If the Confederacy was NOT about slavery...

[unmerged(62241)]

If you look on the election (the south did threathen to secede depending on the election), you can see that all seceeding states voted one way, the slave owning states that went to the north voted another, the North voted a third way and New York voted on their own candidate.

The whole war can realy be described based on the outcome of the election.

The "south" did not threaten to secede based on the election. North Carolina, for instance, didn't leave the Union until may 1861.

 

[motiv-8]

I wonder if anyone has ever been convinced on this forum to change their views of the causes of the civil war?

For me, slavery will always be the prime cause. The tensions it caused, both political and social were intense. When the US beat Mexico, probably the most important question asked about the new territories being admitted as states was would they be free or slave?

Even at the lower level, a reasonably recent book by James McPherson, For Cause and Comrades found that a significant number of confederates in the beginning of the war explicitly stated that the war was about slavery.


Anyway, I know nobody will be convinced

So, if slavery had been abolished in say, 1832, before the major crises of dividing the West up started, the Civil War would not have occured?

 

[Dark Knight]

If you look on the election (the south did threathen to secede depending on the election), you can see that all seceeding states voted one way, the slave owning states that went to the north voted another, the North voted a third way and New York voted on their own candidate.

Lincoln was New York's candidate?
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?off=0&year=1860
The slave states that remained in the Union were split among three different candidates, one seceding state (Tennessee) voted for Bell, and every free state except New Jersey voted for Lincoln (and Lincoln received four of New Jersey's seven electoral votes, anyway).

 

[unmerged(62241)]

So, if slavery had been abolished in say, 1832, before the major crises of dividing the West up started, the Civil War would not have occured?

Yes, I think that would be the case. I think slavery was the key factor. One reason Lincoln was elected was because he was known to have a firm stance on not extending slavery beyond what it already was. Many in the south saw this as a direct threat, because they were under the assumption that any new slave state would fall into the slave state camp, giving them a boost to their already waning political power.

I know this is basic stuff, but I don't think anything else did (or could) cause tensions like slavery.

 

[GrapeApe]

The "south" did not threaten to secede based on the election. North Carolina, for instance, didn't leave the Union until may 1861.

Actually several southern representatives threatened to leave the Union if Lincoln was elected. South Carolina, in particular, warned that she would secede if Lincoln was elected.

Of course, the reason they did not want him elected is specifically his position on slavery.

It was the Kansas-Nebraska Bill that brought Lincoln out of retirment. It was this same bill that led to the birth of the Republican Party. When Stephen Douglas spoke in favor of the Bill in Illinois, Lincoln announced he would reply the following day and invited Douglas to attend.

In Lincoln's view the core of the issue was slavery, not self-determination, as Douglas maintained. Douglas insisted on discussing the concept of "popular sovereignty". Lincoln insisted on getting to the true heart of the matter. Slavery. He went on to state:

"The doctrine of self-government is right, absolutely and eternally right; but it has no application as here attempted. Or perhaps I should rather say that whether it has such just application depends upon whether a Negro is not or is a man. If he is not a man, why in that case he who is man may, as a matter of self-government, do just as he pleases with him. But if the Negro is a man, it is not to that extent a total destruction of self-government to say that he too shall not govern himself? When the white man governs himself and also governs another man, that is more than self-government; that is depotism. If the Negro is a man, why then my ancient faith teaches me that 'all men are created equal,' and that there can be no moral right in connection with one man's making a slave of another."

Lincoln believed slavery was morally wrong. He did not yet believe that slavery was a legally wrong. However, if he was to believe that it was indeed morally wrong than it must be made legally wrong, else the entire concept of self-government was fraudulent.

"Slavery is founded in the selfishness of man's nature, opposition to it in his love of justice. These principles are an eternal antagonism, and when brought into collision so fiercely as slavery extension brings them, shocks and throes and convulsions must ceaselessly follow. Repeal the Missouri Compromise, repeal all compromises, repeal the Declaration of Independence, repeal all past history - you still cannot repeal human nature. It still will be the abundance of man's heart that slavery extension is wrong, and out of the abundance of his heart his mouth will continue to speak."

This is the speech that began his reputation as an Abolitionist. Lincoln still considered himself a Whig. But the activits in the Northeast regarded and passed him off as "one of thme" and the southerners began to think of him as something akin to Satan.


Oh and take heart. A few years ago I was a stong beleiver that it was States rights that led to the civil war. However, after I bothered to learn a little more about the era I found out how wrong I was. So it is possible to change peoples minds. Of course I am a very open minded person to begin with so it is probably not the same sort of victory as convincing a diehard, card carrying Sons of the Confederacy sort-of-person. But it is possible.

