Why did the South secede?

[MSNative]

Two links and quotes from articles that give a state's rights POV

 

Statements from the time suggest otherwise. In President Lincoln's first inaugural address, he said, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so."

During the war, in an 1862 letter to the New York Daily Tribune editor Horace Greeley, Lincoln said, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery." A recent article by Baltimore's Loyola College Professor Thomas DiLorenzo titled "The Great Centralizer," in The Independent Review (Fall 1998), cites quotation after quotation of similar northern sentiment about slavery.

Lincoln's intentions, as well as that of many northern politicians, were summarized by Stephen Douglas during the presidential debates. Douglas accused Lincoln of wanting to "impose on the nation a uniformity of local laws and institutions and a moral homogeneity dictated by the central government" that "place at defiance the intentions of the republic's founders." Douglas was right, and Lincoln's vision for our nation has now been accomplished beyond anything he could have possibly dreamed.

A precursor for a War Between the States came in 1832, when South Carolina called a convention to nullify tariff acts of 1828 and 1832, referred to as the "Tariffs of Abominations." A compromise lowering the tariff was reached, averting secession and possibly war. The North favored protective tariffs for their manufacturing industry. The South, which exported agricultural products to and imported manufactured goods from Europe, favored free trade and was hurt by the tariffs. Plus, a northern-dominated Congress enacted laws similar to Britain's Navigation Acts to protect northern shipping interests. Shortly after Lincoln's election, Congress passed the highly protectionist Morrill tariffs.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams120298.asp

 

The war was fought over Southern independence, not over slavery. Lincoln said repeatedly the war was not being fought over slavery. In August 1862, over a year after the war started, Lincoln wrote an open letter to a prominent Republican abolitionist, Horace Greeley, in which he said he did not agree with those who would only “save” the Union if they could destroy slavery at the same time. Lincoln added that if he could “save” the Union without freeing a single slave, he would do so (Letter to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862, published in the New York Tribune).

 

In July 1861, after the First Battle of Manassas (Bull Run) had been fought, the U.S. Congress passed a resolution, by an overwhelming majority, that declared the war was not being fought to disturb slavery, nor to subjugate the South, but only to “maintain the Union” (i.e., to force the Southern states back into the Union). A few months later, in September, a group of Radicals visited Lincoln to urge him to make compulsory emancipation a war objective. Lincoln declined, telling the Radicals, “We didn’t go into the war to put down slavery, but to put the flag back” (Brodie, Thaddeus Stevens, p. 155; Klingaman, Abraham Lincoln and the Road to Emancipation, pp. 75-76).

http://www.factasy.com/civil_war/2008/02/29/was_war_fought_over_slavery

 

 

[kalphs]

The abolitionist movement was very strong. Long before the civil war , many people in the Union (including some southerners) were working towards making slavery illegal. Lincoln himself campaigned to prevent new states from becoming slave states. (Not popular among many- which is one reason his election wasn't too popular in some areas of the country).

 

Slavery was a contentious point in the US before the civil war. It was absolutely an issue, but not the main issue for the south's secession. However, for some people, yes, it was *the* issue, and was even used a recruiting tool.

Bump!

This is what I heard growing up and it was taught in our school.

It's interesting to talk to people who were raised in the south and north.

The northerns have a different take on the war than do the southerns.

[Snowfall]

Oh, and there is a reason you cannot claim that it was about "state rights." The slave-owning states were actually mad that the federal government was not forcing non-slave-owning states to return runaway slaves. The slave-owning states wanted the federal government to force the other states to comply with laws in regard to runaway slaves, taxes on slaves, etc.

 

Yes, even when those laws did not require the supposed "owners" (enslavers would be a better word, I think) to prove that they were actually the enslavers of the non-white person in question. Essentially, the law stated that a white person could simply claim to own a black person, and that would mean they were allowed to tie them up and take them home with them. I don't know that this really happened, but I'm sure it must have on occasion.

 

The idea that slavery should have been a state's right to decide (as has been explicitly stated in this thread) is pretty awful.

 

Honestly, I'm not really all that concerned with what a tour guide at a museum has to say about the causes of the war. In the South, the official line is ALWAYS that it wasn't about slavery. That's what you'll hear in the schools, that's what you'll hear in the museums.

[Rivka]

The Southern states seceded over slavery. A reading of the articles of secession will show that. Speeches given by Southern leaders will show that. Do not take my word for it, look at the primary sources.

 

The North went to war to preserve the union, slavery was only a side issue for them. By the way, I am pretty sure every thread we have ever had on this has wound up locked.

 

Yep. We don't have to speculate on this topic, because the seceding states very obligingly laid out their reasons in primary source documents.

 

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

 

Georgia:

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

 

Mississippi:

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.

 

Texas:

In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.

