"why slavery as a single cause of the war does not work" Topic

First, the historical profession has long insisted, correctly, that complex events have complex causes; and the Civil War is as complex as they come.

When I am asked to state in one sentence what caused the CW, this is my answer:

"The Civil War was caused by the inability or unwillingness of the northern and southern states to find, within the federal union, a peaceful resolution to the problem of slavery in the western territories."

"Inability or unwillingess" finesses the question of free will, and encompasses the rising sectionalism and especially the galloping paranoia displayed by both sides by the 1850s. This is the place to talk about southern fire-eaters and northern abolitionists.

"Within the federal union" is the place to talk about the compromises, from 3/5 all the way through 1850, which at first seemed to settle things but then increasingly could not. The political system created in 1787 (including a few years later the two-party system) was quite resilient, but in the end not quite resilient enough. This is the place, as well, to debate the "blundering generation" thesis that the leaders emerging after 1850 and the removal of leaders like Clay and Calhoun and Webster left incompetents in charge.

The word "slavery" is of course present in the sentence. But it was always slavery in the west, the future, and not the mere existence of the institution in established states.

Now, as an orthodox Christian I am quite comfortable with the idea of "slavery as America's original sin." That is, it was an early wickedness that tainted everything that came after. In particular, it contradicted the plain logic of the natural rights philosophy of the Declaration and Bill of Rights. Some resolution of the "half slave and half free" dilemma was inevitable, as Lincoln said.

But it didn't have to be resolved by a civil war. First, the union itself might not have been created; in fact, the 1787-88 events were miraculous, with a most unlikely outcome, uniting South Carolina and Massachusetts. Would a northern nation have gone to war to eliminate slavery from a separate southern nation? Not certainly, and not even probably.

And when the crisis appeared in 1860-61, was it certain that the result would be war? Would a Buchanan, or even a President Douglas, have let the south go in peace? Half the south did NOT secede until after Lincoln maneuvered SC into starting the war; Fort Sumter united the north, but it united the south as well. But those events were the consequences of actions taken by particular leaders, and the decision made might well have been made differently.

Slavery was a fundamental difference splitting the nation, obviously. But it was itself in part a consequence of OTHER factors, possibly even more fundamental. The first of those would be geography. Even if Africans had never been brought to North America, New England would have still been the place to build factories and the south-Atlantic states the place to grow staple crops. Until industrialization and mechanization of agriculture, that entailed SOME dependent working class in the south, but if it hadn't been Africans it would have been whites, probably Irish or even English from the slums of London; Oglethorpe tried that in Georgia. I agree with the "black slavery/white freedom" thesis; SOMEBODY had to do the heavy lifting (and the deprivation of liberty for that subordinate population would have caused conflict, as in Bacon's Rebellion in 1676) but it didn't have to be Africans and it didn't have to be chattel slavery.

And would a British defeat of the Revolution have avoided the Civil War? Impossible to say, but the Empire DID abolish slavery peacefully.

Might slavery have been dealt with peacefully by southern states, using methods available such as declaring all born after a certain date as free, or a government buying slaves and freeing them? The colonization of Liberia (supported by most politicians including Lincoln) showed a desire, though they could not solve the practicalities. These were real possibilities in 1830; and NOT so much after Nat Turner's revolt. But NT was by no means inevitable UNLESS one sees him as God's instrument -- and the same applies to John Brown. When major events hinge on the actions of a single weird dude, it is hard to argue that things HAD to come out the way they did.

Now, I fear, comes the "nibbling to death by ducks" part. We shall see.

Would the Southern states have seceded if slavery had not existed?

Well, how close was SC to doing so in the 1830s, over the tariff? That is indeed my point: the south was different in many ways, of which slavery was first and most, but it was economically in a colony-to-mother country relationship with the north (the protective tariff being the sticking point, as it literally took money away from some states in order to give money to other states). Colonies have been known to go to war to gain independence from mercantilist domination.

The slavery 'issue' dominated American politics from the end of the War of 1812 to the Civil War. And the legacy of slavery is still being discussed and debated.

Without slavery in the United States there would not have been a civil war.

The other 'factors' were ancillary to the slavery issue and could have been dealt with politically without resorting to armed conflict.

As an example, both Catton and McPherson, writing decades apart, clearly state that slavery was the cause of the Civil War and McPherson's justification, proof if you like, is exhaustive using primary source material to back up his ideas.

…when the crisis appeared in 1860-61…

. The 'crisis' arose long before 1860-1861. John Brown's murderous activities and 'Bloody Kansas' beginning in 1854 was over slavery in Kansas and Missouri. Seems to me that was a crisis point.

