Was slavery really a motive?

[El Tejon]

fistful, it is my reading that your "b)" was started by General Early who invented the "Glorious Cause" and needed to deflect from the fact that the South fought for the right of one man to own another.  It allowed CSA veterans to feel better about themselves and to better fight the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and other laws which were to restore citizenship to Blacks.

Heck, even General Rober E. Lee recognized that Southern war motives were to advance white supremacy.  The "Glorious Cause" gave Southerners a way out.

[K Frame]

Art,

Art, as I remember, each of the states established conventions to debate the issue of secession, which would then forward its report to the state legislature. The state legislature would then vote on the convention's report and, when adopted, would authorize a state-wide pebecite. Then, based on the results of the state-wide vote, the legislature would vote to authorize the results.

I don't believe that in any case any of the votes were unanimous.

Apparently the state wide vote in Georgia was VERY close.

Remember, though, that the people sitting in the legislatures often didn't come close to representing the make up of the state as a whole.

Southern legislatures were dominated by men whose personal and political fortunes were closely tied with slavery.


Whether or not voting tallies of the secession conventions and the actions taken in the legislatures survived the destruction of the war, I don't know.

Supposedly the report of one of the Southern conventions (Alabama, maybe?) was considered to be lost, with no record of it remaining, until the 1930s, when the granddaughters of one of the convention members were discovered to have a copy hanging in their home.

[K Frame]

Heck, even General Rober E. Lee recognized that Southern war motives were to advance white supremacy.  The "Glorious Cause" gave Southerners a way out.

It's also kind of hard to ignore the white supremacy aspect of the War when Alexander Stephens, vice president of the Confederacy, addressed the concept directly in his "Cornerstone" speech:

"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 slaverysubordination to the superior raceis his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

The Mississippi secession convention's statement went into depth about the superiority of the white man and the necessity to maintain it at all costs.

[Perd Hapley]

"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 slaverysubordination to the superior raceis his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

Thanks, I had forgotten that one. 

Tejon, the Glorious Cause goes back at least as far as Calhoun and the Nullification movement.  There's no doubt there is a grain of truth to the Damright/timetobuild point of view.  The problem I see is the flat denial from some that slavery was an issue at all.  That's just flat wrong. 

[El Tejon]

Mike, I think something else that is important to look at is where the pro-Union Southern troops were raised.  The more inhospitable the ground (forests, hills, swamp) the less likely slaves were present and the more likely pro-Union troops were to be raised, e.g. AL, TN, TX, etc.  The only state that did not field independent pro-Union troops was South Carolina, which had the highest concentration of slaves (and was also the first state to leave the Union because of slavery).

fist, right, sure and during the Knights of the Golden Circle, but Early reinvorgated the Glorious Cause as a way not to feel guilt.

[slzy]

the tariff of 1857 lasted 3 years and yankees blamed the panic of 1857 on this tariff. the morill tariff which was northern based,passed the house in 1860,but was held up in the senate. after the southern senators left,it naturally breezed thru in 1861. and since almost all white union soldiers came from districts of the south where slavery was unprofitable is particularly telling.

[Perd Hapley]

I should make a couple of additions to what I said above.  They are like b, but with different motivations.

c) the desire to deny America any good intentions or noble deeds, so that even when we freed our slaves it was so we could oppress the South or for some monied interests.

d) the perception that "everybody else" believes that slavery was the Real Reason, and that schools only teach that view of the Civil War, so I will be different by claiming that slavery was not a reason at all.  See how smart and free-thinking I am? 

[slzy]

the great pity here,is that new slavocrats import illegal aliens to exploit the system and no party has risen to stop them. maybe men had more grit in the 1860s when it came time to fight for their jobs.

[Art Eatman]

I vaguely recall from reading that the Texas vote was fairly close.  That figures, given the mix of source of its citizenry.  The Germans and Mexicans didn't own slaves; some of those who came in from the southern states did.

Whether or not people owned slaves who voted for secession, one factor that I think is often ignored is that of, "They're not gonna tell ME what to do!"  Human nature, I guess; it's still evident today.  Early settlers, having not had any particular benefits of government, didn't trust or respect government in general...

Art 

[K Frame]

Mike, I think something else that is important to look at is where the pro-Union Southern troops were raised.  The more inhospitable the ground (forests, hills, swamp) the less likely slaves were present and the more likely pro-Union troops were to be raised, e.g. AL, TN, TX, etc.  The only state that did not field independent pro-Union troops was South Carolina, which had the highest concentration of slaves (and was also the first state to leave the Union because of slavery).

El Tejon,

You know where West Virginia came from, don't you?

