Slavery; the root cause of Secession & War

[ole]

Amen, to Johan's applause, Timotheus. If I were to disagree with anything you said, it would be picking nits. Do weigh in more often. Please.

And, Johan, amen. Junk history is not what this vast audience of lurkers and few posters want to read.

Secession was based on slavery, and secession got the war going. Complaints about northern domination and invasion are details reasonable people can discuss. The secession documents are there to read in their entirety. Picking a suitable phrase or paragraph to represent the whole opens the discussion to charges of being incomplete or misconstruing the meaning of the original. Each must view the document and decide for him/herself what the authors and signatories meant by their statements. It doesn't take much time to read them all; most are one page.

Once the documents are read and accepted as authentic, we can move on to interpretation.

ole

[BorderRuffian]

Why is the United States fighting the War in Iraq?
There have been various answers to that question-

1. Oil/Geopolitics

2. WMDs

3. War on Terror

4. All of the above


Whatever the answer...all of these purposes are in the self-interest of the United States.

The war freed the Iraqi people and enabled free elections...
...but no one would claim that was the reason for the war.


And likewise the Northern faction during the American Civil War went to war for its own interest and purposes and the freeing of the slaves only an after-effect...not the intended purpose of the war.

[Catherine Hopley]

"And likewise the Northern faction during the American Civil War went to war for its own interest and purposes and the freeing of the slaves only an after-effect...not the intended purpose of the war."

Precisely so.

The cardinal error being made in this discussion is to assume that whatever caused secession also caused the war. This simply does not follow.

Faced with the reality of secession, there were various options open to the U.S. government, ranging from recognition of the Confederacy to the launching of  a war of conquest. They must have chosen the latter option because, as rational men, they believed it would serve their interests.

To ignore this, simply because it interferes with the fantasy that the War for the Union was some kind of precursor to the civil rights movement, is blatantly dishonest.

There is no doubt that some of the hostility to slavery was based on genuine moral outrage. The institution had been judged by the 19th century and found wanting. But it is crucial to recognise that Northern politicians exploited this for their own aims. It was increasingly recognised that anti-slavery agitation was the mortar which would bind together various factions in the North so that an exclusively Northern political party - the Republicans - might gain power and then use the national government to further the interests of that one region. As early as 1841 Joshua Levitt wrote: 

We must have a leading object in which we can all harmonize, and to which we shall agree to defer all other favorite objects. It is vain to think of harmonising the North in favor of a restrictive policy or an artificial credit system...There is no object but slavery that can serve our turn...

[mobile_96]

Faced with the reality of secession, there were various options open to the U.S. government, ranging from recognition of the Confederacycouldn't do because Lincoln, and his cabinet, didn't believe unilaterial secession legal under the constitution to the launching of  a war of conquestThe so-called confederacy called up 100,000 troops,and fired on the American Flag, and troops, at Sumter, at a time when the U.S. Army only had approx. 16,000 troops, with most of them scattered around in 2,000 miles of frontier duty in the West. Lincoln's callup of troops only came AFTER Sumter was attacked. This callup was a Reaction to a Action instigated by the Confederacy. Congress approved of Lincoln's actions when they returned to session.. They must have chosen the latter option because, as rational men, they believed it would serve their interests. Agreed, The Confedearacy fired on Sumter because they believed it would serve their interests, to try and force the uncommited Slave States into joining their rebellion, hoping that number alone would convence the North to let them leave the Union. Something they soon found would not work to their Advantage.

To ignore this, simply because it interferes with the fantasy that the War for the Union was some kind of precursor to the civil rights movement, is blatantly dishonest.Time and time again, its been pointed out that the North went to war to Preserve the Union. The EP was a WAR measure to deprive the South of some of their labor force that was being used to help their war effort, and was only good for the duration of the war. It was the 13th Amendment that actually freed the slaves.

Chuck

[Catherine Hopley]

Hello Chuck,

"couldn't do because Lincoln, and his cabinet, didn't believe unilaterial secession legal under the constitution"

I agree that they didn't believe it was a legal act. That, in itself, didn't oblige them to go to war: it is possible to take the pragmatic view that the cost of war would be out of all proportion to the magnitude of the illegality in question.

