Was slavery the primary cause of the war?

VTYank09 · Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 11:19 pm Post subject: Reply

Chief, you make some very good arguments/points. If I am coming off like I believe slavery was THE one and only cause, I apologize. I did not mean my arguments to sound that way. But I do believe that slavery, in one way or another, was a cause, a major cause, of the war. I think some underlying reasons that had connections to slavery, or slavery motivating it, caused the war as well. But there were other reasons, important as well, with no connections to slavery at all.

You are also right, and I agree when you state that not the whole South owned slaves. Only few did. Some general figures to back you up: About 1.5 million families (3/4 of Southern population) had no slaves. Around 345,000 had 10 slaves or less and the "elite" top 1,700 families of the South owned more than 100.

Your argument that the North relied on the South for materials and such and the South on the North for machinery...excellent. I could not agree more. The North depended on the South. I haven't done much research on that so I dont really know.

The rights of the South to become its own nation is in question too. While in some ways I agree with their reasoning, secession was not mentioned in the Constitution for example, the Confederate govt. was full of contradictions and moments of hypocrisy. They believed one thing, but practiced another due to the current circumstances.

If you closely read the states secession proclamations and the Confederate Constitution, it reveals that it was primarily one state right that impelled their separation: the right to preserve African American slavery within their borders. These are just a few quotes from men of that time period on slavery, this is what they believed. I'm not necessarily trying to back my argument up, but I'm just showing that some people from this time period also believed slavery to be a cause of the war.

A North Carolina newspaper editorial: "it is abolition doctrine . . . the very doctrine which the war was commenced to put down."

Robert M.T. Hunter, Senator from Virginia, "What did we go to war for, if not to protect our property?"

James H. Hammond Congressman from SC: "the moment this House undertakes to legislate upon this subject [slavery], it dissolves the Union. Should it be my fortune to have a seat upon this floor, I will abandon it the instant the first decisive step is taken looking towards legislation of this subject. I will go home to preach, and if I can, practice, disunion, and civil war, if needs be. A revolution must ensue, and this republic sink in blood."

From the diary of James B. Lockney, 28th Wisconsin Infantry, writing near Arkadelphia, Arkansas (10/29/63): "Last night I talked awhile to those men who came in day before yesterday from the S.W. part of the state about 120 miles distant. Many of them wish Slavery abolished & slaves out of the country as they said it was the cause of the War, and the Curse of our Country & the foe of the body of the people--the poor whites.

Sterling *beep*, planter from Courtland, AL, "The South had $2,000,000,000 invested in Slaves. It was very natural, that they should desire to protect, and not lose this amount of property. Their action in this effort, resulted in War. There was no desire to dissolve the Union, but to protect this property."

As I said before, just some people who also believed slavery to be a causing factor. And of course, its all opinion. One final thing, to add to your Lincoln quote, Lincoln also said that the Union could not survive half-slave and half-free. Hmmm...interesting. Haha, thats something else to debate. Well, thats all for tonight, goodnight. Peace out! Very Happy

chief_joseph · Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 11:28 am Post subject: Not the one and only cause

Hey Yank09....I indeed misread your statement at first.
Now I see clear what you have meant Idea

!
And yessir, I think we are speaking the same language Cool

Slavery was one important ingredient of this explosive recipe which started the war.

The only acceptable guy in this curiosity of war and manners of the participants was "Rhett Butler".....well we all know he is "Gone with the Wind" Laughing

Lucinda · Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 11:49 pm Post subject:

This is an interesting discussion. I'd like to join in. I'm positive that there will be many who disagree with my opinion, but I believe that slavery was THE primary cause of the American Civil War.

Now, I am well aware that the soldiers who fought on both sides had many motivations for joining the war effort. However, the issue at hand is what actually CAUSED the war. Beyond question, I believe the cause to be the issue of slavery. The Southern states needed slavery in order to continue their agricultural economy. In the North, there were a number of abolitionists, but I think the average citizen north of the Mason-Dixon line did not have strong feelings either way regarding slavery. Actually, the main bone of contention between North and South in the years prior to the Civil War was whether or not to allow slavery in the new territories that came into the U.S. because of the Mexican War.