It seceeded from Virginia, and was admitted to the Union in 1863 as an independent, anti-slavery, pro-Union state.

You're absolutely correct that regional economics had much to do with whether the residents were pro-South vs. pro-North.

I think it would be a really interesting exercise to look at the individual delegates to the state secession conventions and the state legislators, their votes on the issue at hand, and the underpinnings of their personal economics.

I'd not be surprised at all to find that those whose livlihoods had few linkages to the slave economy would be more likely to want to maintain ties to the Union, while those whose personal economies were tied tightly to slavery would be more likely to vote for secession.


It's also very, very interesting to read through the history of the souther states during the Civil War and see how they, in fighting the north, experienced many of the same problems that the colonies experienced when fighting Great Britain 85 years before, where individual colonies often put their own interests ahead of the collective interests of the United States. Several times early in the war those competing interests almost sank the bid for independence from Britain, and it was a continuing problem throughout most of the war.

[CAnnoneer]

Whether or not people owned slaves who voted for secession, one factor that I think is often ignored is that of, "They're not gonna tell ME what to do!"  Human nature, I guess; it's still evident today.  Early settlers, having not had any particular benefits of government, didn't trust or respect government in general...

Exactamundo! Who is in a better position to say why the individual soldier fought but the soldier himself? CSA soldiers said they fought to get the yankee invaders out of their respective state. It is that simple.

[Perd Hapley]

CSA soldiers said they fought to get the yankee invaders out of their respective state. It is that simple.

It's not that simple.  While the motive you cite was one of the majors, also consider that small farmers were heavily tied into the over-all Southern economy.  Hence anything that undermined slavery was a threat to them as well.  Also, the fear of violent hordes of emancipated slaves was very real.  Just as horrifiying was the prospect of freed slaves mixing with whites in marriage and other areas of life.

[CAnnoneer]

also consider that small farmers were heavily tied into the over-all Southern economy. 

If indeed most of the small farmers did not have any slaves, wouldn't it have been to their economic advantage to "level the field"?

Also, the fear of violent hordes of emancipated slaves was very real.  Just as horrifiying was the prospect of freed slaves mixing with whites in marriage and other areas of life.

Abe himself supported shipping the freed slaves to Africa. Clearly, there were straightforward solutions to assuage such fears.

[Hugh Damright]

If indeed most of the small farmers did not have any slaves, wouldn't it have been to their economic advantage to "level the field"?

I don't think so ... if I picture myself having a small farm back then, trying to raise a family, in a region that had more slaves than Citizens ... and somebody asked me if I thought that all the slaves should be set free, with no place to go, no money, no home, no trade ... I think I'd vote "no". They would have to steal my crops and my animals to eat. My farm would be endangered, and I think I would also fear for the safety of my family.

Abe himself supported shipping the freed slaves to Africa. Clearly, there were straightforward solutions to assuage such fears.

I don't think it was a straight forward solution, I think it was an impossibility. The US simply did not have the resources to move over four million blacks to a new land. Of course, Lincoln and other yankees kept thinking that there must be some way, they kept clinging to the idea of colonization ... but it just wasn't possible.

[Perd Hapley]

From what I've read, most colonization plans involved relocation further south in the Americas, whether to islands or on the mainland of Central or South America, I do not recall. 

Cannon, I was talking about the Southern fears about what the North had in store, so colonization is really not an issue.  Imagine how easy it was for secessionist orators to convince their audiences that the Republicans intended to not only free their slaves but let them have free reign over all the South.  They may have believed it themselves.  Sure, Lincoln was no William Lloyd Garrison, but other Republican leaders like Seward were far more radical.  In fact, after the war there WAS an effort to give blacks some political power in the South, short-lived though it was. 

You can sit here at a hundred and fifty years remove and talk about leveling the playing field, but the economic upheaval of such a process would have been rather frightening to the yeomen that would have had to deal with it. 

[K Frame]

"Abe himself supported shipping the freed slaves to Africa. Clearly, there were straightforward solutions to assuage such fears."

Yes, he saw that as ONE, not the only, solution to the issue of emancipated blacks.

Black leaders, however, didn't see it as a solution at all.

Remember that the slave trade had ended decades before, which meant that the vast majority of blacks in America had been born here. It was their home.

[CAnnoneer]

I don't think it was a straight forward solution, I think it was an impossibility. The US simply did not have the resources to move over four million blacks to a new land.

Hmmm, it seems to me far more was spent or destroyed in the war itself.

(500 passengers per ship / 6 weeks round trip) x (52 weeks per year) x 4 years of war = 17,000 per ship-war

A fleet of 300 ships could easily do that over the same duration as the war. The contemporary merchant fleets were bigger than that. So, I am not convinced it was an impossibility.

