The Civil War Really Was About Slavery. Really. It Was.

[whereisjustice]

When someone gets on TV and says "it wasn't about slavery, it was about states' rights...", they are lying. And it's also a subtle political threat. What they are really saying is "we have the right to impose terminal suffering on another human being in the pursuit of profit. It is our inalienable right, we fought for it then, it was a just cause, and we'll fight for it now."

So here is the truth taken from their own words as transcribed from the proceedings of slave holding states conventions on secession, 1860 - 1861. These are some of the best sources available for learning the true cause of the US Civil War: SLAVERY.

Mississippi

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp

South Carolina

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor 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 labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." [editor's note: this is the Fugitive Slave Clause in the original Constitution whereby the North promised to return escaped slaves to their "owners" in the South]
This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.
The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp

Virginia

But, Mr. President, these feelings have gone – this hope has fled.*** I no longer believe that the Union of our fathers and the Government founded upon it can be preserved.*** I have brought myself to look upon a dissolution as inevitable; nay, more, in the presence of the events that surround us, and spread their baneful influences over the land, I look upon it as a necessity, and as desirable. I can never bring myself to consent that the slaveholding States shall become the subject provinces of the non-slaveholding States, to which condition their continuance in this Union, in my judgment, will reduce them.
Mr. BENJAMIN WILSON, of Harrison—
I beg pardon of this Convention while I assign the reason that induced me to vote for the proposition of the gentleman from Fauquier (Mr. SCOTT). We all admit that war is now imminent, nay, inevitable. It cannot be denied but that it is necessary for Virginia to take some action . . . The only question about which we differ, as I understand, is as to the manner in which she should protect herself. ***It is very important, and very desirable in this crisis that we should have the unanimous concurrence and co-operation of our people. . . . There is no use in endeavoring to disguise the fact that the institution of slavery is one of the acting causes that brought about this calamity. . .*** I understand that this Ordinance cannot be operative until the people pass upon it; and whilst we are in the embarrassing predicament of having passed the Ordinance of Secession, our enemies will go on preparing, and we will be liable to attack upon any of our borders without the means of defence . . . I think it is better for us to call to our aid the border slave States, whose co-operation in the coming struggle is essential to our success
The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in Convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under the said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression; and the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States.
http://civilwarscholars.com/2011/11/the-comet-strikes-april-17-1861-the-conclusion/

Georgia

A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution.
While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_geosec.asp

Alabama

The day for the election of delegates has been designated in advance of the issuance of the Proclamation in order that the minds of the people may at once be directed to the subject, and that the several counties may have ample time to select candidates to represent them. Each voter of the State should immediately consider the importance of the vote he is to cast. Constitutional rights, personal security, and the honor of the State are all involved. He must decide, on the 24th December, the great and vital question of submission to an Abolition Administration, or of secession from the Union. This will be a grave and momentous issue for the decision of the people. To decide it correctly, they should understand all the facts and circumstances of the case before them. It may not be improper or unprofitable for me to recite a few of them.
Who is Mr. Lincoln, whose election is now beyond question? He is the head of a great sectional party calling itself Republican: a party whose leading object is the destruction of the institution of slavery as it exists in the slaveholding States. Their most distinguished leaders, in and out of Congress, have publicly and boldly proclaimed this to be their intention and unalterable determination. Their newspapers are filled with similar declarations. Are they in earnest? Let their past acts speak for them.
Nearly every one of the non-slaveholding States have been for years under the control of the Black Republicans. A large majority of these States have nullified the fugitive slave law, and have successfully resisted its execution. They have enacted penal statutes, punishing, by fine and imprisonment in the penitentiary, persons who may pursue and arrest fugitive slaves in said State. They have by law, under heavy penalties, prohibited any person from aiding the owner to arrest his fugitive slave, and have denied us the use of their prisons to secure our slaves until they can be removed from the State. They have robbed the South of slaves worth millions of dollars, and have rendered utterly ineffectual the only law passed by Congress to protect this species of property. They have invaded the State of Virginia, armed her slaves with deadly weapons, murdered her citizens, and seized the United States Armory at Harper's Ferry. They have sent emissaries into the State of Texas, who burned many towns, and furnished the slaves with deadly poison for the purpose of destroying their owners.

Louisiana looks to the formation of a Southern confederacy to preserve the blessings of African slavery, and of the free institutions of the founders of the Federal Union, bequeathed to their posterity. As her neighbor and sister State, she desires the hearty co-operation of Texas in the formation of a Southern Confederacy. She congratulates herself on the recent disposition evinced by your body to meet this wish, by the election of delegates to the Montgomery convention. Louisiana and Texas have the same language, laws and institutions. Between the citizens of each exists the most cordial social and commercial intercourse. The Red river and the Sabine form common highways for the transportation of their produce to the markets of the world. Texas affords to the commerce of Louisiana a large portion of her products, and in exchange the banks of New Orleans furnish Texas with her only paper circulating medium. Louisiana supplies to Texas a market for her surplus wheat, grain and stock; both States have large areas of fertile, uncultivated lands, peculiarly adapted to slave labor; and they are both so deeply interested in African slavery that it may be said to be absolutely necessary to their existence, and is the keystone to the arch of their prosperity. Each of the States has an extended Gulf coast, and must look with equal solicitude to its protection now, and the acquisition of the entire control of the Gulf of Mexico in due time. No two States of this confederacy are so identified in interest, and whose destinies are so closely interwoven with each other. Nature, sympathy and unity of interest make them almost one. Recognizing these facts, but still confident in her own powers to maintain a separate existence, Louisiana regards with great concern the vote of the people of Texas on the ratification of the ordinance of secession, adopted by your honorable body on the 1st of the present month. She is confident a people who so nobly and gallantly achieved their liberties under such unparalleled difficulties will not falter in maintaining them now. The Mexican yoke could not have been more galling to "the army of heroes" of '36 than the Black republican rule would be to the survivors and sons of that army at the present day. The History and Debates of the Convention of the People of Alabama", William R. Smith
http://civilwarcauses.org/govmoore.htm

