It was about slavery

[ironfoot]

http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_17802988?nclick_check=1

[subdjoe]

Ah...an authoritative opinion piece by a racist. 

If it was "about slavery and nothing else" why then did the offers to make slavery perpetual fall on deaf ears?  Seems like if it was "about slavery and nothing else" then that guarantee would have done the trick. 

Could it be that there were other issues?  No, of course not!  No clamors to force the seven states back so that federal coffers would stay full. No demands to invade the south to keep northern ports busy, and northern industrialists rich.  Nope, not a peep. 

And of course, the first thing Lincoln did on assuming office was to issue an Executive order freeing all slaves throughout the Republic.  Of course he did! It is right there in the history books!

[threepdr]

The words of people who caused secession and the Civil War are the best way to determine motives.

From a proclamation from Governor Brown to form the Alabama Secession Convention:

        "Who is Mr. Lincoln, whose election is now beyond question? He is the head of a great sectional party calling itself Republican: a party whose leading object is the destruction of the institution of slavery as it exists in the slaveholding States. Their most distinguished leaders, in and out of Congress, have publicly and boldly proclaimed this to be their intention and unalterable determination. Their newspapers are filled with similar declarations. Are they in earnest? Let their past acts speak for them.
        Nearly every one of the non-slaveholding States have been for years under the control of the Black Republicans. A large majority of these States have nullified the fugitive slave law, and have successfully resisted its execution. They have enacted penal statutes, punishing, by fine and imprisonment in the penitentiary, persons who may pursue and arrest fugitive slaves in said State. They have by law, under heavy penalties, prohibited any person from aiding the owner to arrest his fugitive slave, and have denied us the use of their prisons to secure our slaves until they can be removed from the State. They have robbed the South of slaves worth millions of dollars, and have rendered utterly ineffectual the only law passed by Congress to protect this species of property." 

A. B. MOORE, Governor
Montgomery, Nov. 14, 1860.


The complete transcripts of the Alabama Secession Convention can be found at this link.  The text is filled with the reasons for their desire to leave the Union.  After reading the meat of this document, you can never believe that the desire to protect the "peculiar institution" had no influence on breaking up the Union.  The "States Rights" so often touted included preserving slavery and protecting their human "property" under the various fugitive slave laws that had been enacted by Congress

http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/smithwr/smith.html#p129

[subdjoe]

The predicament in which both the Government and the commerce of the country are placed, through the non-enforcement of our revenue laws, is now thoroughly understood the world over....If the manufacturer at Manchester [England] can send his goods into the Western States through New Orleans at less cost than through New York, he is a fool for not availing himself of his advantage...If the importations of the counrty are made through Southern ports, its exports will go through the same channel.  The produce of the West, instead of coming to our own port by millions of tons, to be transported abroad by the same ships through which we received our importations, will seek other routes and other outlets.  With the lost of our foreign trade, what is to become of our public works, conducted at the cost of many huindred millions of dollars, to turn into our harbor the products of the interior?  They share in the common ruin.  So do our manufacturers...Once at New Orleans, goods may be distributed over the whole country duty-free.  The process is perfectly simple... The commercial bearing of the question has acted upon the North...We now see clearly whither we are tending, and the policy we must adopt.  With us it is no longer an abstract question---one of Constitutional construction, or of the reserved or delegated powers of the State or Federal government, but of material existence and moral position both at home and abroad.....We were divided and confused till our pockets were touched.  ---New York Times March 30, 1861

The Southern Confederacy will not employ our ships or buy our goods.  What is our shipping without it?  Literally nothing....It is very clear that the South gains by this process, and we lose.  No---we MUST NOT "let the South go." ----Union Democrat , Manchester, NH, February 19, 1861

Yep, all about slavery.  Slavery may have been first among several issues for the deep south leaving the Union, but it was cold hard cash that caused the north to use the bayonet to force it back.

[ironfoot]

Huh?

It was the fear of losing their "property" that motivated the Rebellion to Preserve Slavery.