Because the South relied on slave labor in order to survive, they wanted slavery in those territories, the North did not. Let's take a look at the many
events leading up to the war:

1) The Missouri Compromise - 1818
2) The Compromise of 1850
3) The Kansas-Nebraska Act
4) The Supreme Court case of Dred Scott - 1857
5) The strengthening Republican Party - Lincoln/Douglas debates
6) The John Brown Raid in Harpers Ferry - 1858

All of these events directly led up to the 1860 election of Abraham Lincoln and the South seceding from the Union.

The details of the 6 events listed above can be found online or in any books about the Civil War and slavery. I ask all who respond to my post to briefly research each event. You will find that slavery was the ONLY issue bringing about all of the events I listed.

Indeed, "State's Rights" issues drove the Southern states to secede from the Union, and I think the reason the Southern states seceded was because they felt their way of life was being threatened by the North...that way of life depended on slave labor. Slavery was the cause. No matter why the average Union or Confederate soldier chose to take up arms against their fellow Americans, each one of those who participated did so because of the politics of the issue of slavery.

I am not implying in any way that other motivating factors were not involved. My point is that when one asks "What caused the American Civil War?", that cause was slavery. Just do some research on the political events of the early to mid 1800's. There seems to be no bigger issue.

And now, I'm prepared to be faced with quite a debate. I'm looking forward to it!

Regards,

Lucinda

possum · Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 1:59 am Post subject: was slavery the primary cause

My newest offering on the subject is in "Off Topic" which somehow ended up "On Topic".

And I don't need to hear about how Grant probably paid his slave that probably wasn't a slave..i was just trying for a nice contrast.

possum · Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 4:34 am Post subject: was slavery

In his first inaugural speech Lincoln promised several times tht he had no intention to interfere with Southern slavery - that it would be unsconstitutional to do so.

In his famous letter to news editor Horace Greeley August 22, 1862, Lincoln wrote:
"My paramount objective in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery."

According to both President Lincoln and the US Congress the conflict over states' rights was the cause of the war:

U.S. Congress July 22, 1861:

The purpose of the war was not "interference with the rights or established institutions of those states (ie slavery, but to preserve the Union with the rights of the several states unimpaired."[/i]

Lucinda · Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 6:34 am Post subject:

Possum,

I believe the issue of slavery has been debated ever since the Founding Fathers met in Philadelphia as delegates of 13 colonies...Before The U.S. was even a Nation.

I did not say that the issue of "State Rights" did not bring about the firing on Fort Sumter or any of the events immediately preceeding that event. The politicians in the South were, indeed, concerned about their rights. They did not want any other political force (ie: The Federal Government) to dictate to them.

I am also well aware of Lincoln's First Inaugural Address and the contents of his letter to Horace Greeley. Lincoln was a politician. He knew how to present issues in the very best light.

The debate for States' Rights was based on the issues of slavery. The economic structures of the North and the South were vastly different. The South, in order to expand, needed slavery to be legal in new territories. The Plantation-owning South did feel that the right of a state to secede was paramount and they chose to do so. There is no debate needed on that issue.

Again, I say simply look at the major political events leading to the Civil War. They were, in fact, all based on slavery. That is why I stand firmly on the belief that slavery was the cause of the American Civil War.

Respectfully,

Lucinda

possum · Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 12:59 pm Post subject:

Have you been to my "Off topic" prevailing views posts yet? then we'll talk

Lucinda · Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 3:17 pm Post subject:

Possum,

I had not read your "off-topic" posts before. I did not think off-topic posts dealt with Civil War issues. I see I was wrong.

