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

" Without slavery there would have been no civil war."

I've seen this a few times. This is stated as fact, it is not fact. It is opinion. No one can say there would not have been a civil war without slavery. New England and the Eastern states of the South had no love for each other from the countries inception.

I have no issue in saying that without slavery there would have been no war, but please state it as opinion, not undeniable fact.

Thanks

Seems to me to be both a logical and historical conclusion. And I agree with it. It is based on years of study and also the conclusions of credible historians, not Lost Causers.

"Seems to me to be both a logical and historical conclusion. And I agree with it. It is based on years of study and also the conclusions of credible historians, not Lost Causers."

Brechtel that is "your" opinion. Flat earthers believed the world was flat, they too were convinced and believed it was logical and "credible" people backed them up.

"Are you alluding to the idea of a civil war? That act would be treason, among other things…"

Did I say that it would lead to Civil War? Yes or No? Are you saying I am advocating civil war? Yes or no? Be very specific about your answer to that last question.

Anything I would say as to where it would lead, would be only speculation. I.e. opinion on my part. Just as if I speculated on the outcome of the war in Ukraine.

Historical 'opinions' should be based in the process of historical inquiry. That is, researching and assembling facts on a historical subject or event in order to arrive at a logical conclusion.

That isn't mere 'opinion.'

New England and the Eastern states of the South had no love for each other from the countries inception.

Do you have any credible references for this idea, or is it merely opinion?

Brechtel, As I thought, no response to your "treason" allegation.

No one argues that slavery was the preeminent cause of the war. BUT, we cannot say with certitude that without it, Civil war would not have happened.

"Throughout American history, tension has existed between several regions"

It occurred between the Midwest and New England

"Sectional rivalry between New England and the West

As American settlers spread westward during the 18th and 19th centuries, New Englanders felt threatened by the West, which siphoned off many of their region's most capable and vigorous labourers. Moreover, an expanding railroad network made it possible for Western agriculturalists to produce wool and grain that undersold the products of the poor New England hill country. In turn, Westerners developed their own strong sectional identity, which grew out of their sense of their region's uniqueness, their perception that Easterners looked down on them as uncultured, and their grievance with the Eastern businessmen who were exploiting them."

The division came very close to secession during the war of 1812, with NE as the figurehead.

Subject: Why New England Almost Seceded Over The War Of 1812


link

I've said before, I think you can trace some of the animosity as far back as the ECW and base it on those who settled in Massachusetts and Virginia. Just a carry over of the ECW to our soil.

But let me say up front that this is all IMO. I would not be elitist enough to say it was the "only" possibility and it is not open to dispute or logical discussion.

You can talk about the 'other causes' of the war as much as you like, but the bottom line is: No slavery, no war. No other issue was strong enough or REGIONAL enough to have brought about secession and war.

Scott, so you can say this with certitude? You were there? Or you are basing it on what "historians" have written? Do all historians say the same thing? Is there unanimous agreement among historians. Or do we believe the historians who support our views, and disregard the others?

I don't care if one disbelieves or believes that without slavery there would be no war, but admit it is only opinions. No one can ever know.

Just as one can speculate that without the Prussians, Napoleon would've won at Waterloo. We can speculate, but we can never ever really know.

Although this comment should be on the Napoleonics board, there is little doubt, if any at all, that without the Prussians arrival at Waterloo, Wellington was beaten.

In order to face the Prussians as they arrived, Napoleon had to commit the Young Guard division, two battalions of Old Guard infantry, and Lobau's VI Corps to face the Prussians.

Wellington was losing the battle after the failure of the French cavalry charges amid the renewal of the French infantry attacks closely supported by well-handled artillery. The impact of the above mentioned units would have overwhelmed Wellington's polyglot army.

New England in 1812 was not looking for the state's right to maintain or expand slavery. The point here has always been that slavery underlay everything about the war. The other causes ultimately connected to it no matter how they were framed. And slavery is so fundamentally in opposition to the inalienable rights, an opinion we can all share, that things like tariffs seem petty by comparison.

