Causes of the US Civil War and Southern Secession

[YamiB.]

It does. But it can't be said with 100% certainty that succession and the Civil War was all about Slavery. Slavery is an economic wrecking ball, and since everyone from the poor to the rich suffer because of it, it's doubtful that preserving slavery was the top goal for all the high ranking Confederate officials. Some did want to preserve it no doubt, but it's also very likely that many people within the Confederacy knew slavery would eventually die out or the Confederacy would be destroyed from their own practices.

Then would you like to explain why the Confederates I quoted said that they were motivated by slavery in undertaking the secession and formation of the Confederacy?

Also, I've heard the slavery being bad for the economy line repeated many times, but have not seen real evidence provided to back this up. Especially not evidence that it was bad for the rich who owned the vast majority of the slaves. Even if it was bad for the economy it is doubtful that people would want to part with an institution that they had just taken such massive actions to protect. There are also other motivation for example that owning slaves was a status symbol.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Yam,

This seems to contradict what you are saying with the Confederates that they apparently hoped to let slavery slowly die out since that was Lincoln's plan.

Have you heard of Lincoln's "House Divided" speech? This either shows Lincoln's ignorance (because there was no evidence that states that had slavery wanted non-slave owning states to allow slavery) or mendacity (he would use this as a pretext to force the South to do what he wanted to do all the while in other instances assuring the South that he didn't want to interfere with their affairs).

Do you want to provide support for this? In my first post I have a statement from Jefferson Davis where he personally connects the Confederate government with the institution of slavery and talks about that institution in a pretty positive manner.

Here is a quote from Davis: The slave must be made fit for his freedom by education and discipline and thus be made unfit for slavery (Vicksburg Evening Post, Vicksburg, MS, June 28, 1985).

And here is a quote from one of his slaves when asked how he felt about Davis; ... I loved him, and I can say that every colored man he ever owned loved him (William Sampson, quoted in Confederate Veteran, November-December 1990, p. 18).

Davis favored gradual emancipation, unfortunately for him, the North didn't believe that.

There are a couple of problems with this point of argument. Not owning slaves does not mean that a person is against slavery. Generals may have been motivated by things like loyalty to the region they were from, but that does not in any way change what the government they fought stood for.

It seems quite odd that these generals would lead the military for something they didn't have or believe in. The point being made here is that the vast majority of Confederates didn't fight to defend the institution of slavery like it is being claimed.

The 70% percent statistic is not surprising. Many of the soldiers probably belonged to poorer families that could not afford slaves. Again the personal convictions of the soldiers makes no difference to what they government they were supporting stood for. It's funny that you use McPherson because of the incident relatively recently where he wanted Obama to avoid bringing a wreath to the Confederate Monument because of its denial of slavery being the cause of secession.

So, we are to believe that somehow these Confederate soldiers that didn't have pro-slavery beliefs were hoodwinked? That over 70% of the Confederates didn't know that the government was fighting solely to protect slavery? This is not believable.

And it looks like even McPherson couldn't deny the truth in his academic scholarship (and like I said he was surprised by the findings).

Since you are denying that the Confederacy was founded upon the ideal of a preservation of slavery do you have a counterpoint to the sources I provided in the opening post of this topic?

Two sources would suffice. Read Jefferson Davis' inaugural address to the CSA and read the Confederate Constitution. Then you'll know why the CSA was founded.

As for the point about Fort Sumter that some have been bringing up I agree with the point that I think Smoke was trying to make. Fort Sumter was built for use by the United States government, they could choose to trade for it or give it to the Confederacy. But just because the Confederacy wants it that does not absolve them from starting the war by deciding to take it by force. Fort Sumter really makes the whole argument about secession pointless, though I do personally think that unilateral secession is an idea that could not exist in a properly functioning government.

How could the CSA have started the war when they:

1. Peacefully seceded from the US and

2. Gave time for the US military to vacate Fort Sumter.

It looks like somebody couldn't take a peaceful transition of power (that being the North).

