"Civil War" or "War of Northern Aggression"

[Timjoebillybob]

But only if you "owned" at least 20 slaves were you exempt from the draft as of October, 1862:

Confed. Twenty Negro Law | Civil War on the Western Border: The Missouri-Kansas Conflict, 1854-1865

civilwaronthewesternborder.org

And yeah, while some people ( I've read that it was less than 20%) not from southern high society "owned" one or two slaves, abolishing slavery would not result in nearly the economic impact on them as it would on those few who had plantations full of slaves. It was a rich southerners' war, fought by the poor.

Most slave owners had between 4-6 slaves, half had 5 or less, about 12% of slave owners had 20 or more. Per the 1860 census 30.8% of free families owned slaves. A hair over 27% of free families in the confederate states owned less than 20 slaves. We'll go with let's say 4 slaves average for those, you don't think that 27% of free families wouldn't have been hit hard by losing the equivalent of about $400K in today's money? While the largest slave owners would have been hit the hardest, they also had the means to weather it the best. Compare Buffet, Gates, Musk, etc to the average let's be generous and say upper middle class family. Who would be hurt worse, the average family taking a $400k hit, or the 1% taking a $20 million dollar hit? Less than .1% owned more than 100 slaves, I figured the average cost multiplied by 200 slaves.

Selected Statistics on Slavery in the United States

Statistics: Slaves and Slaveholdings | Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History

Statistics: Slaves and Slaveholdings | Slaveholding, 1860 Non-slaveholders 76.1 percent 1-9 slaves 17.2 percent 10-99 6.6 percent over 100 0.1 percent | Slaveholding, 1860 Non-slaveholders 76.1 percent 1-9 slaves 17.2 percent 10-99 6.6 percent over 100 0.1 percent Distribution of Slaves Number...

www.gilderlehrman.org

The Extent of Slave Ownership in the United States in 1860

I’ve touched on this before in other posts. See here, here, here, and here. In an effort to minimize the importance of slavery, modern neoconfederates will focus on the percentage of slave ow…

studycivilwar.wordpress.com

 

[foszoe]

But none of that goes against the point that the war wasn't about slavery.

Perhaps not. But I am not a purist. I don't think any war is about just one thing.

I also believe that at times the ends justify the means.

Whatever reason one believes is primary, the end of slavery was the outcome.

Without slavery, the war would not have happened. I have not seen any evidence that contradicts that.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Perhaps not. But I am not a purist. I don't think any war is about just one thing.

I also believe that at times the ends justify the means.

Whatever reason one believes is primary, the end of slavery was the outcome.

Without slavery, the war would not have happened. I have not seen any evidence that contradicts that.

IMO it's very rare that the ends justify the means. That's what leads to vigilantism and other atrocities.

IMO that was just one of the outcomes, another would be an increase in the rate we as a country started ceding more control to the feds. It was the turning point of being a Union of Sovereign states to a Sovereign central state. Again IMO slavery was on the way out anyway, it was the last gasp here in N America and most of Europe(and European territories) and Central and S America.

Without the tariffs and the intent to emancipate the slaves the war wouldn't have happened. Have you seen evidence to contradict that?

 

[foszoe]

Without the tariffs and the intent to emancipate the slaves the war wouldn't have happened. Have you seen evidence to contradict that?

No. But I don't know a helluva lot anyway. Basing conclusions on what I know wouldn't amount to a hill of beans.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

IMO that was just one of the outcomes, another would be an increase in the rate we as a country started ceding more control to the feds. It was the turning point of being a Union of Sovereign states to a Sovereign central state. Again IMO slavery was on the way out anyway, it was the last gasp here in N America and most of Europe(and European territories) and Central and S America.

I think you and I are fairly close to being on the same page in our thinking about the War, but one of the main points that causes me to see the North's side in a slightly more favorable light, overall, than I think you do, is this right here. I guess I don't see the evidence that slavery was going to end in the US anytime soon without the War.

From whence do you draw the conclusion that slavery was on it's last gasp, so to speak? It seems to me that, in general, laws regarding slavery had been tending more and more towards protecting slave owners and restricting the extremely few rights or chances for freedom that slaves had in certain States. I actually don't know the statistics, though, when it comes to numbers of slaves and slave owners; was there some kind of a tendency towards fewer slaves, or fewer crucial jobs overall being done by slaves, that leads to your conclusion?