Louisiana

The people of Louisiana would consider it a most fatal blow to African slavery, if Texas either did not secede or having seceded should not join her destinies to theirs in a Southern Confederacy. If she remains in the union the abolitionists would continue their work of incendiarism and murder. Emigrant aid societies would arm with Sharp's rifles predatory bands to infest her northern borders. The Federal Government would mock at her calamity in accepting the recent bribes in the army bill and Pacific railroad bill, and with abolition treachery would leave her unprotected frontier to the murderous inroads of hostile savages. Experience justifies these expectations. A professedly friendly federal administration gave Texas no substantial protection against the Indians or abolitionists, and what must she look for from an administration avowedly inimical and supported by no vote within her borders. Promises won from the timid and faithless are poor hostages of good faith. As a separate republic, Louisiana remembers too well the whisperings of European diplomacy for the abolition of slavery in the times of annexation not to be apprehensive of bolder demonstrations from the same quarter and the North in this country. The people of the slaveholding States are bound together by the same necessity and determination to preserve African slavery. The isolation of any one of them from the others would make her a theatre for abolition emissaries from the North and from Europe.
Address of George Williamson, Commissioner from Louisiana to the Texas Secession Convention http://www.civilwarcauses.org/gwill.htm

North Carolina

From my first entrance into public life, I have been an advocate of the right of secession . . .In this connection, I would state that, in my judgment, the time has come for the Southern states yet in the Union, [who recognize] recognizing the institution of slavery, should proceed to carry out this inestimable remedy of secession, and to seek, outside of the present Union, such associations as would afford them the protection denied them within it.
Mr. Speaker, this extraordinary crisis in the history of our country will mark an epoch long to be remembered. It will stand out boldly, in all coming ages, as a monument of the stupendous folly and wicked criminality of demented fanaticism; for no unprejudiced man can deny that the fanaticism of anti-slavery zealots has involved the country in the troubles now precipitating its destruction. Through the North, it has advanced with continuously-accelerated pace, gathering strength in its progress, until it has obtained control of the dominant party of the country, and prostrated all other parties before it. It now seeks to pass the boundary, and carry out its nefarious purposes in the South ; it seeks to arm brother against brother and father against son; it denounces slavery as the "sum of all villanies,"and proclaims its purpose to extirpate the institution. It has become a demon of destruction that fain would be " fed by rites more savage than the priests of Moloch taught." It now craves to satiate its gloating appetite with the blood of countless hecatombs of southern victims. To curb and suppress this fell spirit of fanaticism, the northern States should have exerted their energies; they should have inflicted condign punishment on the seditious agitators who nourished it. We had a right to expect this much of them. Have they done this? Not by any means. On the contrary, State Legislatures have encouraged it in almost every imaginable shape and form.
(Thomas Ruffin, 20 Feb 1861, in the US House of Representatives, delegate, representing Alamance County, to the May 1861 North Carolina Secession Convention in Raleigh, representative of NC at the Virginia Peace Conference in Washington)
https://archive.org/details/staterightsstate00ruff

Arkansas

1st. Resolved, That the platform of the party know^n as the black republican party, contains unconstitutional dogmas, dangerous in their tendency and highly derogatory to the rights of slave states, and among them the insulting, injurious and untruthful enunciation of the right of the African race in this country to social and political equality with the whites.

2d. Resolved, That it is the sense of this convention, from the pn?t history of the pai'ty, known as the black repubHcan party from the past action o\ its leaders, and their course in the present crisii!, and from the acts, utterances and conduct of its newly elected president, that said party intends to abide by and carry out, if possible, its insulting and unconstitutional platform.

3d. Resolved, That the seceded states have ample justification for having dissolved the tics w'hich bound them to the old Federal Union, in the constant and unconstitutional political warfare made by the party, known as the black republican party, upon the institutions of the slave states, wdiich warfare has culminated in the election of a president by that party, by a purely sectional vote — upon an unconstitutional platform, the principles of which, if carried out, would utterly ruin the South.

4th. Resolved, That this convention cannot shut its eyes upon the fact that the government of the United States is now under the control of said black republican party, and that said party has power to use every arm of the same, except, perhaps, the judicial.

5th. Resolved, That in the opinion of this convention it is a conclusion clearly resulting from the foregoing that every feeling of honor, interest and sympathy demand I hat the State of Arkansas should discontinue her present political relations with the United States of America, and unite herself with the Confederate States of x\merica.

Mi\ Kelley moved to refer said resolutions to the committee on federal relations; but afterwards withdrew his motion.

