The Confederacy was About Slavery

I apologize if my questions have already been answered in this almost 70-page long thread. If they have, I would greatly appreciate being directed to the posts that deal with them.

As far as I understand, it seems the formation of the Confederacy was about defending the institution of slavery in Southern states.

But that doesn't logically imply that the motive on the other end of the conflict was to end this institution.
The fact that the South seceded and started a war in order to preserve slavery doesn't mean the North fought to end it.


What were the main motives/objectives of the North in this conflict?

I vaguely remember a quote from Lincoln saying that if he could have saved the Union without freeing any slave, he would've done so.

Was the preservation of the Union the sole objective then, and the emancipation of slaves a secondary consequence?

Was the institution of slavery indeed threatened in its existence? if so, why?

Thanks for the help.

The topic of the thread is not what Lincoln's motives were. However, in response to an editorial by Horace Greeley, Lincoln wrote, shorty before issuing the Emancipation Proclamation:

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.

Lincoln was at pains to make clear that this was his official position, and not necessarily his personal view. He stated then, as he had before, and would subsequently, that his personal objective was to free all the slaves. This has been pointed out before in this thread.

As for the motivation of the South, they were spoiling for fight. It has also been pointed out in this thread (with corroborating evidence) that John Floyd, Buchanan's Secretary of War, began in 1860 to ship weapons to southern armories, without the prior knowledge or consent of the President or Congress. Eventually, he ordered shipments well in excess of 100,000 stand of muskets and rifled muskets. South Carolina seceded before the results of the election had even been certified. So-called state troops in South Carolina and state troops of Alabama and Florida, in Florida, seized or fired on Federal installations before Lincoln took office.

No, the institution of slavery was not threatened from without (whether or not it could have been maintained indefinitely against slave revolt is another matter, and/or shaming by other states). There were eleven states in the Confederacy. In addition, Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri were slave states. To amend the constitution requires ratification by three quarters of the states. Today, that means that thirteen states can prevent an amendment of the constitution by refusing to or failing to ratify an amendment. To this very day, the states which were slave stats n 1861 could block any such amendment. Withdrawing from the Union was an act of political lunacy by anyone who alleged that slavery were legally threatened.

Thanks Setanta for the reply.

I don't understand though: if the preservation of slavery was the main objective of the South, and slavery wasn't threatened (at least not legally threatened by the Union) ... why start a war?

And on the other side, why fight such a deadly and costly war to save the Union, what was so important about it in the eyes of the North and/or Lincoln?

I read somewhere, sometime, that one element of the war was the protectionist stance the North was in favor of in order to develop national industries, against free-trade stance the South in order to boost their exports of raw materials.

Do you see that aspect as having any kind of influence in the war?

Sorry if these questions drag the discussion off topic.

Thanks!

That the attitude of the southern states' political leaders didn't make sense is not a reasonable basis to object to the proposition. Ask yourself how often what politicians propose or actually do is based on good sense, and how often it is an appeal to popular prejudice, or an attempt to manipulate public opinion to serve the personal interests of the politicians and their cronies.

It also helps to understand the three-fifths compromise (look that up). That gave successfully manipulative politicians in the South enormous power, out of all proportion to their electoral success. The Missouri compromise of 1820 prohibited slave states north of 36 degrees 30 minutes north (with the exception of Missouri, which straddled that line, and which entered the union as one of pair, with Maine). Thereafter, states entered the union in pairs, one slave state and one free state. Southern politicians saw this as preserving their political power under the terms of the three-fifths compromise. It was assumed by southerners that this would apply to the new territories the United States acquired as a result of the Mexican War. However, the Missouri compromise didn't require states which entered south of the 36-30 line to be slave states, and another compromise in 1850 allowed California to enter the union, undivided as a free state. (Southern politicians had wanted it divided along the Missouri compromise line, one free and one slave state.) Part of the compromise involved New Mexico and Utah entering as slave states, although it soon became clear that the voting portion of their populations (white males) were not interested in slavery. Another part of the compromise of 1850 was a strong fugitive slave law, which experience soon taught southerners could not be enforced in the north.