Half the south did NOT secede until after Lincoln maneuvered SC into starting the war…

Interesting, but flawed statement. Perhaps you could explain how and why Lincoln 'maneuvered' South Carolina into firing on Fort Sumter?

We all know what it was: slavery. The "failure to compromise" statement is Lost Cause revisionism.

The upper south, including Va, did not secede until after Lincoln called up troops.

Seriously, you have never read a good biography of Lincoln? He out-maneuvered the Carolinians every which way.

And the Nullification Crisis and near-civil war in the 1830s? Just going to ignore that?

Yes, I have read a good deal on Lincoln-seriously. 😁

He out-maneuvered the Carolinians every which way.

Pray, tell us how…

Chesnuts on the tariff and slavery:

Recall that John Chesnut had been US senator from SC and a Confederate general, serving as Jeff davis' military secretary. Mary was one of the wealthiest women in the south and part of Mrs. Jefferson Davis' sewing circle. But what would they know about the Civil War?

July 1861
Mr. Lamar, who does not love slavery more than Sumner does, nor than I do, laughs at the compliment New England pays us. We want to separate from them; to be rid of the Yankees forever at any price. And they hate us so, and would clasp us, or grapple us, as Polonius has it, to their bosoms "with hooks of steel." We are an unwilling bride. I think incompatibility of temper began when it was made plain to us that we got all the opprobrium of slavery and they all the money there was in it with their tariff.

July 1862
Table-talk today: This war was undertaken by us to shake off the yoke of foreign invaders. So we consider our cause righteous. The Yankees, since the war has begun, have discovered it is to free the slaves that they are fighting. So their cause is noble. They also expect to make the war pay. Yankees do not undertake anything that does not pay. They think we belong to them. We have been good milk cows—milked by the tariff, or skimmed. We let them have all of our hard earnings. We bear the ban of slavery; they get the money. Cotton pays everybody who handles it, sells it, manufactures it, but rarely pays the man who grows it. Second hand the Yankees received the wages of slavery. They grew rich. We grew poor. The receiver is as bad as the thief. That applies to us, too, for we received the savages they stole from Africa and brought to us in their slave-ships. As with the Egyptians, so it shall be with us: if they let us go, it must be across a Red Sea—but one made red by blood.

If anything can reconcile me to the idea of a horrid failure after all efforts to make good our independence of Yankees, it is Lincoln's proclamation freeing the Negroes.

1865 April 23rd—My silver wedding day, and I am sure the unhappiest day of my life. Mr. Portman came with Christopher Hampton. Portman told of Miss Kate Hampton, who is perhaps the most thoroughly ladylike person in the world. When he told her that Lee had surrendered she started up from her seat and said, "That is a lie." "Well, Miss Hampton, I tell the tale as it was told me. I can do no more." No wonder John Chesnut is bitter. They say Mulberry has been destroyed by a corps commanded by General Logan. Someone asked coolly, "Will General Chesnut be shot as a soldier, or hung as a senator?" "I am not of sufficient consequence," answered he. "They will stop short of brigadiers. I resigned my seat in the United States Senate weeks before there was any secession. So I cannot be hung as a senator. But after all it is only a choice between drumhead court martial, short shrift, and a lingering death at home from starvation."
One year ago we left Richmond. The Confederacy has double-quicked downhill since then. One year since I stood in that beautiful Hollywood by little Joe Davis's grave. Now we have burned towns, deserted plantations, sacked villages. "You seem resolute to look the worst in the face," said General Chesnut, wearily. "Yes, poverty, with no future and no hope." "But no slaves, thank God!" cried Buck.

Chesnut, Mary Boykin Miller . A Diary From Dixie (pp. 103-104). HarperCollins Canada. Kindle Edition.

Lincoln first sent a single supply ship to Sumter, which was turned back by fire. Lincoln then dispatched a heavily armed resupply force. He correctly calculated that SC would fire on them, or on the fort, to prevent resupply.

If you know your opponent is a hot head, it is pretty easy to trick him into striking the first blow.

The upper south, including Va, did not secede until after Lincoln called up troops.

Technically that is correct. It is also disingenuous and neglects what actually happened in the 'upper south.'

Fort Sumter was fired upon on 12 April and the garrison surrendered on the 14th.

Lincoln issued a proclamation on 15 April calling out 75,000 militiamen for 90 days national service in order to 'put down an insurrection.'