And since you oppose secession, do you, like Smoke, also oppose the secession of the colonists from the Crown?

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Smoke,

That doesn't answer the question. How were those men selected to represent the states? The red clay of Georgia didn't cry out the name of Howell Cobb. The people of Georgia didn't elect him to the Provisional Confederate Congress -- not even if you define "the people of Georgia" as "the white men of Georgia." So whence did the delegates to the Provisional Confederate Congress derive their authority?

The various delegates were from the elected offices of Southern states (as it was either in state office or US federal office). And their authority was derived from conventions in exactly the same way the states broke away from the Crown.

You're damned right it was. They were afraid he was going to abolish slavery.

In one sense yes, the South didn't want slavery abolished on the blood of over half a million souls. The South wanted gradual emancipation like the rest of the world had done.

Who was going to end it with bloodshed if they didn't secede?

Obviously, the South didn't believe you needed to use bloodshed to end slavery.

Come on, Joe. Do you really expect me to take your pious sentiments about "the consent of the governed" seriously when you're using them to defend a system under which 40% of the governed had no rights at all?

Even such white-only, male-only democratic institutions as the South had were not a factor in the attempt to establish breakaway government. The white male citizens didn't vote to secede. They didn't vote to elect representatives to the secession conventions. They didn't vote to elect representatives to the Provisional Confederate Congress. The whole thing, from start to finish, was an assertion of power by the slaveholding oligarchy for the sole purpose of protecting the prerogatives of the slaveholding oligarchy, and in particular their prerogative to hold 40% of the population of South in a hereditary state of involuntary servitude in which they had no more rights than cattle.

When you talk about "states' rights," all you're really talking about is the "right" of a privileged elite within the state to run it as a collection of personal fiefdoms. It doesn't have a damned thing to do with the consent of the governed.

Read the Confederate Constitution and get back to me. Your absurd caricature of the South is not based on actual evidence. When you have some, you can present it. Until then your case is nothing more than an anachronistic crusading zeal to stroke your white-guilt narcissistic ego.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Ah, the War of Northern Agression.

 

[Smoke]

Here is a quote from Davis: The slave must be made fit for his freedom by education and discipline and thus be made unfit for slavery (Vicksburg Evening Post, Vicksburg, MS, June 28, 1985).

Yeah, and Davis said that as an example of why abolitionists were wrong to want to free the slaves. He wasn't suggesting a plan of emancipation by any means. Davis didn't want slavery abolished, and he certainly didn't want free black men to vote. Ever. He repeatedly pointed out what he considered to be the folly of abolition, and repeatedly stated that Indians and Africans were incapable of achieving the same level of civilization as white people.

And in fact education of slaves was generally prohibited by law. Not an indication that they were being groomed for emancipation, is it?

And here is a quote from one of his slaves when asked how he felt about Davis; ... I loved him, and I can say that every colored man he ever owned loved him (William Sampson, quoted in Confederate Veteran, November-December 1990, p. 18).

Aw, that's so sweet. That makes a brutal and evil system sound so homey and comfortable, doesn't it?

It seems quite odd that these generals would lead the military for something they didn't have or believe in. The point being made here is that the vast majority of Confederates didn't fight to defend the institution of slavery like it is being claimed.

No, Lee, for instance, fought out of a misguided sense of loyalty to Virginia. The motives of the individual soldiers don't necessarily have anything to do with the reasons for establishing the Confederacy in the first place.

 

[YamiB.]

Hi Yam,

Have you heard of Lincoln's "House Divided" speech? This either shows Lincoln's ignorance (because there was no evidence that states that had slavery wanted non-slave owning states to allow slavery) or mendacity (he would use this as a pretext to force the South to do what he wanted to do all the while in other instances assuring the South that he didn't want to interfere with their affairs).

I think you're misrepresenting Lincoln's understanding of the situation presented in the speech. Using your same logic what evidence is there that Lincoln would use the argument in the way you are suggesting? Even in this speech Lincoln says that his goal is stopping the spread of slavery so that it can slowly die off which you seem to find preferable.