[Pass Lake]

I just listened to 3 history professors talk about the cause of the Civil War on the nightly news.  Drew Faust, president of Harvard University;Walter Edgar,  history professior at University of South Carolina; and Edna Medford, history professor at Howard University.

 They concurred that "trained historians" are almost unanimous in agreement that the cause of the Civil War was slavery.  They were troubled by the lack of historical knowledge of those Americans who think otherwise.

[williamlayton]

It only became popular to point at other reasons after thw second  world war and civil rights started in earnest.
I was fortunate to have three professors who explained this.
I didn't agree at first--but the reasearch is pretty solid for this conclusion as a major---thoughthere are important other reasons.
Blessings

[Rustyinfla]

  My father taught me history before I ever got to school. He still had his pre-WWI history book that went into great detail about the way the north dictated how the south could do business.

[AfricanHandgunner]

If the Civil war was about slavery, why when Lincoln emancipated the slaves were there mass desertions among his soldiers and huge anti war protests in the North??  To say slavery was the sole cause of the Civil War is overly simplfying things.  Sure, slavery was one reason, and not even a big one, at that. 

[williamlayton]

There were other issues.
There was a large Abolitionist movement in the nation--it was not Lincoln who started it, and he did not know the answer--but it pushed a lot of buttons in the South. They were all fear buttons.
Not all abolitionist were in the North.
The movement was a major movement to war for the South.
Blessings

[Hooker]

If the issue had been slavery the South would have only had to remain in the union to have kept slavery going.
With the need for a 3/5 majority to ratify the Constitution the South had the numbers on their side.
Slave ownership in the south was about 31 percent , to believe that 31% of the people in the south convinced the other 69% to go to war so that they could keep slaves is pure idiocy.
The Proclamation of Emancipation was ordered January 1 1863 if the war was about slavery why was this not ordered from the out set of the war April 12 1861?
Why was it that Grant kept slaves up until emancipation?
Slavery was used by the north to cover up that it was in fact screwing the South to appease rich textile and shipping owners in the north.

Pat

[Muddly]

Not slavery , but enslavement.If you understand the process that started in 1865, you would realize that we have all been made slaves to the Federal govt. I think if he could see what is happening today even Lincoln would be horrified. But then again, maybe not...Alas , my poor country...Deo Vindice!

[williamlayton]

It was not slavery in the South that was a thorn in the side of slave owners and traders, it was in fact that slavery would be contained.
Remember Kansas and Missouri.
Like all enterprises--if it does not grow it dies.
The writing on the wall--as far as Socuth Carolina Slave owners and traders was concerned--was that under the Union, slavery was a dead industry.
Blessings

[Hooker]

TM7 you are correct sir.

Pat

[Ga.windbreak]

If the issue had been slavery the South would have only had to remain in the union to have kept slavery going.
With the need for a 3/5 majority to ratify the Constitution the South had the numbers on their side.


Pat

Ah Hooker, you are one in a million sir. This post is PRICELESS! and you sir are a true protector of the flame of Truth and Facts!

My hat is off to you.

Ron

[slim rem 7]

one post said 31 % owned slave as i understand..its my opinion that would be a higher
percentage than was fact..the stories passed dn through the years in my family ,indicate the percentage of slave owners was quite a bit lower than that..jmo. slim

[Hooker]

According to the 1860 census, in the slave states of Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia, puts slave ownership at 26%.
I find this a bit of a strange thing to call these the slave states when New Jersey held slaves until 1865.
Here's a good read on the subject of slavery in the north.
http://www.slavenorth.com/index.html

Pat

[williamlayton]

TM
I doubt that there is a concentrated plot to enslave citizens of the US.
We have elected lawyers who think that it is their job to create law.
We have people who actually think that laws prevent---such foolishment is beyound belief.
We have elected leaders who have no morals and greedy is not a word that really does justice to the greed of these people.
We, US, YOU AND ME are to blame. It can be redirected & changed but folks are going to have backbone, willingness to get of the dole and get back living like this is a Republic and they are part of the team.
Blessings

[rio grande]

This just about sums it up.