We have opinions here, naturally. Mine is that the weight of opinion, reasoning, and the facts of documents like the Articles carry sufficient weight to draw the most likely conclusion. From Catton to McPherson, the conclusions have been compelling. Even if we had been there this is all we could do, just as we have no definitive way to confirm the events of the day now.

In my professional life, I quickly learned that two people can each see the exact same event sometimes and give a different account. The truth is made up of a preponderance of facts, the best we can do. It is not usually absolute, but nonetheless apparent. Without it we are lost.

Well said, T, and I agree with your assessment.

Tort yes we can say evidence points to a conclusion, but we cannot definitively say with absolute surety that war would NOT have happened without slavery. Anything we say is our opinions. That seems to escape some.

Just as we will never know how Waterloo would have concluded without the Prussians. As we do not know what other circumstances would have occurred to influence the final outcome.

We cannot know what would have happened if Ewell had not stopped on day 1. We can speculate, but is only our opinion.

That is my point.

Whether Napoleon would've won Waterloo has nothing to do with the causes of the American Civil War.

As a matter of fact, not only are they oranges to apples as a comparison but one took place while the other did not.

Taking one of history's best military commanders best thought out campaigns which went wrong for him and comparing it to a vast social movement to preserve money based on slavery is beyond suspicious.

They have done military simulations on Waterloo and with or without the Prussians, Napoleon wins the battle the vast majority of the time. In fact, one of the reasons military historians study Waterloo is that its result was something of a miracle for the allies. There aren't really many historians who think that Waterloo was meant to go the way it went.

Meanwhile, the Civil War is the opposite, there aren't any historians that say it wasn't over slavery. No historian that I know of has said it was primarily about something other than slavery. If there are some, please point them out.

Has anyone done calculations or models on the likelihood of the South seceding if slavery were removed from the equation? If so, I would love to see what it was based on.

At least with Waterloo, you can plug in troop qualities and types, unit dispositions, casualties etc for some sort of results. For the proponents of the Civil war's inevitability irrespective of slavery and considering they all accuse everyone else of having no facts or evidence what facts, evidence or events are they relying on?

The Lost Cause seems to thrive on a few ingredients:

1. After the fact emotional feelings by CSA posterity who dont want the South to be the bad guys.

2. Trying to eliminate slavery as the cause because they know it's a per se wicked cause

3. Using leniency towards the Confederates at the end of the war to be reworked into proof that the CSA did nothing wrong.

An additional Lost Cause tactic, probably only coincidentally in this case, is to take the fringe argument that somehow because alongside the volumes of evidence that the South seceded over slavery claim that some negligible other reason also existed and then use that negligible reason as proof that it wasnt only about slavery without any evidence or proof given about that negligible reason's weight towards the war's commencement. And then, demand that everyone else disprove that the civil war was not about what you yourself haven't proven.

That's why the OP can assert that it wasn't about slavery and yet cant give any reason it was alternatively started except via a 30 year repealed tariff that even if had been still current was also about slavery! That's not a discussion, its an emotional desire to not be wrong about a topic one knows they're wrong about.

Thus, this isnt that much of an historical argument as a push back over somewhat dangerous misinformation.

Additionally, this concept that you cant definitively speak about what didnt happen in the past is without a doubt one of the most amusing Yogi-isms Ive heard.

All this coming from a poster who is sure that teaching students about white enslavement of blacks will harm their development with no research/studies to back that up.

Thus, without any analysis or data, you can predict the future but with thousands of historians poring over the record from 150 years ago, you cant assert with certainty what didnt happen in the past?

I think this is a first and deserves a book entitled The future is certain but the past is impossible to determine.

Again, 35th, we know generally what happened in those cases and we enjoy the what if discussions, forming opinions. But those things did not happen and are not the same as the basic facts of slavery in America.

I think a better discussion has always been about what the average Confederate soldiers believed they were fighting for. They were well aware of slavery like everyone else. But their perspective was not always the same. What they believed they were fighting for may come closer to what some people believe today about the war's causes. Indeed, what we believe and who we follow does not always reflect the preponderance of evidence. In todays world, we simply ignore damning statements by leaders we wish to follow.

