What Started The Civil War?

[Jeff]

There is an unfortunate tendency in the old Confederacy to teach a version of history in which slavery is (1) a side issue & (2) not really all that bad. It seems to infect quite a lot of white people from that part of the world.

 

In this version, the secession of slave states was all about oppression by the north, & nothing at all to do with slavery. It ignores what was said at the time, by those advocating secession, which was that it was about slavery.

 

This.

 

I take the seceding states at their own word.

[Tim Sielbeck]

Damn. Now I have to agree with a Doonesbury cartoon. Life sure can be weird sometimes.

[Ken Estes]

One can do worse, especially these days [daze].

[Nobu]

There was likely a cultural/anthropological component driving the cart down the path to war. A culture to paraphrase R.E. Lee that was fond of and spoiling for war but that had never experienced its terrible aspects. A poll of the picnickers who came out to watch the show at First Bull Run would have been enlightenning.

 

Slavery was simply the cause of the day, stoking tribalist rivalries same way the SEC vs Big Ten debate stokes passions today.

 

Boredom undoubtedly played a role as well.

[DB]

Are the other states' secession declarations similarly damning?

[Brian Kennedy]

A lot of them are-- check out South Carolinas!

[Richard Lindquist]

Pro-slavery and anti-slavery was danced around in the writing of the Constitution in which compromises were made to form the union. Were there other elements of tension? Yes, one big dividing line was import duties. Northern state favored them o protect native industries while southern state opposed them because it raised the prices of imports. The immediate cause of secession and the resulting war was not the issue of slavery in the states, but the extension of slavery into the territories and the election of Lincoln on a platform of having the territories be "free states".

 

I did read an alternate history where the union was split and in 1914, the Confederacy took the side of Britain and the United States took the side of Germany.

.

[ickysdad]

Pro-slavery and anti-slavery was danced around in the writing of the Constitution in which compromises were made to form the union. Were there other elements of tension? Yes, one big dividing line was import duties. Northern state favored them o protect native industries while southern state opposed them because it raised the prices of imports. The immediate cause of secession and the resulting war was not the issue of slavery in the states, but the extension of slavery into the territories and the election of Lincoln on a platform of having the territories be "free states".

 

I did read an alternate history where the union was split and in 1914, the Confederacy took the side of Britain and the United States took the side of Germany.

.

True per expansion into the territories causing problems but Abolitionists and The South both realized that slavery had to eventually expand into new territories or die a slow death. Import duties? Well that issue had basically died by 1861 anyways the South in regards to that issue could look to the West & Mid-West regions for help on that issue but slavery was the one issue where the South couldn't get any help from any other region. So in the end when all is said & done ,slavery was the issue.

[Brian Kennedy]

This is a pretty great essay about what it's like to be a black Civil War buff http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/02/why-do-so-few-blacks-study-the-civil-war/308831/

[Ken Estes]

Turns out it was all about nothing:

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/texan-mom-wins-fight-against-textbook-that-erased-slavery/ar-AAf8ooX?li=BBgzzfc

 

See the

McGraw-Hill World Geography textbook, an edition created especially for Texas’ new state standards adopted in 2010. Opening up to a graphic titled “Patterns of Immigration,” ..... The caption reads:

"The Atlantic Slave Trade between the 1500s and the 1800s brought millions of workers from Africa to the southern United States to work on agricultural plantations."

 

 

Just about workers, mind you.

[Ken Estes]

 

 

I did read an alternate history where the union was split and in 1914, the Confederacy took the side of Britain and the United States took the side of Germany.

.

 

Richard, for the centennial of the ACW, Look printed a serial "If the South had Won the Civil War," by MacKinlay Kantor, a successful writer of the time. It has lately been published in book form:

 

http://www.amazon.com/South-Had-Won-Civil-War/dp/0312869495/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1444120662&sr=1-1&keywords=what+is+the+south+had+won

 

As I recall, it had the two declaring war separately on the Axis in WWII, then reuniting postwar in order to resist the USSR in the Cold War [oops, nobody had bought Alaska from the Russians]. I don't remember the WWI decisions, but this is enough of spoiler already.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Ken Estes

[Richard Lindquist]

 

Pro-slavery and anti-slavery was danced around in the writing of the Constitution in which compromises were made to form the union. Were there other elements of tension? Yes, one big dividing line was import duties. Northern state favored them o protect native industries while southern state opposed them because it raised the prices of imports. The immediate cause of secession and the resulting war was not the issue of slavery in the states, but the extension of slavery into the territories and the election of Lincoln on a platform of having the territories be "free states".