"They (the North) did not, nor would their generals or soldiers have even so formulated it, invade the South to eliminate slavery, in the cause of abolition, or for the liberation of Negroes. It was not formally or informally, in the minds of either the Union armies or their civilian instigators, a war about slavery."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/sale6.1.1.html

[williamlayton]

Not in the North---the South is a differenct story.
Blessings

[The Famous Grouse]

If the issue had been slavery the South would have only had to remain in the union to have kept slavery going.
With the need for a 3/5 majority to ratify the Constitution the South had the numbers on their side.
Slave ownership in the south was about 31 percent , to believe that 31% of the people in the south convinced the other 69% to go to war so that they could keep slaves is pure idiocy.
Pat

A classic case of calculator abuse.   While historians are often criticized for warping the past, this is in fact, a great example of why the War of Southern Denial needs historians. 

This statistic must be viewed in context.  First, I believe the actual figure most historians quote is that at the beginning of the war just over 25% of the population of the southern states owned slaves.

The context that must be understood is that this statement is that this 25% of the population represented a significant majority of the population that was eligible to vote.  How much of a majority varies by state, but the fact is that the southern slave-holding classes had a near stranglehold on political power even if they did represent "only" 25% of the population as a whole. 

In other words, that 25% of the population was the only percentage that really mattered because they were the ones who held the political power.  And they were in favor of continuing slavery almost to the man.

Why do southerners feel the need to live in denial of the fact that preserving slavery was the major reason for the war? 

I would not see this as an indictment against the present day south and southerners, nor would I see it as an admission of guilt, but to continue this charade of Southern Denial of slavery as the main cause certainly leaves southerners open to the claim of everything from revisionist history to racism.

I readily point out that the historical record clearly lays out that there were other reasons for the war. 

But any comprehensive review of the historical record of the time--and by that I mean contemporary transcripts of political meetings, letters, newspaper accounts, and other of-the-day records--shows clearly that slavery and issues directly related to its preservation were far and away the most discussed and cited reason for both secession and for the war itself. 

I think the 150th Anniversary would present a great opportunity for the southerners to turn over a new leaf by ending the culture of southern denial. 

Grouse

[SHOOTALL]

 If it was only about slavery please explain why the North took so long to free their slaves after the wars end ?
 That acxtion on their part smells of money ! Cost to tax payers !
 There were many reasons for the war. In most wars people fight for different reasons.

[williamlayton]

It was a major fear in the South.
The north had not many qualms abut the abolishment,
Blessings

[Brewster]

"...so long...", shootall?  The confederate traitors took another 100 years just by changing the name from slavery to sharecropper.

[DannyD]

If your from the North it's about Slavery

If your from the South it's about the Yankee standing in your front yard.


Also,  Please remember this the best Yankee's live at 401 National Ave.  Winchester Virginia 22601

[williamlayton]

Well, I am from the South.
I know full well the thoughts and fears of the South---what they wanted to preserve and what they were really afraid of losing.
Blessings

[SHOOTALL]

It was a major fear in the South.
The north had not many qualms abut the abolishment,
Blessings

That said why so long after the war ?

[Brewster]

Two thirds of all the 36 states, blue and gray, had to ratify the 13th Amendment.   Done in December, 1865.  Two thirds of the 25 blue states had ratified before the end of the war.  I'm thinking that the only other amendment that got ratified as quickly was the repeal of prohibition.

[SHOOTALL]

Interesting , The president signed on feb 1 1865 . the war ended april 9 1865 . Which gray states voted before wars end ? Just asking .

[Brewster]

With former Confederate states part of the ratification process, Virginia and Louisiana approved the Thirteenth Amendment in February followed by Tennessee and Arkansas in April.  The governments of Louisiana, Tennessee, and Arkansas were those established under President Lincoln’s Reconstruction policy.  In Virginia, the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified by a “rump” legislature, which had begun meeting in Alexandria shortly after the Civil War began, claiming to be the legitimate and loyal representative of the state in the Union.  It had earlier approved the creation of the state’s western counties into the new state of West Virginia.  The U.S. State Department accepted the ratification from those four and, later, other Southern states.