Here is a quote from Davis: The slave must be made fit for his freedom by education and discipline and thus be made unfit for slavery (Vicksburg Evening Post, Vicksburg, MS, June 28, 1985).

This does not suggest that he is against slavery.

And here is a quote from one of his slaves when asked how he felt about Davis; ... I loved him, and I can say that every colored man he ever owned loved him (William Sampson, quoted in Confederate Veteran, November-December 1990, p. 18).

Being a relatively kind master does not mean that he was against the institution of slavery.

Davis favored gradual emancipation, unfortunately for him, the North didn't believe that.

Why unfortunately for him? The North didn't go to war over slavery and it was the South that started the war in the first place.

It seems quite odd that these generals would lead the military for something they didn't have or believe in. The point being made here is that the vast majority of Confederates didn't fight to defend the institution of slavery like it is being claimed.

No, they did fight to defend slavery. Assuming the Confederacy stood for the preservation of slavery then those who fight to defend the Confederacy are fighting to defend slavery. They may have other motivations like I already acknowledged, but it does not change that they were fighting for an immoral cause.

So, we are to believe that somehow these Confederate soldiers that didn't have pro-slavery beliefs were hoodwinked? That over 70% of the Confederates didn't know that the government was fighting solely to protect slavery? This is not believable.

No, but they could have other motivations. Like the example I provided of loyalty to your local area. Alternate motivations like this could easily replace a desire to fight to defend slavery.

And it looks like even McPherson couldn't deny the truth in his academic scholarship (and like I said he was surprised by the findings).

I'll have to take your word for that, but all sources I have read suggest that outright abolitionist sentiment as you seem to be framing it was exceedingly rare in the South during this time period.

Two sources would suffice. Read Jefferson Davis' inaugural address to the CSA and read the Confederate Constitution. Then you'll know why the CSA was founded.

Yes, I have looked at the Confederate Constitution before which is strikingly similar to the US Constitution.

One of the relatively if few changes is the addition of this line

(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

Avalon Project - Constitution of the Confederate States; March 11, 1861

Looking at the address from the Davis that you suggest I talk about ideas of oppression from the North but is very vague in how this is taking place. I do not think that this speech contradicts other areas where Davis and other important Confederate officials identify slavery as an important factor in the formation of the Confederacy.

How could the CSA have started the war when they:

1. Peacefully seceded from the US and

2. Gave time for the US military to vacate Fort Sumter.

It looks like somebody couldn't take a peaceful transition of power (that being the North).

And when they didn't get the Fort that legitamtely belonged to the United States they took it by force committing an act of war and starting the US CIv

And since you oppose secession, do you, like Smoke, also oppose the secession of the colonists from the Crown?

Well I don't oppose secession as a rule. I think that it is absurd to think that unilateral secession can be a legitimate action in a functioning government because it completely undermines any government you have. I do think though that on moral grounds legitimacy of various rebellions or secession could be established. I think that in this arena a convincing argument can be made for the morality of the American rebellion whereas the Confederate secession being primarily based on continuing the institution of slavery was immoral.

 

[Smoke]

The various delegates were from the elected offices of Southern states (as it was either in state office or US federal office). And their authority was derived from conventions in exactly the same way the states broke away from the Crown.

Right. No legal authority and no popular vote.

The South wanted gradual emancipation like the rest of the world had done.

Prove it. Show me the Confederate plan for gradual emancipation of the slaves.

Obviously, the South didn't believe you needed to use bloodshed to end slavery.

No, they believed you needed to use bloodshed to prevent it from being ended.

Read the Confederate Constitution and get back to me. Your absurd caricature of the South is not based on actual evidence. When you have some, you can present it. Until then your case is nothing more than an anachronistic crusading zeal to stroke your white-guilt narcissistic ego.

