Slavery as the Primary Cause of the Civil War: the Real Lost Cause Argument.

[Potomac Pride]

You all know what UB is saying.
It is the six degrees of separation or of Kevin Bacon.
There are multiple causes but they all end up in the bacon grease just like it splatters all over your stove top and utensils.
Even tariffs are in the grease since if the south had not been singularly devoted to cotton and other labor intensive cash crops, and been economically more diverse and industrialized like the north , tariffs would not have been an issue. But in this case the south gained policy dominance before the war.
All of the economic, political, and social factors are knee deep in the grease.


SLAVERY WAS AN ECONOMIC ISSUE ! The fugitive slave law was an economic issue, as was slavery in western territories and
All the different schools of thought are agenda driven and bias, just like the unsupported claim of primacy of the TRR as the cause of secession.
Even southern railroads needed slavery...
By 1860 the South was the third leading railroad nation in the world, trailing only the northern United States and the United Kingdom in total miles constructed. It contained 33 percent of the nation's railroad mileage and 40 percent of its population, and southern states were aggressively promoting railroad development throughout the 1850s. Indeed, southern railroads built and maintained their roads with enslaved labor, orchestrating contracts for hire on a scale of complexity and cost that seemed logical and consistent with their purposes but far in excess of any other institutions. Railroads began buying hundreds of male slaves between the ages of 16 and 35 as early as 1841, and in the 1850s were either renting or buying "hands" in groups of hundreds. One president of the Mississippi Central Railroad explained to his stockholders in 1855, "I am led to the irresistible conclusion, that in ease of management, in economy of maintenance, in certainty of execution of work & in amount of labor performed & in absence of disturbance of riotous outbreaks, the slave is preferable to free labor, and far better adapted to the construction of railways in the south."
http://railroads.unl.edu/views/item/slavery_rr

Thanks for your comments but I was already aware that slavery was an economic issue. However, that doesn't mean it was the only cause of the war. The interpretation of the war originally put forth by Charles and Mary Beard maintained that the conflict at its core was an economic and ideological conflict between the Northern manufacturing sector protectionists and the free-trading agrarians of the South. In addition, to maintain that all the other schools of thought are all biased is ludicrous and just a convenient way to ignore them.

 

[CSA Today]

See your quote below for a prime example.



When you say all the other complaints would not have caused the war without slavery, or that slavery would have caused the war even without them, I'd classify you as a "single causer", because you make it clear you believe slavery alone is the one factor that matters.

The idea that slavery was the cause of the war is laughable, the Lincoln government went to war to force eleven slave states back into their union, The Confederate government had no reason to go to war, except in defense, slavery was protected by their Constitution.

 

[unionblue]

The idea that slavery was the cause of the war is laughable, the Lincoln government went to war to force eleven slave states back into their union,

Correct, to preserve the Union.

The Confederate government had no reason to go to war, except in defense, slavery was protected by their Constitution.

And here is one excuse.

The last sentence of your above post was missing one word, and should have subtracted one word..

The Confederate government had no reason to go to war, except in THE defense of slavery protected by their Constitution.

Unionblue

 

[Gene Green]

5

Charles and Mary Beard maintained that the conflict at its core was an economic and ideological conflict between the Northern manufacturing sector protectionists and the free-trading agrarians of the South.

The case for free trade as the antidote to the sectional crisis that exploded into war skirts the peculiarities that mock southerners’ claims to classical liberalism. Defending slavery, and not fidelity to liberal principles, defined how southerners approached economic policy and government power.

Free trade merely meant higher earnings off the fruits of others’ toil. Wielding the lash just made chasing every last dollar easier.
The South’s struggle to own slaves and abide by liberal principles ended fittingly in contradiction. Arguing about free trade and limited government provided some consistency for southerners if one overlooked the part about owning people. The Confederate Constitution banned paying for internal improvements out of the Confederate treasury or instituting tariffs “to promote or foster any branch of industry.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/realsp...o-paper-over-ownership-of-peope/#649b32741206

The north promoted free labor not labor for free.
I do not ignore other schools of thought .... until I have read them and discovered their bias. If they weren’t biased there wouldn’t be so many.
The economics and ideology of the south was rooted in slavery as was almost every aspect of southern life. Whether a slave owner or not.
The north protected industry the south protected forced labor as per the fugitive slave act.

