The Confederacy was About Slavery

I wouldn't worry too much about perfect spelling or grammar when posting on a2k. We all have our achilles heel when it comes down to perfection in English grammar. The message is what's of primary importance IMHO. Many are not primary English speakers on these threads, and I'd hate to think they are expected to have perfect grammar skills.

it is your ideas which will seen to be inexcusable...

Born in 1956 right? The revisionists are waiting for you and guys like you to die, as they dont think that younger people will hold your views, they have worked very hard to see to that in the indoctrination (nee education) system.

Don't worry about the spelling etc (though the firefox spellcheck is handy).

It's just easier to read in smaller, digestible sections.

Hi, Wayne. Welcome to A2k and to Snood's thread.

I agree with a great deal of what you say, but with some reservations. While it is true that the states which seceded did so out of a clear conviction that this was their inherent right and that, under the US Constitution as they interpreted it, states' rights trumped Federal authority, it is not true that high tariffs were the main issue in that secession. Nor were these tariffs imposed by Washington as some form of Southern-baiting or as punishment for the continuation of that "peculiar institution" of slavery. Tarifs were imposed on cotton. The Southern states grew cotton. If Maine had suddenly made an attempt to begin growing cotton instead of potatoes, those tariffs would have applied equally.

The fact remains that one of the major (if not the major) reasons for Southern secession was the fear that with the election of Abraham Lincoln to the White House the Federal government would make every effort to abolish
slavery nation-wide. Lincoln was a well-know and outspoken opponent of the continuation of slavery. Tis the South felt it could not endure, largely for economic reasons. The cotton industry relied on the cheapest possible labor force for its very survival. It was this fear of abolition which forced the hand of So. Carolina, soon to be followed by the other Southern states. Slavery was ceraunly not the only cause for the war (and Snood's headline on this thread doesn't claim that) ut it was certainly a major motivating factor.

You're right again in suggesting that Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation did not, in fact, liberate a single slave. As you say, that executive order addressed only slavery in those states "in reellion" and left the chattel in Delaware, Maryland and Missouri unaffected. The states in rebellion were in no way any longer under Union jurisdiction and there was zero means of enforcing any such proclamation. But, that said, this symbolic act gave a very strong indication to all concerned what the intent of the Lincoln administration was once the war was over. (And by that time it was hard to doubt what the outcome of the war would be and who would be the victor. The British Empire was not about to recognize Jeff Davis's government in Richmond as legitimate and to give aid and confort to the Confederacy.) The slaves were eventually freed by the passage of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution.

It is, I believe, somewhat ingenuous to keep pointing to the fact that aout 99 % of all slaves were owned by about 20 to 25 % of the general population. It was that 25 % which controlled the various state governments and, in time, the Confederacy. The poor white man who operated a small subsistence farm had no voice in the matter. His reason for taking up arms against the United States, it is true, may have had little to do with slavery per se but he had already been indoctrinated in a specific Southern culture -- "way of life", if you will -- which certainly included the institution of slavery as a necessary component of that cutlure.

I don't see how it can be argued that the Confederacy was somehow not all about slavery.

[btw, if there are spelling errors in the above post, it's bbecause I never use spell-check. I am an excellent speller. I am also a horribly bad typist and my posts tend to be rife with typos. ]

To answer the question whether the South thought their way of life and economy would be destroyed by abolishing slavery. We have had (now, then, and always) bigots in our midst. These, a very small minority (I believe), bigots certainly fought the end of slavery. However, most people (including Lincoln) believed that white people were superior to black people with respect to intelligence, wisdom, ability to solve complex problems, etc. Ending slavery would do nothing to end this natural (in their viewpoint) superiority. Abolishing slavery had nothing to do with individual and equal constitutional rights (black people had none), that would take another 100 years.

As far as the destruction of the economy of the South, while the institution of slavery greatly enhanced the economy of the South, freeing the slaves would not destroy that economy. We still grow cotton down south without a single slave, presumably with profitability. Ending slavery in 1861 would not have ruined the economy of the South (reconstruction did that!).