"The so-called confederacy called up 100,000 troops,and fired on the American Flag, and troops, at Sumter, at a time when the U.S. Army only had approx. 16,000 troops, with most of them scattered around in 2,000 miles of frontier duty in the West."

Are you claiming that 100,000 fully armed & trained soldiers were available to the Confederacy at a time when only 16,000 were available to the United States? If so, can you identify the precise window in time during which this remarkable advantage existed?

The call for 100,000 troops was made in anticipation of the vast legions which Lincoln would call to the flag.  Study the census returns for 1860, and explain to me how the armed forces of the Confederacy were ever going to outnumber those of the United States.

As for the firing on Sumter, I am constantly bemused by the outrage with which Unionists describe the act. Rightly or wrongly, Davis and his cabinet believed that they were the government of an independent nation. Can you give me an example of a sovereign nation which would permit a foreign power to maintain garrisons in its own ports?

"Time and time again, its been pointed out that the North went to war to Preserve the Union."

Then how can anyone possibly suggest that the war was caused by slavery, when it was clearly caused by the U.S. government's intention to transform a Union based on mutual consent into a Union based on coercion?

[mobile_96]

Hello Catherine, hope this Very cold day finds you well. Warmer than myself I'd expect. Supposed to make a trip to Ky this wkend, but a threat of a major snow event passing thru my area might put a damper on the trip.

Hello Chuck,
I agree that they didn't believe it was a legal act. That, in itself, didn't oblige them to go to war: it is possible to take the pragmatic view that the cost of war would be out of all proportion to the magnitude of the illegality in question. The claim of secession didn't cause Lincoln to declare war, since that had been going on since Dec, well before Lincoln was sworn in. And he didn't declare war when he was sworn in. It was when the American Flag was fired on. Again, it was a Reaction to a Action. AS to cost. How would they know what it would cost. For either side. Why didn't the South take into consideration what it might cost and whether it Might be more than the value of what they wanted to protect.

"The so-called confederacy called up 100,000 troops,and fired on the American Flag, and troops, at Sumter, at a time when the U.S. Army only had approx. 16,000 troops, with most of them scattered around in 2,000 miles of frontier duty in the West."

Are you claiming that 100,000 fully armed & trained soldiers were available to the Confederacy at a time when only 16,000 were available to the United States? If so, can you identify the precise window in time during which this remarkable advantage existed?

The call for 100,000 troops was made in anticipationAnd here you answer your own question about When Confederate troops were called up. The Confederacy called for Troops, Lincoln only called up 75,000 Militia on April 17. of the vast legions which Lincoln would call to the flag.  Study the census returns for 1860, and explain to me how the armed forces of the Confederacy were ever going to outnumber those of the United States.Instead of me, maybe the southern leader should have looked at the census returns. As everyone knows, most figured there would be no war, and if there was, it would be shortlived, producing no alarm over population issues

As for the firing on Sumter, I am constantly bemused by the outrage with which Unionists describe the act. Rightly or wrongly, Davis and his cabinet believed that they were the government of an independent nation Can you give me an example of a sovereign nation which would permit a foreign power to maintain garrisons in its own ports? With Secession Not recognized SC was Not part of a Foreign power. And, SC gave the area of the bay where Sumter was being constructed (infact, was still under Construction, and paid for by Federal dollars) to the Federal Government 'forever'

"Time and time again, its been pointed out that the North went to war to Preserve the Union."

Then how can anyone possibly suggest that the war was caused by slavery, when it was clearly caused by the U.S. government's intention to transform a Union based on mutual consent into a Union based on coercion?Because the leaders of the Secession movement told us it was slavery. They told us, over and over and over again. A point you chose to ignore. Could you......No...Would you explain Why you think that Davis, Stephens and many other Southern leaders were lying to the Southern people about the reason for Secession? Saying it was because they were polititions is Not a Reason. They had to have had a point. What was that Point. Besides, with the Government controlled by the South (Presidency and Congress)for most of the previous 70 years how was the South being coerced.
Question for you. Remember the Committee of 33 that met before Sumter?? Could you let us know what were the demands of the Southern reps were, to stop secession??