Mr. Bush offered the folio v.'ing as a substitute:
Resolved, That if the republican party should increase in strength, and thereby be able to carry out its purposes in the federal government, Arkansas, acting in concert with er sister border states, has ample means of resistance, and is fully able at any time to resist any unconstitutional aggressions, and wc have no need, therefore, to adopt, hastily, this last resort.

Great solace is indulged in by some, that it is the avowed purpose of black republican domination to permit slavery to remain unmolested in the states where it nov/ exists; whilst it is as distinctly announced upon the other hand, that the institution shall be denied all power of expansion over territory now possessed or hereafter to be acquired.

The laws of physical science perceive no stand point, from which there is neither progression nor retrogade action. Peoples, governments, and the institutions of government, must either recede or advance. The area of slavery must be exttndcd correhdive with its antagonism, or it will be put speedily in the " coarse of ultimate extinction." It must invest the southern portion of North America, from the Atlantic to the Paciiic, south of 3G deg. and SO min. north latitude, to be permanent; else when hemmed in by a cordon of fire, " like a scorpion, it will sting itself to death." Pu.t in the bounds, and it will soon have a general goal-delivery.

The extension of slavery is the vital 'point of the whole controversy between the North and the South, as is plainly manifested by the persistent opposition of the northern people to its being engrafted upon any newly acquired territory, whether south or north of the negro line. Does there exist inside the borders of Arkansas any diversity of sentiment, as to the religtous or moral right of holding negro slaves? Do any imagine that the non-slaveholder will be less involved pecuniarily and socially, in the extirpation of this institution than the slaveholder himself. The productive portion of the soil of Arkansas is so geographically circumstanced as to preclude the idea that it can be successfully cultivated by white labor. From these more fertile regions is produced by slave labor in stiperabundance, the staple commodity, cotton — justl}" stiled commercial king of Europe and America. From the exportation of this article alone, our people receive annually an influx of capital, which permeates the hill-tops and the valleys of every section and portion of the state. The cotton planter of the South exposed to insolubrious clim.es, indeed is but the factor for his northern neighbor — inhabitino: the mountain region, blessed with health, free trade and remunerative prices for his grain, frnit, stock and other articles produced for and sold in a southern market. Who colud find a market for the surplus products of North Arkansas, if the more genial soil of the South was deprived ot slave labor? God in his omnipotent wisdom, I believe, created the cotton plant — the African slave — and the lower Mississippi valley, to clothe and feed the world, and a gallant race of men and women produced upon its soil to defend it, and execute that decree.
https://archive.org/stream/journalofbothses00arka/journalofbothses00arka_djvu.txt

Tennessee

THE ninth section of the third article of the Constitution, provides that, on extraordinary occasions, the Governor may convene the General Assembly. Believing the emergency contemplated, to exist at this time I have called you together. In welcoming you to the capitol of the State, I can but regret the gloomy auspices under which we meet. Grave and momentous issues have arisen, which, to an unprecedented degree, agitate the public mind and imperil the perpetuity of the Government.

The systematic, wanton, and long continued agitation of the slavery question, with the actual and threatened aggressions of the Northern States and a portion of their people, upon the well-defined constitutional rights of the Southern citizen; the rapid growth and increase, in all the elements of power, of a purely sectional party, whose bond of union is uncompromising hostility to the rights and institutions of the fifteen Southern States, have produced a crisis in the affairs of the country, unparalleled in the history of the past, resulting already in the withdrawal from the Confederacy of one of the sovereignties which composed it, while others are rapidly preparing to move in the same direction.

To evade the issue thus forced upon us at this time, without the fullest security for our rights, is, in my opinion, fatal to the institution of slavery forever. The time has arrived when the people of the South must prepare either to abandon or to fortify and maintain it. Abandon it, we cannot, interwoven as it is with our wealth, prosperity, and domestic happiness.
Call for a Referendum on a Tennessee Secession Convention, Tennessee Governor Isham G. Harris, January 7, 1861
http://www.americancivilwar.com/documents/isham_harris.html

Texas

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.
That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/active_learning/explorations/south_secede/south_secede_texas.cfm

Alexander H. Stephens, Confederate VP, Savannah, Georgia, March 12, 1861

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.

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. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.
Alexander H. Stephens, Confederate VP, Savannah, Georgia, March 21, 1861 http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/cornerstone-speech/

Upon consideration of the above... for all the bloodshed and suffering of the Civil War, the rich and powerful have simply turned to Asia, Mexico, S. America for their ready supply of oppressed labor. The means to slavery has gotten more technical, more politically correct - the global economy, free trade, saving the 3rd world, etc. The apology rhetoric is also hauntingly familiar to the modern revisionists defending our historic reliance on oppressed workforces. Today we hear "people are so much better off as oppressed workers under free trade" , "their race predisposes them to doing mentally tedious tasks under high stress working conditions", "Asians are so much smarter and harder working" and so on.

Today, as it was 150 years ago, making money is about access to a cheap, carefully controlled workforce and an unregulated working environment. We haven't changed as much as we think we have.

[951-Riverside]

1. And the north promoted segregation, kept blacks from voting for nearly a century...

committing hangings, kept blacks from getting the equal education, etc, etc

They were all white genocidal racist bastards.

[Scootaloo]

4. I think you missed the point

Which is that there are two very common claims about the civil war.

1) that secession was about "state's rights"
and
2) it had nothing to do with slavery.

A simple glance at the state's declarations of Secession, as demonstrated here, blows both claims to bits.

