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


(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Joined
Jan 20, 2017
Messages
36
Slavery was the main issue for the south. However, did the Republican Party get so many votes in the north over slavery? It was more about getting land, maybe free land, for small farms and not having to compete with slave labor. Tariffs were raised immediately after the deep southern states seceded, despite this antagonizing the remaining slave states. For the north, it was more conflict with the interests of the southern slave holders.
 

byron ed

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
2,067
Location
Midwest
...Assertions that somehow the dispute over slavery was just another, though more serious, complaint than a list of others strikes me as ignoring the obvious. It is akin to suggesting that the iceberg was not the cause of Titanic's loss, that there were numbers of open windows, doors and hatches that allowed water into the ship and we must consider them as well.
Not the best allegory. As I understand it the ship was designed to allow that some windows and hatches above the water line would be left open as a matter of course, no being no culpability or blame on the crew or passengers for leaving some hatches and windows left open during the cruise. Rather it was the compromising (ripping open) by the iceberg of consecutive sections (watertight separate zones) in the lower hull, the designers of the ship not imagining that a gash would compromise more that one section at a time, which would have been substainable.

I understand the point though, that if the iceberg represents slavery, it alone was responsible for sinking the ship.
 

byron ed

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
2,067
Location
Midwest
Slavery was the main issue for the south. However, did the Republican Party get so many votes in the north over slavery? It was more about getting land, maybe free land, for small farms and not having to compete with slave labor. Tariffs were raised immediately after the deep southern states seceded, despite this antagonizing the remaining slave states. For the north, it was more conflict with the interests of the southern slave holders.
…meaning slavery was a significant issue for the North as well, not only via conflict with the interests of the Southern slave holders but also being forced to serve the Southern slave owners via the Fugitive Slave Law, which was passed under political blackmail in guise of compromise legislation. In any event, the cause of the war wasn't the South being in conflict with itself over slavery.
 
Last edited:
Slavery was the main issue for the south. However, did the Republican Party get so many votes in the north over slavery? It was more about getting land, maybe free land, for small farms and not having to compete with slave labor. Tariffs were raised immediately after the deep southern states seceded, despite this antagonizing the remaining slave states. For the north, it was more conflict with the interests of the southern slave holders.
Northern voters did not go to the polls and vote Republican because of a tariff that was a dead issue in November 1860. The tariff was resurrected after the War had begun as a partial way of funding the cost of the war. The Morrill Land Act wasn't introduced until May 1862 and passed a month later.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,338
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Not the best allegory. As I understand it the ship was designed to allow that some windows and hatches above the water line would be left open as a matter of course, no being no culpability or blame on the crew or passengers for leaving some hatches and windows left open during the cruise. Rather it was the compromising (ripping open) by the iceberg of consecutive sections (watertight separate zones) in the lower hull, the designers of the ship not imagining that a gash would compromise more that one section at a time, which would have been substainable.

I understand the point though, that if the iceberg represents slavery, it alone was responsible for sinking the ship.
It was not the iceberg but the compromises in construction that sunk the Titanic or perhaps the lack of binoculars for the lookouts. Certainly, the iceberg was the main contributing factor and without the iceberg, the Titanic might have made it.
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,108
Slavery was the main issue for the south.


True, but it is even more true, that it(Slavery) was the main issue, around which all other issues for secession revolved for the South, i.e., it was 'The' issue that made all those 'other' issues worthy of secession to the South, or, at least to Southern Secession leaders.
 
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
8,590
Location
District of Columbia
Slavery was the deciding factor in their decisions.
I think you mean cotton.
Jefferson Davis said it wasn't just about cotton. In his Farewell Address in the Senate Chamber, U.S. Capitol, January 21, 1861, he stated

I rise, Mr. President [John C. Breckinridge], for the purpose of announcing to the Senate that I have satisfactory evidence that the State of Mississippi, by a solemn ordinance of her people in convention assembled, has declared her separation from the United States.​
...I do think she has justifiable cause, and I approve of her act. I conferred with her people before that act was taken, counseled them then that if the state of things which they apprehended should exist when the convention met, they should take the action which they have now adopted.​
...It has been a conviction of pressing necessity, it has been a belief that we are to be deprived in the Union of the rights which our fathers bequeathed to us, which has brought Mississippi into her present decision. She has heard proclaimed the theory that all men are created free and equal, and this made the basis of an attack upon her social institutions; and the sacred Declaration of Independence has been invoked to maintain the position of the equality of the races.
That Declaration of Independence is to be construed by the circumstances and purposes for which it was made. The communities were declaring their independence; the people of those communities were asserting that no man was born--to use the language of Mr. Jefferson--booted and spurred to ride over the rest of mankind; that men were created equal--meaning the men of the political community; that there was no divine right to rule; that no man inherited the right to govern; that there were no classes by which power and place descended to families, but that all stations were equally within the grasp of each member of the body-politic.​
These were the great principles they announced; these were the purposes for which they made their declaration; these were the ends to which their enunciation was directed. They have no reference to the slave; else, how happened it that among the items of arraignment made against George III was that he endeavored to do just what the North has been endeavoring of late to do--to stir up insurrection among our slaves? Had the Declaration announced that the negroes were free and equal, how was the Prince to be arraigned for stirring up insurrection among them? And how was this to be enumerated among the high crimes which caused the colonies to sever their connection with the mother country? When our Constitution was formed, the same idea was rendered more palpable, for there we find provision made for that very class of persons as property; they were not put upon the footing of equality with white men--not even upon that of paupers and convicts; but, so far as representation was concerned, were discriminated against as a lower caste, only to be represented in the numerical proportion of three fifths.