 

[unmerged(62241)]

Actually several southern representatives threatened to leave the Union if Lincoln was elected. South Carolina, in particular, warned that she would secede if Lincoln was elected.

I was trying to point out that there was no southern "bloc" that threatened secession depending on the election, which was why I brought NC into the picture. Lincoln's call for volunteers (after Sumter) to suppress the rebellion brought the wavering states into the southern camp.

 

[GrapeApe]

I was trying to point out that there was no southern "bloc" that threatened secession depending on the election, which was why I brought NC into the picture. Lincoln's call for volunteers (after Sumter) to suppress the rebellion brought the wavering states into the southern camp.

I would agree with that. I like to think of the days prior to secession as a group of guys standing around the bank of a river. All of them want to jump in, but none of them know how cold the water is. Finally someone gets the courage to jump in and all the rest quickly follow.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

Yes, I think that would be the case. I think slavery was the key factor. One reason Lincoln was elected was because he was known to have a firm stance on not extending slavery beyond what it already was. Many in the south saw this as a direct threat, because they were under the assumption that any new slave state would fall into the slave state camp, giving them a boost to their already waning political power.

I know this is basic stuff, but I don't think anything else did (or could) cause tensions like slavery.

Ah, then the war wasn't about slavery, but about good ol' political power!

I hate to be a stickler, but "slavery" and "slavery in new states" are two very separate things.

As you suggest yourself, "slavery in new states" is not about slavery in itself, but about numerical voting power in Congress, that is, the ability of Southern states to push other policies they wanted or obstruct other policies they didn't want. In that case, the true cause for secession was not slavery, but those policies.

And by those policies I mean of course the Morrill tariff.

 

[unmerged(65202)]

And by those policies I mean of course the Morrill tariff.

tariffs had caused issues in the past in the USA
iirc, South Carolina threatened to secede in the 1830s over tariffs
and the North-East tried secession too during the war of 1812, but the Federalists made that proposal right after peace was made and the Battle of New Orleans won, making them traitors and making the USA a one party state for years
While slavery makes a morally easy reason for the war, the real causes are much more complicated.
On a side note, the reason all of Mexico wasn't annexed after the Mexican-American war was that the south didn't want that much abolitionist vote as Mexico had already banned slavery.

On a side note, which article of the Constitution did Lincoln invoke to ban slavery?

 

[unmerged(62241)]

On a side note, which article of the Constitution did Lincoln invoke to ban slavery?

If you are talking about the Emancipation Proclamation, I believe that would fall under his powers as Commander in Chief.

 

[unmerged(62241)]

Ah, then the war wasn't about slavery, but about good ol' political power!

Abdul-your IQ is probably 50 points higher than mine, and you are a better writer. You will probably win just about any argument. I can easily accept that the war was about political power-but I feel that slavery was the driving force behind that quest for political power (or at least equality in the case of the South.)

That said, feel free to make me look like a third-grader.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

On a side note, which article of the Constitution did Lincoln invoke to ban slavery?

None. He didn't have to. It was an executive order in line with his role as commander-in-chief, a measure necessary in suppressing rebellion, i.e. forfeiture of rebel assets. That's why it didn't apply in slave-holding states that remained in the Union.

The abolition itself was the Thirteenth Ammendment.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

Abdul-your IQ is probably 50 points higher than mine, and you are a better writer. You will probably win just about any argument. I can easily accept that the war was about political power-but I feel that slavery was the driving force behind that quest for political power (or at least equality in the case of the South.)

Actually, it's probably 50 points less, but I make up for it with piles of paper.

You would be right if there was any imminent danger of a Congressional vote on abolition. But there was relatively little danger of that. Dred Scott had already established Congress couldn't regulate slavery in the states. Calhoun had already messed around with the Congressional procedures to prevent the possibility of discussing anything vaguely related to that on the floor.

So slavery within the South was in no imminent danger in 1860. What was in imminent danger was the all-important tariff policy which the South had been assiduously fighting against and fending off for the past forty years. It was the central plank of the Republicans, it was every second word out of Lincoln's mouth during his victory tour. The timing of the secession went pari passu as the strength for the passage of tariff became an inevitability. The trigger was when president-elect Lincoln made it absolutely clear that, unlike Jackson, he was going to send the Federal army into South Carolina if they refused to collect it like in the 1828 nullification crisis. It was that direct threat that the immediate cause of South Carolina's secession. The debates that rolled in the legislatures of the other states, including the separation of the Virginias, swirled around the costs of the tariff versus the benefits of the union. And, unsurprisingly, the Morrill tariff was one of the first acts passed by Congress after the southern states vacated their chairs.