Indeed, you have presented many valid and truthful points. I am not taking issue with the South, or the North, for that matter. I am basing my viewpoint on historic fact, too. Hypocrisy has existed as long as there have been human beings on this Earth. Yes, the South was treated unfairly at times. Yes, there are those who form their opinions in ignorance.

Even though I have lived in the Northeast U.S. all of my life, I see the wrongs in sectional beliefs. My bookshelves have a much higher count of Confederate histories than Union. I greatly admire men like Robert E. Lee, Thomas Jackson and many others who held true to their convictions. Would anyone not agree that they believed they were on the "right" side?

I also know that good and evil has always coexisted among all of mankind. My views do not argue with right or wrong. Not all Northern citizens of the Civil War era were wrong, and certainly very few were truly honorable in their views of slavery. I am from an area of Pennsylvania which is heavily populated with those of Quaker beliefs. There is a VERY active Quaker congregation in my hometown. There are scores of historic properties throughout my area which were used by the Underground Railroad in the 1800's. Please do not think I am praising religion...I am not. Actually, I hold the belief that "religion" is not equated with "morality" at all. That's all I will say about religion. My point is that I accept history for what it was. The events of history are facts, many times those events transpired because of foolish mistakes made by those involved. Rarely, history has played out because of "the right reasons."

Again, the question at hand is "Did Slavery Cause the Civil War." I say, yes sir, it did. Regardless of any other issues, or of mistreatment of either side, or even the argument of who was right or wrong, the issue of slavery brought about the war.

There seems to be an abundance of books on the market today dealing with "what ifs." Nearly all are written about the Confederacy being victorious and what would have happened if that were the case.
I would like to take the liberty of momentarily changing history from the colonial times through the Civil War.

Let's say that slavery was abolished in the Declaration of Independence. The Unites States of America was without slavery...

a) The Missouri Compromise would not have happened b/c Missouri would have been admitted to the Union as a free state along with Maine. The 36/30' boundary would not exist.

b) The Compromise of 1850 would not have been part of our history. California would have been admitted to the Union and those territories acquired during the Mexican War would not have needed territorial governments.

c) The Kansas-Nebraska Act would have been negated completely b/c it was passed in order to repeal the Missouri Compromise.

d) No Dred Scott Case...He would have been free.

e) John Brown would have had no reason to even consider going into the South to forcibly free any slaves.

f) The Republican Party would not have risen out of a staunch anti-slavery stand.

All of these events WERE historic facts. All of them happened because of slavery. As such, I still say the issue of slavery was the immediate cause of the war. Without that issue, the history of the United States would have been written much differently. Sadly, that was not the case and many innocent and valuable lives were lost. It was not a glorious cause for either side and certainly did not produce glorious results except freedom for the slave. Equality would not come for another century.

The South suffered greatly because of the Civil War. A great deal of that suffering was dealt by the North. Another portion was caused by the rash acts of a few very angry and powerful Southern men.
There were fanatics on both sides then, as there are fanatics today. The shame is that, too often, those fanatics make history and cause great sorrow.

Again, respectfully,

Lucinda

possum · Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 5:08 pm Post subject: was slavery the primary cause

Hi Lucinda, Yes I specialize in going off topic when I'm on topic and on topic when I'm off topic. It's a Celtic thing.

The original 'off topic' was on the theme of political correctness which seemed a few steps removed from direct WBTS issues.

Its been said before on this forum and it has to be said again (repetition and continuity are needed to instil new awareness):

The WBTS was primarily about money and corporate profits. Economic plunder!

During the war, the average tariff rate on imported goods was raised to nearly 50% (from 15%). Mr Spooner, in his 1870 essay "No Treason",wrote that the war "erupted for a purely pecuniary consideration". He labelled Lincoln's money grubbing cronies, (bankers, manufacturers and railroad corporations)"lenders of blood money" who had "for a long series of years previous to the war, been the willing accomplices of the slaveholders in perverting the government from the purpose of liberty and justice."

Gotta go but I've not finished yet.