[Firethorn]

500 people per ship would be a rather large amount if you're not packing them in like cargo(slaves) and expecting ~20% death rate.  You also neglect that it's during the age of sail, though near the end of it, so travel is not possibile year round.

It probably would have been cheaper, but my thoughts are this:

While slavery was by no means the only reason for the war, it was indeed a major one.  Without slavery as an issue, the civil war probably would have never started.  Once the fighting started, of course, it took a back seat, more or less.

[CAnnoneer]

500 people per ship would be a rather large amount if you're not packing them in like cargo(slaves) and expecting ~20% death rate. 

Nelson's HMS Victory was commissioned in 1778 and had 850 crew, and it also lugged 104 cannon plus the respective shot, powder, and other supplies. Some 80 years later, the ships were bigger and faster.

You also neglect that it's during the age of sail, though near the end of it, so travel is not possibile year round.

Steam ships were well in use by 1860, as well as sail/steam hybrids. Even if we restrict ourselves to sails, that would adjust the final answer by a factor no bigger than 2. So, I believe it was physically feasible. Whether it was politically feasible is another matter.

[slzy]

somehow i doubt any soverign nation would be wild about having 4 million boat people being dumped in their country.

[Hugh Damright]

c) the desire to deny America any good intentions or noble deeds, so that even when we freed our slaves it was so we could oppress the South or for some monied interests.

That seems like a federalist/yankee perspective ... "we freed our slaves" ... from a States point of view, yankees freed our slaves ... how big of them! ... a bunch of people safe in their lily white States setting all the slaves free down South ... I don't see anything noble about it.

[Perd Hapley]

Hugh, don't be so defensive.  First of all, while I am open to your side of the argument, I tend to the fed/yankee perspective by default.  Most Americans do.  I am pursuing a Bachelor's degree in history (very slowly, I'm afraid) so I have yet to make up my mind on the issue.  You may be right, but I'll have to look at things for myself. 

Whether the war was noble or not is not the point.  The point of option C was that some people demean Northern motives for the Civil War because they want to portray all of American history as an unbroken chain of the oppression of anyone other than rich white men.  This is a different kettle of fish than your point of view, which, apparently, stems from a sincere belief that the South was the real bastion of freedom and was conquered by tyrannical Yankee oppressors - or whatever. 

[Hugh Damright]

Hugh, don't be so defensive.

I didn't mean to be defensive or personal or anything like that, I was just saying that the idea of "we freed our slaves" seems like a biased perspective. Yankees freed slaves in another region while they were safe in their lily white States. I think it's important for people to understand what really happened.

I recently read a little story in the congressional debates about a yankee man who was elected to office and was visited by a constituent who came to tell him that he must do something about the slavery problem ... the rep asked if the South should be compensated for their loss of property and the constituent said that seemed fair ... the rep asked if the blacks should be left concentrated in the South or if each region should absorb their fair share, and the constituent asked how many negroes his town would need to absorb ... the rep said that blacks were 20% of the poplulation (if I remember correctly), and that his town of 2500 would have to accept 500 negroes ... the yankee constituent declared FIVE HUNDRED NEGROES IN MY LITTLE TOWN?!? And he told the rep "you never mind about that slavery problem".

[Perd Hapley]

Sigh.  Hugh, there's nothing wrong with pushing an agenda, as long as you'll listen to my agenda. 

I'm saying that, no matter how the slaves were freed, some people would want to discredit it, just to make America look bad.  Not because such people are interested in Southern freedoms, but because they hate Yankee America and Dixie America equally. 

And for what it's worth, there really wasn't a Unionist or Yankee bias to what I said.  "We [Americans in general] freed our slaves [the slaves in America]."  That is a fact, regardless how it was done.  No yankee bias is shown or intended. 

[ilbob]

Relatively few southerners owned slaves, but it was a part of the culture. However, economically, it was becoming less and less tenable for the big slave owners to have such a large part of their wealth tied up in slaves when that wealth could be put to a more lucrative purpose. My guess is slavery would have died out from economic pressures in a few generations anyway.

The state's rights issue is very difficult for Americans of 2007 to understand, seeing as we are used to power now coming from DC. But, in the mid 1800s, that just was not the case. Federalism was still alive back then, and flourishing. One might argue that states had the upper hand in the ongoing political power struggles until after the civil war. The US army only had about 16,000 men in it in 1860, and federal law enforcement officers numbered in the hundreds, or maybe thousands.

The economic issues cannot be understated. The north used tariffs to enrich itself at the expense of the south. It was not to punish the south as some might believe, just simple greed. But the economic pain was real.