Civil War: Fought over Secession or Slavery?

[OrphanSlug]

I have a hard time believing that hundreds of thousands of Americans would die to preserve one side from seceding from another. It's much easier believing that the north would want to fight to the death to free the slaves and the south would fight to the death to keep them. Sure Lincoln made the case to prevent secession, which imo was a slick way of getting as many people as possible on board, but it was ultimately about slavery. Your thoughts?

Seems like we have to go through this all the time. The civil war was fought because of socioeconomic disagreement.

The aristocracy of the southern states wanted an socioeconomic model that included slavery, as they looked at that form of society and economy in terms of "our way of life" (or, a type of conservative view on things prevalent of the period and area.) Arguably, it was only the aristocracy class of that society that had the means to own larger plantations and own slaves. The majority of those in the south did engage in agriculture but that does not mean they could afford slaves. In direct competition to that was the aristocracy of the northern states who wanted a socioeconomic model that eventually became the industrial revolution. It was still a mechanism of society and economy that had a class of very low earning workers but they did not want the model of slavery included in that. There was still defined classes of society and blacks in the north were not really treated all that better all things considered. Also, Lincoln's own comments about blacks back then was not some sunshine and roses opinion in the context of freedoms for all.

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races [applause]--that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people, and I will say in addition to this that there is physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality." - Lincoln, September 18, 1858.

As with most things we tend to look at the history of all this and talk about secession being a motivation to ensure continuance of whatever socioeconomic model. But really what you have is two very different views from aristocracy on how a nation would develop. And they used everyone else to fight it out for them under the banners of keeping the union intact vs. succession from the union for these various socioeconomic reasons. Before the war even broke out there was plenty of both side antagonizing the other via trade problems and inclusion in governance.

The civil war was not exclusively about slavery, nor was it exclusively about the condition of the union. It was about socioeconomic direction, and two very different opinions from aristocracy developed. All things considered, it was very early on in this nation's history that these opinions became completely incompatible. Civil war was inevitable given these two distinctions.

 

[JC Callender]

the south was an agricultural economy while the north was industrial, the south was buying it goods from Britain, because they were cheaper then northern goods, so congress along with northern states placed a tariff

on goods from Britain, making them to expensive for the south to buy them, so that they would have to buy from the north, since south was not longer buying British goods, the British stop buying southern cotton and hurt the southern economy.

Fair point. Any idea what percentage the South was losing as a result of this? And why do you suppose the North didn't mind paying the tariff?

 

[Master PO]

I've already read enough history to see that. State's rights and Slavery both played a part in the Civil War, but I still think that the issue of slavery was definitely a driving factor in causing the Southern States to secede from the Union.

i don't disagree, but when an poster states its 100% over slavery

when the northern states and the federal government is not following there constitution, what is a state to do?

 

[TheGoverness]

i don't disagree, but when an poster states its 100% over slavery

when the northern states and the federal government is not following there constitution, what is a state to do?

How exactly was the North and the Federal Government not following the Constitution?

 

[Master PO]

Fair point. Any idea what percentage the South was losing as a result of this? And why do you suppose the North didn't mind paying the tariff?

the tariff was hurting the south, and they complained the tariff was aimed at them, a compromise was reached over it, but the compromise had a build in limitation in years, and the problem boiled over after about 15 years

 

[Master PO]

How exactly was the North and the Federal Government not following the Constitution?

because the north had taken southern property, which the federal government should have forced against the north, but they didn't, and laws were being made which excluded southerns in the opening of the west.

 

[Fearandloathing]

I have a hard time believing that hundreds of thousands of Americans would die to preserve one side from seceding from another. It's much easier believing that the north would want to fight to the death to free the slaves and the south would fight to the death to keep them. Sure Lincoln made the case to prevent secession, which imo was a slick way of getting as many people as possible on board, but it was ultimately about slavery. Your thoughts?

Actually both were secondary issues. It was economics. If slavery went away the southern states would go bankrupt without compensation. And many in the North were looking to take advantage of the that and the cheap labor "freed" slaves offered

 

[TheGoverness]

because the north had taken southern property, which the federal government should have forced against the north, but they didn't, and laws were being made which excluded southerns in the opening of the west.

And what part of the Constitution did that violate?

 

[JC Callender]

the tariff was hurting the south, and they complained the tariff was aimed at them, a compromise was reached over it, but the compromise had a build in limitation in years, and the problem boiled over after about 15 years

There will always be disagreements between people with opposing interests, but imo, these more minor disagreements were used as an argument for both sides to bring as many people on board to their side as possible. None of these would cause a civil war without slavery though.

 

[Master PO]

And what part of the Constitution did that violate?

the constitution says that states have to enforce the laws of other states, and if not the federal government is to see that they do, the north violated property laws, and the federal government did nothing.

the federal government wrote laws, which southerns were excluded from those laws concerning the movement west.


some people think because their intentions are good and noble, this makes its OK to violate the constitution, and the constitution does not work that way.

 

[Master PO]

There will always be disagreements between people with opposing interests, but imo, these more minor disagreements were used as an argument for both sides to bring as many people on board to their side as possible. None of these would cause a civil war without slavery though.

the states agued over issues for years, but Lincoln, lit the power keg.


note: Lincoln stated secession was legal in 1854......as did the founders.

 

[Goshin]

I don't' believe the south was fighting for "honor" at all, I think they were scared to death of not only losing their economy but also of what the slaves would do to them once freed. I think most Americans looked at our Declaration of Independence and other founding documents and thought, "why the hell are we still enslaving a race" The vast majority being from the north because they didn't have the same worries the south had of freeing the slaves.

I think you're attributing too much nobility of motives to the North and too little to the South.


