Meme About Slavery Not Being Primary Cause of Civil War

Discussion in 'History' started by DoctorJones24, Jun 6, 2009.

  1. DoctorJones24

    DoctorJones24 Member

    Aug 26, 1999
    OH
    I'm sure we've all seen this claim, but I'm wondering its origins. I think I remember coming across it in some American Civ texts back in the mid-90s, but I don't remember if the texts were some clear Southern propaganda (which seems likely in hindsight). Regardless, it seems to have reached critical mass--you can't mention the Civil War these days without some glib fool chiming in: "But it wasn't even really about slavery!"

    Anyone up on Southern historiography want to fill us in on where this comes from?
     
  2. Mountainia

    Mountainia Member

    Jun 19, 2002
    Section 207, Row 7
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The initial moves to reduce slavery as the primary cause of the Civil War began with a tacit deal between the Republican party and ex-confederates in the 1870's and 1880's. The north and south eventually reconciled in agreement about white supremacy and the second-class citizen status of blacks.

    This culminated in the 1910's and 1920's, when Wilson, a white supremacist himself, segregated employees of the federal government, the KKK hit its membership high at over 5 million people, and Jim Crow laws were passed all over the country.

    By our time, there was pretty universal agreement that slavery is an evil, but since many people do not want to accept the fact the the south left the union because of that, it has become important to manufacture a completely new set of priorities.

    In doing so, they pick side issues, such as the 'state rights' and tariffs. These issue ignore the on-the-record statements of southern leaders at the time, and of other regions problems with these issues. Before Lincoln was elected, for example, it was northern states arguing for 'states rights' and the south insisting that the federal government had power of the states to enforce federal law (the fugitive slave law being the one they cared about.)

    However, there are many misconceptions about the north, too, which the 'slavery-was-not-the-cause' meme folks are right to point out. It is fair to say that most soldiers did not fight to free slaves/defend slavery, but for their own countries. It is fair to say the northerners were just as bigoted as southerners, and that people who feel like most of us today were a small minority, and often considered radical and dangerous.
     
  3. DoctorJones24

    DoctorJones24 Member

    Aug 26, 1999
    OH
    Of course, and that's true of soldiers on both sides and has been true of every war in human history. The grand plans of kings have never had any place in the foxhole.

    Right, this is the part I'm interested in. Obviously it's a whitewashing of Southern guilt. Is there a specific historian or group of historians most associated with this revisionism? Or is this just some evolving folk meme that has taken on a life of its own over the years? Just curious, as its become SO widely accepted (or at least discussed) in even fairly educated and progressive circles.

    I can understand the appeal, really. It's the kind of smart sounding thing to say that goes over well in certain venues, and then gets repeated by those impressed with its strangeness in the first place.
     
  4. Mountainia

    Mountainia Member

    Jun 19, 2002
    Section 207, Row 7
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I think one of the problems with getting a more accurate view of historical events is clouded by the ties those of us today have with the people involved in those events.

    In this case, much is made of southern guilt, and I think this has a lot to do with the resistance of accepting slavery as the primary cause. It puts all the onus on one side. Now, it may be fair to say that's where most of it belongs, but there are plenty of things done in the north, and there were plenty of others profiting from slavery, and not just in this country.

    In short, the rush to judge those involved impedes understanding and learning, and raises defensiveness. This is true about many historical events by many peoples throughout the world, not just the American south.
     
  5. DJPoopypants

    DJPoopypants New Member

    I wouldn't say the 'revisionist' academic argument was primary a southern one, or confined to the south. I took a mid-level civil war & reconstruction class in a northern college, taught by someone without a southern drawl, where the prof's (and textbooks') take was that it really wasn't 100% about slavery, but about state's rights, or the growing power of the federal goverment that the south could not stop or control.

    They had a fair point - the role of the federal government back then was nothing like it is today, so it can be difficult for us to really get the mindset of the south.

    I agree that the war was not to end slavery, especially since a few northern states that fought still allowed slavery. But it would be extremely narrowminded to think that the issue of slavery, and southern fears about losing control of the black population (think Haiti/Cuba), were not deep in the conscious or subconscious, and strongly influenced their arguments about states' rights , just as bigoted (by today's standards) northerners in non-slave states were concerned about the economic impacts of allowing slavery to expand and economically disadvantage the north.

    And to speculate on education - it is far easier to get young kids in grade school or high school to learn the civil war by giving them an easy black/white/good/bad/slavery prism with which to view the civil war, perhaps because young minds better understand the clear dichotomy of before/after (ie, slavery and state's rights before, no slavery and less state's rights afterwards). Surely a young, non-voting mind connects deeper with the issue of slavery, and less of state's rights.

