causes of the American War Between the States

[Moondoggie]

Wowzers!

I read a little, posted a couple of words, lost interest, came back, read a lot more to catch up...boy howdy do I feel sorry for NFL Players now!

A couple of points I'd like to throw into the mix from a guy who spent his first 3 undergrad yrs as a history major then wised-up and changed my major to business...this helps to explain why it took 134 semester hours to complete a 120 hr degree.

First, Rabbi, military draftees sign the same military contract as enlistees.  I've sat across the desk from both types while they "signed their lives away" when I was on recruiting duty.  Draftees either sign or go to prison.  Draftees also incur the same 8 yr military service obligation as a enlistees.  It sucks, but it's in Title 10 & 17 USC.  Part of my motivation to enlist in 1970 was, beside the fact that I wanted to, I felt that in the grand scheme of things I might just be preventing somebody who really didn't want to serve from having their life screwed up.

All of this banter about forms of slavery in today's society ignore the four elements of a contract:  Offer & Acceptance, Consideration, Lack of an illegal purpose, and, Capacity on the part of all parties. 

One of the term papers I wrote in college was on "Thomas Jefferson and Slavery".  The research was fascinating, and painted a behind the scenes portrait of Jefferson that most never bother to look for/at.  There is a tendency to look back upon all of the "great leaders" assuming that they were universally worshiped by their contemporaries.  Not so.  We generally only hit the highlights, and then mostly only the positive aspects.  If you search Jefferson's writings you will find that he proposed "shipping them all back to Africa" or segregation of all freed slaves in communities on the western frontiers under white leadership.  He did not think that freed slaves could be or should be assimilated into general society.  I can't cite references after 30 yrs, but it's in his writings.

The causes of the Civil War can be traced all of the way back to the introduction of slaves to Georgia from Florida (Spain) in the early 1700's.  Slavery was considered illegal under English Common Law, and clever businessmen at first passed-off their slaves as being "leased" from Spanish owners.  When it became obvious that slavery was becoming institutionalized and even legally sanctioned the Governer of Georgia, James Oglethorpe, returned the charter for the colony to the King of England asking that it be rescinded.  Oglethorpe was replaced and the charter returned to Georgia.  Money talks then as now.  Way to fall on your sword over a matter of principle, George.

IMHO, emancipation was the catchphrase to get the general population behind the war in the North.  The real reasons for Northern aggression were territorial and economic.  Slavery was tacitly and implicitly legal in the Constitution and Federal Court decisions.  The Founders made a decision to incorporate acceptance of slavery into the Federal System in order to get the southern states to join the union in the first place. 

The control of western territories was paramount.  Manifest destiny and all that.

The antipithy of Southerners for the North would have resulted in England becoming the primary source of manufactured goods for the South.  It could have easily lead to a resurgence of British Imperialism vis a vis the CSA, probably more economic than political.  This would have put the North in an untenable economic position.

I agree with others that the military action against the CSA was unconstitutional.  I believe that the secession should have been allowed.  It's funny how the greivences enumerated in the Declaration of Independence didn't carry any weight when the shoe was on the other foot.  Again, money talks.  It always does.  Economic interests in both the North and South ruled the day.

If you look at it from the moral point of view, of course the slavery was unconscionable.

[Hugh Damright]

Sorry ... this thread is long and I got confused ... someone kept calling it the "War of Southern Treason" ... but it wasn't Mr. Fistfull of Dollars.

[Perd Hapley]

IMHO, emancipation was the catchphrase to get the general population behind the war in the North.  The real reasons for Northern aggression were territorial and economic.  Slavery was tacitly and implicitly legal in the Constitution and Federal Court decisions.  The Founders made a decision to incorporate acceptance of slavery into the Federal System in order to get the southern states to join the union in the first place.  

The legality of slavery is not in question.  The North never denied that.  

If you read some of the stuff that was being said and written prior to the war, you can see that slavery was on everybody's mind, from common folk to Congressmen.  It was not some kind of side issue.  Any real reason you can dig up, slavery was at the heart of it

The desire for western territory?  Slavery was an integral part of the question - would these be "slave states," for the Southern "slavocracy," or "free states" for free white men?

