I’m sorry but this is profoundly and aggressively incorrect. The civil war was not reframed after the fact to be about slavery, quite the opposite in fact. The ‘reframing’ is in fact what you’ve tried to assert, in that it was supposedly a matter of economics rather than slavery (though of course other factors were certainly at play). It’s part of the ‘lost cause’ narrative furthered by the southern states after the civil war.
If the civil war was about freeing slaves, why did lincoln wait so long to end slavery? Why didn't he do it immediately?
> It’s part of the ‘lost cause’ narrative furthered by the southern states after the civil war.
Who cares as long as it is true? I'm not a southerner. Not a fan of the confederacy.
Is your assertion that racist white northerners fought a war against racist white southerners to free black people? Does that make any sense to you? Have you looked into lincoln's opinions of black people?
"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races [applause]—that 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 for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality..."
This document was simultaneously published by the very committee that issued the initial ordinance of secession in South Carolina, and it explains the decision to secede at great length. It is all about slavery:
Additionally, articles of secession from other states also explicitly mention slavery in the actual text of the law, including Alabama's ordinance that proposed the Montgomery Convention at which the Confederacy was founded. Even more states explain it in similar justifying documents.
Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederacy, is on record before the war explaining slavery as cause, and after the war claiming it was about states' rights (to practice slavery).
This whole debate is semantics and pedantics about the word cause. The reality is that it doesn't make sense to reduce history to a single factor.
The south wanted to secede because the union was threatening their economic interests which relied on slavery. The union did not want the south to secede for their own reasons, of which slavery was not the foremost.
You can not remove any part of that explanation and still describe the "cause" of the war.
The war would not have happened if slaves didn't have economic value. The war would not have happened if the north was indifferent to the south leaving.
Trying to reduce things further than this is a fools errand.
Your linked document is a great example of this. It discusses a great many things. The first half is a history of grievances about states rights and failures of the union to uphold the constitution.
It starts to talk about slavery about half way through if you ctrl-f.
Anyone arguing for their singular preferred cause can find supporting evidence in it because the "cause" of the war was the interaction of multiple factors, so evidence exists for all of them.
The problem is that showing evidence that one factor was critical to the start of the war does not prove that other critical factors do not exist.
You’re missing the point. It’s one and the same. Slaves were valuable economic assets whose value was diminishing as industrialization intensified.
The slavers wanted to conquer the west with slaves to stay relevant. Slavery was about wealth and control, in losing control of poor white people. The northern industrialists wanted cotton. Abolitionists saw the moral disgrace of slavery as an evil. Lincoln was more moderate and prioritized the nation.
The “states rights” bullshit was always bullshit. But then “get shot to keep rich aristocrats rich” isn’t a compelling battle cry. Conversely, the poor Irish and others participating in draft riots saw abolition as competition from the one strata of society lower then them.
Hence, the noble abstract goals of “preserving the union” and “protection our sacred rights” are front and center.
> The slavers wanted to conquer the west with slaves to stay relevant.
Yes, I believe that's why they rejected the Corwin Amendment compromise, which would have allowed them to keep slavery in states that already had it. That deal didn't allow them to use slaves in the west, so they didn't like it.
This is another thing Lincoln said: "One eighth of the whole population were colored slaves not distributed generally over the union but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen perpetuate and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war while the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. [...] Fondly do we hope ~ fervently do we pray ~ that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword as was said three thousand years ago so still it must be said 'the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.'" (https://www.nps.gov/linc/learn/historyculture/lincoln-second...)
But hey, the Union wasn't the party who forced the conflict. Let's hear from Alexander Stephens, VP of the CSA, instead:
> Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
You may be shocked to hear this, but Lincoln was a politician and was occasionally slightly disingenuous in order to achieve his political agenda. There wasn't public support for a war to end slavery. There was public support for a war to preserve the union.
Here's another quote from Lincoln:
"'A house divided against itself cannot stand.' I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved - I do not expect the house to fall - but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other."
He could claim as much as he wanted, once the war started, that his goal was to restore the Union even at the expense of continuing to tolerate slavery, but there was no way the Confederates could possibly take him at his word when he said so.
"aggressive racism wasn't really seen in the south before the Civil War" is absurd and only supportable if you don't consider the treatment of the slaves. There was a ton of brutality, and you're sitting here saying there wasn't any aggression.