    To go totally off on a tangent about not being able to understand the mindset and social forces of 150years ago, I am struck by the difference in the Quaker church impact then and now. 150-200 years ago, the quakers (and similar religious bents) were much more powerful than they are today, and I wonder why that christian sect essentially "died" and lost influence. In some ways, they were like the Mormons of today - holding moderate political and ethical power in certain geographical areas - but also leaving a bit of a disproportionate record/sway in the "educated" classes and written record.
     
  6. Mountainia

    Mountainia Member

    Jun 19, 2002
    Section 207, Row 7
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I would just like to point out that the issue of 'state rights' was not one that divided the north and south at the time of the Civil War.

    It depended on the topic at hand. Sometimes it was northern states crying about states rights. Sometimes it was western states, sometimes maritime states. No, if there had been no slavery, I don't think there was another issue that would have so divided the nation in such clear geologic terms as to have resulted in a Civil War.

    But don't ask me. Just ask the southern leader of the time. Read their proclamations and statements as to why they decided to leave the U.S. At that time, they were not squeamish about supporting and identifying slavery as the primary reason. It's difficult for us to fathom today, but they described slavery as an overall good thing to have.
     
  7. art

    art Member

    Jul 2, 2000
    Portland OR
    Nat'l Team:
    United States

    'propeganda' may be a strong word but those claims do seem to come mostly from southerners, and it is definately a central tenet of general southern apologist thought on the civil war. For what its worth in 1861 and 2, they're probably at least pwrtially right, Lincoln repeatedly said he'd save the union by whatever means necessary including keeping slavery, the war was primarily about saving or dissolving the union. It was only after both sides figured out how monstrous the war was going to be and how strongly the other side felt about their position that northern opinion became more about tearing down the old south than saving it, which meant tearing down slavery.

    So there's at least some simple minded truth to the claim but slavery was always the 300lb gorilla in the room, and to claim slavery wasn't a primary catalyst of the civil war is like saying the Iraq War isn't really about oil. Whether overtly intentional or not, in general I think of "slavery deniers" as being somewhere around the same ballpark as anti-semites or holocaust denyers, though that sounds pretty dramatic, and maybe slightly apples to oranges, but there's unquestionably a clear racial element to it, there's absolutely no question about it. There will never be a count of the number of Africans who died as a direct result of the slave trade and American slavery in general. Many, many thousands or maybe even millions, I'd say. World slavery in general, over the course of history, has to be the single biggest killer that isn't a disease. Perhaps all war in total is bigger.
     
  8. art

    art Member

    Jul 2, 2000
    Portland OR
    Nat'l Team:
    United States

    ehhh, no. absolutely not true. Border states (except West Virginia) had slavery but that is not the same thing, they all sent troops to both sides. You really need to read James McPherson's one-volume history of the war; school textbook history in this country is an absolute disgrace.
     
  9. art

    art Member

    Jul 2, 2000
    Portland OR
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    interesting tangent...well the quakers were really not ever more than a regional northeast sect, certainly their influence on the US northeast is alive and well today, but the "old northwest" (now the midwest), south and west coast were never much influenced (well perhaps the old northwest a bit more than the other regions) by any of the new world protestant sects like the quakers or shakers or amish, or "puritans", or any of them, or at least not like the northeast was, and frankly the northeast these days has nothing like the national imnfluence and cultural leadership it had 150 years ago when it was basically the only truly developed region of the country.
     
  10. DoctorJones24

    DoctorJones24 Member

    Aug 26, 1999
    OH
    This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. What's with the false Either/Or dichotomy?

    "100% about slavery OR about state's rights/growing fed"

    This is a silly distinction. Noone is talking about 100% of anything. Slavery was the fundamental overriding primary cause of the Civil War, period. I'm not sure how one could parcel out percentages for other related causes, or why it would be worth bothering. As an economic and cultural institution, slavery permeated all aspects of American life. To talk of the growing federal goverment and/or states rights as if those are things not related to slavery is meaningless. The compromises of 32 and 50 are good examples of just how powerful an issue it was.
     
  11. DoctorD

    DoctorD Member+

    Sep 29, 2002
    MidAtlantic
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Louis Menard's "The Metaphysical Club" has an interesting portrait of antebellum Boston, in which abolitionists were despised as kooks, and were a small minority in any case. He discusses the case of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr., who helped deny entry of two black students to Harvard Medical School. Anti-Southern sentiment in Boston, according to Menard, did not crystallize until after Fort Sumter.
     