 

For some reason it seems to make Southerners feel better to maintain that the war was about "state's rights," and to insist that no one go into greater detail about which particular "rights" were in question. I understand that it must be embarrassing to be identified with people who believed that it was their right to buy, sell, and own human beings; to force them to work without wages; to keep them subjugated, terrified, and uneducated; to rape them at will; to separate children from their mothers; to whip and beat and injure these human beings with impunity if angered; and to say that all of this is rightful, proper, and indeed God's will and design. It must be mortifying.

 

Nonetheless, facts are facts. The documents of secession are extremely clear about the preeminence of slavery among Southerner's concerns, and their conviction that slavery must be preferred. All that can really be done is to insist on euphemisms ("state's rights" "Southern culture and heritage") and to attempt misdirection by, for example, cherry-picking from Lincoln's speeches in an attempt to prove that he thought slavery was just dandy as well.

 

The Confederate States of America were formed to preserve and protect the right of some human beings to own others. Period.

[Spy Car]

Yep. We don't have to speculate on this topic, because the seceding states very obligingly laid out their reasons in primary source documents.

 

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

 

Georgia:

 

 

Mississippi:

 

 

Texas:

 

 

For some reason it seems to make Southerners feel better to maintain that the war was about "state's rights," and to insist that no one go into greater detail about which particular "rights" were in question. I understand that it must be embarrassing to be identified with people who believed that it was their right to buy, sell, and own human beings; to force them to work without wages; to keep them subjugated, terrified, and uneducated; to rape them at will; to separate children from their mothers; to whip and beat and injure these human beings with impunity if angered; and to say that all of this is rightful, proper, and indeed God's will and design. It must be mortifying.

 

Nonetheless, facts are facts. The documents of secession are extremely clear about the preeminence of slavery among Southerner's concerns, and their conviction that slavery must be preferred. All that can really be done is to insist on euphemisms ("state's rights" "Southern culture and heritage") and to attempt misdirection by, for example, cherry-picking from Lincoln's speeches in an attempt to prove that he thought slavery was just dandy as well.

 

The Confederate States of America were formed to preserve and protect the right of some human beings to own others. Period.

 

Great post !!!

 

Bill

[Happy2BaMom]

The idea that slavery should have been a state's right to decide (as has been explicitly stated in this thread) is pretty awful.

 

 

:iagree:

 

For some reason it seems to make Southerners feel better to maintain that the war was about "state's rights," and to insist that no one go into greater detail about which particular "rights" were in question. I understand that it must be embarrassing to be identified with people who believed that it was their right to buy, sell, and own human beings; to force them to work without wages; to keep them subjugated, terrified, and uneducated; to rape them at will; to separate children from their mothers; to whip and beat and injure these human beings with impunity if angered; and to say that all of this is rightful, proper, and indeed God's will and design. It must be mortifying.

 

Nonetheless, facts are facts. The documents of secession are extremely clear about the preeminence of slavery among Southerner's concerns, and their conviction that slavery must be preferred. All that can really be done is to insist on euphemisms ("state's rights" "Southern culture and heritage") and to attempt misdirection by, for example, cherry-picking from Lincoln's speeches in an attempt to prove that he thought slavery was just dandy as well.

 

 

Amen. Oh - in your first paragraph, you left out "brand" from the "whip and beat and injure" list.

[Margaret in GA]

:iagree:

 

The "State's Right" in question was the right of a State to legislate the legal enslavement of human beings and the treatment of those enslaved people as chattel property with no legal or human rights.

 

As far as I'm concerned no State has that "right."

 

Bill

 

Agreed. This is a pretty bad poll for a number of reasons. And I'm with Mungo, just a matter of time before this thread gets shut down.

 

Margaret, who believes 'states rights' is a great slogan if your purpose is to get people riled up-- Alabama ca. 1960's, anyone??

[MSNative]

 

For some reason it seems to make Southerners feel better to maintain that the war was about "state's rights," and to insist that no one go into greater detail about which particular "rights" were in question. I understand that it must be embarrassing to be identified with people who believed that it was their right to buy, sell, and own human beings; to force them to work without wages; to keep them subjugated, terrified, and uneducated; to rape them at will; to separate children from their mothers; to whip and beat and injure these human beings with impunity if angered; and to say that all of this is rightful, proper, and indeed God's will and design. It must be mortifying.

 

 

 

The evils of slavery tainted all Americans, not just Southerners. Do remember that some Northerners also owned slaves. And most Southerners did NOT own slaves. Indeed, even Ulysses S. Grant owned one slave and his wife owned 4. And neither freed them until after the Emancipation Proclamation. Kind of hard to argue that it was ONLY about slavery when a major military leader on the Union side owned a slave while fighting the war.

 

People on both sides have argued credibly, imho, that slavery was one of many reasons why the Civil War happened. If it really was only about slavery then the Emancipation Proclamation would have happened in 1860, not 1863...and it would have freed all slaves, not just those in the Confederacy.