It's not dissimilar to the US wars in the middle east: The North toppled an evil government, freed some people, but didn't finish the job. So assholes ended back up in charge. They couldn't go quite as far, or quite go all ISIS, they had to settle for just the KKK, because it was all one country again, but somehow the losers didn't lose all that much in the long run.
The 1800s were brutal everywhere, but slavery is an inherently corrupt system. I can certainly imagine merciful white masters who genuinely cared for their slaves, but slavery is such a cut and dry obvious violation of human rights that it's not worth considering. A single person being considered, even in the most benign technical sense, property is an atrocity. We can and perhaps should commemorate those who worked very hard to salvage justice in an inherently just system, but we're still trying to wash the stains of racial injustice within our society today. Any time spent uplifting these persons must unfortunately be set aside to provide equity to those long ignored.
All of that being said, I can't say for certain that you're being intellectually honest, you're conflating quite a few things with crucial nuance. As an example, you claim black slave families were closer and more stable, because they were penned in and forced to breed together to provide additional laborers who would replace them. Have you ever considered that divorced families are better off than unhappy marriages? Have you considered that perhaps marriages aren't entirely necessary, and modern black culture isn't well suited to traditional marriage norms codified by white JudeoChristian people? If you're heart is in the right place, I'd imagine you could tell us a story of a true ally to black slaves in the south. One whom was raised in a toxic racist environment, but learned to work within a inherently broken system to provide some sense of equity.
I agree largely with your first paragraph! The world is a better place if people don't have total coercive power over others, self determination all the way!(obviously that statement lends to the subject and the great irony of the south). Long ignored.. the last 155 years is injustice made my the winners! Jim Crow laws were invented and wide spread in the north(1938 massachussets) before they went south.
Oif you know anything about the old south, white families penned themselves to the land they were on and married those in litteral proximities. Your son was going to marry the neighbors daughter. Thats why they were so defensive of thier land. It had been held closely for generations. Your using modern stanards of moving around constatly and marrying based on 60's free love standards. This was also not too uncommon of a stance made by west africans in their bative lands. Thats why africa is dense of language families, territorial familial rule. The anglo/Irish(ulster etc..)were very similiar in that regard. A story? Lincoln married a prominent kentucky slave holding white woman and sold her slaves for profit. Robert E lee was the executor of his wifes estate, and followed her fathers bequeathing of his slaves freedoms.
"Seriously", "you're citing a 19th century weirdo against over a century of historical research on the treatment of slaves, virtually all of which repudiates that weirdo", comma, "gross".
Further, "I'm not a proponent of slavery" is a sequence of words that loses a lot of its power when it follows a direct assertion that people may have been better off under slavery, as not only Nehemiah Adams believed, but you, from your own comment, also seem to as well?
"Black slave families were closer and more stable(parental seperation rates) than they are now". Gross! The principle of charity is a thing, but there are limits to charity.
No, I think my criticism has more to do with the fact that Adams felt like the antebellum south was much to be admired for keeping its negroes off the street at night, much as advocates for the south apparently (here's those pesky historians again) were happy to point out the low rates of rape and sexual assault against white women in the south --- who, after all, would risk imprisonment assaulting a white woman, when there were so many Black slaves that could be raped without consequence. Family stability. Alabama forbade the sale of enslaved children without their mother --- until they reached 5 years of age.
Give me a literal number. It's a Class B misdemeanor to sell, barter, or offer the fur of a domestic dog or cat. Does that happen regularly? Your conflating that it happened. A law was put in the books. And so it must happen every day? Or maybe it happens enough to make you ucomfortable? I agreed that it happened. I nnever said that its not possible it happened multiple times. Your implicitly suggesting that this was a regular and normal occurance. Show me litteral numbers
Unfortunately, hard numbers are impossible to quantify, although rough estimates can be made based on what records do exist, as well as memoirs, diaries, and other such sources. Much of the most compelling evidence comes from recollections offered after slavery, when the formerly enslaved were able to give some voice. In Mississippi, for example, former enslaved persons registering marriages with the Union authorities in 1864-65 provides information to the clergy about their previous marital status. Over 8,000 black persons registered marriages in the period, and 17.4 percent of them included that they had been married before, and had it broken up by sale. Specifically of those who had been previously married, 40.8 percent stated that force has been the reason for its end. Other similar records bear out similar numbers, reflecting roughly ⅓ of enslaved marriages ended forcibly by white owners breaking apart the couple.