  12. DoctorJones24

    DoctorJones24 Member

    Aug 26, 1999
    OH
    Really enjoyed that read. I don't remember any such pronouncements about when anti-Southern sentiment crystalized (though maybe anti-Southern is distinct from anti-slavery?) but it might be worth checking back out. My sense is that you're misremembering a bit, given that Mass. voted overwhelmingly for radical anti-slavery candidate Fremont in the '56 election.

    "Team of Rivals" paints a clear picture of the power of the anti-slavery Whigs and later Republicans well before Sumter.
     
  13. topcatcole

    topcatcole BigSoccer Supporter

    Apr 26, 2003
    Washington DC
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    You might want to look up "A. Lincoln" in history and see what he had to say about what he thought the war was all about.

    Show me this. You are pretty good at throwing the slurs around. What would you call someone who thinks "slavery was not the primary cause of the civil war" and "but it wasn't even really about slavery!" are equivalent statements?

    It would clearly be a waste of time to discuss it with you. Your mind is made up.
     
  14. DoctorJones24

    DoctorJones24 Member

    Aug 26, 1999
    OH
    They're equivalent in their wrongness, if slightly different in literal meaning.

    Hell yeah, it's made up. Look, I'm not against the intellectual practice of trying to find underlying, hidden causes of historical events. And looking for those in regards to the Civil War is certainly fascinating and worthwhile. But pretending that slavery wasn't the overriding factor that informed and shaped all others is just historically false.

    But you're right, I'm not interested in discussing whether slavery was the main cause. I was clear in the title and OP that I don't think that's debatable. I was just wondering if any of our history teachers/profs/grad students knew of the origin of this mistaken notion.
     
  15. DoctorJones24

    DoctorJones24 Member

    Aug 26, 1999
    OH
    Incidentally, I figured I'd go ahead and do the work myself since none of our resident historians seem particularly interested in the thread! :eek:

    So the term I was looking for apparently was the obvious "Neo-Confederatism." I wonder how they got their propaganda so widespread though. Just an example of the internet being a really useful tool of ignorance?
     
  16. Mountainia

    Mountainia Member

    Jun 19, 2002
    Section 207, Row 7
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    History is always about two eras; the one nominally being discussed, and the current time.

    You'll find many of the roots of neo-confederate history during times of political change. First after reconstruction when landed southern whites were re-exerting control over the political system and again after WWII when they were fighting to retain that control.

    Since slavery by then was universally considered evil, it seems to me to be a logical idea to minimize its importance.

    I think there is also a lot of resentment in the good vs. evil tome of American high school history books. A part of the over-reaction of simplifying the causes of the Civil War to being slavery is to act the contrarian about it.

    I think the issue of minimizing slavery as the primary cause of the Civil War is worth historical study itself.
     
  17. DoctorJones24

    DoctorJones24 Member

    Aug 26, 1999
    OH
    Totally agree--hadn't thought of it in exactly those terms, but I think you're right.

    Yeah, historiography is often as fascinating and telling as history.
     
  18. Mountainia

    Mountainia Member

    Jun 19, 2002
    Section 207, Row 7
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Right. It is a shame that history is so whitewashed. Students find it so uninteresting. To me, that is the farthest from the truth.

    Most societies use history to present morality plays in which their side is good and always making positive progress, while others are the cause of problems and the source of evil.

    It sucks the life right out of history when we see figures such as Lincoln, Jefferson, Washington, Lee, Wilson, etc. as heroes, all good, all the time. They are all so much more fascinating as real people. And in the end, we learn something of value by striving to get the 'best available version of the truth' (a phrase I've read from Bob Woodward.)
     
  19. HoopsBhoyInNC

    HoopsBhoyInNC New Member

    Jul 24, 2007
    North Carolina
    Club:
    Celtic FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    OK, let me throw some southern impression. Let me state that I'm a reasonable simple southern boy, I'm completely against ignorance and racism (pisses me off), I'm also a liberal. My family was too poor to have slaves, my family worked for themselves. Am I proud off my Southern heritage? Yes and no. Yes because we have our very own part in history, something that is uniquely ours. No, because unfortunately ignorant people and the idea of past slavery have caused many people to look at us as ignorant cave men, even though we are not (except the crazy people, which every region has).