Centralized power vs. state sovereignty - the Southern states felt the national government would threaten the slavery basis of their economy.  Northerners resented national government being used to force them to return freed slaves.  Both sides feared the other was taking over.

It's true that the Civil War was not only about slavery.  It's also true that millions of people were adamantly opposed to slavery, despite having little concern for the slaves, themselves.  Many of these people were quite racist, in fact.  I fear some of us, in trying to get past this grade-school understanding of the war, go too far when we say that slavery was just some sort of window-dressing for a Constitutional question or an economic/territorial struggle.  It was clearly much more than that.  

We get too cynical for our own good.  That Northerner's interests in ending slavery were often self-serving, that doesn't invalidate the moral opposition that was also common.  I hope we all understand how self-interest can contribute to the common good, anyway.

[Perd Hapley]

If you search Jefferson's writings you will find that he proposed "shipping them all back to Africa" or segregation of all freed slaves in communities on the western frontiers under white leadership. 

And?  How would those things be worse than the way things actually worked out?  How do you take millions of people accustomed to slavery all their lives long, stigmatized and ostracized by skin color, utterly poor people, and integrate them into a white society that won't fully accept them?  How do you inculcate in such people the attitudes and skills now necessary to manage their own lives and property?  How do you begin educating such a group of total illiterates? 

It's easy to write off the colonization movement as "ship them all back to Africa," but that is so much politically correct dead-white-male-bashing.  Is it segregationist or seperatist?  Certainly, but integration didn't work so well, either.  It was bloody and deadly in the 1960s and would have been no easier in 1787, 1804, or 1865.  Finally, consider that a person can believe his own race is superior, but still seek the good of the inferior race, misguided as he may be.

It's funny how the greivences enumerated in the Declaration of Independence didn't carry any weight when the shoe was on the other foot. 

There were a few prominent Southerners, and I can't remember who, or where I read this, that openly rejected the Declaration for its "all men are created equal."

[Perd Hapley]

Hugh,

I haven't really picked a side in this argument, except that of a more fully-orbed view of the subject.  I've spent some time studying these things, but not enough to think I know all that went into the controversy.

[Moondoggie]

Summarizing all of the points made above, I am reminded that the cause(s) of the War Between the States were political, social, territorial, and economic.  These are generally the causes in one combination or another for almost all warfare.  Slavery was not the be-all/end-all issue, but it was AN issue.

Lincoln et al could have recognized the right of secession and the world would have been a very different place.  The USA today would be a drastically different place if the Federal Government had to take possible secession into consideration in formulating its policies.  Today's federal system would be much weaker.  This would have made US participation in WWI & WWII virtually impossible as a decisive force and we probably wouldn't even be "A" superpower, let alone "The" superpower.  The US would look a lot more like Europe.

If you look at the violence between KS and MO before the Civil War I think it shows that there still would have been warfare over the issue of slavery even absent the actual Civil War. 

It seems to me that regions of our country that didn't start out all that close together in the first place continued to diverge until the secessionist movement was a natural outcome.  The political necessities of self-protection following the Revolutionary War were eventually outweighed by social, territorial, and economic realities.

When I pointed out Jefferson's ideas regarding freed slaves I wasn't "Dead white guy bashing", I was bringing to light a little known aspect of the debate.  When I first read it in his writings as an undergrad it really came as a shock.  As un-PC (and PC is very limited part of my psyche) as the idea is, I could appreciate the logic and Jefferson's concern .  BTW, in today's world, Sally Hemmings would probably have been awarded Monticello in a palimony suit, and Jefferson would have gone to prison as a sex offender/pedophile.  That in no way detracts from his importance as one of the Founders or the fact that he was one of the foremost political philosophers of any time.  Different times, different standards.

[Perd Hapley]

Good comments, Moondoggie, except a little nit-picking I've got to do here.

I don't know what's shocking about colonization.  Blacks weren't accepted in America.  They didn't seem to have much hope here.  I suppose they probably had a better standard of living as share-croppers than non-whites in other parts of the world, but only as third-class citizens.  What could be wrong with trying to help them find a place to form their own nation or culture? 