Joseph Glatthaar's work got me started on this question, and it remain much more interesting to me. Catton's trilogy is a good way to get a feel for how the Army of the Potomac evolved.

Give that we have the secession ordinances themselves that list the reasons why the various southern states were leaving the Union and that virtually everyone dealt with slavery, yes, we can say that without slavery there would not have been a Civil War. The people at the time make that clear.

Given that we have the secession ordinances themselves that list the reasons why the various southern states were leaving the Union and that virtually everyone dealt with slavery, yes, we can say that without slavery there would not have been a Civil War. The people at the time make that clear.

@Tort as an honest individual, did I anywhere in this thread ever say slavery was NOT the primary reason for the war? All I've said is that you cannot say with certainty that the civil war would not have occurred without slavery. Is that not also true?

All I'm saying is that if you say the war would have been avoided without slavery, is opinion and can never be proven as fact. We will never know.

I rely on your honesty and not the ramblings of others.

Thanks

Yes you are correct 35th. I am not sure some were getting the point.it was always possible that we might differ to the extent that a state or states might leave, slavery or not.

I cannot really imagine what might have caused such a thing, but who knows? Today we are too interdependent, and our politics do not line up geographically as much as they once did. And I believe secession has not been legal for some time. But we are less in tune with data and facts than ever. I don't think a revolt by state or states is very likely…definitely an opinion!

Thanks Tort. Appreciate the honesty.

Who knows about today, I sure don't. Anything I would say would be only opinion.

FYI I have read Bruce catton‘s Potomac Trilogy. One of the first books I read. One of many I've sold.

My taste run more toward the battles and the individual soldier and their experiences.

Chickamauga: Bloody Battle in the West by Glenn Tucker, The Gleam of Bayonets by Murfin, This Terrible Sound by Cozzens, Landscape Turned Red by Sears, Pfanz's books on Gettysburg or Hardtack and Coffee, Life BillyYank and Johnny Reb are more the type of books I enjoyed.

I read almost all of those, some a very long time ago. Sears has become one of my favorites, much more detail than Catton. My very first read on the subject back in the 50s: Billy Yank and Johnny Reb

Yes, Tort, thanks for actually SEEING what the issue is. And what it is not. For the umpteenth time, slavery was the most important cause, although I must insist that it was not slavery per se but its expansion into the west. But slavery was (of course) connected with everything else. Nobody is arguing otherwise, although some here are determined to keep insisting that what we all agree to is REALLY SO!

But there were OTHER causes, and in fact NECESSARY causes. The ambiguity of the federal system was a big one. No, states rights was NOT uniformly identified with the south and slavery; the north used it as well, when out of control of the US government. An inability to see a link between the Hartford Convention and states rights is a failure of historical imagination. The north's personal liberty laws and attempts to nullify the Federal Fugtive Salve laws obviously WERE directly related to slavery, but they also illustrate that a states rights argument might be made by either section, when not in control of the central government. That ambiguity still exists today, btw, in spite of the war, as is illustrated by opposing "sanctuary cities" in various states attempting to limit Federal power either over guns or over immigration. So the federal system WAS an important cause of the war.

As was geography that made the sections fundamentally different and antagonistic, and would have done so even with a different labor system.

Tort, I had over 200, only about 25 of mine left. But now I have my Dads collection to get rid of. But his span a lot of periods.

As we are doing books, yes to Catton and the AoP trilogy. Today my go-to is still Rhea's Overland Campaign books.

As to north and south, please recall that NE was settled by Puritans and Virginia by what became Cavaliers (go Wahoos!) And the Puritan Roundheads and the Cavaliers had been KILLING EACH OTHER in large numbers for 20 years. Anyone who thinks that animosity was not transplanted across the Atlantic is, well, again, sorely lacking in historical imagination.

It is quite analogous to the post-Alexander situation in the Middle East, when Greeks ruled Jerusalem, profaned the sacred places, and Jewish culture struggled to survive (with Jewish men trying to reverse their circumcisions so they could work out nekked in the Greek gym without being laughed at.) When Paul wrote that Christianity was for Jews AND Greeks, that was like saying it was for BLM and the KKK. Well, we miraculously created a nation of the descendants of Puritans AND the descendants of Royalists. And have only had one civil war out of it.