    With all that said, here is what I have learned:

    1. Slavery was part of the war. The thing that is missed is the fact many people in the country where not fond of African Americans, and that includes the North. Slavery was more in the spotlight in the South due to the need of workers on farms and what not. All though the North had abolished slavery, women and children where forced to work in dangerous factory jobs that where very bad in themselves. As stated, slavery is one of the most disgusting things imaginable, no one has the right to own another human being. One thing that I don't understand is the idea of the Senate apologizing for slavery. No one alive today owned slaves, like I said earlier, my family was too poor to own slaves, and I myself have never and will never own anyone. Slavery is one of the oldest concepts in history, but even though it has disappeared from the spotlight, it still unfortunately still happens in smaller, more secretive countries.

    2. Tariffs and taxes where another huge reason. It's simple, the South had the raw products, and the North had the factories to produce them. The North started to put on very unfair taxes and tariffs on the finished products and foreign imports, causing the South to experience an economic down turn. These tariffs helped the factories grow, as well as put money in to the national government.

    3. Of course the "State vs. National Government" argument comes up. My view, the people are the governing body, but having order requires government, unfortunately. The fact is, if we had won, the country would have never survived the wars to follow, and slavery might have stuck for a while. So, don't tell my fellow southern fellows that I believe it is best that the North won, even though you Yankees are, and have been invading the South for awhile now to live here. :p
     
  20. Mountainia

    Mountainia Member

    Jun 19, 2002
    Section 207, Row 7
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I think your first point gets to the heart of it. The way history is often taught, people today are thinking with today's values and applying those to the North. Most historians know that is not an accurate picture of the North in the mid-nineteenth century.

    Your second point brings up a popular red-herring. Taxes (and in the 1800s, Tariffs) are always issues, but they were not the cause of Southern economic problems of the day. In fact, most plantations were profitable at the time. However, they took on a lot of debt, so that was an issue. Just not a war-causing one.

    It seems to me that if it were really taxes/tariffs, you would have seen the western farm states on the same side as the South, but that didn't happen.

    And the third idea of State Rights always strikes me as disingenuous. Up until the Republicans won the White House, it was the South pushing for federal oversight over northern states. Before 1860, the south had the White House and enough control in the Senate to control the Federal Government.

    I think. Hopefully some real historian can set me straight on some of this stuff.
     
  21. HoopsBhoyInNC

    HoopsBhoyInNC New Member

    Jul 24, 2007
    North Carolina
    Club:
    Celtic FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    True true.... But we can all agree that the CW was one of (if not THE) dumbest wars that we where ever involved with. Fighting against your brothers?Really?
     
  22. JBigjake

    JBigjake Member+

    Nov 16, 2003
    Slavery was certainly important to the class of people that ruled the south. The same people were Founding Fathers, speaking of freedom while owning slaves and devaluing women. If only 1% of southerners owned slaves, they had to convince the others on some other point. States Rights fits that need.
     
  23. NickyViola

    NickyViola Member+

    May 10, 2004
    Boston
    Club:
    ACF Fiorentina
    I'm hardly an American Civil War historian but it sure seems counter-intuitive to think that slavery could be the primary cause of such a bloody war. Civil wars are typicaly power struggles among the ruling class and I tend to think that this one was no different.
     
  24. yossarian

    yossarian Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jun 16, 1999
    Big City Blinking
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Just for starters read Alexander Stephens' Cornerstone speech and the Confederate Constitution. These are just two of many speeches, documents, etc, that leave little doubt that slavery was the primary cause of the war (but not the sole cause).

    As for your power struggles among the ruling class point, the American Civil War wasn't quintessentially a "civil war" in the European sense, where one faction within the government was trying to usurp the other faction's power and take over. In that sense the southern sympathizers are correct that the Civil War would be more aptly named if it were called the War of Secession, because it was about breaking away from the controlling government power, not overthrowing it.

    To a significant extent, it was still a power struggle among the ruling class, but the focus of that struggle was over what entity was sovereign with regard to issues like slavery....the state or the fed.
     
  25. That Phat Hat

    That Phat Hat Member+

    Nov 14, 2002
    Just Barely Outside the Beltway
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Japan
    I've only skimmed through this thread, but is it fair to say that the Civil War wasn't about the morality of slavery, but about the economics and political numbers game of slavery (as in, the industrialized North had little to gain from slavery, while the Southern slaves inflated the South's representation in the federal government)?

    So the revisionist argument is, since the North didn't fight against the evil of slavery, therefore, the war was not about slavery, but about economics and politics. Does that sound right?
     

Share This Page