 

I do not argue that slavery was not an issue. However, to blame it all on slavery is incorrect. To assume that those who argue that there were other reasons are merely glossing over slavery or pretending that slavery was just fine is also incorrect.

[LibraryLover]

Do people really think this thread is so bad it could be shut down? I think it's quite a good discussion and people are being pretty darn gracious. I think the nose piercing thread is more likely to be locked. ;)

[mommaduck]

Do people really think this thread is so bad it could be shut down? I think it's quite a good discussion and people are being pretty darn gracious. I think the nose piercing thread is more likely to be locked. ;)

And some are just avoiding commenting on this thread.

 

*feel free to continue bashing the south and ignoring the flaws of the north at that time...something about taking the log out of your own eye first and all that ;) *

[mommaduck]

The evils of slavery tainted all Americans, not just Southerners. Do remember that some Northerners also owned slaves. And most Southerners did NOT own slaves. Indeed, even Ulysses S. Grant owned one slave and his wife owned 4. And neither freed them until after the Emancipation Proclamation. Kind of hard to argue that it was ONLY about slavery when a major military leader on the Union side owned a slave while fighting the war.

 

People on both sides have argued credibly, imho, that slavery was one of many reasons why the Civil War happened. If it really was only about slavery then the Emancipation Proclamation would have happened in 1860, not 1863...and it would have freed all slaves, not just those in the Confederacy.

 

I do not argue that slavery was not an issue. However, to blame it all on slavery is incorrect. To assume that those who argue that there were other reasons are merely glossing over slavery or pretending that slavery was just fine is also incorrect.

Bravo!

 

Lee freed his slaves before the war. Jefferson Davis' wife had practically adopted a black child, after rescuing him from an abusive owner, and educated him along with her own children (the Union Army ripped the crying child out of her arms later). Women in the south were loaded up and separated from their families, shipped North to work in factories. New Hampshire was the last state to get rid of slavery. The proclamation freed the southern slaves, except in Yankee held Louisiana and not at all for any slaves in the north.

 

No, I don't have a "beautiful picture" of the south, there was ugliness. But that same ugliness existed in the north as well in various forms. Where in the south it was not uncommon for a black person and white person to shake hands, a Yankee soldier wrote home about this "distasteful" practice...eww, to touch a black person! :glare:

 

There were the good, the bad, and the ugly on all sides.

[Margaret in GA]

Bravo!

 

Lee freed his slaves before the war. Jefferson Davis' wife had practically adopted a black child, after rescuing him from an abusive owner, and educated him along with her own children (the Union Army ripped the crying child out of her arms later). Women in the south were loaded up and separated from their families, shipped North to work in factories. New Hampshire was the last state to get rid of slavery. The proclamation freed the southern slaves, except in Yankee held Louisiana and not at all for any slaves in the north.

 

No, I don't have a "beautiful picture" of the south, there was ugliness. But that same ugliness existed in the north as well in various forms. Where in the south it was not uncommon for a black person and white person to shake hands, a Yankee soldier wrote home about this "distasteful" practice...eww, to touch a black person! :glare:

 

There were the good, the bad, and the ugly on all sides.

 

So, they were shaking hands in the cotton fields after the master delivers a hearty "good job, ole boy?" and extends his hand in gratitude for his lifelong indebtedness? Yeah, that's distasteful all right.

[A.D.]

Bravo!

 

Lee freed his slaves before the war. Jefferson Davis' wife had practically adopted a black child, after rescuing him from an abusive owner, and educated him along with her own children (the Union Army ripped the crying child out of her arms later).

 

Interesting that Mrs. Davis actively educated a black child, which was against the law in most Confederate states. At the same time, her husband made statements such as:

"On and after February 22, 1863, all free negroes within the limits of the Southern Confederacy shall be placed on the slave status, and be deemed to be chattels, they and their issue forever.

 

All negroes who shall be taken in any of the States in which slavery does not now exist, in the progress of our arms, shall be adjudged, immediately after such capture, to occupy the slave status, and in all States which shall be vanquished by our arms, all free negroes shall, ipso facto, be reduced to the condition of helotism (absolute slavery), so that the respective normal conditions of the white and black races may be ultimately placed on a permanent basis, so as to prevent the public peace from being thereafter endangered."

Also:

 

"... it ought not to be considered polemically or politically improper in me to vindicate the position which has been, at an early day of this Southern republic, assumed by the Confederacy, namely, that slavery is the corner-stone of a Western Republic."

Both statements made in an address on January 5th, 1863.

I find it a bit hard to believe that the story of his wife and the black child a bit exaggerated based on the above.

 

Women in the south were loaded up and separated from their families, shipped North to work in factories.

 

Specific citations here would be helpful so I can verify this claim.

