Meme About Slavery Not Being Primary Cause of Civil War

Of course many hoped that secession would not lead to war, but you are wrong to assert that everyone or almost everyone knew that it would, and there were many - especially in the South - who really believed that Northern talk about "preserving the union through force" was merely bluster and bravado; perhaps even efforts to bluff the cotton states into not seceding. But that is a pointless argument to have because I do not want to get into a debate about hypothetical percentages of those who believed one thing versus those who believed another 150 years ago. But if you read the newspapers from 1860-61 before Ft. Sumter the coming war was described as often in the context of "if" rather than "when" it was going to happen... and for that matter the same was true during the debates prior to the Compromise of 1850 when secession was also threatened. And even if their efforts ended up being unsuccessful, it is absolutely true that there were significant elements in the North that lobbied very hard against going to war against the South all the way through and even after Ft. Sumter - not because they agreed with this specific effort at secession - but because they agreed with the right of secession based upon the principle of "government by consent" as defined by the founding fathers... just as when New England threatened secession over their angst at being corralled by the rest of the USA into war against Britain in 1812 and over the Louisiana Purchase a decade before (to see how ingrained the belief in the right of secession was in the early 19th century check out Edward Powell's Nullification and Secession in the United States which covers the early New England secession movement extensively).

I also reject your assertion "Its also really disingenuous to talk about the Civil War in the context of the revolutionary war." Of course no two movements are 100% comparable, but these two movements were significantly comparable in the basic fundamentals while of course not significantly comparable in all aspects. First - forget the phrase "No taxation without representation" - which may or may not have actually even been said by Patrick Henry. The American revolution wasn't about a lack of representation in Parliament... and even if the American colonies had been given proportional representation in Parliament that still wouldn't have made much difference in terms of "justifying" the rebellion nor would it have been giving the Americans what they actually wanted. What Patrick Henry and company wanted back in 1765 wasn't for Parliament to give them representation and then re-vote on the Stamp Act with some colonial input. What they wanted was to be left alone by King and Parliament to govern themselves as they largely had been for the first century and a half of the colonial era (except in regard to foreign policy and occasional unenforced international trade regulations). This long period of effective colonial self-government would be later dubbed the era of "Salutary Neglect." By the time all the specific disputes reached the tipping point in 1774-75 what mattered to them was their desire to chart their own political destinies largely free from interference from London. And of course by 2 July 1776 even a return to "Salutary Neglect" was no longer enough for the patriot cause... by then the debate had shifted from resolving grievances to the principle of self-government (repeatedly referred to by Thomas Jefferson as the principle of "government by consent") itself. Looking back the key moment in the revolutionary period came when Parliament responded to the Boston Tea Party with the Coercive Acts in April of 1774... closing Boston Harbor and abolishing the elected government of Massachusetts (and then following up on this with the dissolving of the General Assembly of Virginia after the Old Dominion had the audacity to call a special session to propose ways to show their support for and to help out Massachusetts as long as they resisted the Coercive Acts). It was at that point when the revolutionary effort ceased to be largely a protest movement and became the rebellion that would later morph into a secession movement because that was when the idea of the British government attempting to rule them at gunpoint became an imminent possibility. In the end, the Americans defined their fight for self-government not as a desire to have a greater say in the affairs of the central or "national" government. In the end they wanted nothing to do with the central or "national" government at all which they believed no longer served in their interests - its wasn't any longer about reforming the national government... it was about each colony divorcing itself from the national government in the name of self-government or government by consent.