Southern politicians saw their power under the three-fifths compromise being eroded, and rather than any of them sitting down and doing the math (math is hard!), hotter heads prevailed. Many southerners were convinced that it would be easy to win a war with the north (thinking realistically is hard!) and were contemptuous of the people of the north. "Pasty-faced mechanics" was a popular description of northerners used in the South. A lot of southerners wanted to go to war even before Lincoln was nominated, let alone elected--see the reference to John Floyd from my post above. Even after war had begun, southerners stared really hard at successful events, and dismissed southern military failures. People often believe what they want to believe.

It's probably not unreasonable to suggest that many secession votes were fiddled. Whether or not, just as a great many people today who are not wealthy, and never likely to be wealthy nevertheless support tax cuts for the wealthy because they dream of someday being wealthy, or that their children will be wealthy--so there were many people in the South who were not slave-owners, and were never likely to be slave owners, but who dreamed of being slave owners or of their children being slave-owners. This gave the slave-owning political elite power beyond their numbers. Nevertheless, after the initial rush of volunteers, the Confederacy could not meet their manpower quotas, and the Confederate States instituted conscription well before it was done in the North. Support for slavery was not a monolith, and desertions from Confederate ranks were such a problem that many commanders--Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson is a notable example--proposed that their soldiers should not be given leave. Far too many of them used leave as an opportunity to desert. The western counties of Virginia seceded from Virginia, and in 1863, the state of West Virginia was created. (That vote was probably fiddled, too, in favor of secession from Virginia.) Eastern Tennessee remained a Union stronghold, and Knoxville successfully withstood long sieges by southern armies, even including one by Longstreet conducted in late 1863. Lincoln's second running mate, Andrew Johnson, was from eastern Tennessee. Support for the Union was not a monolith either, but union support held up better than the support for the Confederacy.

Basically, southern hotheads were hell bent on war in 1860, even before Lincoln was elected. Lincoln did not take office until March, 1861, and the war had already begun by then.

The tariff was a divisive issue, but it didn't lead to war. What we now call states' rights was a divisive issue, but it didn't lead to war. (Look up nullification and the nullification crisis of 1832.) Everyone would have been economically better off with the tariff, even in the South--but, once again, common sense does not necessarily prevail in politics. As early as 1758, before the French and Indian War had ended, Washington realized they were getting screwed by their European agents, and he stopped growing tobacco on a large scale, diversified, and stopped buying his goods from agents in London. He then took the austerity measures necessary to pay off his debts and the debts entailed on his half-brother's estate, Mount Vernon. The tariff actually only threatened the convenience of southern planters. They had wharves on the rivers that lead into the interior, and small sailing ships could sail upriver, tie up at the wharf and load the tobacco or cotton to be sold in Europe (mostly in England). The goods they had ordered the previous year would be delivered at the same time. They were getting screwed twice. Factors (agents) in England could report any price they liked as what they had gotten for the tobacco crop which had been shipped the previous year, and the records show they robbed their customers shamelessly. They could also, and almost ways did, provide shoddy goods at premium prices. The big planters were actually getting robbed on a routine and traditional basis, and the was no hope at all for the little guy.

I can actually go on for pages on the subject of the myth that American prosperity was based on slavery. Rather than do that, though, i'll just state that the United States prospered despite slavery, not because of it. I've already covered this subject in this thread.

I have other things to do. If i remember, i'll come back to address the issue of why the preseveration of the union was so important. That won't take long.

In 1860, every major power in the world was a monarchy, except for the United States. This deeply rankled with European leaders, who wanted to quash any democratic movements. Even England and France, accounted liberal nations, were only liberal in comparison to the other European powers, the Holy Alliance of Austria, Prussia and Russia, which were institutionally and ideologically reactionary. When the socialist uprisings of 1848 were brutally repressed, thousands and thousands of fugitives, mostly Germans, fled to the Untied States. The "Forty-eighters" were staunch supporters of Lincoln and the Union because they understood what it meant. Louis Blenker and Franz Sigel were two charismatic leaders of the Forty-eighters (Blenker competent and effective, Sigel largely a public relations stunt which folded when his troops were attacked by Thomas Jackson's boys at Chancellorsville).

