Civil War and Slavery

[Bill EE]

My daughter told me that some of the kids in her class have been told that the US Civil War had nothing to do with slavery. Specifically that the South wasn't fighting to keep slavery. Has anyone else heard this trash before? I mean outside of the South.

[Lonewulf]

My daughter told me that some of the kids in her class have been told that the US Civil War had nothing to do with slavery. Specifically that the South wasn't fighting to keep slavery. Has anyone else heard this trash before? I mean outside of the South.

It's not necessarily trash. I haven't gotten to the history part of my U.S. History class, and I'm no expert, necessarily, but it doesn't seem to me that slavery was the only reason for the war.

Now, as to slavery having *nothing* to do with the Civil War, that's bullshit. Slavery was a big economic deal; without slavery, you didn't have a lot of the crops the had in the South -- (or rather, you'd have to rely on servants, and they wouldn't do half the things slaves could.

Nonetheless, from my limited perspective, it seems that a major issue with the Civil War had to do with the idea that individual states should have freedoms, and not have to deal with a strong centralized location (I.E., a central government having power over all the states), and thus each state should have its own power.

Really, it seemed a political-power and economic issue, not just a "war over slavery" to me.

How old is your daughter and those she talked with? It seems to me that a lot of information could have been lost in the process of being told, retelling, and retelling again.

[Bill EE]

My daughter is 11 but that isn't the point - it just shocked me to hear that said. If you look at the documents of secession from the various states, all of them mention slavery as the main cause secession some add the issue of tariffs. The CSA constitution is basically a redline of the US constitution - all but one of the changes is about protecting slavery as an institution.

If it was an economic issue - why did the focus on slavery in their own secession documents? If it was a "state's right" issue why the focus on slavery in their version of the constitution?

I am not saying everyone who fought for the CSA wanted slavery to continue (that certainly not the case) but the people who started the war seemed to have slavery on their minds.

[Animal]

States Rights was the major reason. Salvery was just the major "right" that the South wanted to keep for themselves.

[Bill EE]

In his infinite wisdom, Animal wrote:

States Rights was the major reason. Salvery was just the major "right" that the South wanted to keep for themselves.

That I would believe.

[Lonewulf]

That is more or less what I said. I mentioned economics because that's a major reason to want slavery in the first place; it brings in money through plantations.

[Bill EE]

Sorry Lonewulf but if the only economic/power issue is slavery then it is not an war over economic but a war over slavery.

[Lonewulf]

Sorry Lonewulf but if the only economic/power issue is slavery then it is not an war over economic but a war over slavery.

Yeah, whatever. Forget the fact that I did mention politics and state rights.

Fuck, last time I try to make something wordy.

[Animal]

Sorry Lonewulf but if the only economic/power issue is slavery then it is not an war over economic but a war over slavery.

but it wasn't. The southern states wanted to be FAR more idependent in their trading relationships with foriegn countries than the Feds were allowing. The South wanted to revert to the Colonial-style economic model wherein each state could do their own thing.

[Bill EE]

Forget that infinite wisdom part - but Animal wrote:

but it wasn't. The southern states wanted to be FAR more idependent in their trading relationships with foriegn countries than the Feds were allowing. The South wanted to revert to the Colonial-style economic model wherein each state could do their own thing.

Look at their (CSA) constitution! There was nothing to make the states more independent in their trading relationships with foriegn countries. The only thing getting close was limiting the commerce cause to internal navigation improvements and requiring such improve be paid by tolls. But that had such beauties as:

(4) No bill of attainder or ex post facto law [, or law denying or
impairing the right of property in negro slaves] shall be passed.

Note the parts in [] are added to the US constitution. This one prevents the banning of slavery.


or this

(3) No [slave or other] person held to service or labor in {one
State} [any State or Territory of the Confederate States], under the
laws thereof, escaping [or unlawfully carried] into another, shall, in
consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such
service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party [to
whom such slave belongs, or] to whom such service or labor may be due.

This one prevents slave from running away to other states.

You get the picture.

[Lonewulf]

Since when did Wisdom purely have to do with knowledge? Oh, fuck it, I don't care.

Since Animal actually is more well-studied on this subject than I am, I'll let him handle it.

[Bill EE]

Lonewulf - the infinite wisdom thing is a sort of running gag with me being in agreement and/or against Animal's opinion at any one time.

I did not intend this to get ugly - it just appears to me that most of this "not about slavery" started after the war with Jefferson Davis and his books about southern history. Before the war you have the platform of the Democratic party screaming abou the unfairness of the North preventing slavery from expanding westwards or of the Northern states not returning slaves. You have one comment from Georgia (I would have to look it up) about high tariffs in all the secession letters but it wasn't bad enough to limit in the CSA constitution. Then you hear things like most people did not own slaves but when you look up the number you see things like 49% of the families in Mississippi had at least one slave or 46% in South Carolina or 26% in Virgina. Okay - most didn't but a lot did.

It a pet peeve of mine and I did have relatives on both sides.

[Animal]

I do not have time to start quoting sources. I stated the reasons for the Civil War. Look into the Buchanan presidency to get more background.

[Lonewulf]

And you think picking bits and pieces out of the CSA constitution helps your case? If you want to pick bits and pieces out of the proposed constitution, then very well... two can play that game.

"[but no person of foreign birth, not a citizen of the Confederate States, shall be allowed to vote for any officer, civil or political, State or Federal.]"

That's one change. I could say that this proves that they didn't like foreigners at all, not just slaves. Or rather, did not want to give foreigners power over the political system. Thus, a political reason, not a slavery issue.

"...The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every {thirty} [fifty] thousand..."