 

[James Lutzweiler]

That is an interesting post. If slavery was the only cause of the war, then you would not have all the different schools of thought regarding the civil war that have been put forth over the decades by various scholars. There have been more books written about the Civil War than any other event in American History. Wars historically are complicated affairs that can have more than a single cause. One of the best books I have read on the subject is The Causes of the Civil War by the noted historian Kenneth Stampp which was originally published years ago. This book analyzes the political, economic and social factors that resulted in the war. It provides a comprehensive look at the issues that divided the country. Kenneth Stampp was a Professor Emeritus of History at UC Berkley and a former President of the American History Association.

Stampp also earned his PhD under William Hesseltine at Wisconsin. So did David Smiley (Google David Smiley and Lutzweiler) who encouraged the TRR thesis. So did Stephen Ambrose who endorsed it outright. No lightweights. I have a marvelous quote by Hesseltine about the TRR in my book. It is worth the price of the book all by itself.

 

[James Lutzweiler]

See your quote below for a prime example.



When you say all the other complaints would not have caused the war without slavery, or that slavery would have caused the war even without them, I'd classify you as a "single causer", because you make it clear you believe slavery alone is the one factor that matters.

Your usual precision!

 

[James Lutzweiler]

Vice "multiple excusers."

6 syllables. Disqualified.

 

[James Lutzweiler]

The idea that slavery was the cause of the war is laughable, the Lincoln government went to war to force eleven slave states back into their union, The Confederate government had no reason to go to war, except in defense, slavery was protected by their Constitution.

Where have you been?!!

 

[unionblue]

6 syllables. Disqualified.

Not even close to being disqualified, as multiple times we see this label, or it's execution to varying degrees, executed daily.

Despite massive amounts of primary documents and sources of the period, multiple excuses are given to exclude, deny, or minimize slavery as the primary cause of the war, this entire thread included.

As to the why of such continued multiple excuses, I tend to think it primarily employed to defend ancestors are somehow the need to defend a particular region of the United States.

As for this thread, I am of the view slavery must be excused or minimized to bolster a personal theory or agenda.

But that's just my opinion.

Unionblue

 

[unionblue]

Where have you been?!!

Perhaps trying to redefine a most often used excuse?

 

[CSA Today]

Where have you been?!!

Here and there.

 

[CSA Today]

And here is one excuse.

The last sentence of your above post was missing one word, and should have subtracted one word..

The Confederate government had no reason to go to war, except in THE defense of slavery protected by their Constitution.

Unionblue

That doesn't make any sense. Was slavery threatened by internal forces within the CS or is it your opinion that it feared the Lincoln regime was attempting to force them back into the union so it could free their slaves?

 

[James Lutzweiler]

Here and there.

Hurry back.

 

[CSA Today]

Hurry back.

I'm here.

 

[uaskme]

Some people just like Simple Solutions. How often have we heard from the Single Causers, hey, I’ve never heard of that. So, it can’t be true. It’s a huge obstacle to learning. Also, part of the Single Cause Fallacy.

 

[James Lutzweiler]

Not even close to being disqualified, as multiple times we see this label, or it's execution to varying degrees, executed daily.

Despite massive amounts of primary documents and sources of the period, multiple excuses are given to exclude, deny, or minimize slavery as the primary cause of the war, this entire thread included.

As to the why of such continued multiple excuses, I tend to think it primarily employed to defend ancestors are somehow the need to defend a particular region of the United States.

As for this thread, I am of the view slavery must be excused or minimized to bolster a personal theory or agenda.

But that's just my opinion.

Unionblue

Way too many generalities for me to handle. Oblong blur comes to mind. But at least I read them.

You should consider that maybe facts and other primary documents drive the viewpoint. But I think you know that.

And no one is forcing your participation in a thread you don't like. Keep in mind that I asked those in your group to offer an ellipse for your viewpoint, preferably a 2-3 syllable ellipse. That is what the OP is all about. It is pointedly NOT about debating the merits of railroads vs. race, the Pacific vs. Planters, steam vs. slaves, black vs. yellow, Eli Whitney vs. cousin Asa Whitney, Kansas vs. California, cotton vs. coal, etc. but just a simple 2-3 syllable ellipse. That's all.