I also take issue with the phrase, "ship them back to Africa."  That phrase has a connotation of xenophobia and malicious racism that I think is unfair to those proposing colonization.  I don't know if it describes Jefferson's thoughts on the issue, but most colonization proponents I've read about were thinking of places in Latin America.  Of course, there is Liberia, isn't there?   

[Moondoggie]

Fistful...

Jefferson's writings contained an examination of the slavery issue.  In his own words, Jefferson postulated that the only two viable courses of action following emancipation would be to either return all of the negroes to Africa OR seggregate them in communities on the western frontier under white leadership/supervision.  It's been a long time since I read it, so I don't remember exactly if he used the term "Ship" or "Return", but it was crystal clear that he felt that physically removing the emancipated slaves from the general population was the only viable solution in his mind.  I don't recall any mention of Latin America or the Carribean...just Africa.  It was obvious that Jefferson's intent was benevolent, but it was shocking to me personally to discover that Jefferson would commit such ideas to record.  Maybe "shocking" is too strong a word.  "Surprising" might be a better term.

I agree that the "Ship 'em back to Africa" concept is xenophobic and generally unworkable.  It surprised me to read that someone with the stature of Jefferson would have considered it.

I'm not taking a position on the correctness/incorrectness of the idea, just reporting how unusual it seemed to me when I discovered it in my research of Jefferson.  Especially when you consider his prominence among the Founders and his stature as a philosopher.

Not to get sidetracked into a debate of Jefferson, but in my research I discovered an entirely different persona than the one that's presented for general consumption.  He was an extremely complex and conflicted person.

One of the points I'm trying to bring forth on a micro level is that most of us really understand very little about the personalities and individual factors involved in historical events.  99% + folks swallow the Cliff Notes versions offered by public education just long enough to regurgitate it on an exam and then promptly let it fade into oblivian.  Even then, you're only getting fed one point of view.  In depth understanding takes a lot of digging and thinking.

[Perd Hapley]

In depth understanding takes a lot of digging and thinking.

Of course.  I hope you can help me out with something, because I genuinely do not understand what is wrong or surprising about colonization or that Jefferson would suggest it.  "Ship them back to Africa," only sounds bad because it sounds like "they should go back where they came from," which has been said about immigrants from time immemorial.  But sending freed slaves to Africa, Latin America, the West, etc, was not necessarily wrong.  It may have seemed like the most compassionate and most workable solution at the time.  It seems to me like academia is trying to paint it as something primarily motivated by segregationist feelings rather than honest concern for Black welfare.  I'm sure it was a little of both, but I still don't understand why it is so looked-down upon. 

[Moondoggie]

Repatriation of emancipated slaves may very well have been in their best interest.  We'll never know.  The idea of seggregation would only have provided a temporary fix.  It would have been impossible/impractical to maintain.  Just like the Native Americans, what would have happened if/when gold/oil/coal would have been discovered where the Negroes were living?  Economic/national interests always trump the rights of an underclass.  Kelo.

In answer to your question about why it's looked down upon, especially in academia, it's a success/power backlash IMHO.  No one can dispute that most academicians are liberals/leftists.  White man = bad.  Power = bad.  Superpower = Antichrist.  Any idea that considers any type of exercise of power by whites upon any other race is going to be automatically decried as racist/xenophobic/jingoist, etc.  Benevolence will never sell.  Given the history of race relations in our country, I can't say that I blame anybody for having suspicions.

I grew up during the 60's & 70's.  I was taught by my parents to treat everyone the same, regardless of race.  I strongly believed in this idea...it was a noticeable part of my personality.  Then I joined the Marines in 71 and was immersed in racial conflict that was violent and pervasive.  I didn't understand why every Black person I came into contact with automatically hated me, and wasn't the least bit hesitant about expressing it.  Unmistakable hatred for every white person was such a common trait that it made me wonder how it became so universal.  There was definately a counter-culture aspect to it.  This made me pretty sensitive to any issue that involved race and was the reason why I found it so surprising to find the ideas that Jefferson wrote in his memiors.  "Ship 'em back" had always seemed to me to be in pretty bad taste (unrealistic at best), not something I ever thought I'd find in Jefferson's papers.