An interesting point that makes me stpo and think for a moment However, are you saying all single parents choose to be single parents? Do you speak for all single parents? My mother left my father to handle myself and siblings. I can tell you he didnt choose to be left behind.
> How do you explain the South's century of aggressive open racism after the civil war in your "it was just economic" theory?
"Is your assertion that racist white northerners fought a war against racist white southerners to free black people?". What about racist white northerners and racist white southerners confused you?
> You don't need to try to save their reputations. Let them be remembered as the assholes they were.
Saving their reputation by calling them racist white southerners?
You do realize that some northern states had slaves too during the civil war. And the emancipation proclamation only freed the slaves in the south.
If you want to learn what the civil war was really about go look into why west virginia seceded from virgina. Do you think west virginians were less racist than the rest of virginians? Or do you think it was economic?
History makes it pretty clear that southerners were, on the whole, much more openly and institutionally racist than northerners both before and after the Civil War.
The ones that seceded said it was about slavery. Many times. You don't believe them. Why? Why do you care enough to claim that you know their motives better than everyone else?
West Virginia split because they didn't want to go along with Virginia's secession. That's something that happened after the cause, not something that can tell you the cause, though! Maryland and Delaware were less dominated by the slave-holding interests. Its not that interesting.
> Do you think west virginians were less racist than the rest of virginians? Or do you think it was economic?
It was economic in the sense that slavery was not central to West Virginia's economy, but was central to not-West Virginia's economy. A map makes this pretty apparent[0]. The argument isn't that the was was about racism, but about slavery. Those are often related, but aren't precisely the same.
It took me about five minutes to find South Carolina's declaration of secession. And the first thing that document mentions is slavery:
"In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.
The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: “No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.”"
South Carolina didn't secede because the North wanted to abolish slavery. They seceded because the North refused to return slaves to the South.
Many Northerners took a long time to follow this truth to its logical conclusion: either the North would have to accede to Southern demands and honor their claims to other human beings as property, or they would have to abolish slavery entirely.
While it discusses slavery, the first thing mentioned is constitutional obligations.
The reality, is the south didn’t feel it was being represented. It felt it would be better on its own (regardless of the slave issue, there’s a whole mess there).
The north, decided it wasn’t going to let the south go its own way. That’s why the south calls it “the war of northern aggression”. (I say this from their perspective) First the north didn’t respect property rights, then it actively attempted to destroy the south’s economy (through tariffs, etc), then it invaded, murdered and seized its wealth and land.
Consider instead, then, Mississippi. Here is the second paragraph of their declaration of secession:
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin."
In other words: they hold that slavery is the foundation of their economy and commerce; that black slaves in particular are the best suited for labor, by virtue of some racist justifications; and that the institution of slavery is under imminent threat of abolition and therefore they need to secede in order to maintain the slavery status quo.
“The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact.
Lettergram, the "constitutional obligations" the first paragraph takes issue with are stipulated in the second paragraph: The obligation to return escaped slaves to their owners.
You ought to be ashamed of yourself for your conduct in this discussion. And god help you if you walk away from here making the same claims as you have in this thread: they will lead you down into the dark.
Lmao what? How many books have you read on this subject? How many lectures attended? Im not making a moral, emotional, spiritual, statement, I’m making a factual one. To be clear, I support maximum liberty, I’m personally a libertarian. But that doesn’t mean I can’t assess a situation.
The south had decades of arguing the north was attempting to suppress them. The slavery issue was one of many related issues. This really started installing the constitution and usurping the articles of confederation; without appropriate approvals.
It’s like today in the United States, most of the middle (red) states believe life begins at conception. The states on the coasts, plus IL and CO (blue) states have laws implying they won’t protect life until after it leaves the womb. Morally, this triggers the states in the center of the country. The states on the coast argue it’s the “mother’s right to stop the birth”.
I’m not making a moral argument, but describing a fact.