So what is the discussion of slavery all about? No one likes to be told what to do. The constitutional purpose of the Federal government was (and is) to provide for the common defense. It is not to dictate to sovereign states what their public policy must be. The secession of the Southern States was a result of a Southern fear that the election of the first Republican President was a Northern vote for a stronger, more invasive central government.

It was the desire of the Southern States to peacefully withdraw from the Union, form their own government with constitutional safeguards against an abusive Federal government and an acknowledgement of the sovereignty of the individual State.

In my opinion (though worthless), the Southern cause would have been greatly served by a constitutional amendment to the Confederate congress abolishing slavery in 1862 (when the Emancipation Proclamation was issued). This would have ended the war because France would have been able to recognize the validity of the Confederate States of America and helped by supplying arms, badly needed. In addition, the people of the North would not have continued to send their sons to the South to die to preserve the Union, as President Lincoln stated was the purpose of the military action he ordered.

LA, I have read several books on Lincoln, and your opinion mirrors what I remember reading. Good on ya.

Slavery was not about "bigotry" bbut, rather a cultural value, a "way of life", if you will.



I doubt that you can provide a source which shows that this is what Lincoln believed. It is well-known that he was not comfortable in the presence of people of color. That is hardly the same as saying he believed in their "inferiority." I would also question your saying "most people". Certainly not the majority of the northern Abolitionists, many of whom were quite well educated.



Wrong. That statement may be true as a blanket statement of "fact" but in theory the 14th and 15th amendments gave everyone equal rights, regardless of race of "previous condition of servitude."



I agree with you re: the deleterious effects of the Reconstruction period. It, along with the wasted treasure in waging the war, was the greatest misfortune to befall many of the southern states. However, if "freeing the slaves would not destroy the economy" then, it seems to me, freeing those slaves would have been the most reasonable thing to do before Lincoln issued that executive order known as the Emancipation Proclamation To do so after 1862 would have given the appearance of complying with Lincoln's order and, hence, giving in to Federal pressure. (You virtually admit as much in a subsequent pgh.) So why didn't Jeff Davis and Co. take the reasonable steps of emancipating the majority of the population at the time that the CSA came into being? (I say "majority" because in some states, notably So. Carolina and Virginia, black people, though enslaved, did constitute a majority.)

So why wasn't this step taken? After all, as you yourself point out, it could well have rought in France and Britain as Confederate allies, something neither country would consent to as long as slavery existed in the Confederacy. Allow me to venture a suggestion heere: neither Davis nor any other politician in his right senses could afford to do that in the face of public pressure in the South. Their careers in politics and/or public service would have been finished then and there.



The constitutional purpose of the Federal government is not solely to provide for a common defense. I seem to recall phrases such as "to form a more perfect union" and "welfare of the people" etc. If a goodly portion of the population of a given geographical region is not receiving the full benefits of the country in which they reside, it is the proper function of that government to ensure that they will, in the future receive such benefits. I realize that "states rights" advocates will not agree that the central government in Washington has any business interfering with what amounts to "local custom." I do feel, however, that when the question involves protecting the human rights of individuals from a practice which had already been long outlawed in the rest of the industrialzed world, the Federal government has a responsibility (not right but, rather responsibility) to redress the situation. It is a humanitaruan question, rather than merely a legal one.


This may well be so but it doesn't address the OP's charge of the importance of slavery in the makeup of the Confederacy. Slavery was central to every issue in the war, including the reestoration of the Union.


I don't disagree with this last part of your post (except that I don't agree that your opinion is "worthless.") But read again what you yourself have written. Abolition of slavery by the Confederacy itself, you say, "would have ended the war." But this didn't happen. Why? Again, I suggest it was because the very institution of this odious practice was an ingrained part and parcel of the cultural makeup of the ante-bellum South.

Slavery, tariffs, etc. were all the issues of the day. The question was, who would solve these issues. Would it be the Federal government in Washington or the State government in the individual state.

The ‘powers’ to be in the South (wealthy land owners) made the decision that it should be the state capitol and sold this idea to the populace and, thus, secession swept over the southern states.