[Igel]

17. That's pretty much a really poorly constructed straw man.

One that really is so trivial to disprove that it asks the questions, Why bother? and Why boast when it's done?

You get two things out of the various declarations: Slavery was under attack; and in so doing, the rights of the slave states were under attack, as they had been, with slavery, one of the unenumerated rights under the Constitution (however loathsome that may be) as the pretense under which Northern political, banking, and manufacturing forces trying to use the government to "utterly subjugate" the slave states, something the South had been suspicious of for the previous 20 years but for different reasons.

This led to sectionalism--a new word for me, but which seems to mean having the North and South divided, and insisting on the territories being "divided" so that instead of both sides having access to the entirety of the territory they were divvied up into sections.

The Civil War was about slavery. But some declarations make the relationship of slavery to the Civil War and their motives pretty much surface, others make it a bit deeper. The question to be asked, though, is if the Civil War was about slavery and nothing else, show where slavery was about to be defeated by Congress and Lincoln, and how wonderful this Union had been, otherwise, for the South. Otherwise, the relationship isn't yes/no but something else, something else worth splitting the Union over; or the Union was much weaker than we like to think it was, so a light and trivial suspicion was sufficient to rive it.

Otherwise we're left with cardboard. We're living flesh and blood beings, complex and with nuance; but those opposed to us are lifeless, bloodless cardboard cutouts. First you dehumanize your enemy ...

[whereisjustice]

19. show where slavery was about to be defeated by Congress and Lincoln...

The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was so despised by the North that it was openly defied and fomenting open rebellion in the North. Congress passed a horrible law as a compromise related to California's request to be admitted as a non-slave state. The South accused the North of not doing enough to recover their "property" and the citizens of the North were furious - on the verge of open rebellion against such a repugnant law. Lincoln believed that it was better to defeat slavery via a procedural process as a Union of states as opposed to a costly and bloody war. However, the Northern states would have been forced to repel the law or risk open rebellion against the Government of the North by their own citizens.

On the other hand, had Lincoln declared all slaves free, he would have started an immediate war. Eventually it became clear that the South would never get the unlimited status it wanted from Congress regarding slavery and there was war.

The war made any act of Congress or Lincoln to legislate a solution moot.

With a diplomatic solution no longer possible, Lincoln warned in 1862 that slavery was going to end and on Jan 1, 1863, Lincoln changed that status of slaves to free men with the emancipation proclamation - a relatively short time from the onset of the major battles of the war and a relatively short time after being elected.

A poster from Boston warning slaves at that time, the Fugitive Slave Act infuriated the North and open resistance to it infuriated the South:

[Art_from_Ark]

6. Well, Northern Supreme Court justices did promote segregation

in Plessey vs. Ferguson (1896). All but one of the 7 justices who voted the wrong way were from the North. And the lone dissenter, John Harlan, was from Kentucky.

[SunSeeker]

2. K & R & bookmarked!

[cemaphonic]

16. Yes, it was about money alright.

Specifically the money that was being made by the Southern elite thanks to having a subjugated workforce. The very first article of secession in the OP (Mississippi's) makes this case quite plainly.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

[fasttense]

60. Slaves and money is what it was about

The South had so tied their economy to maintaining concentration camps for forced labor that to stop the torture, rape and slave labor would mean the destruction of their society. I think it was the TN declaration that made it clear that if they ended the concentration camps, their economies would crumble.

Which is why the State of Franklin in east TN tried to secede from the secession. They didn't own slaves and wanted no part of the war.

No matter how the South tries to whitewash the war it was all about keeping concentration camps full of slaves to be abused in any way they wanted.

I wonder if the South had not been so hot headed, could they have brokered a deal where their economy could have withdrawn from slave labor gradually? I doubt it because they seemed so proud of their abuse and toture of people. When they write about their secession, they declare their right to torture someone to be almost God given. They were so very poud of their concentration camps that they wrote books about it, like Gone With the Wind. When Germany was defeated, I read no books about how life surrounding the concentration camps was so idealistic. Germans didn't keep Jews from voting or passed laws that put Jews back into semi concentration camps. It's as if the South never learned how horrible they had been to the victims of their abuse.

[niyad]

23. in "gone with the wind", rhett butler points out, before the war is declared, that all

the manufacturing is in the north, the south has nothing of the kind, and is taken to task for his heresy.

[floyd1]

5. Agreed

I live in Texas. I just visited the Capitol building in Austin. They have a confederate memorial outside the building. Not just a pole with a flag, mind you, but a whole monument. A huge piece of carved marble with the engraving "For States Rights" on the sides. They should move this monument to a museum. It is disgusting. State rights to what?: To keep slavery! Despicable.

On your last point, I think it is well put. We have wage slavery now. It's not that different. Blacks (and other minorities, of course) still live in congregated ghettos. They still work for too little. They are still marginalized. We just have a nice word for it now: low wage earners. The poor. The miserly.

Capitalism requires slaves. Nobody can be rich unless someone is poor. Change the system.

Start by voting Bernie.

Vote Bernie!

[merrily]

7. Thank you for all that work. Bookmarking. Yes, the Civil War was about slavery.

[C Moon]

8. I've never talked to anyone or read about this, but I was annoyed at Shelby Foote's attitude in

Last edited Tue Jul 14, 2015, 01:54 PM - Edit history (1)

the PBS documentary, "Civil War."