 

New Hampshire was the last state to get rid of slavery.

Aye, it was. Kind of.

"Slaves were removed from the rolls of taxable property in 1789, but the act appears to have been for taxing purposes only. The 1790 census counted 158 slaves; but in 1800, there were only 8. Portsmouth traders participated legally in the slave trade until 1807. No slaves were counted for the state in 1810 and 1820, but three are listed in 1830 and one in 1840.

A commonly accepted date for the end of slavery in New Hampshire is 1857, when an act was passed stating that "No person, because of decent, should be disqualified from becoming a citizen of the state." The act is interpreted as prohibiting slavery. By a strict interpretation, however, slavery was outlawed only on Dec. 6, 1865, when the 13th amendment went into effect. (Ratified by New Hampshire July 1, 1865.)"

http://www.slavenorth.com/newhampshire.htm

It is important to note that slavery in New Hampshire was non-existent, not enforced, and had been de facto abolished long before 1865.

 

The proclamation freed the southern slaves, except in Yankee held Louisiana and not at all for any slaves in the north.

This is only partially true. Emancipation had effectively occurred in all northern states before the war, but it is true the border states still allowed slavery, and the E.P. did not apply to them. Not including them was clearly a political move to keep from pushing the border states out of the Union, and while not morally right, it is understandable in the context of the time.

Considering the 13th Amendment was ratified after the war, ending slavery in all states and territories does appear to been at least an underlying issue for many in the north.

 

No, I don't have a "beautiful picture" of the south, there was ugliness. But that same ugliness existed in the north as well in various forms. Where in the south it was not uncommon for a black person and white person to shake hands, a Yankee soldier wrote home about this "distasteful" practice...eww, to touch a black person!

 

I don't believe anyone has ever denied racism was prevelant in the north as well as the south. I do disagree that blacks and whites shaking hands was "not uncommon" in the south during slavery, considering the vast majority of blacks were enslaved, and had zero rights under the law. Even if handshakes did occur from time to time, one would think they held less meaning when one party in the handshake in could buy, sell, beat, rape, or kill the other with impunity.

 

There were the good, the bad, and the ugly on all sides.

Very true. Unfortunately too many in the south still try to white wash the evils of slavery, and try to excuse the way they treated African Americans as somehow acceptable, or at least excusable. I could possibly forgive some of that attitude, had it not carried over for decades and forced my ancestors to fight and die for the basic rights given to every other citizen, simply because their skin color was different.

[mommaduck]

Very true. Unfortunately too many in the south still try to white wash the evils of slavery, and try to excuse the way they treated African Americans as somehow acceptable, or at least excusable. I could possibly forgive some of that attitude, had it not carried over for decades and forced my ancestors to fight and die for the basic rights given to every other citizen, simply because their skin color was different.

And many of us don't. Many of despise the institution of slavery. But we don't white wash the North or Lincoln either.

[A.D.]

And many of us don't. Many of despise the institution of slavery. But we don't white wash the North or Lincoln either.

 

Trying to defend the ignorance that kept millions in bondage by pointing out that new hampshire banned slavery last (which isn't really accurate) accomplishes what exactly?

Why does it matter if Lee freed his slaves, if he fought for a nation built around the purpose of keeping all others enslaved? Why did he allow free blacks in Pennsylvania to be pulled back into bondage when he invaded Pennsylvania for the Gettysburg campaign?

Does Grant owning slaves prior to the war somehow absolve everyone in the south? If so, why?

 

Also, a war can be fought with both sides having different reasons for the conflict. Lincoln wanted to hold the Union together, with slavery being a secondary issue. The Confederates States, based on their seccession documents, clearly saw slavery as a primary issue.

[mommaduck]

Trying to defend the ignorance that kept millions in bondage by pointing out that new hampshire banned slavery last (which isn't really accurate) accomplishes what exactly?

Why does it matter if Lee freed his slaves, if he fought for a nation built around the purpose of keeping all others enslaved? Why did he allow free blacks in Pennsylvania to be pulled back into bondage when he invaded Pennsylvania for the Gettysburg campaign?

Does Grant owning slaves prior to the war somehow absolve everyone in the south? If so, why?

 

Also, a war can be fought with both sides having different reasons for the conflict. Lincoln wanted to hold the Union together, with slavery being a secondary issue. The Confederates States, based on their seccession documents, clearly saw slavery as a primary issue.

