Slavery; the root cause of Secession & War

[BorderRuffian]

"All right, Miss Catherine, let the games begin! Why did the North go to war?"

All major political decisions are taken in accordance with self-interest. The states of the Lower South, for example, seceded from the Union because they believed such actions served their interests. The Confederate government was formed for the same reason.

So, in order to understand why the government in Washington decided to wage a war of conquest against the Confederacy, we need to establish why they thought such a war would serve their interests.

Well said.

Nations go to war for their own self interest.

Northerners never want to address this issue because the "crusades" to Free the Slaves and Save the Glorious Union look a lot better than...

...greed and power.

[BorderRuffian]

"The South went to war on account of slavery... South Carolina went to war as she said in her secession proclamation, because slavery would not be secure under Lincoln...don't you think South Carolina ought to know why it went to war?"

John Singleton Mosby

"...The South recognized its settlement by the arbitrament of arms;
but the purpose for which the south went to war has been perverted by the radical party...."

Robert Edward Lee

[Catherine Hopley]

"If you've 700 books on the subject certainly then you've come across the rather common opinion of the CS soldier that the loss of the CS govt was no loss at all.  The distinct air of betrayel and abject incompetance from Richmond was overwhelming to them."

Yes, I have come across this attitude. It was expressed quite explicitly by the Georgian, Sgt. W.H. Andrews:

While it is a bitter pill to have to come back into the Union, don't think there is much regret for the loss of the Confederacy. The treatment the soldiers have received from the government in various ways put them against it.

[Andrews, Footprints Of A Regiment: A Recollection Of The 1st Georgia Regulars, p.184.]

But I am bound to say that, in my experience, this viewpoint is hugely outnumbered by more patriotic sentiments. A typical example comes from the pen of the truly remarkable South Carolinian, Berry Benson:

Oh, how it thrilled the heart of a soldier, when he had been long away from the army, to catch sight  again of its red battle flag, upheld on its white staff of pine, its tatters snapping in the wind! A red rag, (there be those who will say), - a red rag tied to a stick, and that is all! And yet - that red rag, crossed with blue, with white stars sprinkled the cross within, tied to a slim, barked pine sapling, with leather thongs cut from a soldier's shoe, this rough red rag my soul loved with a lover's love.

[Benson, Berry Benson's Civil War Book, p.24.]

[Catherine Hopley]

Pvt. John W. Haley of the 17th Maine wrote the following in his diary on 28th July 1863:

If we of the North were called upon to endure one half as much as the Southern people and soldiers do, we would abandon the cause and let the Southern Confederacy be established. We pronounce their cause unholy, but they consider it sacred enough to suffer and die for. Our forefathers in the Revolutionary struggle could not have endured more than these Rebels...We are apt to always deem our own cause as right, clinging tenaciously to our reasoning although we might be greatly in error.

A nation preserved with liberty trampled underfoot is much worse than a nation in fragments but with the spirit of liberty still alive. The Southerners persistently claim that their rebellion is for the purpose of preserving this form of government...

As slavery pays in a pecuniary sense, it is quite easy for the Southron to believe it is justified by Divine authority. On the other hand, we of the North couldn't make it pay, so we are convinced that it is 'the sum of all villainy.' Our plan is more profitable; we take care of no children or sick people, except as paupers, while the owners of slaves have to provide for them from birth till death. So, how we view the issue depends on what type of glasses we use.

[Silliker [ed], The Rebel Yell & The Yankee Hurrah: The Civil War Journal Of A Maine Volunteer, p.116.]

[Webmaster]

Welcome to my Discussion forum Catherine Hopley and borderuffian.
Catherine i have send you two pm have you seen them

[Catherine Hopley]

Hello Webmaster,

I replied to your first PM almost immediately....didn't you receive it?

I'm still mulling over the kind offer in your second message!

[ole]

Northerners never want to address this issue because the "crusades" to Free the Slaves and Save the Glorious Union look a lot better than...
...greed and power.

Agreed, Border, Miss Catherine has a way with words.

I would very much like to understand how greed and power are served by making war on suppliers and customers. That really was and is not a good idea for a businessman.

ole

[Catherine Hopley]

"I would very much like to understand how greed and power are served by making war on suppliers and customers. That really was and is not a good idea for a businessman."

A fair question. The answer is that sometimes one has to take a step backwards in order to take two forwards. In the short-term, disruption to business would result from the war; in the long-term, however, it would guarantee that the South remained a captive market for overpriced Northern goods and it would ensure that important routes of communication remained exclusively in the hands of the U.S.

This is what the journalist William H. Russell picked up on during the summer of 1861 when he reported Northern businessmen saying things like "We cannot allow two nations to grow up on this Continent, sir" and "We must possess the entire control of the Mississippi."

[Pratt [ed.], My Diary North & South, p.186.]

