The Slave States Seceded to Protect Slavery--The Rest is Baloney

wausaubob

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
In contrast, unless more slaves were added to the US population by the addition of territory, as happened with Louisiana, Florida and Texas, the rate of increase of the enslaved population was about 23% per decade.
1617805748564.png

https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1860/population/1860a-02.pdf
p. vii.
Therefore the section of the country that allowed slavery was steadily losing ground to that portion of the country that was expanding railroads and encouraging voluntary immigration.
And the railroads could produce the cash that created influence and in the northern states, the managers and the workers in the railroad industry voted.
The railroads were in most states by 1860 and they would eventually be in all states and all districts.
The railroads had a strong interest in expanding telegraph service, a growing economy, a unified currency not subject to complicated discounting, a transparent commercial law.
Its possible that the modern economy could have completely by passed the far south cotton 7 states. But its unlikely that people in the middle 8 states, those that permitted slavery, would have been content with the US economy moving up to industrialization and not have wanted the benefit of the increased standard of living it produced.
 
Last edited:

Scott1967

Sergeant
Joined
Jul 11, 2016
Location
England
Not a 'big reliance', but the very foundation for it's social and economic way of life. Slavery is at the core and cannot be dismissed or reduced in it's importance to the slaveholding South and is at the very center of the Confederacy's creation.
Yes I totally agree whichever way you slice the cake no matter what spanner you want to throw in the works the core issue was the expansion of slavery within the new states , Eventually the new states as free states would help sway the abolition of Slavery in the US and bring about many rich Southerners having to take a loss financially that is the core issue here money tied to Slavery with a dash of white supremacy thrown in for good measure.
 

wausaubob

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
Yes I totally agree whichever way you slice the cake no matter what spanner you want to throw in the works the core issue was the expansion of slavery within the new states , Eventually the new states as free states would help sway the abolition of Slavery in the US and bring about many rich Southerners having to take a loss financially that is the core issue here money tied to Slavery with a dash of white supremacy thrown in for good measure.
The existence of slavery was not as much in jeopardy as was the value of slaves. Since the price of cotton had reached a peak about 1858, and further expansion of cotton production in Texas and Louisiana was likely to drive the price down further, and any withdrawal of political support for the practice made the value of slaves fall more, it was the large corporate farmers, and the slave traders, that saw their bottom line threatened. The small farmer who had few slaves, or the household that used slaves as servants, most likely did not perceive a threat, or even welcomed a decline in the price of enslaved labor.
 

WJC

Major General
Judge Adv. Genl.
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Couldn’t there be a duality present here? That the South fought primarily to maintain its independence & way of life while also acknowledging that that particular way of life contained a big reliance on slavery.
Call it what you will it is clear that the root cause of secession was the desire to defend, continue and expand the practice of slavery.
 

lurid

First Sergeant
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Couldn’t there be a duality present here? That the South fought primarily to maintain its independence & way of life while also acknowledging that that particular way of life contained a big reliance on slavery.

I think what you said here is the synonymous: the south's way of life and independence was a big reliance on slavery. It's virtually impossible to separate the two, they were one. Just like people on the internet try to separate cotton production from slavery, which that is virtually impossible as well. The higher demand for cotton the demand demand for slaves, which the expansion of cotton production expanded slavery in the south. Cotton and slavery ran parallel. I know this stuff seems complex but it is really not. The south equated to a Banana Republic that possessed one cash crop that was cultivated, tilled and harvested by slaves. Slaves held 21-30% of white's income towards the end of the Antebellum era, it just increased and increased along with the increase for the demand for cotton production and the expansion of slavery. In Laymen terms, the reason why slavery was so valuable in the south was that the demand for cotton increased the four decades prior to the CW. It had everything to do with the demand for cotton. If the demand for cotton decreased the demand for slaves decreased and the slave's value decreased, and vice versa.

Look at it like this as well, that so-called 1860 $4 billion in slave wealth only held that value in the south, because outside the south nobody owned slaves, there was no buying and selling slaves anywhere else in the Continental USA. Therefore, the US government was not going to buy those slaves emancipation at that 1860 value, because they were not worth that amount of money outside a slavocracy, which they were a White elephant investment to a non-slave society.

Did you see how valuable slavery was to the south? Do you see how slavery was not valuable outside the south? I'm quite sure the evidence points in the direction that the south's way of life, and independence were synonymous with a slavocracy. Nobody has remotely convinced me differently.
 

