Motivations for fighting the ACW

[Major Dilemma]

Hi Coffee sergeant. I would think they intended to impose such restrictions on such a group of states which wished to form a confederation while remaining part of the union. It's like saying you can't have a clique within this union which would warp the equal status and relationships within the Union as established. Outright secession is naturally a situation which is excluded from this limitation.

I would think..

Going back to the example of marriage it is of course expected that fidelity will be maintained within the marriage but it goes without saying if the marriage is anulled there can then be other relationships. Would anyone expect their divorced x to remain faithful? Well some divorcees do but the law does not.

[Coffee Sergeant]

If the States had the right to secede from the Union, would counties have the right to secede from States? Or towns/cities from counties? Can I put up a wall around my yard, declare everything within to be the nation of Coffee Sergeantville, and declare all the laws of the US null and void within my property?

[soloswolf]

There's always Civil Disobedience...

[Major Dilemma]

If the States had the right to secede from the Union, would counties have the right to secede from States? Or towns/cities from counties? Can I put up a wall around my yard, declare everything within to be the nation of Coffee Sergeantville, and declare all the laws of the US null and void within my property?

Yes any of those can and probably have at one time or another the problem is they often do not get officially recognized as sovereign entities.

(According to the constitution every individual is sovereign).

The Confederate States deserved this recognition since they were sovereign and equal precedent to the Union.

[Maqver]

(According to the constitution every individual is sovereign).

What happens when one individual attempts to take the sovereignty of another?

Either he takes it or authoratative bodies and structures are created to prevent that from happening or....if he believes the authorities are interfering with his right to assume sovereignty over others, he rebels and claims the authorities themselves are at fault.


PS: actually this bit is not as "high and mighty self righteous" as it come off, I just couldn't resist the logical opening provided.

[Major Dilemma]

What happens when one individual attempts to take the sovereignty of another?

Either he takes it or authoratative bodies and structures are created to prevent that from happening or....if he believes the authorities are interfering with his right to assume sovereignty over others, he rebels and claims the authorities themselves are at fault.


PS: actually this bit is not as "high and mighty self righteous" as it come off, I just couldn't resist the logical opening provided.

I assume you are portraying the position of a reb. If that is so why didn't Lincoln simply say good riddance and let them leave? The constitution does not authorize the imposition of its principles over any entity which is not subject to it. The south was no longer subject to it when they announced their secession. Only tyranny will presume to impose its will on those outside its jurisdiction.

The destruction of slavery was a work in progress by its own impetus and very wrongly became an instrument to justify tyrannical aggression. Destroying the Union to save it is not a motive to actually save the Union but was a motive of those who would capitalize (quite literally) on a divisive issue who's outcome was obvious and inevitable without interference by the heavy hand of an out of control lawless federal regime.

Nevertheless it (the destruction of slavery) did become the rallying cry of countless soldiers who gave their all. But did this make it so? Was slavery the motive for the war? No. Not on either side. It was simply an acerbic catalyst fomenting what was otherwise an egregious departure from the law of the land. In Washington just as much as on the southern plantations the law of freedom was being assaulted. This departure from the law of the land was the underlying rift and was not healed in any way. It was usurped by deception and misdirection.

The Union was lost as surely as the understanding of its law and principle was lost in the minds of the people who inherited it.

[Maqver]

Only tyranny will presume to impose its will on those outside its jurisdiction.

Well, in the antebellum south, they imposed tyranny on those within their jurisdiction as well. Some individuals were more sovereign than others it seems.

The destruction of slavery was a work in progress by its own impetus and very wrongly became an instrument to justify tyrannical aggression. Destroying the Union to save it is not a motive to actually save the Union but was a motive of those who would capitalize (quite literally) on a divisive issue who's outcome was obvious and inevitable without interference by the heavy hand of an out of control lawless federal regime.

Just read their own words to see some of this impetus:

http://bessel.org/slavecw.htm

Here is another taste, this time from Mississippi:

A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

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.

