Civil War: Fought over Secession or Slavery?

[Gaugingcatenate]

Yes..yes. When the states seceded a need naturally was felt to justify and explain, hence the declarations of causes. Some threw in everything but the kitchen sink. Like many here, I've read a lot about the war, including James McPherson's fine books. Here is his view:

"The cause of the Civil War must be divided into three parts: First, the issue of slavery and its expansion—which built up over decades and accelerated in the period between 1846 and 1860—came to a head in the presidential election of 1860, causing the deep South states to secede when Abraham Lincoln’s election convinced them they had lost control of the national government and, therefore, of slavery’s fate within the Union. Second, Lincoln’s determination not to compromise on the issue of slavery’s expansion. Third, Lincoln’s dedication to resupply rather than abandon Fort Sumter, and the decision of Jefferson Davis’ administration to fire on federal troops at the South Carolina fort. The final catalyst, as opposed to the long-term cause, was the crisis over Fort Sumter."

Well, now that McPherson says so, I am left no choice but to concede... ha ha ha, got ya.

What a laugh, this old codger is an Anti Confederate activist... he seems to believe there are still folks out there pining for the reinstatement of slavery or something. Bit of a joke I would have to say. Perhaps a good writer, I ve never read his stuff so cannot venture a view point on that. But good writing just makes it readable, not right.

And while there is no doubt that your list above is, to its limited extent, true, to leave out all the rest is, well, first order prevarication on his part. He, as he has studied the material, should know better than to make out all Southerners as evil doers... a region that had only bad intent on its agenda. And yet, from what I can tell, that is basically what he does.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Let the Professor of History at the United States Military Academy at West Point give you a concise and succinct sesh-plation:

Well, guess that video goes to show evidence that the winners get to determine the history. At least for those that do not want to investigate it themselves, eh? Thank god for the internet.

Funny how General Gump here didn't mention anything else but his premise in any of the sources he quoted. In the Declarations of Causes of most the states, they enumerated the States Rights and overreaching of the Federal government, I have no doubt newspapers [I haven't the ability currently to research this but think I can remember reading some in my university days, especially regarding the protective tariffis and during the Nullification Crisis ], besides the one he quoted, had various reasons and were especially keen on States vs National government powers as provided in our Constitution, as well they should have been. And we all still should. And the extemporaneous speech by Alexander Stevens, VP of the Confederacy now known as the Cornerstone Speech? From the way that General Forrest Gump here makes Stevens' speech out, it was ONLY about slavery. And yet in the speech Stevens indicated that enslavement was merely the "immediate cause" of secession, certainly it was not the only cause.

He also spoke of the elimination of the tariff and the prohibition of a central government from spending on internal improvements and his reasons were all grounded in State's Rights assertions, even the slavery issue comes under that heading. He went into detail on how the new government should do things, from actual specifics on Charleston harbor to how departments of the government should conduct themselves in a proper manner.

Being down here in Panama, I don't have a University research library to access and only the internet, but Wiki does give a link to his speech, so it is probably correct. But perhaps you can retrieve the Stevens speech and see for yourself all the other items that Gen Gump somehow failed to mention? All Stevens' references to the Magna Carta, securing of ancient rights, the fact that the new [Confederate] constitution would preserve the rights promised under the old constitution. He goes into specifics how that new constitution is better, going into detail as to length in office of a president, [six instead of four] and on and on in that vein. And, coinciding and concurring with most of the Declarations of Cause, he delineates the fact that our Constitution was a contract and that, like all contracts, if the terms are not being faithfully met, the parties have the right to rescind it.

He also in some ways takes a somewhat novel approach in somewhat turning the tables, indicating that, since the Union was ready to “fight for the accession of Texas, and are equally ready to fight now on her secession...” which is almost an enslavement action by the Federal government against the states. States that were not fighting to overthrow the Union, but only fighting to be FREE of the Union.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Secession was seen as an assault on the legitimacy of the nation, and Southern attacks on federal forts were clear acts of war.

The Confederates [ at least not that I am aware ] never promulgated the idea that the Union was not legitimate [sources please?], only that it had made promises and failed to keep them. That formerly sovereign and independent states induced, perhaps even going so far as to say seduced, into giving up some of that sovereignty...that those states should be free to choose whether to stay or not when the contract has been breached.