Is that you, John?

ANY crisis? LOL! Never say never. I'll join the nitpickers temporarily:

Explain how the crisis involving NY and NH's dispute over what became Vermont was exacerbated by slavery.

If you don't know, he isn't you.

And of course your overall point is valid; slavery surely affected many other things. Although the "gag rule" prevailed in Congress, iirc, from 1820 through the next decade. So they didn't WANT it to effect!: the elephant in the room no one will mention.

The cause of the war was slavery. Any of the other issues between North and South could have been resolved short of war.

"The new [Confederate] constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution — African slavery as it exists amongst us — the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution . . . The prevailing ideas entertained by . . . most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was a violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. . . Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of . . . the equality of races. This was an error . . .

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner–stone 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 normal condition."

— Alexander H. Stephens, March 21, 1861

When Mississippi seceded, she published a "Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Include and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union." It stated:

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery… Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billion dollars [the estimated total market value of slaves], or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property."

"Any of the other issues between North and South could have been resolved short of war."

And you know this HOW? Suppose there had been no western territories to become new states, slave or free? Would there have still been a war? Lincoln didn't think so, but what would he know. Check the Corwin amendment.

Your opening title for the thread is provocative. Thus you cant act like people are unfairly ignoring the great truth and abusing you in the process. Especially because you don't lay out what the other causes are and in fact invert the original premise and that people now need to prove to you that the war was only about slavery.

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

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

All you did was declare that the war was about slavery but only about slavery between the hours of 5-7pm and excluding holidays. You don't say what all the other factors are, their percentage contributions to the war or why we should give a darn about them.

Well, how close was SC to doing so in the 1830s, over the tariff? That is indeed my point:

Doesn't matter, it didn't happen. Incidentally, the problem isn't so much secession as unilateral secession.

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.

Most of the Southern states are the poorest and most in receipt proportionately of Federal funds. Interestingly, I don't hear the rest of the country griping about it and talking about secession. What you're saying is the South cant control itself and feels like it can act any way it likes, cripple people in congress, enslave people, kill people, dissolve the Union but everyone has to abide by the rules.

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

That self control issue. The Confederacy was the result of greed, intolerance, shortsightedness, immaturity and a false sense of superiority. Incidentally "hot" isn't the type of head the Southern leadership had.

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.

This isn't true, you are on the record recently several times endorsing Confederate History Month which cuts out all mention of slavery. It must follow that you feel that slavery is so trivial to the reasons that caused the civil war that it isn't worth mentioning.

Of course many southerners were heavily invested, financially and also psychologically, in slavery. Its preservation was undoubtedly A cause of the war.

Since no one knows but you, not the thousands of ACW historians nor any of us poor posters, please tell us all the other reasons.

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.

Please name the tariff.

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

Maybe it's because you never made an argument just an ambiguous claim that the war was about slavery's expansion but also many many other reasons too. However, all we have so far from you in terms of "other reasons" is a goose egg… or duck's egg.

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.

Again, which tariff is this?

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)

Whites were never made a special slave class and the South seceded on the basis of racial superiority, not just slavery.

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.

Are we supposed to come up with these other reasons for you? Are you just never going to tell us what they are? If you wrote a book on the matter, it seems like it would be awfully short.

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.

Again, this mysterious tariff which dare not speak its name. And what other important causes; you're about to revolutionize the way the world sees the causes of the ACW, please don't keep us in suspense any longer.

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

So very many other things were involved that after a dozen posts, you still cant tell us any of them.

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.

Well the Chestnuts deserve the Mother Theresa award.

Meanwhile two of our most credentialed ACW historians are wrong because you don't like their conclusions?

But there were OTHER causes [Besides Expansion of slavery to the West], and in fact NECESSARY causes. The ambiguity of the federal system was a big one

Now we are getting somewhere; maybe.

What exactly was this Federal ambiguity that drove the South to secede and prepare for war?