So, despite all the huffing and puffing about slavery, states' rights, race-hate by the Southern gentlemen and their counterparts, it ultimately boiled down to the crude mathematics of Congressional votes and the plain pocketbook issue of tariff policy, the only area of federal legislation promised by the victorious Republicans which could (and would) actually hit southerners directly.

 

[unmerged(62241)]

Actually, it's probably 50 points less, but I make up for it with piles of paper.

You would be right if there was any imminent danger of a Congressional vote on abolition. But there was relatively little danger of that. Dred Scott had already established Congress couldn't regulate slavery in the states. Calhoun had already messed around with the Congressional procedures to prevent the possibility of discussing anything vaguely related to that on the floor.

So slavery within the South was in no imminent danger in 1860. What was in imminent danger was the all-important tariff policy which the South had been assiduously fighting against and fending off for the past forty years. It was the central plank of the Republicans, it was every second word out of Lincoln's mouth during his victory tour. The timing of the secession went pari passu as the strength for the passage of tariff became an inevitability. The trigger was when president-elect Lincoln made it absolutely clear that, unlike Jackson, he was going to send the Federal army into South Carolina if they refused to collect it like in the 1828 nullification crisis. It was that direct threat that the immediate cause of South Carolina's secession. The debates that rolled in the legislatures of the other states, including the separation of the Virginias, swirled around the costs of the tariff versus the benefits of the union. And, unsurprisingly, the Morrill tariff was one of the first acts passed by Congress after the southern states vacated their chairs.

So, despite all the huffing and puffing about slavery, states' rights, race-hate by the Southern gentlemen and their counterparts, it ultimately boiled down to the crude mathematics of Congressional votes and the plain pocketbook issue of tariff policy, the only area of federal legislation promised by the victorious Republicans which could (and would) actually hit southerners directly.

I will ponder this. Damn you, Abdul!!!!

 

[TehMike]

Okay. Lincoln cared very deeply about the plight of the slaves in the Confederate rebel states, but he needed to sell the war. If he had told John Q. Public to go enlist and potentially get themselves killed to free the slaves, the Confederacy would have marched into DC within the first week. He sold the war as a struggle to "Preserve the Union," which he and basically everyone in the country cared very deeply about. As the war continued, Lincoln saw a major moral and propaganda victory could be won by declaring the war a crusade against slavery, which is why he issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862, and allowing Black Soldiers to enlist in 1863.

I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied every thing. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife.

1858, Fourth Stephen Douglas debate



...I'm sure he cried his poor little heart out over them.

 

[Mr. Domino]

I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied every thing. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife.

1858, Fourth Stephen Douglas debate



...I'm sure he cried his poor little heart out over them.

Actually, I rather like that quote, especially the last line, although I don't see how it makes your point. At the risk of misconstruing what others said: The assertion that has been made is that Lincoln (like many northerners, Europeans and even some southerners) hated slavery. It has never been that he was not a racist, or he wanted full equality (though if you read the 14th amendment I think you can say Congress wanted full legal equality.)

Just about everyone from that era was against full rights for minorites and was racist by our standards. However, just about everyone outside of the South was against chattel slavery on a large scale as well. To take one example: The British were willing to emancipate the W. Indies, help eliminate the slave trade, and were quite willing to look at the South's peculiar institution with disgust. Of course, they didn't believe Indians were equal either. This doesn't mean they were hypocritical, they probably did "cry their little hearts out" about the poor heathen's soul that needed saving. They were just patronizing racists of the "white man's burden" variety versus the "human property" variety.

 

[jinif]

Calhoun had already messed around with the Congressional procedures to prevent the possibility of discussing anything vaguely related to that on the floor.

If you are referring to the "Gag rule" that prevented discussion of petitions to congress about ending slavery, that ended in 1844. Is there something else you meant? The compromise of 1850 did end the slave trade in DC, so I think that slavery issues were being discussed on the floor at this time.

So slavery within the South was in no imminent danger in 1860.

In some sense that is true, however Southerners were still scared that an eventual anti-slavery super majority would be able to start chipping away at their "rights" to hold slaves. This is not to mention the belief that many held at the time that slavery needed expand in order to remain healthy, and that a Northern majority ensured that the territories would be going to the free state side of things, thus increasing the free state lead over the southerners even more significantly.

The trigger was when president-elect Lincoln made it absolutely clear that, unlike Jackson, he was going to send the Federal army into South Carolina if they refused to collect it like in the 1828 nullification crisis. It was that direct threat that the immediate cause of South Carolina's secession.