 

[Paperview]

Well, guess that video goes to show evidence that the winners get to determine the history. At least for those that do not want to investigate it themselves, eh? Thank god for the internet.

Funny how General Gump...

Your slur aside...

No single authoritative historian would dispute is was primarily about slavery. None.

It was the Cornerstone of their new "country."

 

[Paperview]

Maybe you should study how the CSA was founded, and hear the words of the people who founded it --

"But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other-though last, not least: the new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions-African slavery as it exists among us-the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization.

This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right.

.... Those ideas (in the US Constitution), however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it-when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."

...
...Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon

the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition. [Applause.]

This, our new Government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. "
​

Modern History Sourcebook: Alexander H. Stephens (1812-1883): Cornerstone Address, March 21, 1861

 

[Paperview]

Jefferson Davis' Farewell Address -- Senate Chamber, U.S. Capitol, January 21, 1861

<snip> [His state seceded because...] "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.

[^ Davis, making reference to well-known speeches by Lincoln citing the DoI in criticism of slavery.]

https://jeffersondavis.rice.edu/Content.aspx?id=87

A few years earlier:

Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858 Defending slavery and advocating secession if an abolitionist becomes president. The “dangerously powerful man” is Senator Seward, an opponent of slavery. "It seems now to be probable that the Abolitionists and their allies will have control of the next House of Representatives, and it may be well inferred from their past course that the will attempt legislature both injurious and offensive to the south. I have an abiding faith that any law which violates our constitutional rights, will be met with a veto by the present Executive. – But should the next House of Representatives be such as would elect an Abolition President, we may expect that the election will be so conducted as probably to defeat a choice by the people and devolve the election upon the House. Whether by the House or by the people, if an Abolitionist be chosen president of the United States, you will have presented to you the question of whether you will permit the government to pass into the hands of your avowed and implacable enemies. Without pausing for your answer, I will state my own position to be that such a result would be a species of revolution by which the purposes of the Government would be destroyed and the observances of its mere forms entitled to no respect. <snip> It requires but a cursory examination of the Constitution of the United States; but a partial knowledge of its history and of the motives of the men who formed it, to see how utterly fallacious it is to ascribe to them the purpose of interfering with the domestic institutions of any of the States. But if a disrespect for that instrument, a fanatical disregard of its purposes, should ever induce a majority, however large, to seek by amending the Constitution, to pervert it from its original object, and to deprive you of the quality which your fathers bequeathed to you, I say let the star of Mississippi be snatched from the constellation to shine by its inherent light, if it must be so, through all the storms and clouds of war. " Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858," where he advocates secession if an abolitionist is elected president.

There Jeff Davis is, years before Lincoln was elected, saying even if through Constitutional measures, by Amendment - anyone sought to deprive them of their slaves -- War! It's on.

If an Abolitionist is elected president, we are "avowed and implacable enemies."

 

[Paperview]

Just dripping in slavery....even on their currency.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Maybe you should study how the CSA was founded, and hear the words of the people who founded it --

"But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other-though last, not least: the new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions-African slavery as it exists among us-the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization.

This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right.

.... Those ideas (in the US Constitution), however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it-when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."

...
...Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon

the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition. [Applause.]

This, our new Government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. "
​

Modern History Sourcebook: Alexander H. Stephens (1812-1883): Cornerstone Address, March 21, 1861

Okay, we understand that you can increase the font size, that does not preclude all the other causes listed in the speech. You may ignore them all you want, freedom of speech is a Constitutional right and willful ignorance and blindness not a punishable crime either.

From the speech:

"So, taking the whole new Constitution, I have no hesitancy in giving it as my judgment, that it is decidedly better than the old. [Applause.] Allow me briefly to allude to some of these improvements. The question of building up class interests, or fostering one branch of industry to the prejudice of another, under the exercise of the revenue power, which gave us so much trouble under the old Constitution, is put at rest forever under the new. We allow the imposition of no duty with a view of giving advantage to one class of persons, in any trade or business, over those of another. All, under our system, stand upon the same broad principles of perfect equality. Honest labor and enterprise are left free and unrestricted in whatever pursuit they may be engaged in ...."

Of course, if you are unfamiliar with the history of the grievances, you will toss them away as trivial.