The ever-perceptive Avery Craven wrote:

"A few Northerners early spoke of a peaceful acceptance of separation, but when faced with the social-economic consequences, drew back, and few 'patriots' showed the slightest inclination to yield on a single interest item. As a northern historian has recently written:

Throughout the secession winter, the Northern compromisers generally showed great enthusiasm for concessions on matters that seemed to have no direct bearing upon their particular interests, but they displayed an unfeeling obduracy toward concessions on subjects that touched them closely. In Congress nearly every type of sectional legislation came up for debate; and Northerners, whether radical or conservative, Republican or Democratic, refused to surrender any law which brought special benefits to their constituents. Southerners could cry out against discrimination and Northern tyranny, but Yankee congressmen were unmoved."

[Craven, An Historian & The Civil War, pp.166-167.]

Writing about the post-war world, Craven also made the following points:

"The Republican party became the party of business; business, in turn, became the heir to all the attitudes which the Republicans had developed in 'reconstructing' the 'disloyal South'. To keep the party in power became an object of more importance than preserving democracy...Even the appropriation of a presidential election, clearly lost, was justifiable."

[ibid., p.170.]

The hubris of the Republicans - in itself a reflection of the fathomless depths of Puritan self-satisfaction - can be seen in Henry Wilson's deranged claim that the the party had been "created by no man or set of men but brought into being by almighty God himself...and endowed by the creator with all political power and every office under Heaven."

Even a Northern newspaper, the Chicago Tribune, admitted that "The War of the Rebellion, on the surface a conflict between the North and the South, was in reality a conflict between the Republican and Democratic parties and principles" which would not be ended until "the Democratic party was dead and buried."

As Craven concluded, "such blunt acceptance of the basic significance of a long-existing power struggle, more than a decade after the abolition of slavery, which is supposed to have been the sole reason for sectional strife, is indeed revealing."

[ibid., pp.170-171. The bold lettering above is mine, not Craven's.]

Thus we have no choice but to conclude that the war was waged solely to further the interests of those seedy bed-fellows, Big Business and the Republican Party. The real symbol of Northern victory was not what happened at Appomattox; it was the Gilded Age which more truly represented what had been fought for. It was the Gilded Age which represented the full flowering of Yankee civilization. 

[ole]

Nice work with the research and presentation! But what you have provided are snippets that seem to back up the conclusion, but don't.

A fair question. The answer is that sometimes one has to take a step backwards in order to take two forwards. In the short-term, disruption to business would result from the war; in the long-term, however, it would guarantee that the South remained a captive market for overpriced Northern goods and it would ensure that important routes of communication remained exclusively in the hands of the U.S.

Business hasn't changed that much. I'm not aware of a situation when businessmen stepped back once in order to take two steps forward. (Unless you count the dumping incidents that have occurred internationally now and then.)

This is what the journalist William H. Russell picked up on during the summer of 1861 when he reported Northern businessmen saying things like "We cannot allow two nations to grow up on this Continent, sir" and "We must possess the entire control of the Mississippi."

Oh, please. William Russell?

Writing about the post-war world, Craven also made the following points:  "The Republican party became the party of business; business, in turn, became the heir to all the attitudes which the Republicans had developed in 'reconstructing' the 'disloyal South'. To keep the party in power became an object of more importance than preserving democracy...Even the appropriation of a presidential election, clearly lost, was justifiable."

Special notice: Post-War World. It does us little good to start ringing in party politics. Antebellum republicans were the progressives; democrats were the conservatives. And what they did or became after the war is not the subject.

What has not been brought up is the delegations of businessmen begging Lincoln to appease. And the silly threat that New York would also want to secede to keep southern business.

Thus we have no choice but to conclude that the war was waged solely to further the interests of those seedy bed-fellows, Big Business and the Republican Party. The real symbol of Northern victory was not what happened at Appomattox; it was the Gilded Age which more truly represented what had been fought for. It was the Gilded Age which represented the full flowering of Yankee civilization.

Thus we have no reason to conclude anything of the kind. No case has been made.

ole

[Catherine Hopley]

"Oh, please. William Russell? "

You're suggesting that Russell is an unreliable source? Well, that's brave of you - given that the received wisdom is that his diary is one of the most trustworthy sources on the first year of the war. Bruce Catton, who was hardly a "Lost Causer", gave his opinion that "Russell was a reporter of the first rank - a good deal better, it would seem, than any of the Americans who were practicing the art at that time, if only because he was better able to assume a detached point of view."

If you have any grounds for doubting Russell's reliability or veracity it would be interesting to learn what they are.

"Special notice: Post-War World. It does us little good to start ringing in party politics. Antebellum republicans were the progressives; democrats were the conservatives. And what they did or became after the war is not the subject."

The surest way of determining why the victors went to war is to analyse what they did with their victory once it was achieved. I have supplied you with a range of primary and secondary sources which suggest what the war was fought for; I'm really only going to sit up and take notice when you counter these with sources of your own. Your unsupported personal opinion, while interesting, is intrinsically valueless. I don't mean that to be offensive: it's equally true of all our personal opinions.

As for the Republicans being progressive, that rather depends on whether you see the Gilded Age as a progression from, an improvement on, what came before it.