If the argument is simply that Europe, South America, etc, were abolishing slavery around that same time period, that doesn't really seem to hold water to me. Many of the factors that were leading to the end of slavery in these other places simply didn't exist in the US, and one of the biggest factors that led to slavery petering out in the North, namely, industrialization, seemed to be culturally resisted by the South. I haven't researched specific statistics in other countries, but my impression has always been that slave ownership in the South was much more "spread out" among the people, ie, a much larger percentage "owned" at least a small number of slaves, as opposed to other countries where it tended to be only a very few and very rich people who "owned" slaves, and they tended to have a very large number. This made it an issue that was much more broadly supported by the people. Given the dedication of the Southern States to preserving what they saw as a fundamental part of their way of life, I don't see any realistic way that slavery could have been expected to be abolished in the Confederacy sooner that at least several more generations. That may have changed if the North had acted in a way to avoid the South attempting to secede in the first place, but I don't really see that any serious effort to end slavery would have led to anything other than secession, because even if they offered remuneration* to slave "owners" it seems like, for many in the South, it wasn't just about the immediate economic impact, but about preserving what they saw as there traditional way of life and economic system.

Largely, though, I have to admit ignorance on the details of this particular point, so I'd be curious to learn where you conclusion comes from.

(*And just to clarify a couple things before someone gets on my case about it: Do I realize how morally repugnant it sounds to talk as if someone deserves "remuneration" because they enslaved a fellow human being? Absolutely yes. Do I still think it would have been a worthwhile compromise to offer the South in an attempt to avert war? Yes, I think it would have been worth a try. Do I think the South would have been in any way open to such a proposal? Sadly, from what I have read, I doubt it.)

 

[rob63]

I would like to know how exactly the federal government was supposed to get the money to purchase the freedom of the slaves unless it first became the powerful central government that everyone decries it becoming? The government of that era didn't have the power to simply print money the way the government does now, it had to actually come from somewhere.

There was no such thing as an income tax either. The government got money largely through tariffs. You really want me to believe that the war was really about plans to increase tariffs and also that the government could have peacefully ended slavery by increasing tariffs to pay for the end of slavery? Not buying any of it.

You can't have it both ways. The government failed to come up with such a plan precisely because it didn't have the power to do it, so it's very unreasonable to say they should have done so in order to avoid the war that brought about the expansion of the federal government.

The idea that slavery was coming to an end on its own ignores the fact that much of the tension leading up to the war was due to the attempt to EXPAND slavery into the western territories such as Kansas. Those territories being acquired as a result of the war with Mexico which was itself largely the result of the people of Texas rebelling against Mexican attempts to end slavery in the territory. There is no evidence that slavery was going to end on its own, it's a modern-day fantasy.

Here is a really good breakdown of the politics leading up to the war. Fascinating stuff.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I think you and I are fairly close to being on the same page in our thinking about the War, but one of the main points that causes me to see the North's side in a slightly more favorable light, overall, than I think you do, is this right here. I guess I don't see the evidence that slavery was going to end in the US anytime soon without the War.

From whence do you draw the conclusion that slavery was on it's last gasp, so to speak? It seems to me that, in general, laws regarding slavery had been tending more and more towards protecting slave owners and restricting the extremely few rights or chances for freedom that slaves had in certain States. I actually don't know the statistics, though, when it comes to numbers of slaves and slave owners; was there some kind of a tendency towards fewer slaves, or fewer crucial jobs overall being done by slaves, that leads to your conclusion?

If the argument is simply that Europe, South America, etc, were abolishing slavery around that same time period, that doesn't really seem to hold water to me. Many of the factors that were leading to the end of slavery in these other places simply didn't exist in the US, and one of the biggest factors that led to slavery petering out in the North, namely, industrialization, seemed to be culturally resisted by the South. I haven't researched specific statistics in other countries, but my impression has always been that slave ownership in the South was much more "spread out" among the people, ie, a much larger percentage "owned" at least a small number of slaves, as opposed to other countries where it tended to be only a very few and very rich people who "owned" slaves, and they tended to have a very large number. This made it an issue that was much more broadly supported by the people. Given the dedication of the Southern States to preserving what they saw as a fundamental part of their way of life, I don't see any realistic way that slavery could have been expected to be abolished in the Confederacy sooner that at least several more generations. That may have changed if the North had acted in a way to avoid the South attempting to secede in the first place, but I don't really see that any serious effort to end slavery would have led to anything other than secession, because even if they offered remuneration* to slave "owners" it seems like, for many in the South, it wasn't just about the immediate economic impact, but about preserving what they saw as there traditional way of life and economic system.