If you want to continue to declare everyone else blind after you make a sweeping statement without any justification, evidence, facts, reasoning or analysis and then accuse everyone who disagrees with you of the same, then what conclusion can we have except that this is an emotional argument in defense of the Confederacy along the lines of "If loving the CSA is wrong, I don't want to be right".

In some ways this is almost Quixotic but in reverse where instead of galloping around charging them, the Windmills are supposed to charge you.

Is this dead horse being beaten yet again???

The Corwin Amendment's promise to protect enslavement neither persuaded the southern states to remain in the Union nor to prevent the Civil War. The reason for the amendment's failure can be attributed to the simple fact that the South did not trust the North.

Lacking the constitutional power to abolish enslavement in the South, northern politicians opposed to enslavement had for years employed other means to weaken enslavement, including banning the practice in the Western territories, refusing to admit new pro-slavery states to the Union, banning enslavement in Washington, D.C.

For this reason, southerners had come to place little value in the federal government's vows not to abolish enslavement in their states and so considered the Corwin Amendment to be little more than another promise waiting to be broken.

Lincoln said he would leave slavery where it already existed if it saved the Union. He also said a house divided cannot stand. The Southern states just didn't trust anything or anyone above the Mason-Dixon Line. Since most of the Republicans including Lincoln opposed the expansion of slavery. The South ignored the Corwin Amendment. By that time the South was going to succeed and nothing could stop them from doing so.

"Is this dead horse being beaten yet again???"

Yes and it is the same rider trying to provoke an argument. But his arguments are so ludicrous that I get drawn in. Why this guy gets a platform for all of this, I don't know.

All the many statements here -- "If there had been no slavery there would have been no Civil War" -- are counter-factual, and therefore unverifiable matters of opinion. The fact is that slavery did exist, and a war did occur. And there is surely a powerful connection between those two facts. But the precise nature of that connection is by no means as simple as some (including the new prevailing historical orthodoxy) make it out to be. I have offered several additional factors that need to be taken into account, and at least two of them -- the geography that made north and south into very different economies and societies, plus the ambiguity of the federal division of power -- either predate the slavery controversy or came into being apart from it. It was a COMBINATION of factors, as it always is, that brought on secession and then war. Multiple-causation; I cannot believe there is a single trained historian who denies that complex events have multiple causes. Except in this case, evidently.

I would speculate that the evident emotional commitment to slavery-as-sole-cause stems from both its simplicity and also because it makes south-bashing easy. Slavery is the place where the Old South and the Confederacy were clearly wrong, and so it is psychologically attractive to focus on that.

If the debate is also about racism, it's not so simple, as the north was as guilty of that. If the debate is about the relationship between the national government and the states, again, not a bit simple. If one sees the south as suffering from a dependent colony-to-mother country relationship to the north, it is again complicated. If one admires, as many do, some of the elements of feudal paternalism, and speculates whether that may have been a superior system to an atomistic individualism -- go and read Tocqueville's DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA if you do not know what that means -- then again the moral calculus becomes complicated.

Far more satisfying to blame the south for everything. Angels and devils makes everything clear and simple. And wrong.

OC, I love you too, bless your heart.

Texas Succession: "The servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations."

OC well said and I agree with your assessment.

Texas was using and abusing religion as an excuse for slavery.

Well, yes, in our present understanding. No doubt you are familiar with de las Casas and the great debate on the status of conquered races within Christianity. By 1860 it may well have been more excuse than sincere belief -- but we cannot know motives for sure.

Are you referring to Bartolome de las Casas and his A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies?

link

Using last names only can be confusing as there was a Las Cases who wrote the Memorial de Sainte-Helene regarding Napoleon.

So tell me, other than the end of slavery (which I think we can all agree happened as a result of the war), what measures were taken to resolve the other issues causing the war? After all, if they weren't resolved we'd expect to see continued unrest resulting from them.

BS, yes, the 14th was the big change.

I would speculate that the evident emotional commitment to slavery-as-sole-cause stems from both its simplicity and also because it makes south-bashing easy. Slavery is the place where the Old South and the Confederacy were clearly wrong, and so it is psychologically attractive to focus on that.