Immediate means right here, right now. Other economic and Constitutional grievances are incorporated in this extemporaneous speech. If you choose not to read them or ignore them, do not put it down to your sophistication, but rather a deliberate refusal to face the facts placed easily before you. You keep pushing slavery as the only cause, I keep acknowledging it was a cause, even the seminal immediate cause, but then you want to disdainfully disregard all the rest.

Be my guest, but if you are not looking to find the truth of the matter, please do not waste my time furthter.

 

[Sherman123]

Okay, we understand that you can increase the font size, that does not preclude all the other causes listed in the speech. You may ignore them all you want, freedom of speech is a Constitutional right and willful ignorance and blindness not a punishable crime either.

From the speech:

"So, taking the whole new Constitution, I have no hesitancy in giving it as my judgment, that it is decidedly better than the old. [Applause.] Allow me briefly to allude to some of these improvements. The question of building up class interests, or fostering one branch of industry to the prejudice of another, under the exercise of the revenue power, which gave us so much trouble under the old Constitution, is put at rest forever under the new. We allow the imposition of no duty with a view of giving advantage to one class of persons, in any trade or business, over those of another. All, under our system, stand upon the same broad principles of perfect equality. Honest labor and enterprise are left free and unrestricted in whatever pursuit they may be engaged in ...."

Of course, if you are unfamiliar with the history of the grievances, you will toss them away as trivial.

Immediate means right here, right now. Other economic and Constitutional grievances are incorporated in this extemporaneous speech. If you choose not to read them or ignore them, do not put it down to your sophistication, but rather a deliberate refusal to face the facts placed easily before you. You keep pushing slavery as the only cause, I keep acknowledging it was a cause, even the seminal immediate cause, but then you want to disdainfully disregard all the rest.

Be my guest, but if you are not looking to find the truth of the matter, please do not waste my time furthter.

Every single alleged class interest you've conjured up is always traceable back to slavery. Furthermore these ancillary causes you seem so fond of were always subordinate to the issue of slavery. Slavery is the solitary issue without which there could not have been a Civil War.

 

[Paperview]

Okay, we understand that you can increase the font size, that does not preclude all the other causes listed in the speech. You may ignore them all you want, freedom of speech is a Constitutional right and willful ignorance and blindness not a punishable crime either.

From the speech:....
Be my guest, but if you are not looking to find the truth of the matter, please do not waste my time furthter.

It all traces back to slavery, and it had been simmering in the decade prior.

It's obvious you know little about this matter, or are just starting to learn about it.

It's what I do for a living.

I eat, live and breath history. Day in and day out for nearing three decades.

The reason for my user name is because I work with original documents, letters from the Revolution Era to Civil War - some that are now in museums and Institutions. Some have been written about in books.

Thousands of original Civil war soldiers letters, documents, etc... have passed through my hands, as well as original items signed by near every CW General and near every Founder and US President...

Letters and docs actually signed by Jefferson Davis and Abraham Lincoln . Yes. I've touched the exact same paper they touched.

It's pretty humbling. You can continue with your attempts at Lost Cause pablum, but it goes against what every notable historian worth his or her salt knows to be true.

Throw all your words in a bucket and spill em out again if you like, it won't change the facts.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Just dripping in slavery....even on their currency.

Just overpowering in its overreach. Cause of almost 2% of the entire population to die horrible early deaths, even more to be maimed, damaged for life. To what result, an institution that was dying of its own accord, to be replaced by Black Codes, Jim Crow, the KKK, segregation?

Yeah, brilliant.

 

[Paperview]

Every single alleged class interest you've conjured up is always traceable back to slavery. Furthermore these ancillary causes you seem so fond of were always subordinate to the issue of slavery. Slavery is the solitary issue without which there could not have been a Civil War.

Indeed. The Southrons made it clear in their many declarations of independence and in a boatload of other statements, actions, laws and their own written constitution, the protection of Slavery was at the base of all.

It was the literal lifeblood of their economy, and they knew it.

Everything for the south revolved around the protection, perpetuation and expansion of slavery.

Everything.

 

[Paperview]

Every single alleged class interest you've conjured up is always traceable back to slavery. Furthermore these ancillary causes you seem so fond of were always subordinate to the issue of slavery. Slavery is the solitary issue without which there could not have been a Civil War.

You gotta love that piece he snipped of Stephens speech: "All, under our system, stand upon the same broad principles of perfect equality."

Yeah, except the near 4 million slaves they held in human bondage.

More than a third of their entire population.