There is defending and there is pointing out facts. If you are against pointing out even positive facts, then all you are trying to do is what the public school text books have taught: "South, bad, evil people...destroy them all...North, good, love and tolerate everyone, praise them as though they are God's own army!" Nope, sorry, but the situation was never that black and white. Apparently you don't agree with me that there were the good, bad, and ugly on all sides. Every war has more than just the two sides. In some cases, it has three or four. The PURPOSE of pointing out the good and bad of BOTH sides, is to give a more accurate view of ALL people involved...not just the powers-that-be locked in a arm wrestling match. There were many more people involved than just Grant/Lee and Davis/Lincoln. Tunnel vision doesn't help anyone in UNDERSTANDING on either side. THAT was my point ;) I don't white wash either side. I don't deny the evils of slavery. I don't exaggerate slavery to involve every person in the south either. I don't deny that there were good people in the north, but I don't exaggerate to make everyone in the north or that fought for the north to be some peace making abolitionist either. (oh, and Lincoln wanted more than "to hold the Union together"...it wasn't quite that simplistic)

[A.D.]

There is defending and there is pointing out facts. If you are against pointing out even positive facts, then all you are trying to do is what the public school text books have taught: "South, bad, evil people...destroy them all...North, good, love and tolerate everyone, praise them as though they are God's own army!" Nope, sorry, but the situation was never that black and white.

 

When it came to the treatment of African Americans, the South was evil. The North was by no means perfect, and had its own issues with racism (ex. the draft riots in New York), but you are clearly trying to minimize the evils of the institution of slavery when you trot out Mrs. Davis allegedly treating a black child like an actual human beimng (the fact that is noteworthy should be a hint), or try to excuse lee for fighting to keep slavery intact because he freed his own slaves. Grant was by no means a hero, and I have never seen him treated as such in any serious hsitorical works. You keep going on about the misinformation taught in northern public schools (which was rampant), yet I find the tales of "The War of Northern Aggression" and the outright lies trotted out about how the freedom fighters in the south were downtrodden by the northern industrialists much more disturbing, especially considering that line of thought was used time and time again to defend segregation.

 

Apparently you don't agree with me that there were the good, bad, and ugly on all sides. Every war has more than just the two sides. In some cases, it has three or four. The PURPOSE of pointing out the good and bad of BOTH sides, is to give a more accurate view of ALL people involved...not just the powers-that-be locked in a arm wrestling match. There were many more people involved than just Grant/Lee and Davis/Lincoln. Tunnel vision doesn't help anyone in UNDERSTANDING on either side. THAT was my point ;) I don't white wash either side. I don't deny the evils of slavery. I don't exaggerate slavery to involve every person in the south either. I don't deny that there were good people in the north, but I don't exaggerate to make everyone in the north or that fought for the north to be some peace making abolitionist either. (oh, and Lincoln wanted more than "to hold the Union together"...it wasn't quite that simplistic)

 

Oddly enough, even in northern public schools, Lee, Jackson, and many other Confederate leaders were often admired for being gentleman and honorable. They really weren't, but alas, history often takes short cuts.

You do deny the evils of slavery when you try to claim that whites and blacks had a harmonious relationship in the South, which your "handshake" claim certainly implied.

I stated Lincoln's primary goal was to hold the Union together. Of course there was more to it than that, which is why I said "primary". It is also proven that the southern states primary interest was protecting slavery. Their own documents, and the actions of those states for the next 100+ years, confirms that as well.

[Rivka]

I don't think anyone here is saying that the North was a bastion of idyllic racial equality, and that Northerners had pure spotless hearts in every respect. (I've never seen a public school textbook that said so, either.)

 

I do think there's a weird kind of moral relativism going on here, from people that I would not normally expect to espouse that type of moral reasoning. "Well, gosh, some bad and good things were done by people on both sides, so I guess it all washes out and both sides are morally equivalent." Are you kidding me? One side was fighting for the right to own people.

 

Yes, people in the North did bad things as well, and yes, people in the South were not all cartoon villains twirling their mustaches nefariously. But that doesn't erase the fact that slavery was a terrible and evil thing, that the South tried to destroy this country rather than give up their slaves, and that our history of slavery continues to have damaging effects on our country 150 years later. Refusing to grapple with these issues gets us nowhere.

[mommaduck]

When it came to the treatment of African Americans, the South was evil. The North was by no means perfect, and had its own issues with racism (ex. the draft riots in New York), but you are clearly trying to minimize the evils of the institution of slavery when you trot out Mrs. Davis allegedly treating a black child like an actual human beimng (the fact that is noteworthy should be a hint), or try to excuse lee for fighting to keep slavery intact because he freed his own slaves. Grant was by no means a hero, and I have never seen him treated as such in any serious hsitorical works. You keep going on about the misinformation taught in northern public schools (which was rampant), yet I find the tales of "The War of Northern Aggression" and the outright lies trotted out about how the freedom fighters in the south were downtrodden by the northern industrialists much more disturbing, especially considering that line of thought was used time and time again to defend segregation.

 

 

 

Oddly enough, even in northern public schools, Lee, Jackson, and many other Confederate leaders were often admired for being gentleman and honorable. They really weren't, but alas, history often takes short cuts.

