I have been presented with the declarations of secession and several speeches that claim to be ironclad proof that 1) slavery was the cause of secession and 2) secession was the cause of the war; therefore slavery caused the Civil War. What is your response to such a claim?
I agree.
I don’t see how it follows that secession “caused” the war. The North invading the South in response to secession caused the war. It’s not as if the North had no choice.
Not to mention the case of Virginia which only seceded because the North launched the war.
That is certainly the logical retort I would consider, but is there anything else to consider?
Uh… Tom Dilorenzo and many others point out that the north was raising tarriffs hugely on the south. Lincoln was even completely open to passing an amendement to the constitution prohibiting slavery from ever being revoked federally. My interpretation is they ended slavery only to give the war a humanitarian cause, otherwise you’re just killing hundreds of thousands of people to stop peaceful secession ><
Slavery may have been the leading factor in the South seceding (there were others of course), but it is the North’s fault 620,000 Americans died.
Imagine an 18 year old decides to move out of her parent’s house to work as an exotic dancer. The parents don’t approve. They decide to forcefully stop her from leaving the premises, she fights back. When all is said and done her parents are left bruised and battered and she is in a coma. Is it really her fault?
Exotic dancing however does not include enslaving others.
Not to mention the case of Virginia which only seceded because the North launched the war.
In fact all of the upper South (Virginia, Tennesse, North Carolina, and Arkansas) remianed in the union untill it became clear that the federal government would use military force.
In addition, border states like Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, and Missouri were on the edge of succession not because of slavery but because the federal governments willingness to use military force.
It was likely that if left up to the state governments some border states would have left the Union too. But the Lincoln sent troops in and established martial law.
Seems to indicate that there was more going on than a righteous war to end oppression.
People who say that the civil war was about slavery are taking a complex issue that had many facets and had built up over 100 years and dumbing it down. It makes it easy to justify what was done by the feds if you have good guys and bad guys.
“I have been presented with the declarations of secession and several speeches that claim to be ironclad proof that 1) slavery was the cause of secession and 2) secession was the cause of the war; therefore slavery caused the Civil War. What is your response to such a claim?”
Using this logic, the U.S. Constitution authorized slavery, therefore the Constitution caused the war.
Exotic dancing however does not include enslaving others.
The vast majority of peole in the south did not own slaves and these people wanted out for reasons other than slavery. Yet the Union attacked and killed indiscriminately. Union forces invaded the south to prevent them from leaving not to end slavery.
So it would be more like four kids who work and earn a good living. One kid keeps a midget tied up in his room. The parents take a portion of the childerns earnings and each year there is a threat more will be taken. The childern attempt to leave for a number of reasons and the parents beat them half to death, then use the excuse that one of them has enslaved a midget.
Lincoln is almost the father of central power. That’s a big reason why he has been deified. It’s been slapped on that he wanted to free the slaves AND that there were no other options to consider; and those two together is the mythical story to support central power.
In reality, Lincoln was a giant corporatist (railroads) and there had been a political battle over tariffs for years. Lincoln was an outspoken racist and he supported a change in the constitution to enshrine slavery into it.
In his first inaugural address Lincoln clearly outlines that he’s not interested in the slavery issue but that he is interested in tax collection, and if States keep paying their taxes, that there will be no invasion:
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, and I have no inclination to do so.
[..]
The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.
Naturally, they didn’t print the first inaugural address in his temple, but his second.
And then there’s the issue of all the unconstitutional and immoral things he and the North did during and after the war. This is not at all to say that the South didn’t do bad things (starting with their support for slavery), but the deification of Lincoln, the North and central power is horrendous in the face of it.
For example:
General Sherman [who served as a General in the Union Army during the American Civil War (1861–65)] set out to eradicate every single Indian in a genocidal manner.
With this attitude, Sherman issued the following order to his troops at the beginning of the Indian Wars: “During an assault, the soldiers cannot pause to distinguish between male and female, or even discriminate as to age. As long as resistance is made, death must be meted out . . .” (Marszalek, p. 379).
Most of the raids on Indian camps were conducted in the winter, when families would be together and could therefore all be killed at once. Sherman gave Sheridan “authorization to slaughter as many women and children as well as men Sheridan or his subordinates felt was necessary when they attacked Indian villages” (Fellman, p. 271). All livestock was also killed so that any survivors would be more likely to starve to death.
[..]
By 1890 Sherman’s “final solution” had been achieved: The Plains Indians were all either killed or placed on reservations “where they can be watched.” In a December 18, 1890 letter to the New York Times Sherman expressed his deep disappointment over the fact that, were it not for “civilian interference,” his army would have “gotten rid of them all” and killed every last Indian in the U.S. (Marszalek, p. 400).
Just absolutely horrendous stuff.
These are the kind of people who are praised in (public) schools. The American state, which is a global superpower in near-perpetual war, needs a mythology and this is the sort of thing you get.
Thanks guys. Good responses. In my search, I found a great article written by Lew that seems to cover all the bases:
I think that there really were a lot of causes.
Slavery was certianly a major cause of friction, I think that the south unreasonably felt that Lincoln would ban slavery and so they seceded, Lincoln didn’t care about slavery but as he said time and time again wanted to keep the union together. The south also just plain didn’t like the proposals of Lincoln and in a lot of ways secession was just an idea whose time had come, and it happened. The major reason that the north invaded was to ensure that the United States was perpetuated, slavery was provided as an excuse because there was indeed a lot of support for it, and it makes for one hell of a slogan (which I believes counts for a lot more than one might think) but the simple fact that 4 states (I believe that number) of the union states allowed for slavery, and that Lincoln said over and over that he didn’t care about slavery and that he was a racist, I believe that the fact that the state of the north wanted to force everyone in the southern state to become a part of their state is undeniable.
The civil war put it out for everyone to see the true nature of statism, force, slavery simply acted as a good excuse, and so most were and are blinded to realiy.
I have been presented with the declarations of secession and several speeches that claim to be ironclad proof that 1) slavery was the cause of secession and 2) secession was the cause of the war; therefore slavery caused the Civil War. What is your response to such a claim?
The first point is partially true, but is irrelevant since the second point is wrong.
Secession was fully legal. It was President’ Lincoln’s desire to violently suppress the lawful actions of the Southern States that was the full cause of the Civil War.
Abraham Lincoln and Abraham Lincoln alone was the cause of the Civil War. All the responsibility for the death and destruction of the Civil War and the oppressioin of the Southern States lies with Abraham Lincoln alone.