I know the director probably wanted an unbiased view of the event, but Foote to me seemed more sympathetic to the south, rather than to those who were living in slavery.

I just looked him up (RIP, he passed in 2005) and that site said, "Foote did not hesitate to affirm that he would have fought for the south; when he used the term "southerner" he meant "white southerner."

[rtracey]

26. Read his books

Shelby Foote knew more than anyone about the Civil War. A fantastic writer and historian. I don't agree with your assessment of him being a smirking-a-hole racist, but I feel anyone has the right to say their feelings.

[C Moon]

27. I was harsh, thanks. I reworded it.

Last edited Tue Jul 14, 2015, 02:55 PM - Edit history (1)

I did read one of his civil war books years ago, the title escapes me right now, but I remember thinking what a great book it was.

[jtuck004]

9. Frankly, there are about 400 million people out there with a large percentage

having gone through our public schools.

If there was any question that the war was about slavery when they left our schools, if they weren't taught then, you haven't got a prayer in teaching them now. It's fun to run it by the choir once in a while, though.

But it is a damn good post.

Thank you.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

10. They want to claim the Confederacy was about "Southern hospitality" too....

Never mind the chains.

[flamingdem]

11. K&R

[pnwmom]

12. Thank you, whereisjustice, for all your work pulling this together. n/t

[Cryptoad]

13. Every State had

some type of formal document that outlined their reason for succession .. they all show issues of slavery as the main reason ........ usually the victors write history but the south pull one over the union after the war.

[Uncle Joe]

43. Were you taught in school

that General Sherman supported slavery and sympathized with the South up until the Civil War started, that U.S. Grant owned a slave for two years or that Lincoln held racist views?

Maybe that was taught in your school history class but it was never brought up in mine.

[Cryptoad]

57. No,,, I was taught the lie that

the war was fought over states Rights.....

[Uncle Joe]

68. Here in Nashville, I was taught it was fought over slavery as that was the hottest

issue of the day, this was back in the 1960s and 1970s.

I was also taught that states rights were a major point of contention, primarily being, could a state legally leave the union if its people elected to do so according to the U.S. Constitution in 1860?

Are you aware of anything in the U.S Constitution that legally prohibited a state from leaving the union in 1860?

[Cryptoad]

72. After i got old enough not to believe

everything I was told, and reading the historical documents of the times, it seems the state rights issue was over whether a state could could pass laws that would allow them not to have to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. The southern states were pissed because more and more Northern State were not enforcing that law that required them to return runaway slaves to their owners....... in other words,,, the southern state were against States have that right.

[Uncle Joe]

73. That makes it sound like the Southern and border states were arguing against state power

and in favor of the federal government?

The states that defied the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 were bucking the federal government?

Am I understanding that correctly?

[Cryptoad]

74. My understanding is

States were allowed to not to enforce the Fugitive Slave act.... and yes that would mean the Southern state were upset that states had the right to do that.

[cab67]

14. I've always been struck by how slavery derailed Confederate foreign policy.

The CSA was desperate for foreign recognition. Formal recognition by the UK would have opened up the possibility of British intervention and would have impacted the status of the Federal blockade.

It's true that the UK, France, and other countries were looking for substantial Southern victories. But the Eastern Theater was essentially one southern victory after another up until Gettysburg. UK prime minister Palmerston was openly pro-Confederacy. The only thing that really kept the UK from formally recognizing the Confederacy was slavery. Abolition was an even stronger political force there than in the northern US.

Had the Confederacy given up slavery, they'd have had British (and probably French) recognition in a month. They didn't even have to establish an egalitarian society - it's not as though the British Empire was egalitarian at the time. But the Confederacy just couldn't let it go, much to their detriment.

[LittleGirl]

15. excellent summary

Thanks for taking the time to post these. Awesome. Bookmarked.

[7962]

18. As a white southerner, I'm tired of hearing the excuses. Thank God we lost the wr

Other wise, the south would likely be a 3rd world country, the US would be much weaker, Europe would probably be speaking Russian, and the rest of the world Chinese.

[onenote]

20. Secession was definitely about slavery. The war that followed had more complex reasons behind it

It should be a given that slavery, and the desire to defend slavery against efforts by the non-slave states to limit or even abolish slavery, led to the secession of the confederate states. However, it would be an oversimplification to conclude that the sole, or even principle reason that the federal government didn't just let the south set up its own government, was concern that slavery would continue in those states.

[whereisjustice]

24. The war was started because the North would not cooperate with the South regarding slavery

The North was aiding slave escapes, not honoring the Fugitive Slave Act, and Congress was approximately split down the middle regarding allowing slavery to exist long-term in the Union.

Meanwhile, the South had its eye on Mexico and Caribbean as potential source of slaves and was expanding plans for a slave based economy.

Some say it was tariffs/taxes that caused it, however, the truth is, southern tariffs were at their lowest point just before the war and not cited as a cause in any of the succession documents. Slavery, however, is frequently mentioned as a right worth defending with succession and blood.

The South built their economy and lifestyle on the backs of slaves. They were being threatened by the general population of the North and by Lincoln's time there were only a handful of Congressman preventing war between North and South.

The conventions of secession were about several things including leaving the Union and forming alliances for defense in the inevitable war that all knew would follow.

Upon succession, the South viewed the North as a hostile enemy to its way of life and war quickly broke out.

At time of war, in terms of goods, the South had achieved a massive economic advantage over the North because of slavery.