Now, one could argue states rights are the real issue here. Because all the latest political craziness around this topic is simply reverting the idea states set the rights. Each state can run itself how it sees fit. The blue states want to impose their will on the red states (making abortion legal nation wide). I’m sure the opposite would be true if the red states and overwhelming control.
But there’s a ton more the red and blue states are arguing over, this is just one issue. Arguably, it’s the same discussion as slavery - who is a person and when.
The conflict that is continuing to escalate in the U.S. is about so much more. But I think in the end may come down to issues like “states rights”. In reality, the conflict is mostly an urban-rural divide that has gone back to the countries founding.
Look, all I can speak to is the quality of your engagement with me here. You misread a primary source which plainly states that slave labor was the precipitating issue in the conflict over state's rights which blossomed into open rebellion and bloody war. That doesn't reflect well or poorly on your reading or understanding, but it does reflect poorly on the quality of your intellectual engagement with me.
I agree that we are seeing the same issues play out with abortion, with some states seeking to pass statutes similar to the Fugitive Slave Act to prevent their citizens from obtaining abortion services in neighboring states. If they hold firmly to that perspective, then we may come to an ill end again.
But to hold the opinion that we could avoid a second Civil War by simply honoring states' rights is to willfully ignore history: the political leaders of North and South tested the states' rights framework on the problem of slavery, and it failed.
I quote another primary source, Ulysses S. Grant, who makes this case far more clearly than I can:
For some years before the war began it was a trite saying among some politicians that "A state half slave and half free cannot exist." All must become slave or all free, or the state will go down. I took no part myself in any such view of the case at the time, but since the war is over, reviewing the whole question, I have come to the conclusion that the saying is quite true.
Slavery was an institution that required unusual guarantees for its security wherever it existed; and in a country like ours where the larger portion of it was free territory inhabited by an intelligent and well-to-do population, the people would naturally have but little sympathy with demands upon them for its protection. Hence the people of the South were dependent upon keeping control of the general government to secure the perpetuation of their favorite institution. They were enabled to maintain this control long after the States where slavery existed had ceased to have the controlling power, through the assistance they received from odd men here and there throughout the Northern States. They saw their power waning, and this led them to encroach upon the prerogatives and independence of the Northern States by enacting such laws as the Fugitive Slave Law. By this law every Northern man was obliged, when properly summoned, to turn out and help apprehend the runaway slave of a Southern man. Northern marshals became slave-catchers, and Northern courts had to contribute to the support and protection of the institution.
This was a degradation which the North would not permit any longer than until they could get the power to expunge such laws from the statute books. Prior to the time of these encroachments the great majority of the people of the North had no particular quarrel with slavery, so long as they were not forced to have it themselves. But they were not willing to play the role of police for the South in the protection of this particular institution.
In the early days of the country, before we had railroads, telegraphs and steamboats—in a word, rapid transit of any sort—the States were each almost a separate nationality. At that time the subject of slavery caused but little or no disturbance to the public mind. But the country grew, rapid transit was established, and trade and commerce between the States got to be so much greater than before, that the power of the National government became more felt and recognized and, therefore, had to be enlisted in the cause of this institution.
> Look, all I can speak to is the quality of your engagement with me here. You misread a primary source which plainly states that slave labor was the precipitating issue in the conflict over state's rights which blossomed into open rebellion and bloody war.
I didn’t misread it, I read it correctly. Others put meaning into the slave debate, at the time this wasn’t as big as we make it today - it was propaganda and the rewriting of history that made it larger. Primary sources at the time definitely emphasize it, but there are a whole plethora of issues. Further, your coming at the discussion from your position in history today; projecting, if you will. At the start of the war and prior to it, there were decades of the north undermining the south. The fact there was a “fugitive slave act” was because of that undermining by the north.
Regardless, what I was trying to convey was a more factual basis for a discussion. Even in this discussion, the judgement is thick. I try not to portray a judgment, rather focusing on factual statements.
Though, to your point I think we mostly agree and I don’t think the civil war was avoidable. I just view it as a much larger conflict than slavery and I think that’s revisionist history to believe it was the primary cause.
From the founding of this country there have been two waring factions — the federalist and the anti-federalist. Rural vs urban. Populist vs elitist. Democrat vs Republican. Effectively, “what is American”.