Second, in regard to your point that the Democrats (in the late 1850s) still had the majority in Congress and the South a sympathetic Supreme Court misses the point to. It wasn't the number (yet) of Republicans in Congress that scared the crap out of the South... although the rapidly increasing power of the Republican Party since its founding just a few years earlier certainly alarmed them. It was the nature of the Republican Party - the fact that unlike every other major party up until then it was a purely sectional party with support only in the North and dedicated 100% to a pro-Northern agenda - that made it so scary and objectionable to the South. In the past the political parties (from the 1830s to 1854 the two major parties were the Democrats and the Whigs) had served as a moderating influence on sectional disputes because neither party could afford to alienate a section of the country and still have a prayer of winning. This new Republican party was different than those previous ones. Its core was made of traditional Northern Whigs dedicated to Henry Clay's "American System" of protectionist tariffs and (mainly Northern) internal improvements, and unconditional opposition to popular sovereignty (or any other means of expanding slavery into new territories). In the past, the South knew that whichever political party ruled Congress or the White House they would at least have a fighting chance of stopping objectionable legislation. With this new Republican party, which didn't exist at the local/state level much less run candidates for office in nearly all of the slave states, the whole nature of the game had changed. Now, they were basically in a position where the only political party they had left (the Democrats - many of whom weren't very reliable on things important to the South anymore as evidenced by the Buchanan years and the split that emerged going into the 1860 election) had to win every single election... because the nature of the opposition had changed from something that could be managed or endured into something that couldn't. To the South, the Republican Party of the 1850s-60s was as foreign to them, as potentially damaging to them, and as unaccountable to them as King George and Lord North of the 1770s-80s was to the 13 colonies. Ironically, while the prospect of a Republican president or a Republican Congress might not technically have been "taxation without representation," in effect - for all intents and purposes - it actually was.

On the assertion that "your argument presupposes that leaving a country is the natural right of any group of people" I will concede that I do indeed - as a liberal - believe in the Jeffersonian/Enlightenment principle of "natural rights." Meaning: I believe very strongly in the idea that rights such as life, liberty, and property are inalienable... that they are endowed to us by our creator rather than gifts from government, and no state or government of any kind has the legitimacy to infringe upon them. Looking at the secession movement of 1776-83 more closely though - especially the philosophy behind the Declaration of Independence - even more at its core was the principle of "government by consent." Whether or not their reasons were ultimately judged to be good by others, the people of the 13 colonies, through their elected governments and their delegates to the Continental Congress, had decided that they were revoking their consent to any longer being ruled by King or Parliament or any other British institutions. And as Thomas Jefferson clearly wrote "Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed," and whenever that consent is withdrawn, it is the right of the people to "alter or abolish" that government and "to institute a new government." Secession - as the means in this case to exercise the principle of "government by consent" - was in essence declared as an inalienable right of man that only God can take away. It didn't matter that they were severing their ties to their larger country or even that they were seceding from the freest major country in the world at the time. The inalienable right of "government by consent" trumped all of that, in essence rendering the structural makeup or nature of what they were seceding from - whether a country or an alliance or a school district - or even any pre-existing agreements, contracts, alliances, or pledges of loyalty irrelevant.

Nevertheless, to call the United States of America before the Civil War a country or nation is to do a disservice to the world country or nation and goes against what the founding fathers created first under the Articles of Confederation and later under the US Constitution. When they seceded from the British empire on 2 July 1776 they declared that they were "free and independent states (in the 18th century context of the term "state" this usage commonly meant what you and I would refer to as a nation or country - a sovereign political entity)," not a "free and independent state." When they signed a peace treaty with King George in 1783 ending the American revolution it was actually written as a baker's dozen of treaties between each of the colonies individually and the crown. Then, when they turned around and created the US Constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation a few years later they still didn't create a true nation or country. This new contract - as evidenced by the original draft and clarified in the 10th amendment - saw the states retain almost all the sovereignty they had traditionally exercised first as colonies and then as independent states (nations). And even when limited law making was granted to the federal government (Article I, Section 8) under the new contract, it was only in regard to a very tiny number of very specifically enumerated activities. Instead, they (the states) retained almost all legislative, executive, and judicial power... and transferred only a very limited genre of powers to the US government pertaining mainly to foreign policy and negotiating collective trade arrangements with foreign countries. The meaning of what had just been done (and more importantly what hadn't been done) was not lost on people and this meaning manifested itself for decades to come both in our hearts and our public discourse. Most people still thought of their "nation" as their state, as evidenced by the fact that in those days what today we call The United States of America was most often referred to as These United States of America. The federal government was merely the tool created by the states to take care of a handful of responsibilities that it was more desirable for the states to exercise in concert. Of course the emotional side of this point is somewhat moot, because by the middle of the next century a sizable chunk of Americans (especially in the North) were now thinking of the USA as a nation and it was increasingly acting as one. But even recognizing that what the USA had morphed into still doesn't negate the principle of "government by consent" no matter the size nor longevity nor even nature of the relevant political entities.