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20,....

The same hostility dismembered Texas...

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories...

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union...

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law...

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists

Georgia:

Georgia

[Copied by Justin Sanders from the Official Records, Ser IV, vol 1, pp. 81-85.]

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property...The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party... anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state.

The Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery an to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere. This is the party two whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated. They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded.

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers

Texas:

Texas

[Copied by Justin Sanders from E.W. Winkler, ed., Journal of the Secession Convention of Texas, pp. 61-66.]

A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union.


In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party...ased upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color -- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.

The list could go on an on and does in the link. As they wanted slavery to go on and on as they wanted Cuba and other new states for, I don't know, new horse breeding grounds?

EDITED: The whole "states rights" romanticism is just that.

While I can think of worse things than being a compartmentalizer, I removed the "lost cause" reference to avoid the label. The above (and all the rest of the declarations in their own words in the link) stays and stands however

[Major Dilemma]

I'll not be associated with those who believed it was a lost cause. That's what you get for compartmentalized learning. Unfounded associations. Misunderstandings are then inevitable.

[Major Dilemma]

No matter how many pages of statements indicating total dedication to the "cause" of slavery it should nonetheless be obvious the institution's days were numbered. It was politicized by both sides and those in the south who yet had a vested interest in its perpetuation were naturally outspoken and well published, since they were of the wealthy. I will think it a moot point no matter how many examples of circling the wagon can be displayed since that is what it was. Something to rally the boys who would do the fighting around as a simple and understandable breach of property rights.

Something to rally the boys around, for both sides but again the real cause of the war, the reason it happened was not slavery, to defend it or to destroy it. I believe it was the breakdown of the representative design of the legislature as a result of corrupt money flowing into it. This is what caused the war and as I have said both sides lost the very same thing.

I believe the aftermath of the war would have been much better for everyone, including the newly freed slaves if there had not been a war. The slaves would have been freed in a few years give or take and the idea of freedom, epitomized in what should have been a cultural abolition would have brought forth a far better grasp of what we as humans are to be to ourselves and toward each other.. there would not have been Jim Crow for a hundred years or even an hundred days if the maturation process would have been allowed to naturally unfold.

Far better had slavery not been destroyed by force of arms, for the slaves and for the free. The free were all slain since their apprehension of freedom was buried even before their bodies and the slaves were multiplied an hundredfold by this breach of universal law.

This is what I believe.

[Maqver]

No matter how many pages of statements indicating total dedication to the "cause" of slavery it should nonetheless be obvious the institution's days were numbered. It was politicized by both sides and those in the south who yet had a vested interest in its perpetuation were naturally outspoken and well published, since they were of the wealthy. I will think it a moot point no matter how many examples of circling the wagon can be displayed since that is what it was. Something to rally the boys who would do the fighting around as a simple and understandable breach of property rights.

Something to rally the boys around, for both sides but again the real cause of the war, the reason it happened was not slavery, to defend it or to destroy it. I believe it was the breakdown of the representative design of the legislature as a result of corrupt money flowing into it. This is what caused the war and as I have said both sides lost the very same thing.

I believe the aftermath of the war would have been much better for everyone, including the newly freed slaves if there had not been a war. The slaves would have been freed in a few years give or take and the idea of freedom, epitomized in what should have been a cultural abolition would have brought forth a far better grasp of what we as humans are to be to ourselves and toward each other.. there would not have been Jim Crow for a hundred years or even an hundred days if the maturation process would have been allowed to naturally unfold.

Far better had slavery not been destroyed by force of arms, for the slaves and for the free. The free were all slain since their apprehension of freedom was buried even before their bodies and the slaves were multiplied an hundredfold by this breach of universal law.

This is what I believe.

Alrighty.

[Mangudai]

I'm skeptical of the claim that slavery would have died a natural death in a few years.