It hasn’t changed, really. We’re still having the same debates, pro-life or pro-abortion. The idea behind a Republic is we can resolve those differences and allow greater regional freedom. We have mechanisms of government that enable no faction to dominate (though that’s being eroded). The original idea was states would also leave the union if they so chose - which clearly the northern states wouldn’t allow.
Personally, my fear is that we’re sliding into another “hot” period of the civil war. When we can’t resolve differences AND can’t leave, then war is inevitable.
> I didn’t misread it, I read it correctly. Others put meaning into the slave debate, at the time this wasn’t as big as we make it today - it was propaganda and the rewriting of history that made it larger.
The first two paragraphs of South Carolina's articles of secession say, "We are seceding because our constitutional right to own slaves is being violated by northern states."
The outcome of the slave issue had serious consequences for the propertied class in the South, too. Did you know that, apart from Southern slave owners, most slave owners of the era were paid for their slaves when they were freed? Even the citizens of Haiti, who earned their freedom through violent rebellion, were eventually forced to repay France for "stealing" themselves for their owners.
It's not propaganda to point at the words of the slave states; it's propaganda to throw sand in the eyes of people seeking to understand what actually happened. I grew up in Mississippi; I saw the battlefield of Vicksburg as a child, I understand the need to relate to those folks. And I understand the feelings of injustice that well up when you and your community are reductively maligned as being nothing but outright racists, or when a statement like "The Civil War was fought over slavery" is then extrapolated to a statement as obviously untrue as "All southerners fought in the war so that they could preserve slavery."
But southerners are full of self-justifying lies, too.
> The fact there was a “fugitive slave act” was because of that undermining by the north.
And what else was the North to do? Do you believe that slavery is immoral? If a runaway slave hitched a train into your state and knocked on your front door, would you send them back to bondage?
This is why the legal question is a dodge: the moral question speaks too strongly. Read the passage I quoted from Grant again, top to bottom. He is as vivid on the question as any writer I have read. And he was there, and you and I were not.
> The reality, is the south didn’t feel it was being represented.
They received additional representation for their slaves, even though slaves couldn't vote. Just more lies on top of lies.
> First the north didn’t respect property rights
The "property" in question being "human beings"
> then it invaded, murdered and seized its wealth and land.
Sounds like justice to me. And most of that land was given back, instead of being distributed to freed slaves as reparation. Which would have been the right thing to do.
No, they seceded after the north stopped respecting slavery, when "an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation."
They call out Lincoln's inauguration and his perceived attitude on slavery, not tarrifs:
"On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States. "
> But the rebels seceded after the north raised tariffs
Wrong. The tariff bill only passed because the Democrats lost the votes in the Senate that had stopped it earlier in the same session of Congress because the states that had seceded weren't represented anymore. Literally all the South had to do to avoid the tariff bill was not secede.
With the war over, it's really easy for the side that doesn't depend on slavery for its economy to work to go out and put a feather in their cap by saying, "See? We're the good guys."
"The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.
The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.
The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation. "
> One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it.
Lincoln wanted to save the union. He did not care about slaves (there was slavery in the north too, but the economy did not depend on it)
The South seceded because of the threat to slavery and the writing on the wall about the way that was going.
So, yes, the USA Civil War was about slavery. The fact that Lincoln did not fight "for the slaves" or even "free the slaves" (the slaves in the North were not freed by the Emancipation Declaration" but by the Thirteenth Amendment) is not relevant.
I’ve always wondered why people reframing the civil war to be about economics rather than slavery, don’t consider slaves are part of the economy (and that slavery itself is a perversion of an economic system).
If you value free market economics, like we so often do today, then step one ought to be free mobility of labor which means laborers ought to be literally free of physical chains binding them to their “employers”.
If nothing replaced cotton, then probably not, but there are other goods than could have substituted. And of course, eventually someone would have had the bright idea of using slaves in factories and coal mines.
In the end it’s hard to avoid slavery by merely being resource poor.
Even in the worst environments, some small elite will always benefit by enslaving the rest of the populace. Take for example, the Danes taking English slaves. It was not an economy bursting with productivity and wealth, yet slavery still existed because “elite” warriors didn’t want to wash their own clothes or grow their own crops or make their own entertainment.