Cycom

Private
Joined
Feb 19, 2021
Location
Los Angeles, California
I think what you said here is the synonymous: the south's way of life and independence was a big reliance on slavery. It's virtually impossible to separate the two, they were one. Just like people on the internet try to separate cotton production from slavery, which that is virtually impossible as well. The higher demand for cotton the demand demand for slaves, which the expansion of cotton production expanded slavery in the south. Cotton and slavery ran parallel. I know this stuff seems complex but it is really not. The south equated to a Banana Republic that possessed one cash crop that was cultivated, tilled and harvested by slaves. Slaves held 21-30% of white's income towards the end of the Antebellum era, it just increased and increased along with the increase for the demand for cotton production and the expansion of slavery. In Laymen terms, the reason why slavery was so valuable in the south was that the demand for cotton increased the four decades prior to the CW. It had everything to do with the demand for cotton. If the demand for cotton decreased the demand for slaves decreased and the slave's value decreased, and vice versa.

Look at it like this as well, that so-called 1860 $4 billion in slave wealth only held that value in the south, because outside the south nobody owned slaves, there was no buying and selling slaves anywhere else in the Continental USA. Therefore, the US government was not going to buy those slaves emancipation at that 1860 value, because they were not worth that amount of money outside a slavocracy, which they were a White elephant investment to a non-slave society.

Did you see how valuable slavery was to the south? Do you see how slavery was not valuable outside the south? I'm quite sure the evidence points in the direction that the south's way of life, and independence were synonymous with a slavocracy. Nobody has remotely convinced me differently.
This makes sense. That the two were inexorably intertwined seems like it’s a given. A question, if anyone can humor me:

Since slavery was so critical to them, can it be said that the South was justified in seceding? I ask this in the context of the times back then. Obviously slavery was and is a great evil, second only to genocide IMO, but if we put ourselves in the time period, was seceding justified because of this (or any complimentary issue)?
 

Scott1967

Sergeant
Joined
Jul 11, 2016
Location
England
This makes sense. That the two were inexorably intertwined seems like it’s a given. A question, if anyone can humor me:

Since slavery was so critical to them, can it be said that the South was justified in seceding? I ask this in the context of the times back then. Obviously slavery was and is a great evil, second only to genocide IMO, but if we put ourselves in the time period, was seceding justified because of this (or any complimentary issue)?
Only if you put profit and treason before Loyalty to your nation.

Remember Lincoln was in favour of keeping Slavery within the South just not expanding it to newer states they had no reason to succeed the issue really was the expansion of slavery and the fact that as more free states joined the Union at some point a vote would be made to abolish Slavery , The South simply felt it would be a matter of time before they were outvoted in the senate.

The South was stuck in a time warp and the North wanted to progress.
 

19thGeorgia

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Only if you put profit and treason before Loyalty to your nation.

Remember Lincoln was in favour of keeping Slavery within the South just not expanding it to newer states they had no reason to succeed the issue really was the expansion of slavery and the fact that as more free states joined the Union at some point a vote would be made to abolish Slavery , The South simply felt it would be a matter of time before they were outvoted in the senate.

The South was stuck in a time warp and the North wanted to progress.
Let's not pretend the North were pristine and immaculate egalitarians and such.
They wanted the territories reserved for white folk - no blacks allowed (free or slave).
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Let's not pretend the North were pristine and immaculate egalitarians and such.
They wanted the territories reserved for white folk - no blacks allowed (free or slave).

Then please, let us not continue the myth the rebellion was for anything else than the preservation and expansion of slavery.
 

John S. Carter

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
History has found Lincoln to be right.
Politically you are right. First he went to war for the preservation of the Union ,remember his call for troops was to put down the rebellion of those Southern states that had succeeded, he stated that they were still in the Union but in a state of rebellion . Sounds like the same thing that George said about the colonies. The same way that the repel south possibly thought of the North. To the ordinary Southern that fought just as their ancestors had fought against the British, With the call up of troops by Lincoln ,to them it was an invasion and would a subjection of the states by force just the same was the revolutionary war. Granted the Constitution of the Confedercery does mention protection of slavery as a cause of succession but to the ordinary Confederate soldier it was the protection of the home front, the fear of a strong controlling central government { Have you heard that in today's political statements, only the political parties have changed places ,ironic}.Only to assure the non involvement of Europe and to appease the radical elements in the North did he issue the Proclamation. His movement into the free slave ,with the Thirteenth Amendment , came thought the fact that slavery had to be brought to an end to save the country and that slavery could not continue to be a issue .That after four years of horror that he had the power under the amendment to end this system which the Founders could not do. Suggested reading = Willian L. Yancey and the Coming of the Civil War- author Eric H. Walther[ AMAZON}AND Rising in Flames ,Sherman's march and the fight for a new Nation- author J.D. Dickey=a interesting history of that infamous march. It is a book which shows the change in Sherman's army which were innocent about slavery, except from the propaganda of Northern press and how while taking this walk they saw the horror of the system. It deals with the end of the war as it ends with surrender of Johnson.
 

