Causes of the US Civil War and Southern Secession

[YamiB.]

To this day what caused the Southern States to Secede and form the Confederacy is controversial. I have often heard the idea that the Confederacy was a noble, even admirable force which was standing up against for state's rights against an over-expansion of federal government. It is an arguable point, but in my view the Confederacy started the war and therefore their views are much more important when examining the causes of the Civil War as a whole.

There are of course various reasons for the Southern secession. There was regional tension, the transcontinental railroad, and tariffs. But the readings I have done lead me to believe that the most important and central reason was the motive on the part of the Confederate states to preserve slavery. In my opinion the idea of state's rights is little more than a smokescreen to allow the obscuring of the idea that continuing an institution of racially based slavery is good policy.

Here are some documents that I would say support my arguments.

Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Mississippi 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.
...
It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.
It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.
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.
It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.

Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Georgia Secession

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.
...
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 it its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.

With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers.

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization.

Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - 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, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based 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.

Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

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.

Cornerstone Speech by Alexander H. Stephens

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.

Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Message to Congress April 29, 1861 (Ratification of the Constitution)

As soon, how ever, as the Northern States that prohibited African slavery within their limits had reached a number sufficient to give their representation a controlling voice in the Congress, a persistent and organized system of hostile measures against the rights of the owners of slaves in the Southern States was inaugurated and gradually extended. A continuous series of measures was devised and prosecuted for the purpose of rendering insecure the tenure of property in slaves.
...
n the meantime, under the mild and genial climate of the Southern States and the increasing care and attention for the wellbeing and comfort of the laboring class, dictated alike by interest and humanity, the African slaves had augmented in number from about 600,000, at the date of the adoption of the constitutional compact, to upward of 4,000,000. In moral and social condition they had been elevated from brutal savages into docile, intelligent, and civilized agricultural laborers, and supplied not only with bodily comforts but with careful religious instruction. Under the supervision of a superior race their labor had been so directed as not only to allow a gradual and marked amelioration of their own condition, but to convert hundreds of thousands of square miles of the wilderness into cultivated lands covered with a prosperous people; towns and cities had sprung into existence, and had rapidly increased in wealth and population under the social system of the South; the white population of the Southern slaveholding States had augmented from about 1,250,000 at the date of the adoption of the Constitution to more than 8,500,000 in 1860; and the productions of the South in cotton, rice, sugar, and tobacco, for the full development and continuance of which the labor of African slaves was and is indispensable, had swollen to an amount which formed nearly three-fourths of the exports of the whole United States and had become absolutely necessary to the wants of civilized man. With interests of such overwhelming magnitude imperiled, the people of the Southern States were driven by the conduct of the North to the adoption of some course of action to avert the danger with which they were openly menaced.

As an aside I due to my view that the Confederacy was inescapably tied with idea of preserving racially based slavery I view the Confederate flag as a racist symbol. But I guess that might be a separate topic.

 

[SoyLeche]

A couple thoughts I've had on the subject (I'm by no means an expert).

Ultimately, it came down to where the ultimate sovereignty was - with the individual state governments or with the federal government. I would be willing to bet that if you had asked a confederate soldier why he was fighting he would be more likely to say "to protect Virginia (South Carolina, etc) from the tyrany of Washington D.C" than to say "so that we can keep our slaves".

However - I believe that if it weren't for slavery this question could probably have been resolved without needing to fight a war. Also, if it weren't for slavery the North wouldn't have had a moral cause to base their invasion on. I wouldn't be surprised to find that many of the Union soldiers were fighting to rid the country of slavery (a much higher proportion than that of Confederate soldiers fighting to keep slavery intact).

It's a shame that slavery was involved, because I actually am sympathetic to the confederate "states rights" cause and I think that slavery indirectly led to the consolidation of power in D.C.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It had much more to do with state's rights than slavery. Slavery would had died out long before the Civil War had the cotton gin not been invented. And even after that, slavery is so bad for an economy, that was on the way of dying out on it's own. But when an expanding federal government started to take state rights away, that I believe is where most of the tension came from.

 

[YamiB.]

It had much more to do with state's rights than slavery. Slavery would had died out long before the Civil War had the cotton gin not been invented. And even after that, slavery is so bad for an economy, that was on the way of dying out on it's own. But when an expanding federal government started to take state rights away, that I believe is where most of the tension came from.

The cotton gin did get invented, so I don't know what some alternate universe where it didn't exist has to do with a discussion of history.

How did an expanding federal government try to take state's rights away?