You do deny the evils of slavery when you try to claim that whites and blacks had a harmonious relationship in the South, which your "handshake" claim certainly implied.

I stated Lincoln's primary goal was to hold the Union together. Of course there was more to it than that, which is why I said "primary". It is also proven that the southern states primary interest was protecting slavery. Their own documents, and the actions of those states for the next 100+ years, confirms that as well.

Yes, but see the difference is...YOU have no problem trotting out all the ills of the south, but heaven forbid anyone point out ANY good thing of the south or ANY bad thing of the north...then, it's suddenly "an agenda" or "defense" or "minimizing". No, honey, it's called giving a more balanced and rounded out picture. BTW, most people do not know about the NY riots. Schools generally only teach "South bad, North good". I went to schools all over this country and nowhere did they ever discuss the integrity of any southern general, merely that Lee existed. They only touted how wonderful Lincoln (who had his own racist issues) and Grant were..."they freed the slaves"...that was the extent of our "civil war history" in school. Most of what I learned, was learned by reading, both sides. I've taught Civil War history, have learned a lot from genealogical research (have had southern family that fought on both sides). When teaching, a group of kids from both sides of the Mason/Dixon, I taught them from both sides. We discussed ALL the issues at play. We discussed the various types of people that were involved and what their various reasonings were. I never permitted idealising either side nor demonising either side.

[mommaduck]

"Well, gosh, some bad and good things were done by people on both sides, so I guess it all washes out and both sides are morally equivalent." Are you kidding me? One side was fighting for the right to own people.

 

 

No one said this. Simply, don't paint every southerner as a racist, slave owning, plantation owner living high on the hog.

 

The irony is that the other side owned people also and continued to do so until after the war. Apparently owning people wasn't really an issue with them. The north also had another kind of slavery beginning. It was much easier not to "own" people...if they died in the factory, there was always another immigrant to take their place and it was no loss of money or profit. (Thankfully, that was eventually fought out as well)

 

 

So the point is, instead of discussing the various views and issues, this thread has turned into all the ones like it before, a "let's see how much we can bash the South and those dang southerners" thread. It gets old...really, really old.

Edited October 5, 2010 by mommaduck

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

Well, I was going to say that the issue is too complicated to choose just one answer but I guess after 8 pages and the ensuing debate that is obvious. So I'll skip the explanation.

[Gooblink]

So, Breann, why do you ask?

[Mrs Mungo]

The evils of slavery tainted all Americans, not just Southerners. Do remember that some Northerners also owned slaves. And most Southerners did NOT own slaves. Indeed, even Ulysses S. Grant owned one slave and his wife owned 4. And neither freed them until after the Emancipation Proclamation. Kind of hard to argue that it was ONLY about slavery when a major military leader on the Union side owned a slave while fighting the war.

 

People on both sides have argued credibly, imho, that slavery was one of many reasons why the Civil War happened. If it really was only about slavery then the Emancipation Proclamation would have happened in 1860, not 1863...and it would have freed all slaves, not just those in the Confederacy.

 

I do not argue that slavery was not an issue. However, to blame it all on slavery is incorrect. To assume that those who argue that there were other reasons are merely glossing over slavery or pretending that slavery was just fine is also incorrect.

 

The question was NOT "what were causes of the Civil War?" The question was "why did the South secede?" The South seceded over issues over slavery. If the question had been phrased differently, I would have answered differently.

[mommaduck]

The question was NOT "what were causes of the Civil War?" The question was "why did the South secede?" The South seceded over issues over slavery. If the question had been phrased differently, I would have answered differently.

But what were the issues of slavery related to? Economy. What were the issues of economy related to? Taxes and Tariffs. It's all interconnected...that's why I think it should have been multiple choice or "all of the above" ;)

[A.D.]

Yes, but see the difference is...YOU have no problem trotting out all the ills of the south, but heaven forbid anyone point out ANY good thing of the south or ANY bad thing of the north...then, it's suddenly "an agenda" or "defense" or "minimizing".

 

Um, I think I quite clearly stated the north had its own issues, particuarly in regards to race, but they were significantly lesser than those in the South. I do not see why Grant being a slave owner at some point somehow makes the South's sins any less grave.

You also pointed out nothing good about the south, you just tried to minimize the issues or deflect (ie new Hampshire). There is nothing positive to say about slavery or race relations in the pre- or post-civil war southern states. There just isn't.

 

No, honey, it's called giving a more balanced and rounded out picture. BTW, most people do not know about the NY riots. Schools generally only teach "South bad, North good". I went to schools all over this country and nowhere did they ever discuss the integrity of any southern general, merely that Lee existed. They only touted how wonderful Lincoln (who had his own racist issues) and Grant were..."they freed the slaves"...that was the extent of our "civil war history" in school.