Lincoln had also messaged Governor Pickens to inform him of 'an attempt will be made to supply Fort Sumter with provisions only; and that, if such an attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw in men, arms, or ammunition, will be made, without further notice, [except] in case of an attack on the Fort.'

Further, on 12 April 'huge crowds poured into the streets of Richmond, Raleigh, Nashville and other upper South cities to celebrate this victory over the Yankees.

The crowds waved Confederate flags and 'cheered the glorious cause of southern independence.' And more demonstrations occurred from 12-14 April 'before Lincoln issued his call for troops.'

Confederate flags were flown from government buildings in Richmond after lowering the US flag. The same thing happened in Wilmington North Carolina.

So the 'ordinance of secession' was a mere formality in the process of official secession. 'For all practical purposes Virginia joined the Confederacy on 17 April, although the official referendum did not take place until 23 May.

It was not, then, Lincoln's call for troops that caused the 'upper south' to secede, but the firing on and surrender of Fort Sumter. The south started hostilies and not Lincoln.
271-282.
See James McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom,

If you know your opponent is a hot head, it is pretty easy to trick him into striking the first blow.

So, it is Lincoln's fault that Fort Sumter was fired upon? The evidence, of which you have provided none, points the other way.

there were many issues between north and south but the catalyst was slavery. some of those issues are still being fought over today.

Lincoln's attitude towards SC firing on Sumter was akin to FDR's attitude towards Pearl harbor: he didn't like the event per se, but it gave him what he wanted, an excuse/reason to fight a war he knew needed fighting.

Are YOU saying Lincoln was not already willing to use force to preserve the Union? Indeed, sending ships into Charleston harbor was akin to waving a red flag at a bull. Nobody is finding "fault" with that; it was clever political strategy.

In the same vein, today is the 75th anniversary of President Truman ordering the desegregation of the US Armed Forces.

mildbilll, yes. Nobody is saying slavery wasn't a big issue; my argument is that it was far from the ONLY issue. Were I making a list of causes, slavery would be top on the list. But there would be other items too.

It disturbs the prevailing orthodoxy, as several here have made clear. Too bad; learn to think for yourselves.

Lincoln then dispatched a heavily armed resupply force. He correctly calculated that SC would fire on them, or on the fort, to prevent resupply.

I would suggest that you take a look at the footnote, number 78, on page 272 of McPherson. It is somewhat difficult to read any person's mind as to their actual intent, especially historical personages who are long dead.

And the Nullification Crisis and near-civil war in the 1830s? Just going to ignore that?

It is not germane to the issue of slavery as the cause of the Civil War.

…sending ships into Charleston harbor was akin to waving a red flag at a bull.

The Star of the West, an unarmed merchantman, was the only northern ship that came within range of the Confederate artillery ringing Charleston harbor. She was fired on and hit once, and then she withdrew.

The relief fleet had been scattered at sea by a storm and the high seas prevented the fleet from launching the supply boats. So the relief ships were not in Charleston harbor.

It is not germane to the issue of slavery as the cause of the Civil War.

But my dear Brechtel, this is where you're mistaken. For those who think the war is still going on or that we might be heading for a rematch, it is terribly germane.

Maybe Florida's children should be taught that the reason 750,000 American men died and perhaps a million others were permanently maimed can be traced to the Tariff Nullification crisis.

A warning to everyone, that tariffs kill.

And then there is this:

The proclamation's wording closely follows that of a proclamation issued by Virginia's Gov. Robert McDonnell in April 2010, with one striking exception. McDonnell's proclamation in final form included a paragraph, inserted after protests to an earlier version, stating "that it is important for all Virginians to understand that the institution of slavery led to this war."

The Tennessee proclamation, which includes eight introductory clauses celebrating "the cause of Southern liberty," says nothing of slavery at all. Rather, it declares that Confederates conducted "a four-year heroic struggle for states' rights, individual freedom, local government control, and a determined struggle for deeply held beliefs."

There you have it folks, all you have to leave out is slavery and voila! The Confederacy stood for Individual freedom…as long as you dont live in Eastern Tennessee.

Tennessee's role in the Confederacy was uniquely conflicted. Thousands of citizens, especially in mountainous East Tennessee, opposed secession. Ignoring "local government control," the state suppressed their dissent by force.

link

What i don't understand is how the Tennessee legislature left out such an important issue like tariffs as the ultimate reason for the civil war? Must've been a mistake at the printers.

link

Declaration of Causes for Seceding States

Clearly Slavery/Economics Based – will let the original words speak for themselves

Georgia's speaks to some of the broader economic issues – however like every other state – the pivotal piece is slavery/property. Even the northern states refusing to return property is a key factor listed.