Consider this journal entry by a Confederate soldier, at a time when he was a POW and the war was coming to a close...

April - I suppose the end is near, for there is no more hope for the South to gain her independence. On the 10th of this month we were told by an officer

Page 70
that all those who wished to get out of prison by taking the oath of allegiance to the United States could do so in a very few days. There was quite a consultation among the prisoners. On the morning of the 12th we heard that Lee had surrendered on the 9th, and about 400, myself with them, took the cursed oath and were given transportation to wherever we wanted to go. I took mine to New York City to my parents, whom I have not seen since 1858. Our cause is lost; our comrades who have given their lives for the independence of the South have died in vain; that is, the cause for which they gave their lives is lost, but they positively did not give their lives in vain. They gave it for a most righteous cause, even if the Cause was lost. Those that remain to see the end for which they fought - what have we left? Our sufferings and privations would be nothing had the end been otherwise, for we have suffered hunger, been without sufficient clothing, barefooted, lousy, and have suffered more than any one can believe, except soldiers of the Southern Confederacy. And the end of all is a desolated home to go to. When I commenced this diary of my life as a Confederate soldier I was full of hope for the speedy termination of the war, and our independence. I was not quite nineteen years old. I am now twenty-three. The four years that I have given to my country I do not regret, nor am I sorry for one day that I have given - my only regret is that we have lost that for which we fought. Nor do I for one moment think that we lost it by any other way than

Page 71
by being outnumbered at least five if not ten to one. The world was open to the enemy, but shut out to us. I shall now close this diary in sorrow, but to the last I will say that, although but a private, I still say our Cause was just, nor do I regret one thing that I have done to cripple the North.

 

[Master PO]

And what part of the Constitution did that violate?

Article. IV.

Section. 1.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.


section 2

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

 

[Master PO]

the founders, make it known at the constitutional convention......SECESSION IS LEGAL!....MAY 31ST 1787

darn, i wanted someone to challenge me over this!

 

[Tigerace117]

the constitution says that states have to enforce the laws of other states, and if not the federal government is to see that they do, the north violated property laws, and the federal government did nothing.

the federal government wrote laws, which southerns were excluded from those laws concerning the movement west.


some people think because their intentions are good and noble, this makes its OK to violate the constitution, and the constitution does not work that way.

People aren't property. The government shouldn't have done anything.

Excuse me if I'm not broken hearted that traitors got excluded from the benefits of the movement west

 

[JC Callender]

I think you're attributing too much nobility of motives to the North and too little to the South.


Consider this journal entry by a Confederate soldier, at a time when he was a POW and the war was coming to a close...

I appreciate you posting this, but I can't tell what this soldiers motives are, other than Southern independence. Btw, I don't believe every southern person was rotten, but I do believe the south was terribly corrupted by slavery. I don't believe every Northerner was perfect either, but they did free the slaves.

 

[TheGoverness]

People aren't property. The government shouldn't have done anything.

Excuse me if I'm not broken hearted that traitors got excluded from the benefits of the movement west

Neither am I. **** the Confederacy is what I say.

 

[JC Callender]

the states agued over issues for years, but Lincoln, lit the power keg.


note: Lincoln stated secession was legal in 1854......as did the founders.

Lincoln said a lot of things, even concerning sending African Americans back to Africa. But what he ultimately did is what ultimately matters.

 

[Henrin]

People aren't property. The government shouldn't have done anything.

Excuse me if I'm not broken hearted that traitors got excluded from the benefits of the movement west

Why are people intent on saying things factually incorrect? Anything can be property really. You just need to have the ability to control it, and there you go, it's property. Now property claims having justified merit is a different matter that deals with how that property came into being and the facts about that property. The issue with property claims of other people is that it aggresses on other peoples claims to themselves and their own freedom.

 

[lovepolitics2]

Henrin.....I will say right off I haven't read this whole thread yet. I will reply to yours because that is exactly what the war was about .....government overreach.

 

[JC Callender]

Henrin.....I will say right off I haven't read this whole thread yet. I will reply to yours because that is exactly what the war was about .....government overreach.

Would you say there's a large part of the population today that believes the government is overreaching?

 

[lovepolitics2]

Would you say there's a large part of the population today that believes the government is overreaching?

Yes a large part does believe that.... I know I do. Sadly it isn't enough of the population today that is upset about it.

 

[Henrin]

Would you say there's a large part of the population today that believes the government is overreaching?

You're dealing with a different people, a different value system, different views on government, and a different culture. Today people have no stomach to physically challenge their government and the line the government has to cross for even a complaint from most people expands outwards all the time. In those days it was just different and people wouldn't tolerate things as easily.

 

[Goshin]

Lincoln said a lot of things, even concerning sending African Americans back to Africa. But what he ultimately did is what ultimately matters.

This is where you're running off into fallacy. Motives were the topic of your OP, were they not?


The Civil War was not initially motivated by a desire to free all slaves on the part of the Union. It was motivated by a desire to keep the Southern states IN the Union.

Southerners fought, in the main, for "States Rights" and not out of a love for slavery as an institution. You don't get men to fight to preserve a high standard of living for a small number of wealthy plantation owners, and for an institution most of them were too poor to benefit from.


Lincoln was originally against emancipation, and changed horses in mid-stream. The war was about whether the Southern states could freely conduct their affairs without being dominated and impoverished by the Federal congress, which was dominated by the North and Northern industrial and shipping interests.


Almost every war ever fought had an underlying causality based in economics.

 

[TheGoverness]

Yes a large part does believe that.... I know I do. Sadly it isn't enough of the population today that is upset about it.

I disagree. A whole bunch of people in the US distrust the government.