Why do the statements made by Confederates in my first post disagree with your statement that it was more about state's rights than slavery?

A couple thoughts I've had on the subject (I'm by no means an expert).

Ultimately, it came down to where the ultimate sovereignty was - with the individual state governments or with the federal government. I would be willing to bet that if you had asked a confederate soldier why he was fighting he would be more likely to say "to protect Virginia (South Carolina, etc) from the tyrany of Washington D.C" than to say "so that we can keep our slaves".

This is true. But what motivated individual soldiers is different from what caused the political entities of The United States and the Confederacy to enter in to the war together or what caused the Confederacy to come into existence in the first place.

However - I believe that if it weren't for slavery this question could probably have been resolved without needing to fight a war. Also, if it weren't for slavery the North wouldn't have had a moral cause to base their invasion on. I wouldn't be surprised to find that many of the Union soldiers were fighting to rid the country of slavery (a much higher proportion than that of Confederate soldiers fighting to keep slavery intact).

Though abolitionist sentiment was certainly higher in the North it was lower on the motivating factors. I would say higher were the ideas of patriotism and nationalism were more important than some moral motivation for getting soldiers to join up, similar to soldiers in the South. Connecting the North with abolition through the Emancipation Proclimantion was certianly important in the war effort by making assisting the Confederacy less desirable to abolitionist European countries.

It's a shame that slavery was involved, because I actually am sympathetic to the confederate "states rights" cause and I think that slavery indirectly led to the consolidation of power in D.C.

I lean more towards supporting a strong federal government rather than state governments. But I think that if a US Civil War was going to happen that it might have been better that slavery got involved because it led to a quicker banning of slavery.

 

[gnomon]

Slavery.

 

[Bismillah]

Differences in culinary perspectives.

 

[gnomon]

A point about States Rights.

The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. An act of legislation passed by the federal government stating that runaway slaves caught in free States or territories must be returned, by federal law, to their owner. Many people in the northern States and many northern States themselves saw the pro-South and federally legislated Act as an abridgment of States Rights.

Just to add to YamiB's excellent OP:

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.
For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

South Carolina led the way to secession and the Confederacy. The Fugitive Slave Act and northern States attempting to enact State rights and nullify the federal law were a primary cause. The action of the northern States to no longer recognize slaves as merely property was another primary factor.

The whole concept of States rights as a cause for secession was 100% tied to slavery. Anything else was heaped on after the fact.

The conscription of soldiers from every Confederate State and the supremacy Confederate courts gave to the Confederate Congress really strikes a chord against "states rights", when opposition party members in the Confederacy challenged the draft, as a formative cause of secession. That the draft in the South preceded the draft in the North, a fact noticeably absent from history textbooks, is rather telling as well.

(16) To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the Confederate States; reserving to the States, respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
(17) To exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of one or more States and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of the Confederate States; and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the . erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings; and
(18) To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the Confederate States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Sec. 9. (I) The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.
(2) Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.
(3) The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

Looks a hell of a lot more restrictive than the U.S. Constitution granting the federal government of the Confederacy more control over military matters and slaves than what any individual State would want.

Sec. 10. (I) No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, or ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts; or grant any title of nobility.
(2) No State shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws; and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any State on imports, or exports, shall be for the use of the Treasury of the Confederate States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of Congress.
(3) No State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty on tonnage, except on seagoing vessels, for the improvement of its rivers and harbors navigated by the said vessels; but such duties shall not conflict with any treaties of the Confederate States with foreign nations; and any surplus revenue thus derived shall, after making such improvement, be paid into the common treasury. Nor shall any State keep troops or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another State, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay. But when any river divides or flows through two or more States they may enter into compacts with each other to improve the navigation thereof.

Centralize trade.

The Southern states also took a dim view of the counties in Virginia which seceded during the war and formed the state West Virginia. In fact, after the war when some counties in Virginia wished to be annexed into West Virginia the pro-secessionist folk of Virginia objected. Go figure.

 

[YamiB.]

A point about States Rights.

The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. An act of legislation passed by the federal government stating that runaway slaves caught in free States or territories must be returned, by federal law, to their owner. Many people in the northern States and many northern States themselves saw the pro-South and federally legislated Act as an abridgment of States Rights.

Just to add to YamiB's excellent OP:

South Carolina led the way to secession and the Confederacy. The Fugitive Slave Act and northern States attempting to enact State rights and nullify the federal law were a primary cause. The action of the northern States to no longer recognize slaves as merely property was another primary factor.