 

Your memories of Civil War history as taught in school may or may not be accurate. In the early elementary grades, a simplistic view of the war as a whole does not bother me, as I can't come up with a good reason to justify one side openly fighting to support keep slavery as being morally equivalent to the other. I know in my high school (in a border state) both sides were addressed, but in the end, I support teaching that keeping others as slaves is morally wrong. I am whacky like that.

 

Most of what I learned, was learned by reading, both sides. I've taught Civil War history, have learned a lot from genealogical research (have had southern family that fought on both sides). When teaching, a group of kids from both sides of the Mason/Dixon, I taught them from both sides. We discussed ALL the issues at play. We discussed the various types of people that were involved and what their various reasonings were. I never permitted idealising either side nor demonising either side.

 

Both sides? Did you teach that the articles of seccession specifically cited slavery as a reason for breaking from the Union? Did you trot out misinformation about emancipation in the north not occurring until after the war?

When you use isolated examples of a the wife of the Confederate President allegedly treating a black child as a member of the family, yes, you are idealising. When you cite the words of a racist Union general as being equivalent to the racism that kept blacks in bondage, you are idealising.

The southern leadership, note I am not saying a word about the people in general, supported forming a new nation so that they could hold other human beings in bondage. They fought for years beforehand not for states rights, but rather to force other states to inflict their way of life on their residents. The same leadership supported the enslavement of free northern blacks when encountered in northern states during the war.

Both sides committed atrocities before the war, but one side was fully aligned with trampling the rights and destroying the lives of African Americans under the guise of "states' rights". There is simply no excuse for that.

[A.D.]

The irony is that the other side owned people also and continued to do so until after the war.

 

Please cite again specifically where slavery was still in practice in the North until after the Civil War. It was not in New Hampshire, and that was your earlier example.

 

But what were the issues of slavery related to? Economy. What were the issues of economy related to? Taxes and Tariffs. It's all interconnected...that's why I think it should have been multiple choice or "all of the above"

 

Yet tariffs and taxes were not listed as by the states as the reasons why they wished to secede. Odd.

[mommaduck]

Please cite again specifically where slavery was still in practice in the North until after the Civil War. It was not in New Hampshire, and that was your earlier example.

 

 

 

Yet tariffs and taxes were not listed as by the states as the reasons why they wished to secede. Odd.

Even you stated that New Hampshire had 8 slaves (and btw, you twisted my words. I stated that New Hampshire was the last to legally get rid of slavery and they waited till a bit after the war to do so. If it was such a moral issue, you would've thought that they would have taken care of it earlier and would not have even allowed it for tax purposes). Eight slaves does not make a state more moral than a state with 200 slaves. Grant owning slaves doesn't make those Southerners that owned slaves sins less grievous. It means that his own sins were just as grievous. It's interesting that you are saying that "the South's sins" vs "Grant owning slaves" (btw, I specified, the slaves were owned by his wife). If some in the South owning slaves broadbrushes the entire South, then Grant and other Northerners owning slaves, should be painted with the same brush. Again, one slave or a hundred, it's still slavery, it's still WRONG.

 

Far as I'm concerned, BOTH sides had grievous sins (the North's were dealt with a bit later). They were both at fault, both had good people in them, both were just as bad...and IMO, that is why we were cursed with such a war.

 

 

Slavery was listed because discussion had moved past the Taxes and Tariffs, the North decided to punish the South by attacking that aspect of their economy, and thus the South was responding to that. One event led to another, led to another, led to another...

Edited October 5, 2010 by mommaduck

[delaney]

Because the north had more fashion sense?:lol: No really I thought it was a slave thing.

[Miss Sherry]

Two links and quotes from articles that give a state's rights POV

 

Statements from the time suggest otherwise. In President Lincoln's first inaugural address, he said, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so."

During the war, in an 1862 letter to the New York Daily Tribune editor Horace Greeley, Lincoln said, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery." A recent article by Baltimore's Loyola College Professor Thomas DiLorenzo titled "The Great Centralizer," in The Independent Review (Fall 1998), cites quotation after quotation of similar northern sentiment about slavery.

Lincoln's intentions, as well as that of many northern politicians, were summarized by Stephen Douglas during the presidential debates. Douglas accused Lincoln of wanting to "impose on the nation a uniformity of local laws and institutions and a moral homogeneity dictated by the central government" that "place at defiance the intentions of the republic's founders." Douglas was right, and Lincoln's vision for our nation has now been accomplished beyond anything he could have possibly dreamed.

