The Civil War Wasn't About Slavery- Walter Williams

[noztnac]

The Civil War Wasn’t About Slavery

Walter Williams
December 2, 1998


THE PROBLEMS THAT LED TO THE CIVIL WAR are the same problems today—big, intrusive government. The reason we don’t face the specter of another Civil War is because today’s Americans don’t have yesteryear’s spirit of liberty and constitutional respect, and political statesmanship is in short supply.

Actually, the war of 1861 was not a civil war. A civil war is a conflict between two or more factions trying to take over a government. In 1861, Confederate President Jefferson Davis was no more interested in taking over Washington than George Washington was interested in taking over England in 1776. Like Washington, Davis was seeking independence. Therefore, the war of 1861 should be called "The War Between the States" or the "War for Southern Independence." The more bitter southerner might call it the "War of Northern Aggression."

History books have misled today’s Americans to believe the war was fought to free slaves.

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.

That’s when the South seceded, setting up a new government. Their constitution was nearly identical to the U.S. Constitution except that it outlawed protectionist tariffs, business handouts and mandated a two-thirds majority vote for all spending measures.


The only good coming from the War Between the States was the abolition of slavery. The great principle enunciated in the Declaration of Independence that "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" was overturned by force of arms. By destroying the states’ right to secession, Abraham Lincoln opened the door to the kind of unconstrained, despotic, arrogant government we have today, something the framers of the Constitution could not have possibly imagined.

States should again challenge Washington’s unconstitutional acts through nullification. But you tell me where we can find leaders with the love, courage and respect for our Constitution like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and John C. Calhoun.

[UnReconstructed]

THE PROBLEMS THAT LED TO THE CIVIL WAR are the same problems today—big, intrusive government. The reason we don’t face the specter of another Civil War is because today’s Americans don’t have yesteryear’s spirit of liberty and constitutional respect, and political statesmanship is in short supply.

Men will read that and have no idea what it means.

[TSOL]

I have always known that the Slavery Card was an excuse and definate propaganda. But I can say, that the South wanting to Secede would not have been good for this country.

Thank god the North won.

[mtmedlin]

In All reality, slavey was and is one of our biggest disgraces. I do have to agree that slavery probably would have been phased out similar to how it did in Brazil. My brother owned a restaurant in Cabo Frio Brazil and he has seen that their peaceful end to slavery actually produced better long term race relations.

[UnReconstructed]

You're right TSOL. They needed us to fund the Government. If not for the South, who would have paid for it?

[Man from La Mancha]

I have always known that the Slavery Card was an excuse and definate propaganda. But I can say, that the South wanting to Secede would not have been good for this country.

Thank god the North won.

Then you don't support the constitution which gave the right for any state to succeed. As Ron pointed out that the deaths of 600,000 wasn't needed. The south probably would have rejoined the union when they needed the souths help and reduced the tariffs. Like 50 years latter when the duped the country into ww1.

.

[TSOL]

Then you don't support the constitution which gave the right for any state to succeed. As Ron pointed out that the deaths of 600,000 wasn't needed. The south probably would have rejoined the union when they needed the souths help and reduced the tariffs. Like 50 years latter when the duped the country into ww1.

.

Don't be so quick to judge.

I support the Constitution but it is not a bible I follow blindly. Probably would have is a speculation.

I believe that the South seceded purely for reasons of Slavery although I believe the North was concerned about the seperation of the Union and not the Slaves
themselves; using the slavery issue as a platform. Much like The War On Terror for Oil.

Remember, the South fired the first shot. (Fort Sumter, 04/12/1861)

The North Declared War with a Congressional Authorization.

-

I agree, the 600,000 deaths were not needed; I have family that fought on both sides. But the North was attacked.

May I ask, where in the Constitution does it say "....which gave the right for any state to succeed." (Secede) ?

[Man from La Mancha]

Don't be so quick to judge.

I support the Constitution but it is not a bible I follow blindly. Probably would have is a speculation.

But the North was attacked.

May I ask, where in the Constitution does it say "....which gave the right for any state to succeed." (Secede) ?