Largely, though, I have to admit ignorance on the details of this particular point, so I'd be curious to learn where you conclusion comes from.

(*And just to clarify a couple things before someone gets on my case about it: Do I realize how morally repugnant it sounds to talk as if someone deserves "remuneration" because they enslaved a fellow human being? Absolutely yes. Do I still think it would have been a worthwhile compromise to offer the South in an attempt to avert war? Yes, I think it would have been worth a try. Do I think the South would have been in any way open to such a proposal? Sadly, from what I have read, I doubt it.)

It ending elsewhere is part of it. I honestly don't know how many slaves the average slave owner held in other countries or what percent of them owned slaves. I do know that slaves were imported in much greater numbers in S America and the Caribbean particularly Brazil over 35% of the Atlantic slave trade when to Brazil and at one time over half the entire population of Brazil were slaves . About 10% of slaves brought into the new world went to N America including those that went to Mexico and Canada.

Brazil ended slavery in the 1888, the conditions that made slavery popular there were the same as in the confederate states. Heavy agricultural use(sugarcane instead of cotton) along with ranching and mining, and it being culturally acceptable. After the Civil war a good number of southerners moved there, and the southern antebellum culture is still practiced in places there. Why do you feel the US would be much different?

Confederates in Brazil - No Depression

I’m certainly no expert on the Civil War, but somehow I stumbled upon this strange bit of forgotten history. Following the South’s defeat in the Civil War, there were many high-profile Confederates who needed to get out of the country, […]

www.nodepression.com

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/brazil-confederate-flag-civil-war-americana-santa-barbara/2020/07/11/1e8a7c84-bec4-11ea-b4f6-cb39cd8940fb_story.html

Yes it was widespread in the south with somewhere around 30% of free households owning slaves, but less than 1% owned 20 or more and somewhere around .1% owned 100 or more. About half of slave owners had 5 or less. Most of the smaller slave owners used them as domestic servants or were merchants or worked in trades. They tended to see them as more human and frequently as part of the family. The large slaveholders saw them as less human and more as commodities. This plays into the growing abolitionist movement.

Other reasons was the number of free blacks, it increased from about 100k in 1800 to over 400k by the start of the civil war. The abolitionist movement in the south was small but growing. And except for the large plantations they weren't necessary just culturally acceptable.

Regarding the laws, I can think of two at the federal level that helped slave owners. One being the fugitive slave act, the other being the Dred Scott decision which was case law. On the other hand the US prohibited the importation of slaves, made it illegal for US flagged ships to participate in the slave trade, made it illegal to work or invest in foreign slave trade, redefined the piracy act to include transporting slaves which made it punishable by death, and the Amistad decision. At the state level there were more that did make it harder to free slaves. This was pushed mostly by the very large slaveholders, for various reasons. IMO one of which was to slow the growing abolitionist movement in the south. The more small slaveowners which freed their slaves the more they were seen to be human by others. And it helped keep the culture of slavery intact.

I agree it wouldn't have happened right away, and probably would have taken a generation or two.

 

[Leadeye]

Slavery was always the key difference between the two sides. While it's true the government had limited funds at the time to spend on improving the southern half of the country in exchange for manumitting of the slaves, those costs would have to be weighed against the money spent killing half a million Americans and devastating parts of the country.

I always go back to nobody listening to Winfield Scott, and leadership on both sides thinking the conflict would be short.

 

[BigRed]

Just a little reminder.


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

[rob63]

Just a little reminder.

It was the Southern states that killed the 10th Amendment by passing the Fugitive Slave Act and then seceding when they were unable to use the Federal Government to force the Northern states to abide by it.

 

[BigRed]

Dark Age Patriotism

What Patriotism should mean in Modern-Day America

im1776.com

 

[jamil]

Perhaps not. But I am not a purist. I don't think any war is about just one thing.

I also believe that at times the ends justify the means.