So, for many people in Europe, the United States represented the success of democracy. That success could only derive from an intact union. Henry John Temple, Lord Palmerston, had a long political career in England, and had begun in military affairs, as Secretary of State at War. (I won't go into the bizarre details of the difference between the Secretary of State for War and the Secretary of State at War--suffice it to say that he was involved in military affairs). He also held posts in the Admiralty. Over a period of slightly more than 20 years, he was the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for ten of those years. When he was at the Foreign Office, he routinely bullied smaller nations with the threat of the Royal Navy. He was also the Prime Minister with one brief hiatus from 1855 until his death ten years later.

But Palmerston could not bully the United States with the Royal Navy (look up the Trent affair). In 1812, although the Royal Navy was the undisputed master of the seas (or claimed to be), the United States Navy started by humiliating the Royal Navy. USS Constitution met, engaged, took and burned HMS Guerriere. USS United States met, engaged, defeated and took a prize HMS Macedonian (later recaptured). USS Hornet met, engaged, ran down and sank HMS Peacock in just fourteen minutes. USS Constitution met, engaged, took and burned HMS Java. American cruisers and privateers were wreaking havoc in British shipping, which, owing to the wars in Europe, had begun concentrating their trade in North and South America. After Napoleon's first surrender in 1814, the Royal Navy was able to send forces large enough to blockade American waters, and veteran troops from Spain were sent over, too. But they only enjoyed limited success. They captured and burned Washington, in retaliation for the burning of York (now Toronto), which the Americans captured and burned three times. They lost the war on the Great Lakes. Apart from taking Washington, briefly taking Detroit,and winning the battle of Queenston Heights in December, 1812 (at the cost of the death of their only militarily competent commander then in North America), they were uniformly unable to defeat the Americans on land. The Royal Navy bombarded and failed to take Baltimore, home to many of the privateers who were making a fortune attacking British shipping.

This made it clear that European powers, although they had no reason to fear the United States, also could not intimidate the Americans. After the Trent affair, Palmerston tried to stir up public opinion against Lincoln (whom he hated), and demanded an apology. Lincoln released the two Confederate envoys who had been on RMS Trent (RMS=Royal Mail Ship), but he refused to apologize. The working classes of England and France greatly admired Lincoln, and Mason and Sliddel, the Confederate envoys, could make no headway in Europe. When CSS Florida and CSS Alabama began raiding American shipping, the United States Navy spread out, literally, across the entire globe to find them. No one attempted to stand in their way. Napoleon III sponsored and idiot attempt to put an Austrian emperor on a Mexican throne. When the American civil war ended, Belgium and France bailed, and the Mexican Liberals executed Maximilian. That was the last gasp of European military adventures in the New World.

That was only possible because of the union. Without the union, North America would have a home to a Balkan-like agglomeration of petty states, none of them able to defend themselves alone, and none of them able to defend their citizens abroad. The dissolution of the union would have lead, very likely, to further dissolution, which is just what hateful sons-of-bitches like Palmerston were hoping for. It would be one nation, or more than 30, and those 30 nations would have been sitting ducks for any European bully with even a joke of a navy. The United States Navy was no joke. Even while hunting down Florida andAlabama, the United States Navy held the thousands of miles of Confederate coast in close blockade. The only other navy who ever accomplished anything similar was the Royal Navy during the wars with Napoleon. By 1860, they were not prepared to challenge the United States Navy, even though they would never have admitted it, especially with Palmerston as Prime Minister. But they did not attempt to interfere, and when Lincoln and Stanton demanded it, Parliament sent out orders to shut down ship building for the Confederacy. Alabama was the last of the two ships built for the Confederacy in England. In June, 1863, the sloop of war USS Kearsarge sank Alabama off the coast of France. Neither the French Navy nor the Royal Navy attempted to interfere.