Were they really wrong? Is that why slavery is excluded from Confederate History Month? Is there a fear that it'll spoil the important message of the Confederacy?

Far more satisfying to blame the south for everything. Angels and devils makes everything clear and simple. And wrong.

You really shouldn't be surprised that posters push back on your sweeping claims and act like you're being attacked, after all a free speech absolutist should bask in criticism. Or do you have a different definition of Free Speech Absolutist too?

You're the one who started a topic with an outlandish declaration with zero proof or argument. The only thing interesting about what you've set down is how it mirrors the Old South's Slave owners attitude that they were only in the USA as long as they got everything that they wanted. As soon as they saw they weren't going to have everything their way, they left. One difference is at least they admitted it.

Frankly, so many of your opinions about the Ante-Bellum South CSA sound more like a re-channeling of your personal beliefs and contemporary petty political views than any sort of responsible, intellectual historical analysis. Trying to re-frame the reactions to your secessionist justification blither that it is South bashing is truly the last straw. In fact, the South is letting go of positive views of the CSA and support for it mainly comes from political reactionaries. You should know that, purely coincidentally, your views almost always intersect with theirs.

I'll accept that you cant indicate any Historians who care about any other reason but slavery as a cause for the war. That you cant point anything positive about the CSA that would warrant its being taught to children and inability to name any other cause but slavery except via vague platitudes and a phantom tariff.

But it was always slavery in the west, the future, and not the mere existence of the institution in established states.

That is just plain wrong. Slavery in the nation as a whole was the issue, not merely the threat of extension of slavery into the new western states.

Again, from McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom:

'What were these rights and liberties for which Confederates contended? The right to own slaves; the liberty to take this property into the territories…'-241.

Slavery was the issue. Not only was the biggest issue, it was also the underlying cause of all other issues.

All the economic issues, tariffs, taxes, infrastructure, everything, all stem from the different economic development of north and south. The north became a mercantile industrial region, the south was kept in its single crop oriented plantation agricultural state because of the use of slave labor.

Slaves have no cause to innovate. Relying on slaves hamstrings an economy. Within a decade after the civil war, productivity in cotton production was rising because of innovation. Paid workers in Texas invented the Cotton Sledge, not slaves. The paid workers were probably not educated better than the slaves had been, but they had one thing the slaves didn't: incentive to be more productive.

And it was all for naught: Rising cheaper production in the third world eventually killed the US cotton industry. The Southern economy with its singular focus on cotton would have collapsed anyway.

"Slavery in the nation as a whole was the issue, not merely the threat of extension of slavery into the new western states."

Why then was Lincoln willing to accept the Corwin Amendment? And why didn't the south accept it?

Lincoln to Horace Greeley:

The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free. Yours, A. Lincoln.

You are unwilling to be persuaded, so why don't we end this.

In February 1865 there was a movement in the Confederacy to arm and enlist black slaves to fight for the South. This had actually been proposed by Confederate General Patrick Cleburne, but in many respects the proposal died with him at Franklin.

However, it came to a head in early 1865 when Jefferson Davis changed his initial position on the issue by stating 'We are reduced to choosing whether the negroes shall fight for or against us.'

The opponents raged against the idea: 'The freemen of the Confederate States must work out their own redemption, or they must be the slaves of their own slaves.'-the Charleston Mercury.

Robert Toombs stated emphatically that 'The day that the army of Virginia allows a negro regiment to enter their lines as soldiers they will be degraded, ruined, and disgraced.'

Howell Cobb stated that 'the moment you resort to negro soldiers your white soldiers will be lost to you…The day you make soldiers of them is the beginning of the end of the revolution. If slaves will make good soldiers our whole theory of slavery is wrong.'

The Richmond Examiner stated that to make soldiers of the slaves would 'surrender the essential and distinctive principle of Southern civilization.'

A Mississippi congressman stated that 'Victory itself would be robbed of its glory if shared with slaves.'

These statements clearly illuminate the southern view of slavery and white supremacy in the south. And the idea of white supremacy has not been eliminated in the US while slavery as an institution certainly has.

This material, and more, are in Chapter 28 of Battle Cry of Freedom.