Why is it important, we would have just another country?

Right you are, it didn't say Ok or not to do it.

http://www.sobran.com/columns/1999-2001/990930.shtml

The Constitution itself is silent on the subject, but since secession was an established right, it didn’t have to be reaffirmed. More telling still, even the bitterest opponents of the Constitution never accused it of denying the right of secession. Three states ratified the Constitution with the provision that they could later secede if they chose; the other ten states accepted this condition as valid.

Early in the nineteenth century, some Northerners favored secession to spare their states the ignominy of union with the slave states. Later, others who wanted to remain in the Union recognized the right of the South to secede; Abraham Lincoln had many of them arrested as “traitors.” According to his ideology, an entire state could be guilty of “treason” and “rebellion.” The Constitution recognizes no such possibility.

Long before he ran for president, Lincoln himself had twice affirmed the right of secession and even armed revolution. His scruples changed when he came to power. Only a few weeks after taking office, he wrote an order for the arrest of Chief Justice Roger Taney, who had attacked his unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus. His most recent biographer has said that during Lincoln’s administration there were “greater infringements on individual liberties than in any other period in American history.”

As a practical matter, the Civil War established the supremacy of the federal government over the formerly sovereign states. The states lost any power of resisting the federal government’s usurpations, and the long decline toward a totally consolidated central government began.

By 1973, the federal government was so powerful that the U.S. Supreme Court could insult the Constitution by striking down the abortion laws of all 50 states; and there was nothing the states, long since robbed of the right to secede, could do about it. That outrage was made possible by Lincoln’s triumphant war against the states, which was really his dark victory over the Constitution he was sworn to preserve.

.

[Mesogen]

The Civil War wasn't NOT about slavery. It was about a lot of things and slavery was central. I mean, come on. Would there have been a civil war if slavery didn't exist? No.

[Brian Coulter]

The Civil War wasn't NOT about slavery. It was about a lot of things and slavery was central. I mean, come on. Would there have been a civil war if slavery didn't exist? No.

"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."



You have no idea what you're talking about.

[mmink15]

I had someone hit me with the civil war not being about slavery argument today. I said that while that may be true, if you ask an average American from 10-100 years old why we fought the civil war they will say slavery. That makes Ron Paul's statements applicable even if you disagree with the premise.
Is that a good argument

[PHenry]

"Any reasonable creature may know, if willing, that the North hates the Negro, and that until it was convenient to make a pretence that sympathy with him was the cause of the war, it hated the abolitionists and derided them up hill and down dales.....(T)o Secession being Rebellion, it is distinctly possible by state papers that Washington considered it no such thing.....that Massachusetts, now loudest against it, has itself asserted its right to secede, again and again."

Charles Dickens (1812-1870), on the War of Southern Independence

[PHenry]

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right - a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit."

Abraham Lincoln, January 12, 1848 speech in Congress

[garrettwombat]

slavery was a huge part of the cival war... but it was not the only thing behind it.

[Mesogen]

"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."



You have no idea what you're talking about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_...Tariff_1828-60

The Democrats won in 1844, electing James K. Polk as president. Polk succeeded in passing the Walker tariff of 1846 by uniting the rural and agricultural factions of the country for lower taxes. They sought minimal levels of a "tariff for revenue only" that would pay the cost of government but not show favoritism to one section or economic sector at the expense of another. The Walker Tariff remained in place until 1857, when a nonpartisan coalition lowered them again with the Tariff of 1857 to 18 percent. The United States thus had a low-tariff policy that favored the South until the Civil War began in 1861.

Come on man. The Civil War was all about tariffs and that's it? Don't be silly.

[PHenry]

"But let us not forget that it (Lincoln's Gettysburg Address) is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it. Put it into the cold words of everyday. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self - determination -- "that government of the people, by the people, for the people," should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in that battle actually fought against self - determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves. What was the practical effect of the battle of Gettysburg? What else than the destruction of the old sovereignty of the States, i.e., of the people of the States? The Confederates went into battle free; they came out with their freedom subject to the supervision and veto of the rest of the country - and for nearly twenty years that veto was so effective that they enjoyed scarcely more liberty, in the political sense, than so many convicts in the penitentiary."