1. Hand cultivation of cotton remained more efficient than mechanical cultivation until after WWII. http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/holley.cottonpicker Tobacco still relies on hand labor.

2. The commitment of Southern politicians to the peculiar institution was strengthening not diminishing especially 1840-1860.

3. Slavery was far more widespread than commonly believed. The best metric is #slaveholders/#families. This is 1/4 for the upper south, and up to 1/2 for the deep south. Slavery was not confined to aristocratic plantation owners. Many small farmers owned one or just a few slaves. For example, in Georgia 1860 half of slaveholders owned 5 or fewer slaves. And the average number of slaves per slaveholder in Georgia 1860 was 11.

http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/histcensus/php/start.php?year=V1860

4. Jim Crow laws and the KKK can partly be blamed on reconstruction, and white fear. Discrimination with a gentlemanly tone may be preferable to discrimination based on terror. But, I think it is highly unlikely that the Confederate States of America would have moved faster on civil rights. More likely the CSA would have moved at least as slowly as South Africa.

[Vectorgod]

More from the link that has been repeatedly cited:

http://bessel.org/slavecw.htm

excerpt from

"First Message of Governor Isham Harris to the Tennessee Assembly

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT,
NASHVILLE, January 7, 1861

This provision of the Constitution has been spurned and trampled under foot by these "higher law " nullifiers. It is utterly powerless for good, since all attempts to enforce the fugitive slave law under it are made a felony in some of these States, a high misdemeanor in others, and punishable in all by heavy fines and imprisonment. The distempered public opinion of these localities having risen above the Constitution and all other law, planting itself upon the anarchical doctrines of the "higher law," with impunity defies the Government, tramples upon our rights, and plunders the Southern citizen.

It has, through the Governor of Ohio, openly nullified that part of the Constitution which provides that-"A person charged in any State with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice and be found in another State, shall, on demand of the executive authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having jurisdiction of the crime."

In discharge of official duty, I had occasion, within the past year, to demand of the Governor of Ohio "a person charged in the State (of Tennessee) with the crime" of slave stealing, who had fled from justice, and was found in the State of Ohio. The Governor refused to issue his warrant for the arrest and delivery of the fugitive, and in answer to a letter of inquiry which I addressed to him, said: 'The crime of negro stealing not being known to either the common law or the criminal code of Ohio, it is not of that class of crimes contemplated by the Federal Constitution, for the commission of which I am authorized, as the executive of Ohio, to surrender a fugitive from the justice of a sister State, and hence I declined to issue a warrant," &c.; thus deliberately nullifying and setting at defiance the clause of the Constitution above quoted, as well as the act of Congress of February 12th, 1793, and grossly violating the ordinary comity existing between separate and independent nations, much less the comity which should exist between sister States of the same great Confederacy; the correspondence connected with which is herewith transmitted."

Very nice case in point. On the surface this appears to be simply about slavery, but what about the rule of law? Is it right and/or legal for the governor of one state to refuse to act on the complaint and request of the governor of another state simply because he refuses to recognize the validity of the other state's laws? The Constitution says no!

Slavery was morally wrong, but the 13th amendment was still several years away. Again, this was about political power! For the governor of Ohio to say, "I don't care about your state's laws, and I don't care about what the Constitution says about this" was just as much an act of rebellion as was the secession of the southern states. While I can applaud the moral intent (if it was genuine) of the Ohio governor, I refuse to listen to one-sided discussions of the "evil" south when northern politicians were doing just as much as any secessionist to destroy the Constitution. Is it okay for the end to justify the means when it comes to them? I think not.

"No one will assert that the Southern States or people have, at any time, failed to perform, fully and in good faith, all of the duties which the Constitution devolves upon them.