So a near civil war over the tariff in the 1830s is NOT RELEVANT to a civil war in the 1860s? The Chesnuts mentioned the tariff as a major issue, and they were far from alone in that.

Again, I am not saying that slavery was not a major cause; obviously it was, although primarily in terms of its expansion into the west. Lincoln was willing to accept a constitutional amendment to protect slavery where it existed, if that would deter or reverse secession. It didn't and wouldn't because tempers were too short and it was the WEST that was at issue.

Nor am I saying that the Chesnuts are "representative" of Confederate thinking -- which was diverse as human societies generally are. But John Chesnut was chosen as a US Senator, so WAS literally representative in an important sense.

Of course many southerners were heavily invested, financially and also psychologically, in slavery. Its preservation was undoubtedly A cause of the war. But it was far from the only cause. And some important Confederates even saw Lincoln's emancipation proclamation as the SILVER LINING if the south failed to secure its independence from a north it considered to be looting its wealth via the tariff.

It wasn't S.C. that fired on Fort Sumter, it was fired on by Confederate troops, under a Confederate general, on orders from the Confederate President!

It wasn't S.C. that fired on Fort Sumter, it was fired on by Confederate troops, under a Confederate general, on orders from the Confederate President!

And much smarter Confederates rebuked him for the decision to fire on Sumter as a failure in the North/South game of chicken. That would be a Caucasian chicken because Black chickens were excluded from the game.

The Chesnuts mentioned the tariff as a major issue, and they were far from alone in that.

That old chestnut?

The tariff had been long repealed. There were no tariffs more onerous on the South than the North at the time of the war.

This was not intended to be a thread about Fort Sumter. I've seen no substantial challenge to my argument.

From Ask Historians on Reddit:

"Was the American Civil War about more than just slavery?"

link

And what is your 'argument'? Seems to me that you're doing nothing more than 'moving the goal posts' and then declaring 'victory' to your elusive argument.

Nobody is saying slavery wasn't a big issue; my argument is that it was far from the ONLY issue.

It was the issue that caused the war: 'The greatest danger to American survival at midcentury, however, was neither class tension nor ethnic division. Rather it was sectional conflict between North and South over the future of slavery.'-McPherson, 7.

As for the southern view of slavery, 'Slavery was not the evil that Yankee fanatics protrayed, it was a positive good, the basis of prosperity, peace, and white supremacy, a necessity to prevent blacks from degenerating into barbarism, crime, and poverty.'-McPherson, 8.

Seems to me that is a 'substantial challenge' to your 'argument' and it negates your argument.

To imagine the Civil War was about anything but Slavery, is simply disingenuous. It is a sad attempt to drink the cool aid of nearly two centuries ago.

So a near civil war over the tariff in the 1830s is NOT RELEVANT to a civil war in the 1860s?

No, it isn't. The time span of 30 years tends to dispel and old disagreement which was no longer in effect. Seward said of the issue, among others, that 'they are past and gone.'-McPherson, 160.

For the 1850s and even the 1860s, tariffs became a non-issue for the outbreak of the Civil War.

This argument has gotten so old. The primary evidence is all on one side. From 1848 to 1860 every disagreement between the south and north was over slavery. period. There would have been no war or secession if not for slavery period. Look at the secession documents that were written at the secession conventions listing the reasons why they were leaving the Union. Virtually everyone dealt with slavery. The VP of the Confederacy Alexander Stephen said the cornerstone of their new country was slavery. Jefferson Davis said pretty much the same thing. Look at the newspaper and speeches of the time and they give slavery as the reason for secession. When the CSA sent ambassadors to the slavery states that had not yet seceded the main argument, they gave for those states to secede and join the CSA was to protect slavery. It is all there in black and white. Prime sources from the time. Enough already.

I've seen no substantial challenge to my argument.

We're supposed to prove to you that the Civil War was fought over things other than slavery, when you yourself cant name any other reasons? Imagine for a moment if this voice was the final arbiter of reality.

Well, I hope when they teach Confederate History Month, they teach the kids to not make greedy, self-serving, rash, poorly thought out, self destructive decisions based on white supremacy.

It's funny how we argue today about what the war was about when if you asked anyone back then "Before the end of the war" they would tell you what it was about. In no uncertain terms.

So the Chesnuts just had no idea what they were fighting about?

Grattan, is Chesnut's diary a primary source?