Please. I've read the Confederate Constitution, and I'm not suffering from white guilt. Your pious hagiography of men who nearly destroyed the country in an attempt to preserve an evil system is disgusting. There was nothing noble about the system of slavery and nothing noble about the attempt to perpetuate it. That's not white guilt; it's a sense of right and wrong -- something you don't seem to know much about.

 

[Rakhel]

I would suggest reading this

Slavery Without Submission, Emancipation Without Freedom

 

[YamiB.]

I would suggest reading this

Slavery Without Submission, Emancipation Without Freedom

I'm disappointed in myself that I haven't read this book yet, I really need to get around to it.

 

[Rakhel]

That is just one chapter. My husband found the book at a thrift store and read it. when he was done I started. I had no clue it was online.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Therefore, there are two apparent rudiments to this war. One is Slavery and the other is State Rights. But the latter is only a cover for the former. If Slavery were out of the way there would be no trouble from State Rights. The war, then, is for Slavery, and nothing else. It is an insane attempt to vindicate by arms the lordship which had been already asserted in debate. With mad-cap audacity it seeks to install this Barbarism as the truest Civilization.​

--Charles Sumner, "The Barbarism of Slavery"

 

[YamiB.]

Therefore, there are two apparent rudiments to this war. One is Slavery and the other is State Rights. But the latter is only a cover for the former. If Slavery were out of the way there would be no trouble from State Rights. The war, then, is for Slavery, and nothing else. It is an insane attempt to vindicate by arms the lordship which had been already asserted in debate. With mad-cap audacity it seeks to install this Barbarism as the truest Civilization.​

--Charles Sumner, "The Barbarism of Slavery"

From what I've read of Sumner he seems to have been a great man. He seemed to be really ahead of his time especially in terms of racial relations.

 

[Sunstone]

Had the South been successful in succeeding from the Union, it today would be the North Korea of the Americas.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Yam,

I think you're misrepresenting Lincoln's understanding of the situation presented in the speech. Using your same logic what evidence is there that Lincoln would use the argument in the way you are suggesting? Even in this speech Lincoln says that his goal is stopping the spread of slavery so that it can slowly die off which you seem to find preferable.

A couple things:

1. You do agree that Lincoln's was wrong in the speech, correct? He claimed that the US could have slavery throughout every state. There is absolutely no evidence that slavery was spreading in the US, even in new states that allowed slavery there was practically no slaves in those states (and obviously there was no slavery in the states that prohibited slavery and no evidence that this was going to change).

2. Couple this with the obvious economic concerns and the South got a little suspicious about what plans Lincoln and the North had for them.

This does not suggest that he is against slavery.

It does seem odd for man that is an ardent supporter of slavery to be committed to educating slaves for a successful entry into civil society.

Being a relatively kind master does not mean that he was against the institution of slavery.

It does make the moral case against the South much weaker. The relationship between Davis and his slaves was the norm in the South, now this does not excuse the moral evil that is slavery only to provide context. During the 1930's the Works Projects Administration (WPA) commissioned a study to interview former slaves (it’s called the American Slave Narratives). The astonishing thing about these narratives is that over 70% of the accounts are positive much like the relationship between Davis and his slaves. The ex-slaves talked about how much their masters took care of them and loved them.

This is why the self-righteous moral indignation of those in the North confused many (which includes that of Smoke) in the South. Slavery was evil and a regrettable circumstance, but the vast majority of slave owners in the South weren't mistreating and killing their slaves. And this is where you get accounts like Davis' slave talking about how much they loved their master and the other positive depictions in the Slave Narratives.

And when they didn't get the Fort that legitamtely belonged to the United States they took it by force committing an act of war and starting the US CIv

I am sure negotiations (about what to do with Ft Sumter) would have taken place if the Union would have left after being asked to by the CSA.

Well I don't oppose secession as a rule. I think that it is absurd to think that unilateral secession can be a legitimate action in a functioning government because it completely undermines any government you have. I do think though that on moral grounds legitimacy of various rebellions or secession could be established. I think that in this arena a convincing argument can be made for the morality of the American rebellion whereas the Confederate secession being primarily based on continuing the institution of slavery was immoral.