Ethan S.

First Sergeant
Joined
Aug 19, 2019
Location
Carter County Kentucky
All good points fellas, and no one is denying the truth about slavery being the root cause. Slavery was the ROOT cause, but the soldiers fought for the branch off reasons.


1. The Right of the States. Yell at me all you want, but I think we can use (to a short extent) the recent Covid pandemic as an example. The federal government has issued guidelines that must be adhered to, or else, but largely they left it up to the states to decide what the heck they want to do, which is a great thing! Everybody locked down and gradually different states opened up as they saw fit. For instance, California is more strict that Florida, and the same goes with Michigan and Mississippi, etc. I would rather MY state decide whats best for MY state, then the Fed decide. My state could be more or less open, while your state still has restrictions. I'm happy, you're not, because my state chose to do something on its own accord. The same thing for back in '61 happened, let the STATES decide what their policy should be, and even if it's wrong, so be it. They'll figure it out eventually through a failing market, boycotts, or the opinions of a people.


2. The point. Y'all ever notice that we'll go to war just because of a point? We rebelled against the British because of the point that we were unfairly taxed, and had no representation. It wasn't that we were being overtaxed, it was the point that we were being punished like we were not British citizens, so we rebelled.


3. Brash Youth. Need I say more?
 

8thFlorida

Sergeant
Joined
Nov 27, 2016
Not a 'big reliance', but the very foundation for it's social and economic way of life. Slavery is at the core and cannot be dismissed or reduced in it's importance to the slaveholding South and is at the very center of the Confederacy's creation.
Slavery was and is an institution around the world not just in America. Keep the that in mind. The North used the products of slavery and didn’t want the South to secede. It’s as simple as that.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Slavery was and is an institution around the world not just in America. Keep the that in mind. The North used the products of slavery and didn’t want the South to secede. It’s as simple as that.

Let's fully keep in mind that slavery around the world, especially in England, France, Europe, etc., was being, or had been, abolished and was seen as a great moral wrong.

Yes, the North used products of slavery, but again, as recorded in history, it was the slaveholding South that went to war to keep it, expand it, protect it, and never abolish it.
 

8thFlorida

Sergeant
Joined
Nov 27, 2016
But the North was not stopping slavery when they started the war. The slave trade was already ended however slaves were still property. In fact there are at least two Confederate ship captains on record that freed slaves. Before and during the war. The North was not entering the war to end the slave trade. It was already ended. And property was the way that the North supplied themselves with cotton. In fact it was dubbed the Cotton War as a result. Southern states wanted free trade with the North and Europe but Lincoln was not okay with that. he couldn’t even bring himself to emancipate the slaves in the rebelling states until after the war was already begun. His border states still had slavery and he never freed them. Didn’t bother him in the slightest.
 

Scott1967

Sergeant
Joined
Jul 11, 2016
Location
England
But the North was not stopping slavery when they started the war. The slave trade was already ended however slaves were still property. In fact there are at least two Confederate ship captains on record that freed slaves. Before and during the war. The North was not entering the war to end the slave trade. It was already ended. And property was the way that the North supplied themselves with cotton. In fact it was dubbed the Cotton War as a result. Southern states wanted free trade with the North and Europe but Lincoln was not okay with that. he couldn’t even bring himself to emancipate the slaves in the rebelling states until after the war was already begun. His border states still had slavery and he never freed them. Didn’t bother him in the slightest.
Slavery was not the issue the expansion of Slavery was.

In the end a democratic vote would have abolished Slavery as more free stats joined the Union that is something the South could not allow to happen.

The war itself was about preserving the Union first and foremost Lincoln never shifted from this stance , The emancipation was a calculated move to hurt the confederacy and to give the Union the moral high when it came to stopping major powers from recognizing the Confederacy.

Remember Lincoln was a moderate not an abolitionist.
 

DanSBHawk

1st Lieutenant
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
But the North was not stopping slavery when they started the war. The slave trade was already ended however slaves were still property. In fact there are at least two Confederate ship captains on record that freed slaves. Before and during the war. The North was not entering the war to end the slave trade. It was already ended. And property was the way that the North supplied themselves with cotton. In fact it was dubbed the Cotton War as a result. Southern states wanted free trade with the North and Europe but Lincoln was not okay with that. he couldn’t even bring himself to emancipate the slaves in the rebelling states until after the war was already begun. His border states still had slavery and he never freed them. Didn’t bother him in the slightest.
Lincoln had no constitutional power to unilaterally end slavery. The emancipation proclamation was a war measure. He couldn't have freed slaves in loyal states.

The buyers of southern cotton would have bought it if it was produced with free labor just the same as with slave labor. It makes no sense to blame the buyers for the labor system that the south chose.
 
Top