Actually Jackson did make some preparations to make the army ready to enforce federal law during the nullification crisis. In the state of the Union address of 1833 Jackson noted that nullifiers had embarked on military preparation and he asked congress to be ready to do the same(from Manisha Sinha's "The Counter-Revolution of Slavery", a good read if you are interested in the subject of South Carolina and how having the highest percentage of slaves also led South Carolina to be the least democratic [small 'd'] state in the union).
What really ended the nullification crisis was South Carolina's nullifiers' realizations that the other southern states would not come to their aid over the tariff.

The debates that rolled in the legislatures of the other states, including the separation of the Virginias, swirled around the costs of the tariff versus the benefits of the union.

This seems to counter the primary sources that Desoto provided earlier (Declarations of independence from the Union by Texas, Miss., SC, and Georgia), which seem to suggest that Slavery was the primary cause of secession. I quickly glanced through them and this is what I came up with:
South Carolina's mentions slavery 18 times, taxes 1, and doesn't mention tariffs
Mississippi mentions slavery 7 times, does not mention taxes or Tariffs
Texas mentions slavery 22 times, does not mention taxes or Tariffs
Georgia's mentions slavery 34 (!) times, does not mention taxes or Tariffs

This indicates to me that slavery was far and away the number one concern for the majority of seceding states.

And, unsurprisingly, the Morrill tariff was one of the first acts passed by Congress after the southern states vacated their chairs.

Not all that surprising considering the union was going to need money for the war. Also the Union passed other laws that the south had opposed during this time, such as the Homestead act, and the land grant university act, but this is not necessarily proof that the south seceded because of them.

So, despite all the huffing and puffing about slavery, states' rights, race-hate by the Southern gentlemen and their counterparts, it ultimately boiled down to the crude mathematics of Congressional votes and the plain pocketbook issue of tariff policy, the only area of federal legislation promised by the victorious Republicans which could (and would) actually hit southerners directly.

If it is the case that the south seceded because of tariff issues, I have not seen much evidence to support it. If tariffs were so important why did Miss, SC, TX, and Georgia not mention them in their declarations of disunion, and instead cite slavery numerous times as their reason for secession?

PS. This thread sure seems to have done a good job at staying polite despite the polarizing nature of the subject. Hurray! :rofl:

 

[unmerged(65202)]

PS. This thread sure seems to have done a good job at staying polite despite the polarizing nature of the subject. Hurray! :rofl:

What, its the civil war
it has civil in it


i am fully prepared to burn in h*** for that remark

 

[Intosh]

I'm not a ACW specialist but if I understand well :

the Southerners seceded because Lincoln was elected as a President and they feared his positions about slavery,

but why the middle class and lower classes southerners accept to go to fight a war for slavery when they didn't have any slaves...

Did the upper class southerners (the slaves masters) sell them this war with a propaganda about state rights and state patriotism ?

 

[LM+]

I'm not a ACW specialist but if I understand well :

the Southerners seceded because Lincoln was elected as a President and they feared his positions about slavery,

but why the middle class and lower classes southerners accept to go to fight a war for slavery when they didn't have any slaves...

Did the upper class southerners (the slaves masters) sell them this war with a propaganda about state rights and state patriotism ?

As near as I can figure it, two reasons stood out.

Many white southerners, non slave-holding ones just as much as plantation owners, felt that their culture and society was both different and better than that of the rest of the USA. They felt this strongly enough that separate nationhood was very thinkable. The underlying reasons for the cultural differences were geographic and therefore economic (here Abdul has got it right), but the expressed arguments and emotions - what directly made people act as they did - weren't (here he's missing the mark, IMHO).

Even non slave-holding whites in the southern states believed that they personally had a vested interest in maintaining slavery. Never mind whether they were right or not, they believed it. And belief matters. Two of their reasons follow:

- Hate, contempt, and fear of blacks, powering the desire to set as strong a barrier between the races as humanly possible. It is almost unbelievable just how virulent racism was among whites (not just southern whites but northern ones as well) in this period. The longer hereditary racial bondage lasted, the stronger this race-hate became.

- A desire to feel superior to someone, a desire especially strong among those at the bottom of the white social order. "Yeah, I'm dirt poor and never going to get anywhere, but at least I'm WHITE!".


Rationally, we understand that the ante-bellum south offered the smallest chance for a poor white or his children to ever become anything but poor. Why? Alexis de Tocqueville got it right. Nowhere in the country was manual labor so despised. Why should it be otherwise, when every white had before his eyes a daily example of how those who worked the hardest were treated, when "to work like a nigger" was a term of abuse? Slavery has always meant mass freeman poverty.

But rational arguments didn't fill the ranks of either side in the Civil War. Economics supplied the food, the shoes, and the guns, but it did not call up the men, or keep them fighting, fighting until something like two hundred thousand white, non slave-holding southerners had died for "the Stainless Banner".