia's soldiers were Confederate and more than half the state was composed of secession counties. Even fewer West Virginians favored separating from Virginia than supported the Union.


As the Gallipolis [Ohio] Journal, Feb. 18, 1864, stated-

With the commanding General [Scammon] of the Department and his Quarter Master, in Libby Prison, captured by rebels within 35 miles of Gallipolis [Ohio]-a Government steamer burned at the same time, it might seem to an unpracticed eye, that the State of West Virginia was not so intensely loyal as some persons wish it to be considered. The fact is that region of country is just as well stocked with rebels both armed and unarmed as any other portion of the South.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
@Viper21 ,

I also note that this legislation passage did not include participation of the states making up the Confederacy.

Perhaps that is why slavery is absent from the examples of legislation you provide?

Unionblue
Just When You Thought It Was Safe To Go Back in the Water. The history of this seems to be also intertwined with Southern Slaveholders.

Refining a Republic: The Morrill Land Grant College Act

The legislation was ferociously assailed by southern Democrats in Congress led by Senator Clement Clay of Alabama, who denounced the bill as ". . . one of the most monstrous, iniquitous and dangerous measures which have ever been submitted to Congress." Clay went on to say, ". . . if the people demand the patronage of the federal government for agriculture and education, it is because they have been debauched and led astray . . ."(2) "Would it not be in the power of a majority in Congress," asked Virginia's Senator James Mason, "to fasten upon the southern States that peculiar system of free schools in the New England States which I believe would tend . . . to destroy that peculiar character which I am happy to believe belongs to the great mass of the southern people."(3) In the House of Representatives, Alabama Congressman Williamson Cobb warned that a dangerous precedent was being set and predicted that the national government would soon be "feeding the hungry, and clothing the naked and one day building . . . schools and supporting those schools." Senator Jefferson Davis of Mississippi argued that the government could be ". . . warped so far from the path it had previously followed."(4) Overcoming this resistance, on February 7, 1859 the Senate​
narrowly approved the measure by a vote of 25 to 22. But this success was short lived. On February 24, following a private audience with Louisiana Senator John Slidell, President James Buchanan vetoed the bill, declaring that "The establishment of these colleges has prevailed over the pressing wants of the common Treasury."(5)​
However, in mid-1862 Clement Clay was sitting in the Confederate Congress in Richmond. James Mason and John Slidell were Confederate government emissaries in Europe. Jefferson Davis was the President of the Confederate States, and James Buchanan was sitting out the war on his country estate in Pennsylvania. With southern Democrats gone from the halls of Congress and Abraham Lincoln in the White House, Congress passed a raft of legislation, which Lincoln promptly signed, legislation that promoted free labor, agrarian improvement, and the building of civic infrastructure. In quick succession Lincoln signed legislation that established a Department of Agriculture (May 15); The Homestead Act (May 20); the first Pacific Railroad Act (July 1); and the resurrected College Land Act (July 2). In 1864, when Congress added conservation to this reform agenda with the preservation of Yosemite Valley, Frederick Law Olmsted would characterize these forward-thinking actions, undertaken during the "darkest hours" of the Civil War, as "the refinement of a republic."(6)​
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
That's really not quite right. Perhaps half of West Virginia supported the Union, half of West Virginia's soldiers were Confederate and more than half the state was composed of secession counties. Even fewer West Virginians favored separating from Virginia than supported the Union.


As the Gallipolis [Ohio] Journal, Feb. 18, 1864, stated-

With the commanding General [Scammon] of the Department and his Quarter Master, in Libby Prison, captured by rebels within 35 miles of Gallipolis [Ohio]-a Government steamer burned at the same time, it might seem to an unpracticed eye, that the State of West Virginia was not so intensely loyal as some persons wish it to be considered. The fact is that region of country is just as well stocked with rebels both armed and unarmed as any other portion of the South.
Thanks for prompting me to figure out VA slave to population ratio without West Virginia.
490,865 were in the whole VA and a population of 1,596,318 for 31% slave.
18,371 slaves in a population of 262,442 in the Counties that became West VA.
472494 net slaves in VA and a net population of 1333876 and a new ratio of 35% slave.
 

Viper21

Sergeant Major
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Messages
2,246
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
@Viper21 ,

I also note that this legislation passage did not include participation of the states making up the Confederacy.
That's kind of the point in my opinion. There was a whole bunch of legislation passed when there was no dissent. To me, it shows some of the other issues. Most all of which are economics based.

My favorite legislation, or act.... was the approval of the secession of West Virginia by a self appointed Kangaroo Government, & ultimately approved by Lincoln & the Union June '63. See secession is fine, & legal one way, just not the other....LOL

It is said the admission of West Virginia is secession, and tolerated only because it is our secession. Well, if we can call it by that name, there is still difference enough between secession against the Constitution, and secession in favor of the Constitution.’’
~ Honest Abe

Perhaps that is why slavery is absent from the examples of legislation you provide?

Unionblue
https://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/proviscongress/session1.html
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
That's kind of the point in my opinion. There was a whole bunch of legislation passed when there was no dissent. To me, it shows some of the other issues. Most all of which are economics based.

My favorite legislation, or act.... was the approval of the secession of West Virginia by a self appointed Kangaroo Government, & ultimately approved by Lincoln & the Union June '63. See secession is fine, & legal one way, just not the other....LOL

It is said the admission of West Virginia is secession, and tolerated only because it is our secession. Well, if we can call it by that name, there is still difference enough between secession against the Constitution, and secession in favor of the Constitution.’’
~ Honest Abe



https://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/proviscongress/session1.html
A whole bunch? Is that an imaginary number or some integer we can relate to.
 

O' Be Joyful

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 6, 2015
Messages
3,022
Location
Use-ta be: Zinn-zä-nätti o-HI-o The BIG city.
In the words of Silas Tripp (Denzel), "Ain't nobody clean...... we all covered up in it"
And that quote, which is often presented here as having some sort of relationship to the issues between north and south, i.e. slavery, is itself an example of misinterpretation, IMHO. In my view Tripp is speaking to the mistakes and personal crimes he has committed in his own life and he saw a "need" to make up for it, to try to make it right, so to speak. And thus, his heroic death in assault upon Battery Wagner.

Its being latched onto as a metaphor for slavery, and thus equivocation, is a tragedy. Again IMHO.
 



(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top