 

[Sherman123]

View attachment 67200448

Just overpowering in its overreach. Cause of almost 2% of the entire population to die horrible early deaths, even more to be maimed, damaged for life. To what result, an institution that was dying of its own accord, to be replaced by Black Codes, Jim Crow, the KKK, segregation?

Yeah, brilliant.

Nonsense. There was no evidence it was dying of its own accord and voluntary abolition had all but ceased to exist in political discourse. Furthermore need we be reminded that the South initiated this war, not President Lincoln. All they had to do to avoid a war was to accept the duly elected President of the United States. Instead, fuming over the apparent triumph of abolitionism and the swinging pendulum away from the slave states they chose rebellion and war.

 

[Sherman123]

View attachment 67200448

Just overpowering in its overreach. Cause of almost 2% of the entire population to die horrible early deaths, even more to be maimed, damaged for life. To what result, an institution that was dying of its own accord, to be replaced by Black Codes, Jim Crow, the KKK, segregation?

Yeah, brilliant.

Furthermore the reason we had the Black Codes, Jim Crow, the KKK, and segregation was because of a lax reconstruction that essentially let the old Confederacy knit itself back together under the same White Supremacist rule that had just been overthrown by the armies of the Republic.

 

[Paperview]

View attachment 67200448

Just overpowering in its overreach. Cause of almost 2% of the entire population to die horrible early deaths, even more to be maimed, damaged for life. To what result, an institution that was dying of its own accord, to be replaced by Black Codes, Jim Crow, the KKK, segregation?

Yeah, brilliant.

How many more generations of slaves would you want to continue in bondage?

It wasn't "dying on it's own."

Consider the slave population - especially in the deep south, where there literally was a majority slave population in some states. That's right - more slave than free. Think about that.

When someone can give me a good answer to what would have been done with these folks...in the second column below, then I'll believe slavery might have had a chance to 'die out.'

State ---Free Population ---Slave Population (1860)
Alabama --519,121 ----435,080
Georgia ---505,088 ----462,198
Louisiana --376,276 ----331,726
Mississippi -354,674 ----436,631
South Carolina- 301,302 -402,406
Texas ---421,649 ----182,566
Arkansas --324,335--- 111,115
North Carolina -661,563 ---331,099
Tennessee--- 834,082--- 275,719
Florida ---78,679 ----61,745
Kentucky --930,201 ---225,483
Virginia --1,105,453 ---490,865
-----------------------------
[Numbers from the US Census]

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Every single alleged class interest you've conjured up is always traceable back to slavery. Furthermore these ancillary causes you seem so fond of were always subordinate to the issue of slavery. Slavery is the solitary issue without which there could not have been a Civil War.

Intractable ignorance noted. Read the thread, maybe look into the Hartford Convention where secession was a Northern, not slave related issue and involving overreach by the Federal government.

Neglecting our history to make a wrong assessment is just fluff. A lemon meringue pie with only the meringue ingredients, but still very much a lemon.

 

[Paperview]

Here's another lil factoid re: Civil War soldiers - both North and South.

If you took all the enlistments combined

Facts - The Civil War (U.S. National Park Service)

...it still is less than the total slave population during the Civil War.

 

[Sherman123]

Intractable ignorance noted. Read the thread, maybe look into the Hartford Convention where secession was a Northern, not slave related issue and involving overreach by the Federal government.

Neglecting our history to make a wrong assessment is just fluff. A lemon meringue pie with only the meringue ingredients, but still very much a lemon.

But the Hartford Convention didn't lead to secession and it didn't come close to leading us into a Civil War. Without slavery there would not, and could not, have been a Civil War. End of discussion.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

How many more generations of slaves would you want to continue in bondage?

It wasn't "dying on it's own."

Consider the slave population - especially in the deep south, where there literally was a majority slave population in some states. That's right - more slave than free. Think about that.

When someone can give me a good answer to what would have been done with these folks...in the second column below, then I'll believe slavery might have had a chance to 'die out.'