Don't you see how backwards this is? Does a battered wife have to make her case to her abusive husband? Even if you don't like or agree with the reasons for secession it is not up to the party revolting to convince the members of the established authority. The secession was peaceful and once it is done, that it is it.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Smoke,

Right. No legal authority and no popular vote.

Let's take a couple of examples. Howell Cobb, as you mentioned, was governor of Georgia. Now, it wouldn't be surprising of the voters of Georgia knew his politics and I am sure they weren't surprised when he took a leadership role in the CSA. Jefferson Davis was a senator from Mississippi; obviously the voters knew his politics. These CSA leaders came from elected offices so it was hardly some coup. In fact, I ask you to look at what happened when South Carolina seceded. The streets overflowed in celebration. This seems odd if the people didn't support such a decision.

Prove it. Show me the Confederate plan for gradual emancipation of the slaves.

Well, first is the prohibition on the importation of any new slaves into the country. The second is the relationship of many slaves to their masters much like Jefferson Davis' relationship to his slaves. Many slave owners were committed to taking care and educating their slaves. This was a process of gradual emancipation as many masters manumitted their slaves.

Please. I've read the Confederate Constitution, and I'm not suffering from white guilt. Your pious hagiography of men who nearly destroyed the country in an attempt to preserve an evil system is disgusting. There was nothing noble about the system of slavery and nothing noble about the attempt to perpetuate it. That's not white guilt; it's a sense of right and wrong -- something you don't seem to know much about.

You know next to nothing about race relations or slavery in the South. I suggest you read the Slave Narratives where over 70% of the comments from these ex-slaves were positive. This is not to excuse slavery only to show you the actual evidence of what it entailed.

And your reaction is what confused many in the South because it showed the obvious ignorance of the people making the charges.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Sunstone,

Had the South been successful in succeeding from the Union, it today would be the North Korea of the Americas.

Well, your analogy works if the Union is seen as North Korea. The CSA never wanted to take over Washington; in fact, the capitol was moved to Richmond, VA to show that the two countries could live side by side in peace.

 

[Smoke]

You know next to nothing about race relations or slavery in the South. I suggest you read the Slave Narratives where over 70% of the comments from these ex-slaves were positive. This is not to excuse slavery only to show you the actual evidence of what it entailed.

Your feeble attempts to pretend to greater knowledge are not a substitute for actual knowledge, and they're not a substitute for having anything sensible to say, either.

Well, first is the prohibition on the importation of any new slaves into the country. The second is the relationship of many slaves to their masters much like Jefferson Davis' relationship to his slaves. Many slave owners were committed to taking care and educating their slaves. This was a process of gradual emancipation as many masters manumitted their slaves.​

I see you really do think I'm a fool, since only a fool would fall for that argument. When you have something to say that's worth responding to, let me know.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Smoke,

Your feeble attempts to pretend to greater knowledge are not a substitute for actual knowledge, and they're not a substitute for having anything sensible to say, either.

Well, first is the prohibition on the importation of any new slaves into the country. The second is the relationship of many slaves to their masters much like Jefferson Davis' relationship to his slaves. Many slave owners were committed to taking care and educating their slaves. This was a process of gradual emancipation as many masters manumitted their slaves.
I see you really do think I'm a fool, since only a fool would fall for that argument. When you have something to say that's worth responding to, let me know.

Actually, it looks like your absurd caricature of race relations and slavery in the South has been exploded by actual evidence.

 

[Rakhel]

when you two are ready to stop playing "who's smarter" and have an actual conversation, let me know, okay?

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi rakhel,

when you two are ready to stop playing "who's smarter" and have an actual conversation, let me know, okay?

Well, I think we both made the best case we could make. I presented actual evidence (i.e. process of the South's secession, views of Confederate generals and soldiers, race-relations and details on slave life in the South) he simply has repeated that same point over and over again.