Have a Nice Day

[BorderRuffian]

"The so-called confederacy called up 100,000 troops,and fired on the American Flag, and troops, at Sumter, at a time when the U.S. Army only had approx. 16,000 troops, with most of them scattered around in 2,000 miles of frontier duty in the West."

No...

President Davis was "authorized...to ask for and accept the services of any number of volunteers, not exceeding 100,000."

He did not immediately call for 100,000. 
It would be many months before the Confederates had 100,000 troops in the field.

[Johan Steele]

Actually yes, when did he make the call for 100,000 troops?  Also at what point did the CS engage in hostility against the US, I gave you several points above.  Do you think any of those would be viewed as a clear decleration of war today, or 1940 or 1815?  I think many people would view several of the actions partaken by the CS against US as acts of War both today as they did in 1860.  If any nation pulled the stunt of seizing arsenals, ships or soldiers it would be viewed as a clear act of War.  Ft Sumter was not actually the first target of CS aggresion.  IMO Secession was an election backed by bayonets & that is also what the ACW turned into.

Perhaps the only good thing that came out of the CW was Emancipation, again enforced at the point of a bayonet but it would still take a century plus to change it from defacto apartheid.  Ironically to me the first defacto Civil Rights actions were accomplished by President Grant.  I do believe that had the courts, it would have gone all the way to the Supreme Court, been involved I think their MIGHT not have been the bloodshed caused by the ACW and there MAY have been a peaceful Secession.  But that would have required cooler heads to prevail and Ft Sumter eliminated that opportunity.  The rule of law still held sway in the US, the CS opted to ignore that.

I continue to say Secession was caused by slavery and its proponents; and Secession led to War.   And I have seen nothing to show me that the CS was les than interested in a peaceful seperation.  In fact I have cme to believe that the CS needed a war to survive w/out it it would have fallen apart.

For years I didn't believe Slavery was the root cause; in fact it wasn't until I started reading as many words of the men of the day that I changed my mind.

Ole, Unionblue & Mobile 96 may remember Connie Boone on CWT; before her untimely death it was she who got me reading more.  And hers along with other suggested books that cemented that view.  Were there other causes?  Yes, but almost all can be tracked back to the ugly stain of slavery.

[BorderRuffian]

President Davis was "authorized...to ask for and accept the services of any number of volunteers, not exceeding 100,000."

He did not immediately call for 100,000. 
It would be many months before the Confederates had 100,000 troops in the field.

The authorization to call for up to 100,000 troops was made on March 6, 1861.

CSA
March 9- The first call is made for 11,700 men.  It took about a month for them to be fully organized.

CSA
April 8- An additional 19,500 are requested from the various states after the "discontinuance by the United States of negotiations with the Commissioners representing this Government (CSA)."

April 12- Fort Sumter.

USA
April 15- Lincoln calls for 75,000 troops.

CSA
April 16- The Confederates request another 32,000 from the various states.


As of April 16 the total number of troops being raised was-

USA  75,000
CSA  63,200

[mobile_96]

  If any nation pulled the stunt of seizing arsenals, ships or soldiers it would be viewed as a clear act of War.  Ft Sumter was not actually the first target of CS aggresion.  IMO Secession was an election backed by bayonets & that is also what the ACW turned into.  Very much agree. Virg. was in very active in this area before its own popular referendem

Ole, Unionblue & Mobile 96 may remember Connie Boone on CWT; before her untimely death it was she who got me reading more.  And hers along with other suggested books that cemented that view.  Were there other causes?  Yes, but almost all can be tracked back to the ugly stain of slavery.Knew her pretty well Johan. Every Sat, many Sunday nights, starting around 9, Connie, myself, and sometimes 4 or 5 others would hash out different topics until sometimes 3-3:30am. Think our group missed her more than any of her others. When she passed away, her daughter-in-law cleaned out her house. When they got up to 2000 History books,with many of them on the CW, they quit counting. Later we heard they had lost count after about 3,000 books in her very small house. She had them stashed everywhere, under, over and behind her furniture. She was in 7 or 8 different groups and very active in everyone of them. She tried to get me to come up to visit her. Her idea of fun, was leaving her house Sat morning, and starting in Madison, drive south towards Chicago, hitting every used book store she could find (she had a huge list of them) buying books until she filled the car, then went home.