Fewer representatives in government. That's a political issue, not a slave issue.

"[South Carolina shall be entitled to choose six; the State of Georgia ten; the State of Alabama nine; the State of Florida two; the State of Mississippi seven; the State of Louisiana six; and the State of Texas six]"

Referring to numbers of representatives chosen. They wanted to give more power to the the larger states. Thus, political. Not slavery.

"(5) The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and
other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment; [except
that any judicial or other federal officer resident and acting solely
within the limits of any State, may be impeached by a vote of
two-thirds of both branches of the Legislature thereof]."

Political.

"[The President may approve any appropriation and disapprove any other appropriation in the same bill. In such case he shall, in signing the
bill, designate the appropriations disapproved; and shall return a copy of such appropriations, with his objections, to the House in which the bill shall have originated; and the same proceedings shall then be had as in case of other bills disapproved by the President.] "

I'm glancing over this stuff more than reading it thoroughly, so I may not comprehend this completely. Nonetheless, this seems like a political issue to me. I don't see slavery designated.


"[but neither this, nor any other clause contained in this Constitution, shall ever be construed to delegate the power to Congress to appropriate money for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce; except for the purpose of furnishing lights, beacons, and buoys, and other aids to navigation upon the coasts, and the improvement of harbors and the removing of obstructions in river navigation; in all which cases such
duties shall be laid on the navigation facilitated thereby, as may be
necessary to pay the costs and expenses thereof.] "

Political. Economic.

"[but no law of Congress shall discharge any debt contracted before the passage of the same.] "

Economic. Political.

"[routes; but the expenses of the Postoffice Department, after the 1st day of March in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and sixty-three, shall be paid out of its own revenue.]"

No slaves here.

"(6) No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any
State [, except by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses]. "

Woops.

" [(9) Congress shall appropriate no money from the Treasury except
by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses, taken by yeas and nays, unless
it be asked and estimated for by some one of the heads of departments
and submitted to Congress by the President; or for the purpose of
paying its own expenses and contingencies; or for the payment of
claims against the Confederate States, the justice of which shall have
been judicially declared by a tribunal for the investigation of claims
against the Government, which it is hereby made the duty of Congress
to establish.] "

Not a slave issue.

" [(10) All bills for appropriating money shall specify in Federal
currency the exact amount of each appropriation and the purposes for
which it is made; and Congress shall grant no extra compensation to
any public contractor, officer, agent, or servant, after such contract
shall have been made or such service rendered.] "

Dun dun dun! But it goes on!

"[He and the Vice President shall hold their offices for the term of six years; but the President shall not be re-eligible. The President and the
Vice President shall be elected as follows:]"

Political.

Hell, I haven't even gotten into the third Article yet. Do I *really* need to go on?

[Halcyon Dayz, FCD]

Like any war, the real reason was psychological.
Somebody hated somebody else.

[Lonewulf]

Like any war, the real reason was psychological.
Somebody hated somebody else.

Why does war necessarily only have to be about hate? Why can't it be for true desire for reform?

Hell, if you ask me, it had more to do about power. The larger states wanted their own power, the smaller states wanted a Federal power.

[The Beer Slayer]

Yes, I've heard it. It's popular among some people in the libertarian crowd who blame Lincoln for the growth of the federal government. It's silly, though. Of course it was about slavery.

[Bill EE]

Lonewulf wrote:

"[The President may approve any appropriation and disapprove any other appropriation in the same bill. In such case he shall, in signing the
bill, designate the appropriations disapproved; and shall return a copy of such appropriations, with his objections, to the House in which the bill shall have originated; and the same proceedings shall then be had as in case of other bills disapproved by the President.] "

I'm glancing over this stuff more than reading it thoroughly, so I may not comprehend this completely. Nonetheless, this seems like a political issue to me. I don't see slavery designated.

This a line item veto to the budget - it was put in because the Northern states were adding items to the budget to prevent slaves from being sent back (like not funding fugitive slave recovery). This allowed the President to veto such tatics.

The other parts about the number of represntives was required because the Congress was effectively being reset and a starting number (like in the original) had to be put into place before the census was taken.

I did mention the change in the commerce cause but that change does not effect what the "not for slavery" people talk about (i.e. tariff) but forces the Congress to pay for navigation aids via user fees (not sure how that would have work - if my ship came in during the day would I have to pay to lighthouse fee?).

I admit I missed the one about the state legislature being able to dischagre a federal judge (who work exclusely in that state) but the rest of the items are tweaks at best. Term limits for the President and a two-thirds requirements for taxes. You will not see in any of these listed in the secession papers or the proposed compromises (Missiouri Compromise for example).

The reason war has to have hate is that it is really hard to aim your weapon at someone you love and pull the tigger. Picket's men didn't come running across the battlefield shouting "please reform."

[Superluminal]

Early in the war Lincoln made it about restoring the Union. He was afraid that if he made it about slavery, he couldn't get as many volunteers as he needed. That's why he waited until after the battle of Antietam (SP) in Sept. 1862, the first major Union victory, to go with the Emancipation Proclamation. The proclamation only granted freedom to slaves in Confederate held territory. So, in some ways it was only a symbolic gesture.

Some historians believe that if the south had freed the slaves first, they could have gain much needed sympathy and recognition from European powers who were opposed to slavery but remained neutral. The fact the CSA didn't, shows how desperately they wanted to hold on to their slaves.

[Мастер]

Like any war, the real reason was psychological.
Somebody hated somebody else.

Well, I agree with the second sentence, but I wouldn't necessarily characterize that as the real reason. Why did somebody hate somebody else? The usual reason, is that somebody else is threatening somebody's interests...