[Perd Hapley]

The idea of seggregation would only have provided a temporary fix.  It would have been impossible/impractical to maintain.  Just like the Native Americans, what would have happened if/when gold/oil/coal would have been discovered where the Negroes were living?  Economic/national interests always trump the rights of an underclass.  Kelo.

Agreed.  Not knowing the details of Jeff's plan for black colonies out west, I'm guessing (or hoping) it was a temporary measure that would help freed slaves to adjust to a freer way of life.  But you think this was to be permanent?  In that case:  bad.  In fairness, though, maybe he didn't realize how quickly white settlement would spread. 

[Hugh Damright]

There were a few prominent Southerners, and I can't remember who, or where I read this, that openly rejected the Declaration for its "all men are created equal."

I believe that the South generally considered the North to have made another political/religious error in their construction of this term "all men are created equal". The way I understand it, the term was meant to be a denouncement of monarchy, to declare that instead of one man being born to be King and rule, it was declared that we are all equal and the majority should rule. It was a declaration of secession and free government, not a declaration of race and gender equality. I think the term would be put in its proper context by a statement such as "all men are created equal, therefore all white male land owners shall have the right of suffrage".

"It has been a conviction of pressing necessity, it has been a belief that we are to be deprived in the Union of the rights which our fathers bequeathed to us, which has brought Mississippi into her present decision. She has heard proclaimed the theory that all men are created free and equal, and this made the basis of an attack upon her social institutions; and the sacred Declaration of Independence has been invoked to maintain the position of the equality of the races. That Declaration of Independence is to be construed by the circumstances and purposes for which it was made. The communities were declaring their independence; the people of those communities were asserting that no man was born--to use the language of Mr. Jefferson--booted and spurred to ride over the rest of mankind; that men were created equal--meaning the men of the political community; that there was no divine right to rule; that no man inherited the right to govern; that there were no classes by which power and place descended to families, but that all stations were equally within the grasp of each member of the body-politic. These were the great principles they announced; these were the purposes for which they made their declaration; these were the ends to which their enunciation was directed. They have no reference to the slave; else, how happened it that among the items of arraignment made against George III was that he endeavored to do just what the North has been endeavoring of late to do--to stir up insurrection among our slaves?"  - Jefferson Davis, Farewell Address when leaving US Senate

[Burt Blade]

If slavery was not the main issue, why does it feature so prominently in the various Ordinances of Secession? Those same Ordinances do not appear to mention tarrifs.

[Hugh Damright]

If slavery was not the main issue, why does it feature so prominently in the various Ordinances of Secession? Those same Ordinances do not appear to mention tarrifs.

That's a good question. I think that there were issues with tarriffs and such, but that the crisis of the day, and the issue that most clearly justified secession, was regarding slavery. The South was justified in secession because the North defied their Constitutional duty to return escaped slaves. I believe one of the great Northern federalist idols, Daniel Webster, said that if the North defied this part of the Constitution then the South had a right to secede.

And then there was Lincoln. The North wanted to end slavery in the South, and the Constitution was specifically designed to prevent such a thing. The North found a way to circumvent the Constitution by conspiring to turn the Presidential election into a national referendum on slavery. They were trying to fix it so that power flows from the people of the whole US ("popular vote") up to the US and then back down to the States, but the Constitution frames a form of government where power flows from the people to their State, and from the States to the Union. In other words, yankees were attacking the federal foundation of our government in the name of abolition, and that made the States' constitutional right to slavery the issue.

[Moondoggie]

Burt does pose a good question, and I'm not sure that I understand the real answer, either.

I factor-in that all of the "official" writings were authored by TPTB figures; those with a vested/economic interest and an agenda that didn't necessarily reflect the attitude of Jow Blow who farmed his own 40 acres without slaves.  Joe Blow probably approached the issue from the standpoint of being fed up with being told what to do/how to live by Washington.  How else do you explain the droves that weren't slave owners who took up arms?  Leaving your family behind to risk your life was a lot more serious an event back in the day when there was no welfare/food stamps.  If slavery were the only issue I think a lot more folks in the South would have complained about it, but not risked their lives over it.