Of interest is that in his farewell speech he doesn't use the word cotton once. But he does speak about his fear that the "social institutions" (slavery) are under attack from the "position of the equality of the races."

His words, not mine. If the races were made equal, there were a lot more issues than just cotton.

- Alan
 
Last edited:

Potomac Pride

First Sergeant
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Messages
1,495
Location
Georgia
So the tariff issue was so severe that Southern parents had no qualms about sending their sons to die over the tariff issue? What items were so vital to white Southerners that they would willingly sacrifice their sons over it?
Leftyhunter
They were actually fighting because they had declared their independence from the Union.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,338
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
True, but it is even more true, that it(Slavery) was the main issue, around which all other issues for secession revolved for the South, i.e., it was 'The' issue that made all those 'other' issues worthy of secession to the South, or, at least to Southern Secession leaders.
For Example Southern resentment at the wealth of the North generated by commerce and industry.

The slave-based social structure of the South meant that wealth and social standing was dependent on slave owning and plantations. Young men were unlikely to go into industry or commerce because that was seen as inferior's work. Poor white men saw factory work alongside slaves as beneath their station. Slave owners saw training blacks for an industry as making them half free or that working poor white men might get ideas about emancipation. Slave-grown cotton was the way to fame and fortune.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,338
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
They were actually fighting because they had declared their independence from the Union.
True, but also true that slave owners tended to give their sons to that cause, but not their slaves and in the end, given the choice between independence and slavery, the slave owners chose slavery until it was too late and beyond that.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,338
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Thanks for your comments even though I don't totally understand them.
I regret my failure in that. It is, of course, a reference to the fact that slave owners willing sent their sons to fight for the CSA, but refused to lend their slaves to the cause without payment or sometimes forced by impressment, they opposed enlisting blacks into CSA military service so much that by the time it happened, it was way too late. My favorite illustration of the time

Even during the upheaval of Civil War, Lumpkin’s business thrived and newspaper advertisements show that Lumpkin was earning money in the slave trade up until the very end of the war. As the Union Army was about to enter Richmond, Lumpkin, desperate to escape but also to keep his source of wealth, tried to flee with fifty slaves, but was denied entry onto an already over-crowded train. Corey described the scene in A History of Richmond Theological Seminary: “Mr. Lumpkin, the keeper of the slave trader’s jail, made up a coffle of fifty men, women and children in his jail yard. . .and hurried them to the Danville Depot. ‘This sad and weeping fifty, in handcuffs and chains, was the last slave coffle that tread the soil of America.’ On that Sunday afternoon. . .All were hastening to get away from the doomed city. . .But there was no room for Mr. Lumpkin and his slaves.”[vii] The end of the war marked the end of Lumpkin’s lucrative career as a dealer in human property.​
For slave owners, the CSA was not a nation, but just a tool to protect their property.
 

byron ed

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
2,067
Location
Midwest
They were actually fighting because they had declared their independence from the Union.
?? Independence from the Union didn't require fighting. Secession's own stated intent was "we just want to be left alone." Nice try though, at least from a particular viewpoint it was worth a shot.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Now generally to the nay-sayers here: What is it going to take to come to the realization that if so many hoops, rabbit holes, straw men and sidebars are required to build a case that slavery was not the primary cause of the war, then perhaps slavery was the primary cause of the war. After all mechanizations, go with the thing that does not require any hoops, rabbit holes, straw men or sidebars to be validated.

If it helps with a personal sense of belonging or whatever, perhaps restrict your sources to only Southern Antebellum and CW period documents. Avoid all "Yankee" sources.

Take as your gospel the articles of secession rather than the post-war Lost Cause, or better yet the Confederate constitution, which is only unique in the way it specifically guarantees slavery for the most part, otherwise a copy of the U.S. Constitution.

Read individual secessionist proclamations and articles. You soon realize that no actual Secessionist or Confederate of the era would ask to be excused or defended by a descendant. They proudly proclaimed their causes and gripes, and boldly proclaimed their primary intent to protect the institution of slavery. You are hereby absolved of the responsibility, so set yourself free. Honor those Southrons who prevailed the war; soldiers, fathers, sons, mothers and sisters; not the mere short-lived and failed political entity they had to endure.
 