The Civil War was fought over the principal of slavery as being the primary economic engine of the US. It dwarfs any other complaint of the South against the North.

[niyad]

21. k and r and bookmarking, and sharing, widely.

[jwirr]

22. Of course it was. The only thing they say today is it was economic - of course - they were

fighting to keep slavery (slaves were property). Any way they say it still ends up pointing to slavery.

[rtracey]

25. Besides the rich

Besides the rich politicians and generals, whom who fought in the civil war were slave holders? I am betting very very small minority of actual fighting soldiers were slave holders. The civil war may have been about slavery, but I 'll bet you the confederate soldiers, the infantry fighting soldiers were told to "rally around your state, the government is trying to take away your states rights"......What the governors and politicians say and do are different things.

[maindawg]

29. 1.7 % of the pop.owned slaves

The billionaires of the day used the same techniques as they do now to stir up fear and suspicion. So no slave holders actually fought unless you count the officers who stayed in the rear. It was a horrible ordeal to be in the fight. It was kaos. There was no honor in killing your fellow Americans on either side. Many soldiers were immigrants who were forced to enlist as they got off the boat. They were slaughtered wholesale. Thousands at a time.
What the South did by secession, was a terrible crime. We should investigate the exact cause by identifying the forces and the actual people behind the act of secession. It was a radical thing to do. The news papers of the day, the billionaires who pushed the US into war, are criminals and are guilty of murder.
The destruction they caused went unresolved. Un punished. They were left to persecute POC for the next 15o years and to this day, we continue to allow them to persecute them. Today we have Trump right out in the open throwing stones. We have 16 idiot president candidates dogwhisling their way up the GOP ladders.
We have thousands of redneck hill billies waving their nazi KKK confederate battle completely unaware that they look like idiots to the entire world of reasonable tolerant people. Just as it was the billionaires who pushed into wars in Iraq etc, its always the same.

[rtracey]

31. yup

Just as I asked and thought. The majority if not all of the soldiers of the confederacy were not the slave owners, but fighting for their leaders who basically pushed them into this conflict. How many southern soldiers came home after this war with a cheery outlook on life...hmmm not too many, knowing their homes, farms, livestock all destroyed, wives and children possibly killed or worse. Ask a vet of today and many will say they fought over in Iraq to help free the people, etc. What did the confederate soldier say? we helped the rich fuckers keep their slaves? I think they may have said "What the fuck was this war about?

[KitSileya]

66. Actually, a lot of the Confederate soldiers who didn't own slaves

also fought to uphold slavery. They invoked the fight for liberty of 1776. A main part of liberty was the liberty to own property, and a huge part of property was slaves. To them, the idea that African-Americans could be considered equal to themselves was anathema. It would pull these poor Whites down to the level of Blacks, and that was horrible for them. As long as there were slaves, poor Whites would still be somebody. They were also terrified that Black men would marry their daughters, and they claimed Northern Abolitionists would force their daughters to marry Black men. The North was trying to make them submit and be subjugated, and only slaves submitted and were subjugated. These ordinary soldiers fought to preserve their (Southern) liberty, which included the liberty to own slaves, and to uphold slavery. And they said it, expressly, in the letters and diaries they wrote during the Civil War.


I direct you to 'For Cause & Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War' by James M. McPherson, or if you don't have time to read a whole book, to the 51st episode of the podcast 'The Civil War (1861-1865): A History Podcast at http://civilwarpodcast.libsyn.com/-51-gone-for-a-soldier

[kydo]

33. What maindawg wrote

That would be a very radical thing and I too would agree with you.

[ThoughtCriminal]

44. 1.7%? Not even close to accurate

Especially when you take into account that only the head of the household was counted as a "Slave owner" and families were generally much larger at that time. Which is not to argue that the really big time plantation owners were not steering policy, but slave ownership was much more common.

http://www.civilwarcauses.org/stat.htm

Almost one-third of all Southern families owned slaves. In Mississippi and South Carolina it approached one half.

Census data can be appealed to in order to determine the extent of slave ownership in each of the states that allowed it in 1860. The figures given here are the percentage of slave-owning families as a fraction of total free households in the state. The data was taken from a census archive site at the University of Virginia.

Mississippi: 49%
South Carolina: 46%
Georgia: 37%
Alabama: 35%
Florida: 34%
Louisiana: 29%
Texas: 28%
North Carolina: 28%
Virginia: 26%
Tennessee: 25%
Kentucky: 23%
Arkansas: 20%
Missouri: 13%
Maryland: 12%
Delaware: 3%

[maindawg]

59. ok I checked it

What you have here is the percentage of the population that were slaves. Very few people owned them. White land owners comprised a very small percentage of the population. The 1.7 % includes all Americans. If you were to actually investigate the % of slave state white land owners the % would be more like close to 8 or so but still very small. Make no mistake slaves were not cheap. They cost 6 to 10 thousand dollars each. In 1860 6 thousand dollars would be like 60,000 dollars today. And that is conservative. So no regular folks owned slaves. Unless it was by some chance thing where a sick or crippled slave might find themselves passed along for some barter or some deal.
The billionaires of 1860 were criminal treasonous megalomaniacs just like the billionaires of 1940 who sided with Hitler[Prescot Bush, Edward Koch ] and the billionaires of today.
So if you want to know who the terrorist are, look no further.