Nor will it be pretended that they have, at any time, encroached or attempted aggression upon the rights of a Northern sister State. The Government was for many years under the control of Southern statesmen, but in originating and perfecting measures of policy, be it said to the perpetual bonor of the South, she has never attempted to encroach upon a single constitutional right of the North. The journals of Congress will not show even the introduction of a single proposition, by any Southern Representative, calculated to impair her rights in property, injure her trade, or wound her sensibilities. Nor have they at any time demanded at the hands of the Federal Government, or Northern States, more than their well-defined rights under the Constitution. So far from it, they have tolerated these wrongs, from a feeling of loyalty and devotion to the Union, with a degree of patience and forbearance uparalleled in the history of a brave and free people. Moreover, they have quietly submitted to a revenue system which indirectly, but certainly, taxes the products of slave labor some fifty or sixty millions of dollars annually, to increase the manufacturing profits of those who have thus presistently and wickedly assailed them.

To evade the issue thus forced upon us at this time, without the fullest security for our rights, is, in my opinion, fatal to the institution of slavery forever. The time has arrived when the people of the South must prepare either to abandon or to fortify and maintain it. Abandon it, we cannot, interwoven as it is with our wealth, prosperity, and domestic happiness. We owe it to the mechanic whose shop is closed, to the multiplied thousands of laborers thrown out of employment, to the trader made bankrupt by this agitation. We owe it to ourselves, our children, our self- respect and equality in the Government, to have this question settled permanently and forever upon terms consistent with justice and honor, and which will give us peace and perfect securiity for the present and future.

Economic impact, plain and simple.

excerpt from

[Copied by Justin Sanders from "Journal of the State Convention", (Jackson, MS: E. Barksdale, State Printer, 1861), pp. 86-88]

A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

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.

You used this very passage to prove your point that slavery was the illness. Based on the underlined portion, I still say that slavery was only a symptom and complication of the true illness which was the widening economic and industrialization gap between north and south. The institution of slavery was propping up the southern economy, and there was no intent on the part of radical abolitionists to save that economy when the act of abolition would throw it into chaos. The northern states had rolled back slavery in a gradual process that did not throw sudden shock into their economies, yet they simply refused to allow the southern states to do the same.

The list could go on an on and does in the link. As they wanted slavery to go on and on as they wanted Cuba and other new states for, I don't know, new horse breeding grounds?

So you believe that the northern states stood firmly on the moral high ground? Then please attempt to answer my question about the ratification history of the 13th amendment! How is it that the morally upright northern states would outright defeat ratification of that amendment? How about the fact that some of the southern states ratified the amendment before many northern states? (Watch out with that last one, as it opens up a whole different can of worms!)

Increasing moral outrage among the general population toward slavery drove the north in its actions against the south; not because the politicians and power brokers were so morally upright but because they had to please the voters and political donors! Abolition would bring about only limited adverse economic impact to the northern states, so it was very much a "safe" issue for a northern politician to support. Plus there was the added benefit of further crippling the south politically. How very convenient!

On the flip side of that coin were many southerners who were opposed or at least apathetic to slavery, but who supported its continuance because of the drastic economic impact that would be brought about by sudden abolition. It's amazing how people can be driven by their own economic concern and can so readily disregard that of others!

Please be careful about applying moral generalities. There was plenty of blame to go around and great amounts of hypocrisy on both sides. The north went to war to increase its political and economic power; slavery was the moral issue of the day that could be used for justification. The south went to war primarily to save their economy and in response to the constitutional violations of the northern states. The war was certainly not fought over the simple existence of slavery. After all, southern states didn't originate slavery; they were simply more dependent on it and consequently slower to abolish it.

[Major Dilemma]

I have a theory as to the prime force behind the terrible conflict which is far enough removed from the ususal pattern of debate to be of interest:

As the old saying goes "follow the money".

In Europe the bankers, the moneykeepers, had much experience pulling the strings behind the scenes for their own benefit. They had little time for a vast barbaric land with so much yet to gain by fomenting wars and uprisings in the comfort and familiarity of the old continent. This changed as America began to take shape as a nation of particular potential.