And to say that a "nevermind clause" would have been needed in the US Constitution - or any other contract for that matter - flies in the face of both logic and the traditional meaning of a contract. Surrendering the point momentarily, however, it should be noted that some of the states (like New York and Virginia) did indeed include "nevermind clauses" as part of their ratification processes just to be on the safe side... although many prominent Federalists (supporters of the Constitution) tried to explain to them that the right of secession was a natural right that didn't need to be enumerated. It was inalienable or implied, and the mere fact that the US Constitution did not explicitly prohibit secession guaranteed that the right of secession was not negated by ratification. This point was further hammered home not long afterward with the 10th amendment to the US Constitution - guaranteeing that all powers or rights not explicitly enumerated in the actual text of the contract were retained by the states and/or the citizens of the states. In essence, if the founding fathers had intended to make the Constitution a permanent union that the sovereign states could never get out of, they would written that into the contract.

Nevertheless, while throughout the late 18th and most of the 19th centuries the right of secession was largely taken for granted by most Americans as an inalienable right of man, the principle of secession more specifically in regard to our US Constitution was strengthened by our instinctive understanding of the meaning and nature of a contract. When two or more parties enter into a contract they agree to a certain set of terms with one another that they promise to uphold, and if one or more of the parties breaks the terms of the contract then the others parties are no longer bound by the terms of the contract either. In the case of the US Constitution 13 parties entered into a contract with one another between 1787-1790, and given that they were sovereign entities at the time of the contract's inception no greater power existed than they to judge whether the contract itself were ever breached. Furthermore, given that the sovereign states created the federal government in their contract and given that the sovereign states created it to be their (the states' and the citizens of the states) servant (not the other way around) - it would stand logic and (Common Law/contract law) precedent upside down on its head to claim that the federal government (the offspring or byproduct of the contract) or any functionary of the federal government would somehow magically acquire the power to judge itself as to whether its actions had breached the contract. I suppose one could make a case by case argument that the federal government had actually not breached the contract in the years since its ratification - maybe the Morrill Tariff of 1861 really wasn't for example a case of disproportional taxation as prohibited by the US Constitution - but again cherry picking examples to prove a negative misses the larger point. What matters here is what the sovereign states regarded to be the case in regard to whether or not they considered the contract breached, and the fact that (especially in the early days of the US Constitution) nobody then would have expected the states to maintain the contract if over time the product of their contract violated the contract.

Regardless of the reasons (inalienable rights of man, principle of government by consent, the precedent of secession set by the American Revolution itself, the words of so many prominent founding fathers, the text of the US Constitution itself including the 10th Amendment, the logic and meaning of a contract) for supporting the right of secession, however, the overwhelming body of written and anecdotal evidence suggests that Americans generally believed in the right of secession up until the Civil War. I also hate to cherry pick quotes to make a point, but in this case it works. Of course Thomas Jefferson is well known for his belief in the right of secession. Shortly after the War of 1812 (when the New England states threatened secession) Jefferson wrote:

"If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation" over "union," "I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.'"

And of the New Englanders who advocated the right of secession during those years? Massachusetts' Timothy Pickering (congressman, senator, US Secretary of State and Secretary of War, Chief of Staff to President Washington) wrote as early as 1803:

"The principles of our Revolution [of 1776] point to the remedy – a separation... for the people of he East cannot reconcile their habits, views, and interests with those of the South and West.

What was most telling though about the New England secession movement wasn't so much what the New Englanders themselves were saying. They were in the heat of the moment and had incentive to support the idea of secession as a means to an end. What was most telling was the relative lack of anyone else - in the South or the West or anywhere - telling them they couldn't do it. Back then the default argument against New England secession wasn't that New England couldn't secede... it was that New England shouldn't.