Interestingly, one must ask if they were correct. Today (without addressing the issue here) we question whether homosexuals should be granted a right to marry. Who will decide the issue? Will it be the state government, the Federal government, or the individuals in each state through the vote? It seems to me that in some ways we have not answered the fundamental question of the Civil War, except that a state may not separate itself from the Federal government if it disagrees with how the issue is solved (or fear of how the issue may be solved).

I guess my knee jerk reaction regarding slavery in the Confederacy is based on my assumption that one believing the Confederacy fought a Civil War costing over 620,000 AMERICAN lives would judge those in the South in 1861 as being less morally that we are today. I believe we should be careful judging the morality of those in our past based on our belief system today… else someone in the future may use their moral values to judge what we do today.

My Great, great, great grandfather joined the 8th Florida Infantry Regiment, Company F in May 1862. He was a private in the army and poor white farmer. He was captured at Gettysburg and spent the balance of the War in a POW camp at Ft. Delaware. I wish I could get his opinion on the secession of the Southern States and War. Perhaps the expressing of my opinion is my way of arguing against my assumption that some may believe he was a racial hating bigot because he fought for the Confederacy.

Thank you L.A. for your response. I composed my previous post on my word processor and failed to copy my first paragraph... so here it is...

Thank you L.A. for your response. I am reluctant to agree with the notion that the Confederacy was instituted based on the need for and belief in the hideous practice of slavery. I must, however, admit that slavery was a primary reason for the secession of the Southern states.

It sounds to me as though we don't actually disagree on all that many issues.

Hi Wayne. Thanks for modifying your posting style. It really helps me to follow the discussion this way.

I'm really interested in the topic, have done some (ha!) reading about it over the past couple of decades, but am always ready to read and learn more.

L.A. I stated that most people (including Lincoln) believed in the inferiority of persons of color in 1861. I appoligize for the gross generalization. However, I do think this is generally a true statement. Here are Lincoln's words on the subject...

"If all earthly power were given me," said Lincoln in a speech delivered in Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854, "I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution [of slavery]. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, to their own native land." After acknowledging that this plan's "sudden execution is impossible," he asked whether freed blacks should be made "politically and socially our equals?" "My own feelings will not admit of this," he said, "and [even] if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not ... We can not, then, make them equals."5

I think your points about Lincoln's "racism" in his earlier political life is well taken. What I like to believe, though, is that Lincoln's overriding belief was that "all men are created equal." Some people who have had bigoted thoughts in their past have learned about racism and bigotry, and have grown to be active advocates for equality. That's the way I see Lincoln today.

Hi Beth!! Your Welcome. I have not blogged very much and don't generally like to argue with others. I just like to read other's opinions and respond with mine. I wish, however, that some people could answer other's opinions without insulting the other person. Is it not enough to simply state one's opinion without trying to belittle someone else?

It's much the same as in real life, Wayne. Some people respond in a more 'muscular' way than others.

Don't let it slow you down - and don't let it change your posting style. Stick with the approach you're comfortable with.

I think most people have posters they sort of step around, just like they step around that annoying uncle at the Christmas dinner.

Something else, too, c.i. Lincoln, like any politician before him or since, had to please the electorate in order to get elected. Back in the 1850s he may well have said a thing or two that he regretted later.

This quote was only 5 years before Lincoln was elected as President. I am not sure that Lincoln ever believed "all men are created equal," just that this inequality is not justification for the practice of slavery. I agree totally in the hope that all of us can learn throughout life and possess an ability to change our beliefs through introspection.

I think what I was trying to say in my post is that in both the North and South racism was prevalent. I must add that this is NOT a statement of value regarding their morality. Clearly today, this would be seen as immoral, but in 1860-1870... it's just not my place to judge their morality. The question today is are we much better??

We sure think we are, dont we....

I think we are making progress, Hawkeye. I don't know if I am just rationalizing but, not even a dyed in the wool southerner, as myself, would agree to reinstitute slavery. Heck, I wouldn't even agree to mass deportation of persons of color to Liberia, as some up North wanted before and after the war...

Despite all of the revisionist historians running around these days claiming otherwise slavery was not the core issue, the real issue was "who gets to decide how we live? Is it passed down from Washington or is it the people?" These days there is way too much power in Washington, and in my opinion it is time to take up arms if need be to get some of the power back, it is time to take back America for Americans.