In 1848 there was the discovery of great gold deposits in California and the gold rush ensued with famous vigor. Is it any coincidence 13 years later the brothers are at each other's throats, the nation torn apart and vulnerable to financial and social manipulation?

If there was no issue of slavery to take advantage of there would have been found another to accomplish the same result. The European bankers took over the federal government and none were the wiser. Not even their political puppets knew who was pulling the strings. Those who are in power do not show themselves but rather purchase their political faces by which they remain hidden. It was no different back then.

Ask yourself who wanted the war and who was willing to fight the war? Not the same people. It is never the same people and those who do not want the wars are the ones who die in them for some "great cause" or other.

It is sad we impose such a warped value on our young sons before they can discern between the honor of a man and the gullibility of a father. Why else would they ever march to death? It is for the moneykeepers we die in the name of every good cause they can create a need to fight for.

The American Civil War began as does every war.

And ended just the same.

[Maqver]

Very nice case in point. On the surface this appears to be simply about slavery, but what about the rule of law? Is it right and/or legal for the governor of one state to refuse to act on the complaint and request of the governor of another state simply because he refuses to recognize the validity of the other state's laws? The Constitution says no!

The debate about rule of law would have never risen without slavery. Slavery was the cause of the point of contention.

Second...now the Southerners are appealing to a federal authority (the constitution) over a state's rights? Very selective application of state's rights logic.

To evade the issue thus forced upon us at this time, without the fullest security for our rights, is, in my opinion, fatal to the institution of slavery forever. The time has arrived when the people of the South must prepare either to abandon or to fortify and maintain it. Abandon it, we cannot, interwoven as it is with our wealth, prosperity, and domestic happiness. We owe it to the mechanic whose shop is closed, to the multiplied thousands of laborers thrown out of employment, to the trader made bankrupt by this agitation. We owe it to ourselves, our children, our self- respect and equality in the Government, to have this question settled permanently and forever upon terms consistent with justice and honor, and which will give us peace and perfect securiity for the present and future.

Economic impact, plain and simple.

Fatal to the institution of slavery, plain and simple. Economics and political power are a consequence of the institution.

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.

You used this very passage to prove your point that slavery was the illness. Based on the underlined portion, I still say that slavery was only a symptom and complication of the true illness which was the widening economic and industrialization gap between north and south. The institution of slavery was propping up the southern economy

Thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery....Its labor supplies...that is not a symptom that is a cause. The econmic gap was caused by slavery. More immigrants went to the north...slavery. More whites left the south for the north rather than vice versa...slavery. In the north there was investment, in the south there was little to none...slavery. Hogs were a hundred pounds larger in the north..slavery. Farm implements were crap in the south...slavery. Homestead were significantly poorer in the south...slavery.

...and there was no intent on the part of radical abolitionists to save that economy when the act of abolition would throw it into chaos. The northern states had rolled back slavery in a gradual process that did not throw sudden shock into their economies, yet they simply refused to allow the southern states to do the same.

This makes me laugh. One, it was the duty of the abolitionists to save the southern economy? Two, the southern states had no intention of rolling back slavery.

I have no doubt that southerners were worried about their pocket but so what? The coin in that pocket (and the power that came with it) was there due to slavery.

The list could go on an on and does in the link. As they wanted slavery to go on and on as they wanted Cuba and other new states for, I don't know, new horse breeding grounds?

So you believe that the northern states stood firmly on the moral high ground?

No, I don't and I never claimed that they did.

The north went to war to increase its political and economic power;

(Btw your above assertion is a moral generality). No, it didn't. The north went to war to preserve the Union. The south went to war to preserve its political and economic power (though southern soldiers went to war for more personal reasons). In both cases, it was the institution of slavery - and all the economic, cultural, religious, and political consequences and developments that slavery brought about - that brought them to the point of war.