Lucinda · Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 7:56 pm Post subject:

I just noticed a typo in one of my earlier posts...I typed a double 18 and listed the date of the Missouri Compromise as 1818. In fact, the year was 1820. March 3rd to be exact.

Sorry!

Lucinda

*Possum, I will spend some time researching your information about the cause of the war. I AM willing to consider the opinions of everyone and I believe the only way to respond appropriately is to study the facts about those opinions. I will get back to you to discuss this further. Thanks for making this such a lively topic!

Lucinda · Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 11:04 pm Post subject: Protective tariffs

Possum,

I pulled quite a few of my books about the antebellum South and have been reading the details of the protective tariffs. You are correct that those tariffs brought many benefits to the North. It seems that there was a strong feeling in the South that, because the Southern economy was primarily agricultural, they did, indeed pay higher prices for goods. This appears to have added to Northern profits. I'm not clear about the reasons the South paid more. I think it was due to exportation and importation. Is that correct?

The North reaped the profits because more public projects were funded in that region...twice the amount as were funded in the South. This led to increased "bad blood" between North & South.

All of this led to the nullification controversy in 1832. South Carolina held the opinion that the tariff was null and void. The idea of secession was put forth by John C. Calhoun. He described the leagalities of secession, stating that a State could sever it's ties to the Federal government if there was evidence that the Union practiced unfair methods of power.

The Federal Government came out the victor in the nullification issue/crisis of 1832. However, the issues were once again brought to the front at the onset of the Civil War.

The thing that bothers me about this theory is a fact I came across in my "investigative reading"...
Those same protective tariffs which did favor the North in 1832 had, by the time the 1860's approached, been lower than at any other time during the 50 years prior to the Civil War.

So far in my research, I will still stand behind my belief that slavery was the issue that overshadowed all others in bringing about the war.

The economics of the times certainly led to Southern sectionalism. However, the massive gains in territory following the Mexican War created issues which did bring slavery to a position of dominance in the political realms of the nation.

I will continue to read and learn more about the points you have presented. I feel quite strongly that my view will not change, but I will consider all the facts.

May I ask you to offer your take on the irony of the tariffs being at their lowest in the late 1850's?
I am passing no judgement and wish to continue this discussion. I find it to be quite interesting. I also believe we are both very well read on the subject and I enjoy an intelligent debate a great deal.

With kind regards,

Lucinda

possum · Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:36 am Post subject: was slavery the primary cause

Hello Lucinda, You are by far the politest poster I have so far met on this forum. Kinda makes it difficult to have a proper scrap with you.

The South exported as much as three-quarters of everything it produced then. Clay's 1820 tariffs meant more competition in foreign markets. It was not much fun for the North either.

Read "When in the course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession" by Charles Adams.

Has been recommended several times on this forum.

Chapter Four goes into the his revenue-based theory of the war. Compelling reading for truth seekers.

Lincoln worked hard before his election (for 28 years) for policies that would use the govt to benefit primarily big business and big banks, which were almost entirely in the North.
You see if the South seceded, she would have taken all that tax revenue with her.

It was beginning to dawn on the Northerners including the media (see newspaper article below)that the Confederacy's then low tariffs would draw trade away from the North.

In his first inaugural address Lincoln promised a military invasion of any state that refused to collect the newly doubled tariff rate.
On the slavery issue he pledged no interference.

In 1824, Henry Clay's tariff bill approximately doubled the average tariff rate.Went up again to almost 50% in 1828. Commonly known as the "Tariff of Abominations" in the South all cost and no benefit.
Calhoun came in and had that tariff nullified which is why at the beginning of the war, tariffs were low.As of Feb 1, 1833, all enforcement of tariff collection was to be suspended.

It was gradually reduced over the next few decades to the low 15% but the Republicans did not have any power to re-introduce it, until Mr Lincoln the hawk swooped into office.

I've got a great article by the NY Times 1861 I think that I don't seem to be able to paste.