State ---Free Population ---Slave Population (1860)
Alabama --519,121 ----435,080
Georgia ---505,088 ----462,198
Louisiana --376,276 ----331,726
Mississippi -354,674 ----436,631
South Carolina- 301,302 -402,406
Texas ---421,649 ----182,566
Arkansas --324,335--- 111,115
North Carolina -661,563 ---331,099
Tennessee--- 834,082--- 275,719
Florida ---78,679 ----61,745
Kentucky --930,201 ---225,483
Virginia --1,105,453 ---490,865
-----------------------------
[Numbers from the US Census]

I don't want slavery at all, so don't start blaming me for slavery. I also abhor the horrific fact of 600,000 Americans killed, many more wounded and lives shattered, destruction/confiscation of properties, disruptions of the entire US economy, opportunity costs in human capital and financial capital that could have been applied elsewhere to much much better effect. Cheap labor was pouring in from Europe, modern machinery was replacing farm hands and again, for what, all the gains lost basically going back to slavery under black codes, jim crow, kkk, segregation... for the next 100 years? That is some accomplishment.

Time line of the abolition of slavery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Nonsense. There was no evidence it was dying of its own accord and voluntary abolition had all but ceased to exist in political discourse. Furthermore need we be reminded that the South initiated this war, not President Lincoln. All they had to do to avoid a war was to accept the duly elected President of the United States. Instead, fuming over the apparent triumph of abolitionism and the swinging pendulum away from the slave states they chose rebellion and war.

That is silly think. Slavery was worldwide going down the tubes. And to say that all the south had to do is accept this, that and the other things against their will. That is just a form of bondage, is saying you may remain in a situation in which you are not free to choose your form of governance, and accept the broken promises in the Constitution. You could say the exact same thing to a slave... all you have to do is stay, don't fight it, just work with us on this. Both are silly think.

 

[Paperview]

I don't want slavery at all, so don't start blaming me for slavery. I also abhor the horrific fact of 600,000 Americans killed, many more wounded and lives shattered, destruction/confiscation of properties, disruptions of the entire US economy, opportunity costs in human capital and financial capital that could have been applied elsewhere to much much better effect. Cheap labor was pouring in from Europe, modern machinery was replacing farm hands and again, for what, all the gains lost basically going back to slavery under black codes, jim crow, kkk, segregation... for the next 100 years? That is some accomplishment.

Time line of the abolition of slavery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline

well that was a total non-answer.

You said slavery was ending on it's own accord.

How would it have ended? It continued for seventy years after the constitution was written.

There were near four million slaves in the states below the Mason / Dixon line.

The CSA had a total population of 9 million.

Some states had majority slave populations. How? How would it have ended?

There was murder and mayhem and horrific battles in Kansas and Missouri going on for years before by the slavery and anti-slavery factions, and the new territories soon to be admitted were eyed with a twinkle, as the South hoped to make them slave Territories. They were even seeking to expand Slavery to Mexico, Cuba, Latin America...

They already claimed part of Arizona & NM territory.

It was all about expanding it -- and slavery was written in perpetuity in the CSA Constitution.

Now tell me just *how* would slavery have ended?

How?

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

But the Hartford Convention didn't lead to secession and it didn't come close to leading us into a Civil War. Without slavery there would not, and could not, have been a Civil War. End of discussion.

Yeah, you are absolutely wrong, but no use discussing it further, you mind is sealed. I cannot work miracles, just inform of the truth.

 

[Sherman123]

That is silly think. Slavery was worldwide going down the tubes. And to say that all the south had to do is accept this, that and the other things against their will. That is just a form of bondage, is saying you may remain in a situation in which you are not free to choose your form of governance, and accept the broken promises in the Constitution. You could say the exact same thing to a slave... all you have to do is stay, don't fight it, just work with us on this. Both are silly think.

The number and value of slaves continued to grow in the slave states all whilst the slave states agitated furiously for its expansion both at home into new territories and abroad into new locales like Cuba and the Caribbean. Linking it to international trends is irrelevant since it isn't the issue we're discussing.

As for comparing chattel slavery to the slave states being 'forced' to accept the free and fair election of Abraham Lincoln as President of the United States all I can say is you really need to call the Wahhhmbulance.

The rest of us: All you had to do to avoid the consequences of this action was avoid breaking the law.

You: Thats just like slavery! Thats what we said to our slaves! We're the same!

 

[Sherman123]

Yeah, you are absolutely wrong, but no use discussing it further, you mind is sealed. I cannot work miracles, just inform of the truth.

You obviously have a deep emotional need to expunge the Confederacy from the taint of slavery and white supremacy and thats fine I can't really change that. Luckily the symbols of that vile cause are being smashed all across this country and that is something I can, and do, contribute to.