[ThoughtCriminal]

69. Still misleading

When you count "land owners" you are only counting the head of the household. If you count "land owning families", once again you find that the percentage is much higher.

Bottom line - the neo-Confederate talking point promotes the idea that the war was not about slavery because only a tiny minority of those who volunteered to to fight were wealthy enough to own any. The actual statistics of slave owning families completely debunks this lie.

[gollygee]

46. It was more than 1.7% in southern states

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html

[Spazito]

28. Excellent OP!

Very informative, both the OP and the posts responding to it.

Thanks for doing the work on this, I appreciate it.

[struggle4progress]

30. The case of North Carolina is interesting

There was a referendum in February 1861 to determine whether to call a state convention on secession and to elect delegates to the convention. The state not only elected 83 pro-union delegates and 37 pro-secession convention delegates but also voted against calling the convention. The governor then called a special 1 May session of the legislature to consider the issue, and the legislature called the convention, which voted for secession, with the additional requirement that the matter not be put to a popular vote

[Yupster]

55. In between was Lincoln's monumental blunder

of calling a quota of militia from each state which would be used to put down the rebellion.

Aside from being blatantly unconstitutional (Article 1, Section 39) it made the southern states choose sides.

North Carolina wasn't the only wavering state. Tennessee voted barely against calling a secession convention and Virginia was debating what to do. Once Lincoln demanded states provide troops to invade the south, Tennessee had another vote and overwhelmingly decided to leave. Virginia and N Carolina followed. So did Arkansas, but they were probably going to leave anyway.

There was not a slave state significantly more populous than the others. There were five about equal size. They were Virginia, Georgia, N Carolina, Tennessee and Kentucky.

Before Lincoln made his stupid announcement, only Georgia had left.

Imagine the Civil War without N Carolina on the CSA side. It lost more men than any other state north or south. Imagine the CSA without Virginia with RE Lee, Stonewall Jackson and JEB Stuart all fighting for the north.

Lincoln's calling forth the militia is one of the stupidest moves any US President has ever made.

[struggle4progress]

64. Lincoln's call for militia troops, after the attack on Fort Sumner, was based on the Militia Act

of 1795, passed during the Presidency of G. Washington and providing

That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. And if the militia of a state, where such combinations may happen, shall refuse, or be insufficient to suppress the same, it shall be lawful for the President, if the legislature of the United States be not in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient thereto, as may be necessary, and the use of militia, so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the ensuing session

The Militia Act of 1795 is entirely non-controversial: the Constitution Article I Section 8 Paragraph 15 provides Congress the power To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions

[struggle4progress]

65. The secession of NC is noteworthy because a referendum had already decided decisively against it,

simultaneously electing an overwhelming majority of pro-unionists as delegates to a proposed secession convention and refusing to call such convention -- at which point the secessionists regrouped. The state governor asked the legislature to call an unlimited convention, explicitly requesting no popular referendum be required to ratify

... A total of 122 Democratic and Whig delegates, 108 of whom were native North Carolinians, gathered on 20 May 1861. The delegates held an average of 30.5 slaves each, with the median being 21, which meant that over one-half of the delegates belonged to the small planter class ...

So it's clear that the secession of NC involved political manipulations of the pro-slavery interests to defeat popular will

[Major Nikon]

32. Those claims are nothing more than neo-confederate dipshittery

Assholes like Ron Paul parrot out that nonsense so they can claim they aren't overt racists when they wave their traitorous flag. Even they know it's bullshit.

[Lithos]

34. Would like to make a distinction here.

First, not disputing that for the politician, the clergy, the plantation owner and other large business men, the war was about slavery and economics. And yes, they funded the war and prosecuted the war with their power and influence.

However, to make that distinction for the average person, or more specifically claim the average soldier who fought was from a desire to perpetuate slavery is too simplistic. The average solder came from farmers and workmen, people who were likely too poor to have slaves. They fought for a variety of reasons - yes some fought for slavery, but many were conscripted, many fought for home, some for adventure and more than a few for money.

[whereisjustice]

36. They also fought for the right to be slave holders themselves, one day. From a 50,000 ft view

Many of the fighters were too young to have established themselves with a large number of slaves. However, they believed it would be their destiny upon victory.

You can still hear the echoes of the incoherent rhetoric defending the cruelty and punishment of the 1860s within the conservative wings of both political parties.

From the overt racist bible thumping of Scott Walker and Ted Cruz to the sophisticated double-speak of any 3rd way candidate of your choice defending the horrifying, rat fucker known as TPP.

It all boils down to the same thing - profiting from those least able to protect and defend themselves and the right for people (mostly with money and power and a few Gov. sponsored tax incentives) to participate in the free market of the same.

After all - why should any man be denied the right to have their plastic shit assembled in Asia by some kids working a 12 to 14 hr shift for $5 a day or less?

[Lithos]

39. Proof for that?

It's a very broad statement...

L-

[Major Nikon]

37. It's not that complicated, either

The Confederacy didn't start conscripting soldiers until well into the war, so if there weren't an abundance of volunteers, there wouldn't have ever been a war. While it may be true that some of those volunteers (which still made up the vast majority of the Confederate army) were just too fucking stupid to know what they were fighting for, those secession documents listed by the OP were well published at the time and it was well known that the purpose of the war was for the perpetuation of slavery. So while they may have had a variety of personal reasons for volunteering, they still knew what the public reason was for the war.