Whatever reason one believes is primary, the end of slavery was the outcome.

Without slavery, the war would not have happened. I have not seen any evidence that contradicts that.

I don't think the war was specifically about Slavery, at least not directly. Lincoln made that clear himself. However, secession was indeed about saving that peculiar institution, as Jefferson Davis made clear himself.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Just a little reminder.

It was the Southern states that killed the 10th Amendment by passing the Fugitive Slave Act and then seceding when they were unable to use the Federal Government to force the Northern states to abide by it.

How so? Art 4 Sec 2 Para 3 of the Constitution. Which came before the 10th Am was written and ratified. The Fugitive Slave Act simply enforced it.

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

Who killed the 10th AM with Art 4 sec 1?
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

How so? Art 4 Sec 2 Para 3 of the Constitution. Which came before the 10th Am was written and ratified. The Fugitive Slave Act simply enforced it.

Who killed the 10th AM with Art 4 sec 1?
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

What you're clearly missing is the fact that since the Constitution does not say that the federal government has the power to nullify Art 4 Sec 2 Para 3, this is clearly a power reserved to the states under the 10th. So when the northern states wanted to ignore it, if the federal government didn't let them do it, that's a clear violation of the 10th.

 

[JettaKnight]

But only if you "owned" at least 20 slaves were you exempt from the draft as of October, 1862:

Confed. Twenty Negro Law | Civil War on the Western Border: The Missouri-Kansas Conflict, 1854-1865

civilwaronthewesternborder.org

And yeah, while some people ( I've read that it was less than 20%) not from southern high society "owned" one or two slaves, abolishing slavery would not result in nearly the economic impact on them as it would on those few who had plantations full of slaves. It was a rich southerners' war, fought by the poor.

Why are you using scare quotes around the word "owned". How could you say they were anything but owned? You have to do exactly what you're told, you can't leave, you can be bought and sold and left in a will... How is that not being owned by someone?

 

[rob63]

How so? Art 4 Sec 2 Para 3 of the Constitution. Which came before the 10th Am was written and ratified. The Fugitive Slave Act simply enforced it.

Who killed the 10th AM with Art 4 sec 1?
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

You are literally making the exact same mistake that the fire-eaters made, mistaking a moral and practical argument for a legalistic one.

You are entirely correct that the Fugitive Slave Act enforced what was already in the law. However, passing it ignored the fact that it made unwilling accomplices of people morally opposed to that law, which only served to inflame tensions all the more.

Seceding to protect slavery from the incoming administration, whether it was necessary or not is another issue, it was their perception and reasoning for doing it, and then firing upon the flag of the nation lost them the moral argument regardless of whatever legal standing they may have had.

That is what killed the 10th amendment. They predicated the protection of slavery on States Rights, but then turned around and attempted to force people in other states to protect it and participate in it in spite of their own state laws outlawing it. They then attempted to leave the nation they were a part of and fired upon the flag of that nation. In doing so, they effectively ended the notion of states' rights, regardless of whatever legalistic arguments to the contrary one might make. If you can't see that, I can't make it any clearer and don't know what else to say to explain it better.

This thread had been interesting for me. I have never been a big fan of Lincoln, and have naturally been opposed to large central governments. However, the fact that we are this far into this thread and people are still making legalistic arguments in favor of the Southern Confederacy in spite of knowing what it was all about is really forcing me to rethink my position on those issues. I'm afraid I am beginning to see Lincoln's wisdom in ways I really didn't expect to.

 

[STEEL CORE]

War of the Rebellion
Wasn’t called Civil War till after the war.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

You are literally making the exact same mistake that the fire-eaters made, mistaking a moral and practical argument for a legalistic one.

You are entirely correct that the Fugitive Slave Act enforced what was already in the law. However, passing it ignored the fact that it made unwilling accomplices of people morally opposed to that law, which only served to inflame tensions all the more.

Isn't that exactly what those two sections of the Constitution I quoted were for? If they weren't unwilling they would do it without those wouldn't they? If the southern states let's say legalized lynching and were morally opposed to punishing someone for that. Would you say it would be all well and good if someone fled to those states and they didn't hand them over?

Seceding to protect slavery from the incoming administration, whether it was necessary or not is another issue, it was their perception and reasoning for doing it, and then firing upon the flag of the nation lost them the moral argument regardless of whatever legal standing they may have had.