A precursor for a War Between the States came in 1832, when South Carolina called a convention to nullify tariff acts of 1828 and 1832, referred to as the "Tariffs of Abominations." A compromise lowering the tariff was reached, averting secession and possibly war. The North favored protective tariffs for their manufacturing industry. The South, which exported agricultural products to and imported manufactured goods from Europe, favored free trade and was hurt by the tariffs. Plus, a northern-dominated Congress enacted laws similar to Britain's Navigation Acts to protect northern shipping interests. Shortly after Lincoln's election, Congress passed the highly protectionist Morrill tariffs.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams120298.asp

 

The war was fought over Southern independence, not over slavery. Lincoln said repeatedly the war was not being fought over slavery. In August 1862, over a year after the war started, Lincoln wrote an open letter to a prominent Republican abolitionist, Horace Greeley, in which he said he did not agree with those who would only “save” the Union if they could destroy slavery at the same time. Lincoln added that if he could “save” the Union without freeing a single slave, he would do so (Letter to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862, published in the New York Tribune).

 

In July 1861, after the First Battle of Manassas (Bull Run) had been fought, the U.S. Congress passed a resolution, by an overwhelming majority, that declared the war was not being fought to disturb slavery, nor to subjugate the South, but only to “maintain the Union” (i.e., to force the Southern states back into the Union). A few months later, in September, a group of Radicals visited Lincoln to urge him to make compulsory emancipation a war objective. Lincoln declined, telling the Radicals, “We didn’t go into the war to put down slavery, but to put the flag back” (Brodie, Thaddeus Stevens, p. 155; Klingaman, Abraham Lincoln and the Road to Emancipation, pp. 75-76).

http://www.factasy.com/civil_war/2008/02/29/was_war_fought_over_slavery

 

 

 

Yes, as others have said, the North went to war to to preserve the Union. However, the South wanted to preserve slavery so their economy would benefit from it.

Actually, when I was in p.s. high school in Oregon our teacher did point out some of the things you've written above. He wanted to clear up the misconception some of us had that Lincoln went to war for the purpose of ending slavery. However, he did emancipate the slaves.

Edited October 5, 2010 by Miss Sherry

[BabyBre]

Thank you, All, for the great discussion! I was interested to see how the Hive would answer this poll which was also given to teachers of US History. It is intentionally designed to force you to chose one primary reason for the South's secession. I have intentionally remained silent because my reply would sound something like this...

 

As it turns out, the results of this poll are very similar to those of the poll of history teachers - a further testament of the degree to which history education has been eroded. I think it is suggestive of what a relavent issue the true reason for secession still is for it to be so widely mistaught. The documents of secession and other primary sources say it in black and white.

 

 

The Southern states seceded over slavery. A reading of the articles of secession will show that. Speeches given by Southern leaders will show that. Do not take my word for it, look at the primary sources.

 

The North went to war to preserve the union, slavery was only a side issue for them. By the way, I am pretty sure every thread we have ever had on this has wound up locked.

 

Oh, and there is a reason you cannot claim that it was about "state rights." The slave-owning states were actually mad that the federal government was not forcing non-slave-owning states to return runaway slaves. The slave-owning states wanted the federal government to force the other states to comply with laws in regard to runaway slaves, taxes on slaves, etc.

 

The South Carolina documents are here on that site

 

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#South Carolina

 

They don't give any reason other than slavery. It is well documented that South Carolina only joined the rest of the states when slavery was agreed on.

 

Once slavery was an issue again they no longer felt obligated.

 

It is hard to imagine someone trying to teach that South Carolina seceeding wasn't about slavery when the actual voices from that era say it was. They state it quite clearly. I grew up hearing "State's Rights" as well. I think a lot of people did. Maybe if it was about State's Rights we wouldn't be as guilty. :(

 

 

 

That's exactly it. Thank you, Mrs. Mungo, Sis, and others for referring to the primary sources.

 

 

Also, my understanding is that a state was required to allow slavery if they wanted to be a part of the Confederacy.

 

Which is why states' rights is the wrong answer to the question. States which joined the Confederacy did not have the right to be non-slave states.

 

Not trying to start a fight, but you can close this thread now! ;)

[Nestof3]

:iagree:

 

It's simplistic to say one thing. Tariffs and taxes *and* state's rights. It was not one thing. The southern states couldn't control the government and it's tariffs (the south felt they were at a disadvantage). If they seceded they could be free of these tariffs, and make their own individual state laws. It's a package.

 

As for slavery. Lincoln first said if he could preserve the Union and allow slavery, he would. (He did not want a war). He couldn't, of course, so he changed /had his mind changed on that.

 

As for L's presidency itself...not a popular guy in the south. But not a reason alone to sucede.

[KingM]

It was about several things, of course, but it's unlikely there would have been a war if not for slavery. Also, thank goodness the North won.

[twoxcell]

Money, plain and simple. To give up slaves would be to give up there wealth, and greed wins out over principles.

[mommaduck]

*forehead slap* please, please! We let this thread die...why did you have to go digging it up?! (Okay, I know you are new...please don't dig threads like this back up. We're all enjoying the peace)

[Nature]

In school, I learned it was slavery. Here’s the “Declaration of Causes of Seceding Statesâ€

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html