[Mangudai]

Causes of the Civil War

"Reminiscences Of The Civil War", (Chapter I)
By John B. Gordon, Maj. Gen. CSA

There is no book in existence, I believe, in which the ordinary reader can find an analysis of the issues between the two sections, which fairly represents both the North and the South. Although it would require volumes to contain the great arguments, I shall attempt here to give a brief summary of the causes of our sectional controversy, and it will be my purpose to state the cases of the two sections so impartially that just-minded people on both sides will admit the statement to be judicially fair.
The causes of the war will be found at the foundation of our political fabric, in our complex organism, in the fundamental law, in the Constitution itself, in the conflicting constructions which it invited, and in the institution of slavery which it recognized and was intended to protect. If asked what was the real issue involved in our unparalleled conflict, the average American citizen will reply, "The negro"; and it is fair to say that had there been no slavery there would have been no war. But there would have been no slavery if the South's protests could have availed when it was first introduced; and now that it is gone, although its sudden and violent abolition entailed upon the South directly and incidentally a series of woes which no pen can describe, yet it is true that in no section would its reestablishment be more strongly and universally resisted. The South steadfastly maintains that responsibility for the presence of this political Pandora's box in this Western world cannot be laid at her door. When the Constitution was adopted and the Union formed, slavery existed in practically all the States; and it is claimed by the Southern people that its disappearance from the Northern and its development in the Southern States is due to climatic conditions and industrial exigencies rather than to the existence or absence of great moral ideas.
Slavery was undoubtedly the immediate fomenting cause of the woeful American conflict. It was the great political factor around which the passions of the sections had long been gathered--the tallest pine in the political forest around whose top the fiercest lightnings were to blaze and whose trunk was destined to be shivered in the earthquake shocks of war. But slavery was far from being the sole cause of the prolonged conflict. Neither its destruction on the one hand, nor its defence on the other, was the energizing force that held the contending armies to four years of bloody work. I apprehend that if all living Union soldiers were summoned to the witness stand, every one of them would testify that it was the preservation of the American Union and not the destruction of Southern slavery that induced him to volunteer at the call of his country. As for the South, it is enough to say that perhaps eighty per cent. of her armies were neither slave-holders, nor had the remotest interest in the institution. No other proof, however, is needed than the undeniable fact that at any period of the war from its beginning to near its close the South could have saved slavery by simply laying down its arms and returning to the Union.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/gordoncauses.htm

Origin Of The Late War
by
Honorable Robert Mercer Taliaferro Hunter, of Virginia

The late civil war which raged in the United States has been very generally attributed to the abolition of slavery as its cause. When we consider how deeply the institutions of southern society and the operations of southern industry were founded in slavery, we must admit that this was cause enough to have produced such a result. But great and wide as was that cause in its far reaching effects, a close study of the history of the times will bring us to the conclusion that it was the fear of a mischief far more extensive and deeper even than this which drove cool and reflecting minds in the South to believe that it was better to make the death struggle at once than submit tamely to what was inevitable, unless its coming could be averted by force.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/warorigin.htm

[Paul Roberts]

If the States had the right to secede from the Union, would counties have the right to secede from States? Or towns/cities from counties? Can I put up a wall around my yard, declare everything within to be the nation of Coffee Sergeantville, and declare all the laws of the US null and void within my property?

I can't find a reference, but isn't it the case that the Confederacy's constitution went out of its way to make secession from the CSA illegal?

[Mangudai]

So you believe that the northern states stood firmly on the moral high ground? Then please attempt to answer my question about the ratification history of the 13th amendment! How is it that the morally upright northern states would outright defeat ratification of that amendment? How about the fact that some of the southern states ratified the amendment before many northern states? (Watch out with that last one, as it opens up a whole different can of worms!)

I do not believe northerners were morally superior to southerners. I believe the average southerner hated slavery more than the average northerner. At the same time, the southerner better understood the cost of abolition.