Even American historians have sneered at the United States Army in the civil war, when comparing them to European armies. But Napoleon III had no illusions, and would not attempt to prop up the Mexican emperor when the American civil ware ended. The United States maintained over a million and a half men under arms from early 1862 until the end of the war. Lincoln was spending two million dollars a day on the war by then. No European power could exceed those numbers and few could match them. By 1865, the United States Army would have made minced meat of the vaunted Prussians, not matte what sniveling many military historians engage in.

The power of the United States, and the hope for democracy which it represented in Europe were only possible because of the union. Failing to preserve the union would have spelt disaster for the future of all Americans.

What I did read decades ago was that there were wealthy Confederates that envisioned that an autonomous Confederacy could begin annexing the lands to the South, Mexico and Central America. And, to protect itself from a hostile Confederacy to the South, the Union might have had to merge with Canada/Britain. So, rather than say that the dissolution of the Union could have wound up in a Balkans style America with 30 independent nations, it might have just been a Confederacy and whatever the Union became, to deal with a hostile "greater" Confederacy on its southern border.

And, I've also read that the main reason northern males joined the Union army was not to fight slavery, but to ensure a "white west," where a white man could get employment, since a "slave west" would have disenfranchised many whites from employment, planatations functioning very autonomously without much help from whites. In fact, many midwesterners were originally from southern families that had no work in a slave south.

My point being that anyone that was in the civil war, on either side, might not have been in it for the same reasons. So, to applaud the maintaining of the Union is Monday morning quarterbacking, since there were a multitude of different visions for post civil war politics/society, and just saying that the Union survived was good, as it had been, is like saying Israel must maintain settlements on the West Bank, in my opinion.

@Setanta
You're on a roll these last couple of days, Set. Numerous thumbs up!

Count me in on the thumb's up!

Thank you gentlemen, for your kind remarks.

Set,
While I have slight disagreements with the wayyouarepresenting some of your facts, your conclusions cant be denied.

BTW, the slight disagreement I have is more of a cosmetic nature, not substantive.

Set,
While I have slight disagreements with the way you are presenting some of your facts, your conclusions cant be denied.

BTW, the slight disagreement I have is more of a cosmetic nature, not substantive.

I am grateful to the ones who disagree with setanta because they goad him to continue writing. I've learned more about the Civil war from he and a few other participants than I have from the few books I've read touching on it.

reading
it could take a while

But how did you know the number of new nations, if the Union lost? To discern 30 Balkanized nations, or more, what a mind.

Quote of Setanta:
Without the union, North America would have a home to a Balkan-like agglomeration of petty states, none of them able to defend themselves alone, and none of them able to defend their citizens abroad. The dissolution of the union would have lead, very likely, to further dissolution, which is just what hateful sons-of-bitches like Palmerston were hoping for. It would be one nation, or more than 30, and those 30 nations would have been sitting ducks for any European bully with even a joke of a navy.

Is this mutual admiration society restricted?

In your own mind that does not cease to be critical of other's knowledge.

Thanks a lot Set, I didn't expect such lengthy and detailed answers.

I'll be sure to look up the various elements you mentioned. Thanks again.

Not at all. You may express your admiration of us to your heart's content.

You're welcome. One point i was going to expand on, but got sidetracked: Even in the war of 1812, it was the union which made the United States a force to be reckoned with. More than 40% of the career officers and petty officers in the United States Navy were from two states, Maryland and Virginia. Oak trees from southern and northern states were used to construct what were the heaviest frigates in the world. Cordage and sail cloth came from southern states. Straight, tall pine trees for masts fame from the northeast. Cannon were founded and powder and shot manufactured all over the country. Naval bases with all the necessary stores were found in New England, New York and New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia and South Carolina. Our brightest and best commander of land forces, Winfield Scott, came from Virginia, and advanced from Captain to Brigadier General in the course of the war, fighting in the Niagara Peninsula of Canada. What we accomplished then was a result of the union. Even with significant dissent (and some would even say treason), the power of the union of states made it possible for the United States to defy in arms the then greatest empire on earth, and to do so effectively enough that she had a good bargaining position at the end of the war. It was only possible because of the union.