H.L. Mencken

[PHenry]

Presented for your consideration, some REAL history, as opposed to the victors' version dished out in the government schools:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/lincoln-arch.html

[PHenry]

More food for thought:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/woods3.html

Secede!, a review of 'Secession, State and Liberty' by David Gordon

[Man from La Mancha]

Originally the war was for tariffs and still was but Lincoln used the slave issue to rally his troops since the war wasn't going good for them in 1862.

.

[PHenry]

Originally the war was for tariffs and still was but Lincoln used the slave issue to rally his troops since the war wasn't going good for them in 1862.

.

I respectfully disagree. Most of the men in the Union army shared Lincoln's white supremacist views and let it be known in no uncertain terms that they were decidedly not fighting to free slaves. They were Union men, or conscripts. Many Irish immigrants were drafted fresh off the boat and fed into the maw at places like Fredricksburg. The prospect of going to war on behalf of slaves stoked the fires of the New York City draft riots.

[jmdrake]

Walter Williams needs to read the southern declarations of secession, the U.S. constitution and Lincoln's first inaugural address in its entirety. I've posted about the before but here's the cliff notes version.

1) The U.S. constitution protected slavery. Ron Paul acknowledges this in his famous speech Sorry Mr. Franklin. We are all Democrats now. He further points out that slavery was a major contributing factor in the civil warm.

A constitution in and by itself does not guarantee liberty in a republican form of government. Even a perfect constitution with this goal in mind is no better than the moral standards and desires of the people. Although the United States Constitution was by far the best ever written for the protection of liberty, with safeguards against the dangers of a democracy, it too was flawed from the beginning. Instead of guaranteeing liberty equally for all people, the authors themselves yielded to the democratic majority’s demands that they compromise on the issue of slavery. This mistake, plus others along the way, culminated in a Civil War that surely could have been prevented with clearer understanding and a more principled approach to the establishment of a constitutional republic.

2) Lincoln was aware that the constitution protected slavery. That's why he said he didn't have the legal right to end it. But he did allude to the fact that the constitution did not prohibit stopping the expansion of slavery. This is the part of his inaugural address that ticked off the south.

Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or by State authority? The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say.

3) In every southern declaration I've every read the issue of slavery was prominent. In some tariffs and other economic issues were not even mentioned. Georgia did mention "fishing smacks" along with the slavery issue. The second sentence in the Mississippi declaration of secession leads with "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery". Mississippi hits the issue right between the eyes with this sentence.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

I know people love to hate on Lincoln. But he was actually seeking a constitutional answer to the end of slavery. Death of the institution by allowing the expansion only of "free states". Lincoln was neither saint nor ogre.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[Man from La Mancha]

I respectfully disagree. Most of the men in the Union army shared Lincoln's white supremacist views and let it be known in no uncertain terms that they were decidedly not fighting to free slaves. They were Union men, or conscripts. Many Irish immigrants were drafted fresh off the boat and fed into the maw at places like Fredricksburg. The prospect of going to war on behalf of slaves stoked the fires of the New York City draft riots.

Interesting, from which article did you find that? Thanks

.

[aravoth]

The Civil War wasn't NOT about slavery. It was about a lot of things and slavery was central. I mean, come on. Would there have been a civil war if slavery didn't exist? No.

Yes actually.

[Man from La Mancha]

Yes actually.

I'm no expert on this but thinking if there was no slavery at all in the south would they have such an economical advantage of free labor to drive prices down. But so few total people owned slave to make this an advantage? I don't know and want to lean more. Ron is so great, he said he wanted two things out of running for president, to win and to teach. Wow

.

[werdd]

The Civil War was not even about slavery. It was about industrializing the south and making farm subsidies of everyone. Only about 30% of the farmers in the south at the onset of the war had slaves. Slavery was just an emotional motivater to get the ball rolling. It was just a battle to have a stronger central goverment. We could of bought off all of the slave owners for way less than the north spent in financing the civil war, and the lives we lost.