So, what would your team like to be called?

 

[James Lutzweiler]

I'm here.

Keep posting.

Got a 2-3 syllable ellipse for a team name for the other side?

 

[Gene Green]

The idea that slavery was the cause of the war is laughable, the Lincoln government went to war to force eleven slave states back into their union,

Again you can not conflate war and secession. Secession did not start the war and it may still have been avoided after secession.
The governments of South Carolina and the Confederacy started the war. Slavery and all of the economics, politics, and social structure that go with it , caused secession.
The new confederacy started the war to save itself from voluntary reconstruction and bring in the upper south. The north , including Lincoln and Seward, wanted to possess federal property without war and a limited amount of appeasement to keep the upper south and Virginia in particular. Seward wanted to evacuate Sumter.

Fort Sumter stood on a man-made granite island four miles from down town Charleston at the entrance to the bay. W ith brick walls forty feet high and eight to twelve feet thick, designed to mount 146 big guns, this new fort when fully manned by 650 soldiers could stop anything trying to enter or leave the harbor. But at the beginning of December i860 Fort Sumter was untenanted except by workmen completing the construction of its interior. Most of the eighty-odd soldiers of the U. S. garrison at Charleston occupied Fort Moultrie, an obsolete work a mile across the bay from Sumter on an island easily accessible from the mainland and exposed to capture from the rear. The Carolinians had expected to get Moultrie along with Sumter and all other United States property in Charleston for the asking. Even before seceding, South Car olina officials began pressing the Buchanan administration on this mat ter. After declaring its independence, the republic of South Carolina sent commissioners to Washington to negotiate for the forts and the arsenal. Their quest was backed by hundreds of militiamen in Charles ton who vowed to drive the Yankees out if they did not leave voluntarily.
For the rest of the story.....
http://ouleft.org/wp-content/uploads/Battle-Cry-of-Freedom_The-Civil-War-Era.pdf
This excerpt page 264. The book is some 900 pages and takes a minute to load.

 

[uaskme]

Again you can not conflate war and secession. Secession did not start the war and it may still have been avoided after secession.
The governments of South Carolina and the Confederacy started the war. Slavery and all of the economics, politics, and social structure that go with it , caused secession.
The new confederacy started the war to save itself from voluntary reconstruction and bring in the upper south. The north , including Lincoln and Seward, wanted to possess federal property without war and a limited amount of appeasement to keep the upper south and Virginia in particular. Seward wanted to evacuate Sumter.

Fort Sumter stood on a man-made granite island four miles from down town Charleston at the entrance to the bay. W ith brick walls forty feet high and eight to twelve feet thick, designed to mount 146 big guns, this new fort when fully manned by 650 soldiers could stop anything trying to enter or leave the harbor. But at the beginning of December i860 Fort Sumter was untenanted except by workmen completing the construction of its interior. Most of the eighty-odd soldiers of the U. S. garrison at Charleston occupied Fort Moultrie, an obsolete work a mile across the bay from Sumter on an island easily accessible from the mainland and exposed to capture from the rear. The Carolinians had expected to get Moultrie along with Sumter and all other United States property in Charleston for the asking. Even before seceding, South Car olina officials began pressing the Buchanan administration on this mat ter. After declaring its independence, the republic of South Carolina sent commissioners to Washington to negotiate for the forts and the arsenal. Their quest was backed by hundreds of militiamen in Charles ton who vowed to drive the Yankees out if they did not leave voluntarily.
For the rest of the story.....
http://ouleft.org/wp-content/uploads/Battle-Cry-of-Freedom_The-Civil-War-Era.pdf
This excerpt page 264. The book is some 900 pages and takes a minute to load.

Battle Cry of Freedom is the first book on the CW that I read. I though that after reading a big thick book, that is all I needed to know. That was a couple of hundred books ago. You can always learn something. If something doesn’t sound right, explore it and get your own answer. Don’t let someone tell you what to think. Cheap advise, probably what it is worth.

 

[Gene Green]

Back to the OP ...
How about “de facto-rs “.