But instead of retreading anymore the well-established words of the founders and their immediate successors, let's take a look at the words and opinions of those closer in time to the Civil War when the right of secession was still a widely held belief. Here's what this obscure fellow named Abraham Lincoln said about the right of secession... at about the same time as he was opposing the Mexican War in 1848:

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable – a most sacred right – a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world."

"Nor," continued Lincoln, "is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the territory as they inhabit."

Of course, these are Lincoln's words when he was for secession before he was against it. Nonetheless, these words sound like a perfect justification for Virginia seceding from the USA in 1861 (which Lincoln opposed)... or for that matter the western counties of Virginia seceding from the rest of Confederate Virgina shortly thereafter (which Lincoln in a rare fit of consistency supported).

But a man is inclined to change his mind, right... and by 1860-61 things had well... changed, right? I mean that was way, way, way back in 1848. What about in 1860-61 when the idea of secession had ceased to be an idea and had become the reality of current events? Certainly by then no-one in his right mind still believed in the right of secession?

While, given the nature of the modern press, I would never dare to take what the leading opinion makers said as evidence that all or even most of the people agreed with them, what they wrote cannot be ignored either. In fact, I will even concede that the noticeably pro-secession Northern Press in 1860-61 (yes, I said that right... noticeably pro-secession Northern Press) may have only spoken for a large minority of Northern opinion rather the significant majority of Northern opinion that they claimed at the time. The historical record shows - based upon what people said and wrote at the time - that support for the right of secession in the North remained very significant well into 1861 - whether or not Northerners supported this particular secession movement or not.

The editor of the New York Daily Tribune Horace Greeley, a well known abolitionist and preeminent journalist of the day wrote shortly after South Carolina seceded "if tyranny and despotism justified the American Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861" A couple of months later he wrote "Nine out of ten people of the North were opposed to forcing South Carolina to remain in the Union," for "the great principle embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration . . . is that governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed." Therefore, if the southern states wanted to secede, "they have a clear right to do so."

Now let's be fair, I don't necessarily believe Greeley's claim that 90% of Northerners were in favor in February of 1861 of letting the South go without a fight. On the other hand, I do not doubt for an instant the reality that a very large and significant chunk of Northern opinion did indeed embrace the position championed, expressed, and reported by countless others in the North at the time.

From the Detroit Free Press - Feb. 19, 1861: "An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful could produce nothing but evil -- evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content."

From The New York Times - March 21, 1861: "There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go."

From the Bangor Daily Union - November 13, 1860: "If military force is used then a state can only be seen as a subject province and can never be a co-equal member of the American union."

 

This is a pretty common revisionist theory ITN, it's an interesting theory but it's also been pretty well and thoroughly debunked by now. While the "rich mans war poor mans fight" was a pretty common theme on BOTH sides it really holds no water when you look at the actual numbers of participants; for the most part the south participated in a "total war", they really didn't have a choice, where the North just had an overwhelming advantage in both manpower and industrial capacity. And to say slavery wasn't a motivation for the guy in the ranks is like saying oil isn't a motivation for the guy in the ranks in Iraq today...perhaps true on an immediate level but ultimately irrelevant, there would not have been a war but for slavery IMO. And please don't forget that the single most crucial event leading to war was the attack on Ft Sumter; until then not all of the confederacy had even seceded, it was the final catalyst making a shooting war inevitable, and it was most definitely an action of the south. Virginians may well have been primarily defending their homes througout the war, but the choice they made was to side with the South, and the South shot first.

I don't recall the source or actual numbers but I remember reading once (something like this) that the state of Massachusetts had roughly the same industrial output as all 11 confederate states combined in 1860. That might not be 100% accurate, it might only apply to certain industries, I don't remember the details... but the point is while its true the south lacked an adequate rail system, it also lacked adequate industry when compared to the north, and that's not revisable.

 

Did anyone ever sit through the visual misery that was Gods & Generals?