 

I did read an alternate history where the union was split and in 1914, the Confederacy took the side of Britain and the United States took the side of Germany.

.

True per expansion into the territories causing problems but Abolitionists and The South both realized that slavery had to eventually expand into new territories or die a slow death. Import duties? Well that issue had basically died by 1861 anyways the South in regards to that issue could look to the West & Mid-West regions for help on that issue but slavery was the one issue where the South couldn't get any help from any other region. So in the end when all is said & done ,slavery was the issue.

 

Slavery didn't "have" to expand into new territories. It expanded because southern planters were conducting a form of "slash and burn" agriculture. Cotton in particular exhausts the soil . As yields dropped, planter wanted to move themselves (and their slaves) to new land. This drove the migration from the seaboard into Alabama and Mississippi and into Texas. With New Mexico and Arizona being somewhat inhospitable to agriculture, the slaveholders eyes turned to Missouri and then to Nebraska. There was a movement to introduce scientific agricultural methods in the south, but the planters were too short sighted to see the benefits. At the same time, in the north, there was tremendous pressure to open the territories to "homesteaders" who would be competing for the same lands the southern planters coveted. If you will note, government assistance to western railroads, the homestead acts, and the land-grant college acts were passed after the southerners seceded and left congress.

[ickysdad]

 

 

Pro-slavery and anti-slavery was danced around in the writing of the Constitution in which compromises were made to form the union. Were there other elements of tension? Yes, one big dividing line was import duties. Northern state favored them o protect native industries while southern state opposed them because it raised the prices of imports. The immediate cause of secession and the resulting war was not the issue of slavery in the states, but the extension of slavery into the territories and the election of Lincoln on a platform of having the territories be "free states".

 

I did read an alternate history where the union was split and in 1914, the Confederacy took the side of Britain and the United States took the side of Germany.

.

True per expansion into the territories causing problems but Abolitionists and The South both realized that slavery had to eventually expand into new territories or die a slow death. Import duties? Well that issue had basically died by 1861 anyways the South in regards to that issue could look to the West & Mid-West regions for help on that issue but slavery was the one issue where the South couldn't get any help from any other region. So in the end when all is said & done ,slavery was the issue.

 

Slavery didn't "have" to expand into new territories. It expanded because southern planters were conducting a form of "slash and burn" agriculture. Cotton in particular exhausts the soil . As yields dropped, planter wanted to move themselves (and their slaves) to new land. This drove the migration from the seaboard into Alabama and Mississippi and into Texas. With New Mexico and Arizona being somewhat inhospitable to agriculture, the slaveholders eyes turned to Missouri and then to Nebraska. There was a movement to introduce scientific agricultural methods in the south, but the planters were too short sighted to see the benefits. At the same time, in the north, there was tremendous pressure to open the territories to "homesteaders" who would be competing for the same lands the southern planters coveted. If you will note, government assistance to western railroads, the homestead acts, and the land-grant college acts were passed after the southerners seceded and left congress.

 

Well maybe some good points there and you also seem to see the same with tobacco planting in the early colonies with planters wanting to expand into territories west of the Appalachians after the land wore out . However the fact the South COULD HAVE changed their methods doesn't change the fact the cotton planters refused to change plus if they didn't expand into the territories it would mean granting the Union gaining even more political power thereby in their minds threatening even more their institution of slavery. It seems that no matter what,expansion,states rights,tariffs or whatever everything recycled around to slavery in the South's eyes.

[swerve]

It seems that no matter what,expansion,states rights,tariffs or whatever everything recycled around to slavery in the South's eyes.

Exactly.

 

They could have argued for western land being opened up for settlement by southern poor whites - but they didn't. They weren't interested in attracting slavery-minded white immigration (if such a thing could be found), or anything else to boost their relative position. It was all about not changing anything, especially not slavery - & I sometimes wonder if resisting other changes was also about slavery, a fear that social change or too much economic change would endanger it.