All of the states under union control, except Kentucky, amended their state constitutions before 1865 to abolish slavery. Most states had a gradual plan for the elimination of slavery. Only Louisiana abolished slavery immediately and completely. Lincoln gave political support to these efforts.

[Paul Roberts]

I do not believe northerners were morally superior to southerners. I believe the average southerner hated slavery more than the average northerner. At the same time, the southerner better understood the cost of abolition.

This becomes more complicated when we include the "southerners" who were actually slaves...

Sorry, not trying to be snarky. It's just that it's too easy to say "southerners" when we really mean "free white southerners," as if the slaves themselves had no interest in the question. On another board I once got into an argument with someone who claimed that "99% of southerners opposed abolition." I had to remind him that he was overlooking some people.

[Paul Roberts]

I'm skeptical of the claim that slavery would have died a natural death in a few years.

1. Hand cultivation of cotton remained more efficient than mechanical cultivation until after WWII. http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/holley.cottonpicker Tobacco still relies on hand labor.

2. The commitment of Southern politicians to the peculiar institution was strengthening not diminishing especially 1840-1860.

3. Slavery was far more widespread than commonly believed. The best metric is #slaveholders/#families. This is 1/4 for the upper south, and up to 1/2 for the deep south. Slavery was not confined to aristocratic plantation owners. Many small farmers owned one or just a few slaves. For example, in Georgia 1860 half of slaveholders owned 5 or fewer slaves. And the average number of slaves per slaveholder in Georgia 1860 was 11.

http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/histcensus/php/start.php?year=V1860

4. Jim Crow laws and the KKK can partly be blamed on reconstruction, and white fear. Discrimination with a gentlemanly tone may be preferable to discrimination based on terror. But, I think it is highly unlikely that the Confederate States of America would have moved faster on civil rights. More likely the CSA would have moved at least as slowly as South Africa.

The cultural history of the South since the Civil War makes it pretty hard to believe that racial inequality and oppression would have faded away on their own without Lincoln's intervention. Even if slavery had naturally withered into something more like sharecropping, the idea that blacks were in any way equal to whites was anathema to the political, social, and even religious traditions of Southern life. South Africa is probably the best comparison--and we must remember that the eventual elimination of Apartheid in South Africa owes a lot to the 1960s Civil Rights movement in the USA, which itself finds its roots in Abolitionism.

A CSA victory in the Civil War would have made eventual racial equality even more difficult. Such a peculiarly religious culture would have taken victory in the war as a sure sign of God's approval of the Southern way of life. Proponents of racial equality would have faced charges of impiety as well as sedition.

BTW, I speak as a son of the soil myself. My family's roots are all in Mississippi, Alabama, and Tennessee, and I love the South. But I can't pretend that Southern racism has ever been softer than it was and is.

[Mangudai]

This becomes more complicated when we include the "southerners" who were actually slaves...

Good point. I was implicitly referring to white men.

I think reconstruction did contribute to racial hatred. In times when racial superiority was unquestionable, the hate was less. Men like Washington, Jefferson, Lee, etc were gentlemen. When racial equality came near, hate and fear grew stronger. I'm not sure which was more violent. All in all though, if it were me I'd rather be a mistreated free man than a well treated slave.

[soloswolf]

Good point. I was implicitly referring to white men.

I think reconstruction did contribute to racial hatred. In times when racial superiority was unquestionable, the hate was less. Men like Washington, Jefferson, Lee, etc were gentlemen. When racial equality came near, hate and fear grew stronger. I'm not sure which was more violent. All in all though, if it were me I'd rather be a mistreated free man than a well treated slave.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. When is racial superiority ever unquestionable?

Please forgive me if I am not seeing your meaning.

[Maqver]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangudai
Good point. I was implicitly referring to white men.