[/url][/code]

possum · Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:47 am Post subject: was slavery the primary

Oh yeah, another book: "Tariffs, Blockades, and Inflation" by Mark Thornton and Robert B. Ekelund

The article I mentioned:
The predicament in which both the Government and the commerce of the country are placed, through the non-enforcement of our revenue laws, is now thoroughly understood the world over....If the manufacturer at Manchester [England] can send his goods into the Western States through New Orleans at less cost than through New York, he is a fool for not availing himself of his advantage...If the importations of the counrty are made through Southern ports, its exports will go through the same channel. The produce of the West, instead of coming to our own port by millions of tons, to be transported abroad by the same ships through which we received our importations, will seek other routes and other outlets. With the lost of our foreign trade, what is to become of our public works, conducted at the cost of many huindred millions of dollars, to turn into our harbor the products of the interior? They share in the common ruin. So do our manufacturers...Once at New Orleans, goods may be distributed over the whole country duty-free. The process is perfectly simple... The commercial bearing of the question has acted upon the North...We now see clearly whither we are tending, and the policy we must adopt. With us it is no longer an abstract question---one of Constitutional construction, or of the reserved or delegated powers of the State or Federal government, but of material existence and moral position both at home and abroad.....We were divided and confused till our pockets were touched. ---New York Times March 30, 1861

And now we are divided and deadly!!!!

Lucinda · Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 8:23 am Post subject:

Possum,

I am familiar with Charles Adams' book. He makes many valid points on behalf of the revenue-based theories. I find it of paricular interest that Charles *beep* is often quoted in the book. That is certainly an indication that other countries saw the war as being about more than the issue of slavery.

I have also read "The Republic of Republics" by Bernard Janin Sage. In fact, I discovered this book while visiting the website of The Confederate Reprint Company. There is much information on the site which validates the South's decision to secede. The issue of States' Rights is the prevailing theme of the website. You see, I do give quarter to the issues of BOTH sides.

Obviously, as the Southern economy relied upon the ability to continue using slave labor, the members of the slave-holding South did not want anything to interfere with the need for slavery. The Constitution of the United States set laws to protect the property of all citizens. Naturally, because slaves were "property," the owners of those slaves resented any and all attempts to disrupt their way of life...a way of life that was based on slavery. The Constitution supported their views.

I digress. The thing that MOST angered the South was the election of Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln rose to power because he was backed by the Republican Party. A new political party that was created by individuals who's main focus was "free labor." Indeed, the primary interest of the group was economic advancement, mainly to benefit the North.

The Republican party was divided amongst itself regarding the issues of the day. Those among them who were strongly anti-slavery happened to also be the most forceful and influential members.

In any case, there was much antisouthern feeling by the North. I do not disagree. However, while a strong antisouth sentiment grew in the North, the South was beginning to present a strong unified front
politically, too. By the time 1860 arrived, I believe that the sectional division was so extreme, the slavery issue did overpower all other "causes," including recession and other economic issues.

My opinion still remains that all other events within the United States at that time failed to remove the issue of slavery and failed to divert the attention slavery was given by the average citizen.

No matter the poitics, the economy or the desire for cooler heads to prevail, as long as slavery was still on the table, that table was, indeed, set for war. And that war was served. Brought into the lives of young men who probably did not hold such strong views either way...Southerners who did not even own slaves, and Northerners who did not especially care about the primary issue of slavery. As has been written many times, it was a rich man's war and a poor man's fight!
Has it not always been thus, throughout all time? In almost all wars? Does it not still bring on bloodshed today?

My response is yes. And my opinion remains that slavery was the issue and, regardless of anything else, it was then seen as such by the average citizen who was the one asked to enter into harm's way to further the causes of the politicians. If nothing else, both sides were guilty of slaughtering nearly an entire generation of men. That is the bottom line. It was a sad affair for all, including those in bondage. They would fight for their rights for many more long and bitter years.

I remain "steadfast to the last" that slavery WAS the issue which brought the war into the lives of the American citizens.

Respectfully,

Lucinda