The whole concept of States rights as a cause for secession was 100% tied to slavery. Anything else was heaped on after the fact.

The conscription of soldiers from every Confederate State and the supremacy Confederate courts gave to the Confederate Congress really strikes a chord against "states rights", when opposition party members in the Confederacy challenged the draft, as a formative cause of secession. That the draft in the South preceded the draft in the North, a fact noticeably absent from history textbooks, is rather telling as well.



Looks a hell of a lot more restrictive than the U.S. Constitution granting the federal government of the Confederacy more control over military matters and slaves than what any individual State would want.



Centralize trade.

The Southern states also took a dim view of the counties in Virginia which seceded during the war and formed the state West Virginia. In fact, after the war when some counties in Virginia wished to be annexed into West Virginia the pro-secessionist folk of Virginia objected. Go figure.

Ah yes I forgot to bring up the issue of the fugitive slave law. Usually I mention it to show that the issue for the Confederate states was defending slavery not some ideal of state's rights.

Thanks for the great added information.

I wonder are there any who take the Confederate-apologist view of Civil War history on this board? Usually every board I go to has a few. Though I have never gotten a sufficient response when I show these documents usually the ignore the post or stop posting.

 

[Mr Cheese]

brothels too

 

[linwood]

Anyone who lives in the South knows the succession of the confederacy was a direct reaction in the defense of states rights.
The right to hold slaves.

The Civil war was about slavery.

I knew so even before I saw the documentation in the OP.
(Which was nice by the way)

 

[yossarian22]

Slavery.

Its not even slightly controversial.

It is amusing to see how the American education system goes "about slavery"->"not about slavery"->"ok it was really about slavery"

 

[dale1257]

Anyone who lives in the South knows the succession of the confederacy was a direct reaction in the defense of states rights.
The right to hold slaves.

The Civil war was about slavery.

I knew so even before I saw the documentation in the OP.
(Which was nice by the way)

Without slavery, there quite possibly would have been no war. Or so many say. But I do not think it was slavery in and of itself that 'caused' (I use that term loosley), but rather the Southern States assertion that the Feds had no legal or moral right to force the South to end the practice. I would also like to add here that I think it a particular tragedy that in the long run, many of the issues of the Civil War are still being fought over today. Specifically, just how big should the Federal Government be? Look at the few differences between the political parties of today.

 

[dale1257]

I think Lincoln said it best when said "A House Divided against itself cannot long stand", or words to that effect.

 

[JasonII]

Napoleon played his role. Before the civil war Napoleon took control of Italy and the church, that’s when England got involved. The British knew that they couldn’t beat the French by themselves, so they called back to America for backup. Winter was coming along and we couldn’t cross the Atlantic during winter so the war was held off until spring. In that time a larger number of American farmers were enlisted and trained to fight against French tactics.
Napoleon figured out why the British were holding their war off till the spring. His plan was to conquer Russia in the winter and use them to fight off America when we got involved. He lost, so America was never called into the war.
It was at this point that the south realized that they had no control over war in Europe and the King of England had the power to control American involvement in war. The south revolted to gain the king’s power for themselves.

 

[Mathematician]

It had much more to do with state's rights than slavery. Slavery would had died out long before the Civil War had the cotton gin not been invented. And even after that, slavery is so bad for an economy, that was on the way of dying out on it's own. But when an expanding federal government started to take state rights away, that I believe is where most of the tension came from.

Slavery wasn't dying out. Some measures had been enacted against the more brutish forms of slavery (starving to death) as a response to the growing fear of rebellion and disarray, but slavery was still highly profitable for those who owned them. A slave system just doesn't produce innovations. The richest men in the country prior to the Civil War were almost entirely slave owners, after all. Yeah, it sucks if you were a poor white, but arguably the wealthiest whites lived better than tzars.

The United States and Brazil - the two primary instruments of slavery in the New World during the mid-19th century - both abolished slavery only through war. I don't think it's a coincidence.

It is amusing to see how the American education system goes "about slavery"->"not about slavery"->"ok it was really about slavery"

A lot of the revisionist ideology derives from the failures of Reconstruction in addressing black codes. Redeemer theorists sprouted up during the 1870s trying to defend their actions as a small appeal to white (and sometimes black) voters who had awakened to the reality of the conflict. Unfortunately we still have people like Lew Rockwell trying to argue, "it was the tariffs!"