I agree with you entirely on their reasoning, not so much they lost the moral argument. The flag of the nation was in their eyes on their territory and was being enforced to keep it that way.

That is what killed the 10th amendment. They predicated the protection of slavery on States Rights, but then turned around and attempted to force people in other states to protect it and participate in it in spite of their own state laws outlawing it. They then attempted to leave the nation they were a part of and fired upon the flag of that nation. In doing so, they effectively ended the notion of states' rights, regardless of whatever legalistic arguments to the contrary one might make. If you can't see that, I can't make it any clearer and don't know what else to say to explain it better.

I disagree, otherwise enforcing any of the provisions regarding conduct between the states would violate states rights. Interstate commerce as an example, the first cases regarding that was state protectionism over their production. Or state protectionism over its resident businesses.

This thread had been interesting for me. I have never been a big fan of Lincoln, and have naturally been opposed to large central governments. However, the fact that we are this far into this thread and people are still making legalistic arguments in favor of the Southern Confederacy in spite of knowing what it was all about is really forcing me to rethink my position on those issues. I'm afraid I am beginning to see Lincoln's wisdom in ways I really didn't expect to.

I find lots of things morally repugnant, I can and will make arguments for them though. Slavery is not one of those things though. I can make the arguments for enforcing the Constitution regarding it however repugnant I believe slavery is. I find racism morally repugnant, I can and do make the argument that the federal govt has no business regulating it in regards to private businesses.

Regarding Lincoln, I believe you will find me squarely in BigRed's camp in my view of him. And about his wisdom do you mean his wisdom that he would have allowed slavery to continue if it brought the south back into the Union? Or that he used ending slavery as a political tool?

 

[rob63]

Isn't that exactly what those two sections of the Constitution I quoted were for? If they weren't unwilling they would do it without those wouldn't they? If the southern states let's say legalized lynching and were morally opposed to punishing someone for that. Would you say it would be all well and good if someone fled to those states and they didn't hand them over?

We aren't talking about lynching, we are talking about returning escaped slaves to their masters. Yes, it would be all well and good if someone fled to a free state and they didn't hand them over. I am literally astonished that you can't see that.

I agree with you entirely on their reasoning, not so much they lost the moral argument. The flag of the nation was in their eyes on their territory and was being enforced to keep it that way.

The fact that you can't see that they lost the moral argument is the root of the problem here.

I disagree, otherwise enforcing any of the provisions regarding conduct between the states would violate states rights. Interstate commerce as an example, the first cases regarding that was state protectionism over their production. Or state protectionism over its resident businesses.

Yes, we disagree, that much we agree on.

I find lots of things morally repugnant, I can and will make arguments for them though. Slavery is not one of those things though. I can make the arguments for enforcing the Constitution regarding it however repugnant I believe slavery is. I find racism morally repugnant, I can and do make the argument that the federal govt has no business regulating it in regards to private businesses.

The fact that you can "make the argument for enforcing the Constitution regarding it however repugnant I believe slavery is" is exactly the mistake I was referring to when I referenced the fire-eaters. I don't know what to do to make you understand the problem with attempting to force others to hand back escaped slaves. If following the law is more important to you than doing what is right, we are VERY different people and this discussion can never lead anywhere.

Regarding Lincoln, I believe you will find me squarely in BigRed's camp in my view of him. And about his wisdom do you mean his wisdom that he would have allowed slavery to continue if it brought the south back into the Union? Or that he used ending slavery as a political tool?

The wisdom to restore the Union and end slavery in the process in spite of the costs involved. I have not previously resolved in my own mind if it was truly the correct course, but I realize now that the obstinance of the slave owners and westward expansion made the conflict inevitable. He did the right thing to bring them back into the Union at the point of a bayonet. I never really believed that until now, but you and Big Red have convinced me that it was the only way to bring the argument to an end. Otherwise, it just goes on and on.

 

[rob63]

War of the Rebellion
Wasn’t called Civil War till after the war.

"The country seems to be in a lamentable condition and may have been plunged into civil war. May God rescue us from the folly of our own acts, save us from selfishness and teach us to love our neighbors as ourselves."

- Robert E. Lee, January 28th, 1861, in a letter written following the secession of Louisiana.