I think reconstruction did contribute to racial hatred. In times when racial superiority was unquestionable, the hate was less. Men like Washington, Jefferson, Lee, etc were gentlemen. When racial equality came near, hate and fear grew stronger. I'm not sure which was more violent. All in all though, if it were me I'd rather be a mistreated free man than a well treated slave.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. When is racial superiority ever unquestionable

I think he is saying that in the antebellum south, there was an unquestioned assumption by whites that whites were superior. And in such times that, because it was a given in their minds, there was less hatred on the part of said whites. In other words, there was no competition, everyone knew their proper place, etc so there was nothing to push hatred to the fore.

Once this assumption was challenged, after the war, is when he is saying that the hatred increased.

I would say something like the reconstruction helped to make the hatred manifest. Before the war there was still hatred it just took on a different form. There was quite a bit of hatred for blacks in the north as well, it just wasn't institutionalized.

[Mangudai]

Precisely what I meant. Thank you.

I was responding to Major Dilemma's point that the condition of blacks would have been better had there been no war. While I don't agree fully, I think there is an important point there.

[TheDoctorKing]

Another little bit of perspective on this: Jamaica, a British colony with similar cultural baggage to the US, had slavery just like in the USA. Jamaica had a much higher proportion of its population enslaved - at its peak, over 75% of all Jamaicans were enslaved, while the highest proportion in any US state was South Carolina in the 1850s at around 60%. But the abolition of slavery in Jamaica, while marked with some violence, was basically peaceful and legal. Racial discrimination existed after the end of slavery but was never institutionalized in the same way as in the USA. Today, Jamaicans have something resembling racial harmony - not a paradise, but not the poisonous legacy that Americans have.

Can we attribute the difference to the different circumstances of abolition - a great and destructive war instead of external imposition by a colonial government? Maybe the bad racial climate in the USA is the result of _both_ the American Revolution and the Civil War. I would also argue that it has something to do with the larger population of poor whites in the US South - the population group from which I myself spring. Poor whites in the South were unenthusiastic about secession - one of my Virginia ancestors died in the Civil War as a soldier for the Union. But after the war, in what was euphemistically called "redemption", ruling-class whites managed to convince most poor whites that they had racial solidarity and should work together against the interests of the blacks and northerners. I think that the real difference in race relations between the USA and other former slave societies in the Americas is not our different heritage of slavery but our different post-slavery experiences. The period 1865-1940 in the US was very different from 1836-1940 in Jamaica or for that matter 1888-1940 in Brazil.

[Mangudai]

Cultural differences are a big deal. I also think the generation of Americans who survived the civil war was unique. Many defeated confederates felt humiliated and resentful, which they took out on blacks. It was also a generation of men who were emotionally broken by the trauma of the war.

This is a slight digression from the subject, but virtually all the stories of the "Wild West" are set after of the civil war, almost none are set before the civil war.

[keith]

been reading the thread with interest, just a couple off questions, what was the motivation for the american natives who fought in the war and what if any promises were made to the relative tribes by both sides in order to get them to fight, also were any of these promises to the natives who fought on their side kept by the us govt and what penalties were levied against the tribes who took up arms against the north

[TheDoctorKing]

The native people who fought for the Confederacy were from tribes that originally lived in the south-east and had been expelled to Oklahoma in the 1830's (the "Trail of Tears"). They had made considerable strides towards acculturation while in their old homes and transplanted their lifestyle to Oklahoma. Many owned slaves and tried to be cash-crop farmers, though Oklahoma was not the best land for this. Like white small farmers in the south, they tended to support the Confederacy, though there were exceptions. The native people who supported the Union mostly came from northern states, like Ely Parker, Grant's aide and a Seneca Indian from New York. Like the southeastern Indians, the Iroquois and other northeastern tribes had pretty much acculturated and shared the motives of their white neighbors. Some members of less well-acculturated western tribes fought alongside the U.S. regular army, although the formal creation of the Indian Scout units didn't take place until after the war (the first units were authorized in 1866). Few of them crossed the Mississippi and in fact were mostly used against other Indian tribes in the far west.