I also think it's funny that constitutionalists tend to ignore a simple fact: the Constitution didn't abolish slavery. The 13th amendment only passed because Southern states either lost representation or weren't yet allowed back in.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Yam,

It is an arguable point, but in my view the Confederacy started the war and therefore their views are much more important when examining the causes of the Civil War as a whole.

Specifically, how did the Confederacy start the War for Southern Independence? I mean, many Southern states peacefully seceded and formed the Confederacy (much the same way the colonies seceded from the Crown to form the United States) and the Union wages a war to preserve the Union. This is caused by the Confederacy how? I am sure you are aware of Lincoln's claim that his entire aim during the War for Southern Independence was to preserve the Union.

There are of course various reasons for the Southern secession. There was regional tension, the transcontinental railroad, and tariffs. But the readings I have done lead me to believe that the most important and central reason was the motive on the part of the Confederate states to preserve slavery. In my opinion the idea of state's rights is little more than a smokescreen to allow the obscuring of the idea that continuing an institution of racially based slavery is good policy.

First, I would suggest a book:

Amazon.com: Black Slaveowners: Free Black Slave Masters in South Carolina, 1790-1860 (9781570030376): Larry Koger: Books

It shows the complexity involved in slavery, namely blacks owned slaves as well. In fact, in some urban areas in South Carolina there were large numbers of black women that owned slaves (and not all of these women were rich).

Second, there were blacks that fought in the Confederate Army.

Third, the vast majority of Southerners weren't slave-owners or from slave-holding families (upwards of over 70%). A bit odd that they would be fighting for slavery when they had little or no connection to it.

Fourth, I would argue that the Confederacy had the greater moral case in the war. Jefferson Davis thought that slavery would end naturally. So, if you had your choice as to end slavery naturally over a short period of time or wage a war that costs 600,000 people to die, which would you choose?

 

[Smoke]

Fourth, I would argue that the Confederacy had the greater moral case in the war. Jefferson Davis thought that slavery would end naturally. So, if you had your choice as to end slavery naturally over a short period of time or wage a war that costs 600,000 people to die, which would you choose?

There was no danger of an imminent end to slavery in 1861. The leaders of the Confederacy chose to wage a war that cost 600,000 deaths rather than risk the possibility that slavery would end gradually. Ironically, their decision caused slavery to end sooner than it otherwise would have.

Their decision was immoral and it was bad strategy.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Smoke,

There was no danger of an imminent end to slavery in 1861.

Except where new states were formed that allowed slavery, there virtually was none. Odd if slavery was showing no end in sight. And the South wasn't clamoring for the North to allow slavery into their states. Slavery was going to whither on the vine.

The leaders of the Confederacy chose to wage a war that cost 600,000 deaths rather than risk the possibility that slavery would end gradually. Ironically, their decision caused slavery to end sooner than it otherwise would have.

Actually, the South peacefully seceded; the Union started the war, costing the unnecessary loss of life.

 

[Smoke]

Except where new states were formed that allowed slavery, there virtually was none. Odd if slavery was showing no end in sight. And the South wasn't clamoring for the North to allow slavery into their states. Slavery was going to whither on the vine.

First, go to your dictionary and look up "imminent."

Then explain what's wrong with allowing slavery to wither on the vine if Confederate leaders, as you claim, were in favor of a gradual end to slavery.

Actually, the South peacefully seceded; the Union started the war, costing the unnecessary loss of life.

A transparent lie. Hostilities were begun by the Confederacy at Fort Sumter and shortly thereafter at Liberty Arsenal.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Smoke,

Then explain what's wrong with allowing slavery to wither on the vine if Confederate leaders, as you claim, were in favor of a gradual end to slavery.

The Confederate leaders were hoping for a natural abolition of slavery (which pretty much occurred in every other country that had slavery). And if I am not mistaken, the Confederate Constitution outlawed the slave trade. A curious move if they wanted slavery continued indefinitely.

A transparent lie. Hostilities were begun by the Confederacy at Fort Sumter and shortly thereafter at Liberty Arsenal.

Incorrect. Here is what happened:

1. Southern states peacefully secede (like the colonies did from the Crown).

2. The South allows time for the US Army to abandon Fort Sumter.

3. Lincoln refuses, thus stationing a foreign army in another country (the Confederate States of America).

4. South fires on Sumter.

Lincoln's refusal to honor the peaceful wishes of the Confederacy is what started the war. Heck, the capitol of the Confederacy was chosen (Richmond, VA) to show that they two nations could peacefully co-exist. The South never wanted to take over the North; it wanted its independence just as the colonists fought the Crown in the Revolutionary War.