5 ms·

Slavery was not the primary factor of conflict in the Civil War. Both Union and Confederate states owned slaves and engaged in slave trade. Conflating the Confe

Slavery was not the primary factor of conflict in the Civil War. Both Union and Confederate states owned slaves and engaged in slave trade. Conflating the Confederate flag with racism or white supremacy is a popular, but historically ignorant viewpoint.

softwaredoug 6y ago
It was the cause. The election of Lincoln and John Browns raid were threatening to the south exactly because of their threat to slavery. The south was not only paranoid of a slave uprising, but also owned people was the bulk of their wealth. I think this skeptics SE is pretty good summary: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/16275/was-slavery-the-principal-cause-of-the-american-civil-war https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/16275/was-slave... And the Cornerstone Speech by the VP of the confederacy: > Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition.
morley 6y ago
There's the old saying that if you know nothing about it, the Civil War was about slavery; if you know a little about it, it was about state's rights; and if you know a lot about it, it was about slavery. The "states rights" trope was a deliberate attempt of a few Southern, revisionist historians to blunt their racist past. The truth is that the South seceded because their states wanted the right to hold slaves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy
- henriquez 6y ago
  Yes I believe slavery was the straw that broke the camel’s back but it wasn’t the primary factor of conflict. Slavery and protecting the property of rich plantation owners was not the reason poor southern kids were fighting and killing their own family members. To completely dismiss the more prominent factors at play including states rights as “historical revisionism” is itself historical revisionism.
  - softwaredoug 6y ago
    The question is complicated, but slaveholding was not some thing just done by rich gentry. There was a long-tail of slaveholders with just a handful of slaves. With white slaveholding families in the confederacy comprising 20-50% of white families... https://studycivilwar.wordpress.com/2017/04/18/the-extent-of-slave-ownership-in-the-united-states-in-1860/ https://studycivilwar.wordpress.com/2017/04/18/the-extent-of...
  - jcranmer 6y ago
    > To completely dismiss the more prominent factors at play including states rights Question #1: Name three states rights the South supposedly aruged for. Question #2: Count how many of those rights they actually granted to their own states. For it being supposedly such a major factor in their succession, states rights are conspicuously silent in both the ordinances of succession, contemporary oratory, and in the text they wrote in their own Constitution.
    - henriquez 6y ago
      Your questions miss the point. The Confederate states wanted to be free from federal economic control. Such a freedom is not an individual liberty that would be conferred by the state upon its citizens but rather an organizational mainstay that would define the state’s relationship with the federal government. Slavery was the tipping point but the conflict goes much deeper than that.
      - jcranmer 6y ago
        The only federal economic control they objected to was the abolitionism movement that would rid them of slaves. At an extreme stretch, maybe you could claim objections over federal industrial policy and internal improvements, but you'll have to observe that there was zero mention of this in their ordinances of succession, they were avid supporters of this on the state level, and despite their constitutional prohibitions against it, they enacted such policies during the Civil War due to their abysmal infrastructure. And as a footnote, it is worth pointing out that a large part of the animus against internal improvements is driven by fear of the dilution of wealth in the slaveholding elite.
ebg13 6y ago
> Slavery was not the primary factor of conflict in the Civil War. The historical record written in the confederacy's own words disagrees with you. The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States shows slavery up front and center. These Declarations from five states, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia include the word "slave" 83 times. (https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declarati...) Mississippi: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery" Georgia: "For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery...The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by [the northern Union's] leaders and applauded by its followers. The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of [the northern Union]. For forty years this question has been considered and debated in the halls of Congress, before the people, by the press, and before the tribunals of justice. The majority of the people of the North in 1860 decided it in their own favor. We refuse to submit to that judgment, ..." South Carolina: "A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery." Texas: "[Texas] was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race ..."
- gamblor956 6y ago
  Indeed, the only role that "state's rights" played in the Civil War was maintaining the rights of the Southern/slave states to allow slavery to continue. The Confederate states certainly didn't respect the right of the Northern states to terminate slavery, and indeed forced through a number of laws (prior to the Civil war) requiring the Northern states to participate in the return of escaped slaves.