 

According to the best available (though, it must be admitted, not good - blame the data) estimates the southern colonies were richer per head (including slaves, so a lot richer per white) than the middle colonies & New England about 1770, but steadily lost ground thereafter, until by 1860 they were markedly poorer. Their product per head fell more during the war of independence, & took much longer to recover. By 1840, the north was much richer per head than in 1770 - but not the south. Even white southerners had been left behind northerners, & by 1860 it was even worse. (American Incomes 1774-1860, Lindert & Williamson). They were losing out, & trying to fight it by using government to protect them. When they no longer had enough political clout to do that, they tried secession.

Edited October 8, 2015 by swerve

[DB]

Is that in part due to the industrial revolution - I speculate without having read anything, but a fundamentally agrarian economy would be easily outperformed by a rapidly industrialising one. Were they simply stuck in a bucolic (for some) past?

[swerve]

Pretty much, I think. Stuck in it & trying to stay there.

 

The initial slump was due to the war of independence, which was immensely destructive to the economy. Trade collapsed, urban population declined while overall population grew, industry & agricultural production for export slumped. There was a big shift to lower productivity subsistence production. The slave south was heavily dependent on export agriculture, so was worst hit.

 

Recovery was quickest in the north, where industry grew, initially to replace imports from Britain. The south just carried on growing crops, many for export & some to sell to the north. A little industry came into being, but not much.

[Ken Estes]

The War of 1812 had much more deleterious effects than 1776-83. The US Merchant Marine was badly damaged and trade stopped; particularly bad when you consider we were trading with both sides through most of the wars of 1792-1815.

[Richard Lindquist]

The War of 1812 had much more deleterious effects than 1776-83. The US Merchant Marine was badly damaged and trade stopped; particularly bad when you consider we were trading with both sides through most of the wars of 1792-1815.

Plus the very unproductive trade embargo decreed by Thomas Jefferson in the years leading up to 1812.

[swerve]

The War of 1812 had much more deleterious effects than 1776-83. The US Merchant Marine was badly damaged and trade stopped; particularly bad when you consider we were trading with both sides through most of the wars of 1792-1815.

Not according to the economic historians. While they all agree on short-term economic damage, they also all agree that the War of Independence was worse. Lasted longer, more territory was fought over, & the colonies were more dependent on trade with Britain in 1774 than in 1811, so the shutdown of trade had a bigger impact & was harder to bypass. There's no equivalent in 1812-14 of the shrinking of towns while the overall population grew, as happened in 1776-83. Indeed, there was a boost to some parts of the economy, such as cotton cloth making, & some argue that this soon outweighed the losses. Bad for the South, though: New England cloth factories could buy southern cotton cheap in 1812-14.

[Colin]

As I recall Maine and another border state were completely opposed to the 1812 war as they would lose their main customers

[Richard Lindquist]

As I recall Maine and another border state were completely opposed to the 1812 war as they would lose their main customers

All of the New England States were opposed.

 

The "war hawks" were primarily westerners (Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee) who wanted to annex Canada. Years ago, someone wrote a book "The Expansionists of 1812" (I did a book report on it in US History in college in the fall of 1957) which showed their involvement. The Federalist Party which was strong in New England was pro-British while the Democrat Party was pro-French.

[ickysdad]

 

As I recall Maine and another border state were completely opposed to the 1812 war as they would lose their main customers

All of the New England States were opposed.

 

The "war hawks" were primarily westerners (Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee) who wanted to annex Canada. Years ago, someone wrote a book "The Expansionists of 1812" (I did a book report on it in US History in college in the fall of 1957) which showed their involvement. The Federalist Party which was strong in New England was pro-British while the Democrat Party was pro-French.

 

I'd dispute that....There may have been some sentiment on annexing Canada in reference to ridding the continent of the British BUT "expansion" mainly meant being able to use the land already in US hands but which the settlers felt they couldn't use because of the Indian trouble which they felt was being overtly encouraged by the British in Canada. The US settlers in Kentucky,Tennessee & Ohio didn't need Canadian land they just needed to be able to use what the US already had in it's possession. I think the book you are talking about was written by Julius Pratt.

[ickysdad]

Julius Pratt also wrote "The Land Hunger Thesis Challenged" which was in response to "The Desire For Canadian Land" by Louis Hacker. He also wrote "Western Aims in The War of 1812".

[nigelfe]

The war between the King and Parliament was far more significant to the development of western democracy than some brawl between the slave owning classes and the rest. Of course the 30 Years War in Germany between Protestants and Papists was also far more important than that involving mere slave owners on the other side of an ocean.