Last edited:

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,338
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
?? Independence from the Union didn't require fighting. Secession's own stated intent was "we just want to be left alone." Nice try though, from a particular viewpoint it was worth a shot.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Now generally to the nay-sayers here: What is it going to take to come to the realization that if so many hoops, rabbit holes, straw men and sidebars are required to build a case that slavery was not the primary cause of the war, then perhaps slavery was the primary cause of the war. After all mechanizations, go with the thing that does not require any hoops, rabbit holes, straw men or sidebars to be validated.

If it helps Restrict your sources to only Southern Antebellum and CW period documents if you must.

Read the articles of secession, or better yet the Confederate constitution, which is only unique in the way it specifically guarantees slavery for the most part.

Read individual secessionist proclamations and articles. You soon realize that no actual Secessionist or Confederate of the era would ask to be excused or defended by a descendant. They proudly proclaimed their causes and gripes, and boldly proclaimed their primary intent to protect the institution of slavery. You are hereby absolved of the responsibility, so set yourself free. Honor those Southrons who prevailed the war; soldiers, fathers, sons, mothers and sisters; not the mere short-lived and failed political entity they had to endure.
Good points. IMHO it is very interesting to watch how slavery got so intertwined into Sothern society and drove it into a 'catch 22' situation. The South was not the first society to find itself in an evolutionary dead end requiring an extraordinary leader to lead their way out and failing to find one.
 

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
10,685
Slavery was the main issue for the south. However, did the Republican Party get so many votes in the north over slavery?
Focusing on an analysis of the voting pattern in 1860 adds nothing to the discussion, primarily because at this point it is only speculation.
We do know, however, that the Republican Party was founded as an anti-slavery party. Though say a Pennsylvanian might vote for Lincoln because of planks that favored his business, he also clearly knew he was casting an anti-slavery vote.
 

byron ed

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
2,067
Location
Midwest
Good points. IMHO it is very interesting to watch how slavery got so intertwined into Sothern society and drove it into a 'catch 22' situation. The South was not the first society to find itself in an evolutionary dead end requiring an extraordinary leader to lead their way out and failing to find one.
True. Robert E. Lee was unwilling to take on that mantle, and Jefferson Davis wasn't up to it. Nathan B. Forrest was up to it, but he was too much of a realist (read too smart) to take it on, ditching the mantle handed to him.
 
Last edited:

Potomac Pride

First Sergeant
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Messages
1,495
Location
Georgia
?? Independence from the Union didn't require fighting. Secession's own stated intent was "we just want to be left alone." Nice try though, at least from a particular viewpoint it was worth a shot.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Now generally to the nay-sayers here: What is it going to take to come to the realization that if so many hoops, rabbit holes, straw men and sidebars are required to build a case that slavery was not the primary cause of the war, then perhaps slavery was the primary cause of the war. After all mechanizations, go with the thing that does not require any hoops, rabbit holes, straw men or sidebars to be validated.

If it helps with a personal sense of belonging or whatever, perhaps restrict your sources to only Southern Antebellum and CW period documents. Avoid all "Yankee" sources.

Take as your gospel the articles of secession rather than the post-war Lost Cause, or better yet the Confederate constitution, which is only unique in the way it specifically guarantees slavery for the most part, otherwise a copy of the U.S. Constitution.

Read individual secessionist proclamations and articles. You soon realize that no actual Secessionist or Confederate of the era would ask to be excused or defended by a descendant. They proudly proclaimed their causes and gripes, and boldly proclaimed their primary intent to protect the institution of slavery. You are hereby absolved of the responsibility, so set yourself free. Honor those Southrons who prevailed the war; soldiers, fathers, sons, mothers and sisters; not the mere short-lived and failed political entity they had to endure.
Well actually, independence did require fighting because the Union would not let the southern states go their separate way. Below is portion of the Inaugural Address by Jefferson Davis from Feb. 1861 in which he expresses hope that independence from the Union can be achieved peacefully without any conflict.

"We (the Confederacy) have entered upon the career of independence, and it must be inflexibly pursued. Through many years of controversy with our late associates, the Northern States, we have vainly endeavored to secure tranquillity, and to obtain respect for the rights to which we were entitled. As a necessity, not a choice, we have resorted to the remedy of separation; and henceforth our energies must be directed to the conduct of our own affairs, and the perpetuity of the Confederacy which we have formed. If a just perception of mutual interest shall permit us peaceably to pursue our separate political career, my most earnest desire will have been fulfilled. But, if this be denied to us, and the integrity of our territory and jurisdiction be assailed, it will but remain for us, with firm resolve, to appeal to arms and invoke the blessings of Providence on a just cause."
 



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