[noztnac]

The Civil War wasn't NOT about slavery. It was about a lot of things and slavery was central. I mean, come on. Would there have been a civil war if slavery didn't exist? No.

Slavery was still legal in the north at the outset of the war. The biggest issues by far were state's rights, the tariff on imported goods, and taxes. Yes! There absolutely would have been a war had there been no slavery.

Abraham Lincoln, faced with losing the war, issued the Emancipation Proclamation is order to try to make the war about slavery. But this was well after the war started and it did not free any slaves.

[noztnac]

I had someone hit me with the civil war not being about slavery argument today. I said that while that may be true, if you ask an average American from 10-100 years old why we fought the civil war they will say slavery. That makes Ron Paul's statements applicable even if you disagree with the premise.
Is that a good argument

What most people have been brainwashed to believe is far less important than the truth. I'm from South Carolina. Ask any South Carolinian what the War of Northern Aggression was fought over (the Civil War to you) and almost all of them will tell you the tariff, taxes, state's rights, and slavery. I don't think any of them will mention only slavery.

Where are you from?

The reason I ask is that I went to public schools in South Carolina, North Carolina, Louisiana, Virginia, and California. The only state I was taught your version of things was in California.

[noztnac]

Walter Williams needs to read the southern declarations of secession, the U.S. constitution and Lincoln's first inaugural address in its entirety. I've posted about the before but here's the cliff notes version.

1) The U.S. constitution protected slavery. Ron Paul acknowledges this in his famous speech Sorry Mr. Franklin. We are all Democrats now. He further points out that slavery was a major contributing factor in the civil warm.

A constitution in and by itself does not guarantee liberty in a republican form of government. Even a perfect constitution with this goal in mind is no better than the moral standards and desires of the people. Although the United States Constitution was by far the best ever written for the protection of liberty, with safeguards against the dangers of a democracy, it too was flawed from the beginning. Instead of guaranteeing liberty equally for all people, the authors themselves yielded to the democratic majority’s demands that they compromise on the issue of slavery. This mistake, plus others along the way, culminated in a Civil War that surely could have been prevented with clearer understanding and a more principled approach to the establishment of a constitutional republic.

2) Lincoln was aware that the constitution protected slavery. That's why he said he didn't have the legal right to end it. But he did allude to the fact that the constitution did not prohibit stopping the expansion of slavery. This is the part of his inaugural address that ticked off the south.

Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or by State authority? The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say.

3) In every southern declaration I've every read the issue of slavery was prominent. In some tariffs and other economic issues were not even mentioned. Georgia did mention "fishing smacks" along with the slavery issue. The second sentence in the Mississippi declaration of secession leads with "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery". Mississippi hits the issue right between the eyes with this sentence.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

I know people love to hate on Lincoln. But he was actually seeking a constitutional answer to the end of slavery. Death of the institution by allowing the expansion only of "free states". Lincoln was neither saint nor ogre.

Regards,

John M. Drake

I sent you the link. In South Carolina's taxes and the tariff are mentioned far more than slavery. And slavery seemed to be mentioned primarily to motivate other states.

[user]

Aside from the slavery issue, it would have been great if we'd let the South go. How do you think neocons keep getting elected today? And blue states are forced to subsidize red states through the federal government. If the South were separate, they would have to adapt to keep up.

[jmdrake]

I sent you the link. In South Carolina's taxes and the tariff are mentioned far more than slavery. And slavery seemed to be mentioned primarily to motivate other states.

That was not the link to South Carolinas declaration of secession. It did not mention tariffs. But even if it did that still doesn't counter my main point that every state mentioned concern over protecting the institution of slavery while only a few states mentioned economic issues and those economic issues weren't uniform. (Georgia was concerned about "fishing smacks" for instance.) Really, its simple math. Without the expansion of slavery Lincoln would have been able to amend the constitution to his hearts desire.

Regards,

John M. Drake