This is why I called slavery an economic perversion. There is no job that can’t be done by someone enslaved. Slaves may start as field workers, but they eventually become supervisors. From bed warmers to dancers, singers, and composers. From household servants, they become palace chefs. From nannies they become tutors. From handmaids they become house stewards and accountants. If the practice isn’t stamped out (or restricted via laws such as a caste system since mere social pressure won’t stop the elite from maximizing profit from more educated slaves), it just grows more varied.
I would bet if institutional slavery existed legally today, even computer programmers would face stiff competition from that source rather than having to worry about jobs being outsourced.
It is interesting that the emancipation proclamation did not free the slaves of the northern and northern occupied states, despite that being there "main concern"
The main concern of the southern states was slavery. The main concern of the north was continuance of the Union as such.
That is, the intent behind seccession was to maintain slavery. The intent behind the emancipation proclamation wasn't (solely) to end slavery, but to encourage rebellion by enslaved southerners.
South Carolina did succeede due largely to its fear that the federal government would nationally abolish slavery. President Buchanan, before leaving office, made a gentlemans agreement that he would leave alone a largely abandoned sand bar military base that was run by South Carolinians inside the boundary of said state. In the middle of the night, a federal navy ship, who took all the armamments from a well established nearby federal military base, went to fort sumter and forced out the occupants by bayonet(kind of aggresive?/s) Cabinet members of Lincolns presidency warned him not to send reinforcements, which they were sure would further provoke sentiments of military provocation. He did anyway. This pissed off the SCians who decided, to hell with it no one gets this sand bar, and so they destroyed the base by cannon fire with no one there to nullify either parties claim. No one died, largely because no one was supposed too. Lincoln, then, decided he should call on the remaining states to build one of the largest armies assembled by the federal goverment to forcibly take back south carolina. This extereme overreaction to the situation is the well known historical reason why the rest of the states promptly left the union in its fear of the clear millitary power grab that was occuring before their eyes. Many powerful southerners did not want their home states succeed, including Robert E Lee!
Note: What I did not say in the second to last sentence was that there wasn't sentiment of the follower states of protecting slavery.
Lincoln, like a good lawyer, modified the definition of a word, union, from (meriam webster 1. the formation of a single political unit[okay sure, but read on] from two or more separate and independent. Most dicts use the word "confederacy" for this definition as well) a voluntary agreement between indepenent parts, to involuntary permanance. Did he use trade embargoes like a peace seeking consolidator would? Regardless of your opinion on slavery's involvement, or how righteous either side was, Lincoln, at best, poorly* navigated the waters of the time and was the clear cause of military escalation bringing the greatest casualty of americans lives by population of its respective era.
> Lincoln, then, decided he should call on the remaining states to build one of the largest armies assembled by the federal goverment to forcibly take back south carolina. This extereme overreaction to the situation is the well known historical reason why the rest of the states promptly left the union in its fear of the clear millitary power grab that was occuring before their eyes.
Interesting claim, but it doesn't hold up. The battle of Ft. Sumpter started in April 1861. South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas had already seceded. Only Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee waited until after the battle.
> Did he use trade embargoes like a peace seeking consolidator would?
He wasn't looking to be a piece seeking consolidator, he was looking to put down a revolt. You're welcome to make the argument that actually it would have been better realpolitik to appease the southern states. In fact, I'd love to see that argument!
Fair! My mistake, a little less than half of the states seceded due to the problem I addressed of excessive force which you have not discredited or properly justified.
Again your second paragraph attacks a small technicality. Your saying destroying a run down building on a sandbar is the same as conquering a 32000 square miles? Or are you saying that ignoring the definitions found in all english dictionaries is null and void for this specific use case? Seperating from a definitional union is not a revolt. If my wife leaves me do i get to threaten her with violence and then beat her if she refuses, then chain her permanently to me?
I suggest you read something as basic as the Wikipedia article on sumpter, basically everything you've said about it is wrong, and I'm wholly uninterested in discussing this with someone from an alternate timeline.
What I will say is first, that trying to equate families and countries is rarely valid, and this case is no exception (declaring yourself divorced, for example, does not make it so, and if you take certain actions after unilaterally claiming your union is solved, your partner would be within their rights to invite state force against you!). And second, that yes, firing cannons on soldiers is usually considered an act of war. Everyone involved knew that, the confederacy was already gearing up for war and some think that SC's intent was specifically to provoke a war. So your argument that it was just friendly ribbing doesn't really stand to scrutiny.