softwaredoug 6y ago

It was the cause. The election of Lincoln and John Browns raid were threatening to the south exactly because of their threat to slavery. The south was not only paranoid of a slave uprising, but also owned people was the bulk of their wealth. I think this skeptics SE is pretty good summary: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/16275/was-slavery-the-principal-cause-of-the-american-civil-war https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/16275/was-slave... And the Cornerstone Speech by the VP of the confederacy: > Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition.

morley 6y ago

There's the old saying that if you know nothing about it, the Civil War was about slavery; if you know a little about it, it was about state's rights; and if you know a lot about it, it was about slavery. The "states rights" trope was a deliberate attempt of a few Southern, revisionist historians to blunt their racist past. The truth is that the South seceded because their states wanted the right to hold slaves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy

henriquez 6y ago
Yes I believe slavery was the straw that broke the camel’s back but it wasn’t the primary factor of conflict. Slavery and protecting the property of rich plantation owners was not the reason poor southern kids were fighting and killing their own family members. To completely dismiss the more prominent factors at play including states rights as “historical revisionism” is itself historical revisionism.
- softwaredoug 6y ago
  The question is complicated, but slaveholding was not some thing just done by rich gentry. There was a long-tail of slaveholders with just a handful of slaves. With white slaveholding families in the confederacy comprising 20-50% of white families... https://studycivilwar.wordpress.com/2017/04/18/the-extent-of-slave-ownership-in-the-united-states-in-1860/ https://studycivilwar.wordpress.com/2017/04/18/the-extent-of...
- jcranmer 6y ago
  > To completely dismiss the more prominent factors at play including states rights Question #1: Name three states rights the South supposedly aruged for. Question #2: Count how many of those rights they actually granted to their own states. For it being supposedly such a major factor in their succession, states rights are conspicuously silent in both the ordinances of succession, contemporary oratory, and in the text they wrote in their own Constitution.
  - henriquez 6y ago
    Your questions miss the point. The Confederate states wanted to be free from federal economic control. Such a freedom is not an individual liberty that would be conferred by the state upon its citizens but rather an organizational mainstay that would define the state’s relationship with the federal government. Slavery was the tipping point but the conflict goes much deeper than that.
    - jcranmer 6y ago
      The only federal economic control they objected to was the abolitionism movement that would rid them of slaves. At an extreme stretch, maybe you could claim objections over federal industrial policy and internal improvements, but you'll have to observe that there was zero mention of this in their ordinances of succession, they were avid supporters of this on the state level, and despite their constitutional prohibitions against it, they enacted such policies during the Civil War due to their abysmal infrastructure. And as a footnote, it is worth pointing out that a large part of the animus against internal improvements is driven by fear of the dilution of wealth in the slaveholding elite.

ebg13 6y ago

> Slavery was not the primary factor of conflict in the Civil War. The historical record written in the confederacy's own words disagrees with you. The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States shows slavery up front and center. These Declarations from five states, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia include the word "slave" 83 times. (https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declarati...) Mississippi: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery" Georgia: "For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery...The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by [the northern Union's] leaders and applauded by its followers. The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of [the northern Union]. For forty years this question has been considered and debated in the halls of Congress, before the people, by the press, and before the tribunals of justice. The majority of the people of the North in 1860 decided it in their own favor. We refuse to submit to that judgment, ..." South Carolina: "A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery." Texas: "[Texas] was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race ..."

gamblor956 6y ago
Indeed, the only role that "state's rights" played in the Civil War was maintaining the rights of the Southern/slave states to allow slavery to continue. The Confederate states certainly didn't respect the right of the Northern states to terminate slavery, and indeed forced through a number of laws (prior to the Civil war) requiring the Northern states to participate in the return of escaped slaves.