Jeff Daniels' character Joshua Chamberlain has a pretty good monologue about why he's fighting. I always thought it was a good preformance by Daniels, even though the movie was shit.

Anyway, late to the party here, but anyone trying to make the Civil War about anything other than slavery, and the economic conditions surrounding it, is fooling themselves.

 

Or international support, Cornwallis' lackey wouldn't have given up the sword at Yorktown without the French fleet blocking his escape through the Chesapeake.

By the mid-1800s though international support for Slavery was clearly waning, and it was difficult for the CSA to get any international help.

 

THere is an element of racism, no doubt, but there's often just an element of pure cussed stubbornness, a whole lotta people in the south(and a whole lot of southern sympathisers) have always, do still, and always will despise northerners telling them how to live their lives; for many people, then and now, the central issue could have been many things other than slavery and the emotion would have been just as strong.

 

The Union used a draft, did they not?

 

I think the more interesting question is whether or not the Founders could've legislated a compromise which would've put slavery to bed prior to the Civil War.

My thought is that it would've been incredibly difficult to put together a union of 13 states that included an expiration date for slavery.

It was difficult enough for them to come to the three fifths compromise.

 

I think it's less racism or out-and-out evil than simple disregard for human dignity.

And I think much of it is contrarianism for its own sake. I can certainly sympathize - there is a small, but yet undeniable joy in going against the conventional wisdom and feeling a little bit smarter the average guy. And there is enough complexity in the build up to the Civil War to obfuscate the issues, and for someone to say, "See, the North wasn't that upset about the evils of slavery. Ergo, the Civil War was not about ending slavery."

Yeah, it's intellectually dishonest (or at least obtuse), but I don't think it's malicious, and it's perfectly understandable.

 

Actually, it didn't start in any of the three. World War II began in Asia in 1941 with the attacks on Pearl Harbor, Singapore, and Hong Kong, and the sinking of the Prince of Wales. While the Second Sino-Japanese War would eventually be encompassed in the greater conflict of WWII, it wasn't the beginning of it. Prior to the involvement of the European Allies, it was an isolated regional conflict between a great power and a major power (and there is a hell of a lot of room for doubt as to whether or not China during the Nanjing Decade constituted a major power considering Guomindang control over territorial China was tenuous at best), not a global one.

Unless you consider Japanese imperial expansion onto the Asian mainland to be the beginning of World War II, of course, but that would be silly, as that would take you back even before World War I as Japan claimed de jure rule over Korea in 1910 (and had de facto rule over it since 1876).

 

Well, or neo-realism, as there is a certain element of Realpolitik in what he's implying. Of course, even neo-realism isn't as reductivist as he's being - for them, even the whole Wille zur Macht thing is a means to an end rather than an end in itself.

 

nicephoras and That Phat Hat seem to think that because I think that those who seek the highest political positions are driven by and to power, that this means I think *everyone* is driven by and to power.

Anyone who does not believe that the Abraham Lincolns and Jefferson Davis' of the world are driven by power is pretty naive.

 

That's a nice strawman you got there.

I was careful to point out early on that I think individuals are driven by power. But mass events like the Civil War are not driven purely by power. Even if Lincoln had made every single decision based on advancing or maintaining power, it would be impossible without their enablers, who are unconcerned about Lincoln's desire for power for its own sake.

 

Anybody who thinks you can reduce my views on the Abraham Lincolns and Jefferson Davis of the world down to "they are driven by power" is pretty naive, IMHO.

 

Note to self: the "ignore list" function only works if you're logged in.

 

Wow.

 

Wow what?

 

Well, for the purpose of this discussion, reducing your argument to "Lincoln and Jeff Davis were only concerned about their power" works just fine, since your contention is that all practical considerations are irrelevant to the question of what caused the war.

 

The political system of the United States at that time is *the* practical consideration...

 

You mean the political system that was set up to tip-toe around the disagreement over slavery?

 

Clearly; and designed with a power vacuum.

 

Realpolitik and structural determinism... yeah, that's neo-realist thinking, not movement conservative. Interesting.