Your just pushing transparent confederate propaganda at this point. Stop apologizing for traitors and insurrectionists.
I mean no, I trust accurate historical sources. I'm just saying the stuff you're spouting is so completely obviously off base that it's directly contradicted by Wikipedia.
Like you're not even trying to go for a thing that is debated. Literally no one pushes the story your telling, you've made it up! I cannot find anything, anything that corroborates any of the stuff you're saying. Sumter wasn't empty when shelled. The reinforcements were sent before Lincoln took office. No one was kicked out at bayonet point. You've created confederate fanfiction!
> the north building a massive army and killing people to conquer northern virginia.
Like how you're pretending the south wasn't also building an army at the same time! Lol.
Its is so far past midnight where I am, Ill come back tomorrow to find sources better than a quick google search can provide. You are right, I jumped the gun on its occupation, thank you for calling me out on that. I think it was the lack of casualties and the fact I have read sources speaking to the intent of SC on damaging the fort and causing a fire storm was its strategy rather than the desire to cause casualties. Perhaps tomorrows search will prove my memory incorrect on that as well. But as for your last question. Where were the southern armamets being built up? Are you speaking to south carolina defending a marginal island fort just outside its own port? Does the third ammendment not strike a resemblance here? How could sc stand idle when a now foreign army is sneaking in just outside their major port in the middle of the night not be of major concern? Especially since it was unoccupied by the federal government, and james buchanan agreed to not have it taken. Its not like south carolina was sending boats to blockade washigton dc or new york or boston. Have I mistaken that stance? The south was segregated by states. Was another state building up forces on the border of pennsylvannia? Ohio? or even illinois? I genuinely have not heard of this and would appreciate tips!
> Where were the southern armamets being built up?
See the wikipedia page:
> Governor Pickens, therefore, ordered that all remaining Federal positions except Fort Sumter were to be seized. State troops quickly occupied Fort Moultrie (capturing 56 guns), Fort Johnson on James Island, and the battery on Morris Island. On December 27, an assault force of 150 men seized the Union-occupied Castle Pinckney fortification, in the harbor close to downtown Charleston, capturing 24 guns and mortars without bloodshed. On December 30, the Federal arsenal in Charleston was captured, resulting in the acquisition of more than 22,000 weapons by the militia. The Confederates promptly made repairs at Fort Moultrie and dozens of new batteries and defense positions were constructed throughout the Charleston harbor area, including an unusual floating battery, and armed with weapons captured from the arsenal.
They were gathering weapons and armaments, and had 6000 men ready to siege Sumter (and it's 90 Union soldier), to start a war! Months later, at first Manassas, the CSA forces (which were mostly the Virginia Militia) at that battle numbered 40,000.
> Does the third ammendment not strike a resemblance here?
Are you saying that South Carolina was still a part of the US, in which case firing on US soldiers was treason?
> How could sc stand idle when a now foreign army is sneaking
They were already there! The Soldiers who eventually moved into Sumter were previously stationed like a half mile away, and had already been besieged and cut off by SC troops. They moved from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter because it was a more defensible position as there were only 90 union troops who were being harassed by more than a thousand SC militia men. That eventually grew to more than 5000!
The Union wasn't building up troops on the border. There were 90 guys in a fort. That's it. There were multiple failed attempts to send them food, because the fort was being blockaded and the soldiers were starving, Lincoln was clear that these weren't attempts to reinforce, but simply to provide supplies. None of that is even remotely controversial.
And of course, multiple high ranking confederates knew this was the start of the war. Quoting the wiki page again:
> James had offered the first shot [at fort Sumter] to Roger Pryor, a noted Virginia secessionist, who declined, saying, "I could not fire the first gun of the war."
and
> Edmund Ruffin, another noted Virginia secessionist, had traveled to Charleston to be present at the beginning of the war, and fired one of the first shots at Sumter after the signal round
They were very intentionally trying to start a war!
We can go ahead and cast it as an economic conflict if we really want -- the conflict between a system based on industrialization and an alternate one based on slavery. But slavery is, as you say, most certainly central to the conflict.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederac...
https://imperialglobalexeter.com/2015/03/02/debunking-the-ci...
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/the-lost-c...