US Department of the Interior: What Caused the Civil War?

alan polk

Sergeant Major
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
2,173
#1
IMG_0770.JPG
As a volunteer for NPS, my son was given a lot of study material, one of which was a pamphlet entitled: "Slavery: Cause and Catalyst of the Civil War."

It is undated, but I assume it is a recent publishing. Although it states that slavery was the prime cause, it does state that other issues ignited the Civil War. I find it to be well thought out and balanced.

I thought I'd post a bit of it to see what the learned people here think about it.

With all the late controversies surrounding the memory of the Civil War, I thought it would also be of interest to see what our Government's (or at least a part thereof) view of the conflict is, and from which ground it stands in relation to modern understanding.

I checked with a moderator prior to posting it. If, however, there appears to be a problem, please delete and accept my apology before hand.
 

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

alan polk

Sergeant Major
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
2,173
#13
One of the government's position I found interesting was the recognition that the value of slave labor to the country's wealth was important enough to give the South more representation, via 3/5 clause, in congress and electoral college.

This certainly tends to place the issue of slavery on the country as a whole, rather than on one section. Meaning, the north received the south's value in wealth produced by the enslaved, and the south received enhanced representation for bringing that wealth to the table.

Is that one way of viewing the pamphlet's meaning? Or, am I reading too much into it?
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
7,575
Location
Denver, CO
#14
One of the government's position I found interesting was the recognition that the value of slave labor to the country's wealth was important enough to give the South more representation, via 3/5 clause, in congress and electoral college.

This certainly tends to place the issue of slavery on the country as a whole, rather than on one section. Meaning, the north received the south's value in wealth produced by the enslaved, and the south received enhanced representation for bringing that wealth to the table.

Is that one way of viewing the pamphlet's meaning? Or, am I reading too much into it?
I don't think that is correct. The compromise was also going to be used as a tax formula. The United States was going to dependent on levies on the states, and this formula was going to apportion those indirect taxes.
I don't know if the ever did levy those indirect taxes.
 

alan polk

Sergeant Major
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
2,173
#15
I don't think that is correct. The compromise was also going to be used as a tax formula. The United States was going to dependent on levies on the states, and this formula was going to apportion those indirect taxes.
I don't know if the ever did levy those indirect taxes.
Maybe so, but is my reading of the pamphlet correct? The part I'm referencing is the post with "Slavery and the Constitution" part of the pamphlet.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
34,725
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#16
I don't think that is correct. The compromise was also going to be used as a tax formula. The United States was going to dependent on levies on the states, and this formula was going to apportion those indirect taxes.
I don't know if the ever did levy those indirect taxes.
The Compromise was required by the Southerners to guarantee protection of slavery so they would join the Union. The tax was part of the compromise, but protection was the important thing.
 
Joined
Jun 8, 2013
Messages
6,555
Location
Nebraska
#17
One of the government's position I found interesting was the recognition that the value of slave labor to the country's wealth was important enough to give the South more representation, via 3/5 clause, in congress and electoral college.

This certainly tends to place the issue of slavery on the country as a whole, rather than on one section. Meaning, the north received the south's value in wealth produced by the enslaved, and the south received enhanced representation for bringing that wealth to the table.

Is that one way of viewing the pamphlet's meaning? Or, am I reading too much into it?
I think it layman terms that is how it reads.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
34,725
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#18
Slavery: Cause and Catalyst of the Civil War - National Park Service.

Slavery and the Constitution

When the U.S. Constitution was written in 1787, the interests of
slaveholders and those who profited from slavery could not be ignored.
Although slaves could not vote, white Southerners argued slave labor
contributed greatly to the nation’s wealth. The Constitution, therefore,
provided for counting each slave as 3/5 of a person in the census for the
purposes of representation in Congress and the electoral college. The
clause gave the South a role in the national government far greater than
representation based on its free population alone would have allowed.

...​
When the compromise broke down due to the political power of the Free States.
The war began because a compromise did not exist that could
solve the difference between the free and slave states regarding
the power of the national government to prohibit slavery in
territories that had not yet become states.

–James McPherson, Historian​
 

uaskme

First Sergeant
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
1,653
#19
Free Blacks counted as 1, so it was a Penalty to the South. Ultimately it was a compromise, but it would of been an inequity to levy a tax on a person who had no representation in Government.
 
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
9,344
Location
Carlisle, PA
#20
Free Blacks counted as 1, so it was a Penalty to the South. Ultimately it was a compromise, but it would of been an inequity to levy a tax on a person who had no representation in Government.
From 1790-1860, the South also had a majority of the free black population so it wasn't a disadvantage. And the Three-Fifths Compromise provided an advantage that gave the South the ability to generally dominate the federal government until about 1850.

Ryan
 



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