Just because there is a lot of mention of slavery -- whoever denied it? -- doesn't mean the economic dependency of the south -- which they were well aware of and resented -- was not ALSO a factor.

You are proving what I never denied -- that slavery was a major cause. My argument is that there were also OTHER causes. Which there were, of which the tariff was a big one.

I know it is hard to consider facts outside the narrartive you have been taught.

In any conflict there are causes but usually there is a main cause and then there are always a bunch of smaller issues that can also be included. I personally think this topic is a non-topic. Every conflict between nations or even individual people there is a laundry list of wrongs in every conflict. In the grand scheme of things the Civil War was about slavery. If you want to go in depth sure there is a huge list of small reasons for the war. When we talk about WWII we don't talk about how America cut off the Japanese from vital resources forcing Japans hand. We say Japan attacked Peral Harbor starting the war for America. No laundry list or reasons for going to war just the major reason.

And if Africans had never been brought to North America, and a plantation economy developed using a subordinate class of whites instead, would there then have been no war? (Bacon's Rebellion, 1676)

Geography and its consequences are not small reasons. Neither is the issue of power within a federal system -- which had led to several previous attempts a t nullification or secession, about half of them in the north.

It is as myopic to ignore the tariff as it would be to ignore western expansion. SLAVERY! SLAVERTY! SLAVERY!! will not do as an explanation if it excludes other important causes.

While I am on the side that Slavery was the catalyst at the minimum for the war and largely agree that it is the major cause of the war (100% is too broad a statement, but 95% is probably true), I have to ask if people shouting 'Lost Cause revisionism' at the drop of the hat whenever you try to have an adult conversation about the war is the default cop out of today's generation.

Try debating the issue without belittling your opposition and you might find a higher level of discourse.

Sometimes as tangential historians we need to back up and look at the BIG picture. The civil war was about Slavery. This is the message that should be remembered and ingrained into our conciseness undiluted with "lost Cause" nonsense. Why? Because it tells the next generation that the basic premise of Slavery is Wrong. It tells people that you should fight to free the enslaved because that is right in our society. The civil war puts and exclamation point in our history where we decided that to enslave someone is wrong. Even the Confederates saw that they were on the wrong side of history. They were ashamed of what they did so they invented the Lost Cause. Don't be like them don't be ashamed , don't try and justify the war with the north diluting the fact that Slavery is wrong. That message that should be clear not muddied in Tariffs.

…SLAVERY!! will not do as an explanation if it excludes other important causes.

Other 'reasons' were all ancillary to the slavery question. For example-states' rights. The state's right that was being contestsed was slavery. Economics? Again, it was slavery. The wealth of the south was in land and slaves…

There is no point in hanging on to the Lost Cause. It has annoyed the daylights out of me for years, and I am sure many others. I blame no one currently alive for slavery. Hanging on to the old sanitized South is over. The alternate cause theories all lead back eventually to the same thing one way or the other.

'The Southerners seceded over one thing and fought over one thing, slavery.'-DW Brogan as cited in The Myth of the Lost Cause and Civil War History by Gary Gallagher and Alan Nolan, 20.

'The eleven states that seceded and became the Confederate States of America did so to protect the institution of African slavery…'-Gallagher and Nolan, 29.

'African slavery was an inhumane, reactionary, uneconomic labor system disapproved of by the civilized people of the world…prior to secession, Southern people who objected to slavery were isolated, silenced, and driven out of the slave states.'-Gallagher and Nolan, 20.

It affected the colony-style dependent economy as well as slavery, and would have done so with a different labor system. The key difference was not just slavery; it was staple crop agriculture being exploited by northern banks and shippers and so forth. All tied together. Plus a federal system that left some key questions unanswered.

Of course slavery affected (tainted) everything. But there was lots else involved.

Kevin, the Chesnuts objected to slavery and were very prominent in southern society and in the Confederacy. Gallagher and Nolan are wrong, or at least over-stating it.

And when the north used states rights to object to, say, the War of 1812?

Gallagher and Nolan are both correct. And it has nothing to do with the Chestnuts. Ken Burns relied on Mary Chestnut just a little too much (as well as too much Shelby Foote).

We're not discussing the War of 1812 or its causes, which was not about slavery. And it wasn't the north in general, it was New England in particular.

If you want to know about the War of 1812 begin with Don't Give Up the Ship by Don Hickey. It's a good place to start.

Slavery as the primary cause works very well. Without slavery there would have been no civil war.

Further, there is a War of 1812 discussion thread in the Napoleonic discussion section. That's where a discussion could be started, but not here. That is nothing but a distraction from the OP.