[Hugh Damright]

How else do you explain the droves that weren't slave owners who took up arms?

I think it was simply self defense. We were attacked.

Suppose for example that the UN attacked the US and was putting our States under military rule because they don't like our abortion laws. Now, regardless of how an American felt about abortion, I reckon that Americans would fight to defend the US against military rule by a foreign army.

[Moondoggie]

Ahem...I believe the CSA fired on Ft. Sumter first.

I wonder if things might have turned out differently if the CSA would have waited.  Bombarding a military installation and laying siege to gov't troops is kinda a deal breaker for most folks.

Look at Pearl Harbor.  Dec 6th 1941 78% of Americans did not want us involved in a war.  Dec 8th, different story.

[Hugh Damright]

Ahem...I believe the CSA fired on Ft. Sumter first.

And your point is?

I stand by my statement that the Southerners fought because their Country was under attack.  The South was attacked, so whether a person had slaves or not, whether he thought slavery should end or continue, wasn't really the issue at that point.

[richyoung]

If slavery was not the main issue, why does it feature so prominently in the various Ordinances of Secession? Those same Ordinances do not appear to mention tarrifs.

It goes back to the justification for leaving the Union - they are making the case that several Northern states were actively promoting the transportaion of slaves, and failing to return them (underground railroad) - even passing laws to prevent returning them - WHEN it was their duty under the Constitution to return them.  By proving that multiple "parties" to the Constitution where in violation of it, deliberately, they were making the most obvious and self-evident case that proved they had the right to secede.

[slzy]

is there any evidence lincoln corresponded with marx? marx ans engels commented at some length on the war,and they sent a letter to lincoln on his re-election,but did abe ever respond publicly or privately?

[Perd Hapley]

NO!  NO!  NO!  Let it die! 

Sorry, this thread is just a nightmare. 

[slzy]

no,no ,no what? somebody in an earlier post seems to state lincoln corresponded with marx. there is plenty of marx on the war and his asscociation with greelys paper. but,i cannot find any evidence that lincoln wrote to marx. i am onlt asking for a source to supplement the claim.

[Perd Hapley]

No no no to this thread getting any longer.  It's not your fault, slzy, it just turned really goofy.  However, it did return to sanity in the last page, so maybe it's ok to ressurect it. 

[richyoung]

Ahem...I believe the CSA fired on Ft. Sumter first.

When the South seceeded, Fort Sumter ceased being part of the United States.  Posting troopsin a foreign country is usually done by consent - otherwise, its considered an act of war.  To the South's credit, numerous efforts to peacefully evacuate the garrison were thwarted by Lincoln's direct orders.

I wonder if things might have turned out differently if the CSA would have waited.  Bombarding a military installation and laying siege to gov't troops is kinda a deal breaker for most folks.

How else to respond to foreign troops on your own soil uninvited?  After refusal of safe conduct?

On the afternoon of April 11, waving a white flag, two members of General Beauregard's staff were rowed across Charleston's harbor to Fort Sumter carrying a written demand for surrender. One of the emissaries - Stephen D. Lee - wrote of the experience after the war:

"This demand was delivered to Major Anderson at 3:45 P.M., by two aides of General Beauregard, James Chesnut, Jr., and myself. At 4:30 P.M. he handed us his reply, refusing to accede to the demand; but added, 'Gentlemen, if you do not batter the fort to pieces about us, we shall be starved out in a few days.' The reply of Major Anderson was put in General Beauregard's hands at 5:15 P.M., and he was also told of this informal remark. Anderson's reply and remark were communicated to the Confederate authorities at Montgomery. The Secretary of War, L.P. Walker, replied to Beauregard as follows:"

'Do not desire needlessly to bombard Fort Sumter. If Major Anderson will state the time at which, as indicated by him, he will evacuate, and agree that in the meantime he will not use his guns against us, unless ours should be employed against Fort Sumter, you are authorized thus to avoid the effusion of blood. If this, or its equivalent, be refused, reduce the fort as your judgment decides to be most practicable.'

 

[richyoung]

BTW, Fort Sumter was NO Pearl Harbor - there were ZERO casualties on either side.