[Lithos]

40. Conscription started 16 April, 1862

About 1 year into the war. That was done when bonuses were failing to pull in the number of men needed. The Union started about a year later.

L-

[Major Nikon]

41. Which means the war began with an all-volunteer army

Not to mention that even at the height of conscription, draftees never amounted to more than a third of the army, if that. Those that were conscripted were often very poor contributors to the effort, often deserting and/or retreating the first chance they got. Many people just didn't go and the Confederacy had to occupy large areas of the South just to maintain their government.

[Lithos]

48. No, not really

The people who served were primarily the immigrants and subsistence farmers. After the first round of 90 day wonders, most of the men who served were either militia, conscripts of people who volunteered only after getting a bounty (ie, they were given a fairly large sum of cash to enroll). Also, many of those who were conscripted, could if they wanted, pay for someone to take their spot.

So, again, after the first 90 days, there were very few "volunteers" who were fighting for ideological reasons. The majority of the war was conducted by those who were there involuntarily (conscript or militia call up), or were being paid a bonus.

L-

[Major Nikon]

51. "being paid a bonus" /= involuntary

Without volunteers, the Confederate army would have never existed, and those who volunteered were traitors. Whatever their personal reasons were doesn't make them any less traitorous.

[Lithos]

52. It makes them mercenary

not ideologues, which was the original statement.

[Major Nikon]

53. Which would make them even more traitorous

But I certainly don't agree with that label. Members of the Confederate army most certainly didn't call themselves mercenaries, nor did they fit that definition.

The original statement didn't even address the topic.

[ThoughtCriminal]

47. "Average soldiers"

http://deadconfederates.com/2011/04/28/ninety-eight-percent-of-texas-confederate-soldiers-never-owned-a-slave/

<snip>
"The majority of the young men who marched off to war in the spring of 1861 were fully vested in the “peculiar institution.” Joseph T. Glatthaar, in his magnificent study of the force that eventually became the Army of Northern Virginia, lays out the evidence.

Even more revealing was their attachment to slavery. Among the enlistees in 1861, slightly more than one in ten owned slaves personally. This compared favorably to the Confederacy as a whole, in which one in every twenty white persons owned slaves. Yet more than one in every four volunteers that first year lived with parents who were slaveholders. Combining those soldiers who owned slaves with those soldiers who lived with slaveholding family members, the proportion rose to 36 percent. That contrasted starkly with the 24.9 percent, or one in every four households, that owned slaves in the South, based on the 1860 census. Thus, volunteers in 1861 were 42 percent more likely to own slaves themselves or to live with family members who owned slaves than the general population.

The attachment to slavery, though, was even more powerful. One in every ten volunteers in 1861 did not own slaves themselves but lived in households headed by non family members who did. This figure, combined with the 36 percent who owned or whose family members owned slaves, indicated that almost one of every two 1861 recruits lived with slaveholders. Nor did the direct exposure stop there. Untold numbers of enlistees rented land from, sold crops to, or worked for slaveholders. In the final tabulation, the vast majority of the volunteers of 1861 had a direct connection to slavery. For slaveholder and nonslaveholder alike, slavery lay at the heart of the Confederate nation. The fact that their paper notes frequently depicted scenes of slaves demonstrated the institution’s central role and symbolic value to the Confederacy."
</snip>

And this is also not taking into account that just about every major political, editorial and religious institution in the South not only promoted the ethics of slavery, but constantly warned the non-slave owners that if freed, the negro slaves would take their jobs, steal their property and rape their women. That line of propaganda never stopped long after the war and is still used to justify murder and arson to this very day.

[Lithos]

49. Those were the 1 year/90 day wonders

Who went home after they got a taste of battle or were strong-armed into re-enlistment or paid a rather large amount of money to remain. They certainly were no longer fighting for ideological reasons...

http://www.etymonline.com/cw/conscript.htm

"[S]oldiers had enlisted for twelve months only, and had faithfully complied with their volunteer obligations; the terms for which they had enlisted had expired, and they naturally looked upon it that they had a right to go home. They had done their duty faithfully and well. They wanted to see their families; in fact, wanted to go home anyhow. War had become a reality; they were tired of it. A law had been passed by the Confederate States Congress called the conscript act. ... From this time on till the end of the war, a soldier was simply a machine, a conscript. It was mighty rough on rebels. We cursed the war, we cursed Bragg, we cursed the Southern Confederacy. All our pride and valor had gone, and we were sick of war and the Southern Confederacy.
"A law was made by the Confederate States Congress about this time allowing every person who owned twenty negroes to go home. It gave us the blues; we wanted twenty negroes. Negro property suddenly became very valuable, and there was raised the howl of 'rich man's war, poor man's fight.' The glory of the war, the glory of the South, the glory and pride of our volunteers had no charms for the conscript."[4].

http://www.etymonline.com/cw/moore.htm

If conscription is to be accredited with having directly or indirectly put most of the men in the service after the first year of the war, it would be possible to place a fair estimate upon it, if the total enrollment in the Confederate armies were known. But the question of total enrollment has been one of controversial discussion since the Civil War, and we seem to be no nearer a common agreement than at the outset. The question will continue to be a matter of speculation until more complete records are unearthed. The number actually enrolled probably lies between the usual Southern estimate of 600,000 and the Northern estimate of 1,100,000. When the final count is made the enrollment, including the State reserves and other local defense troops, will probably total 850,000 to 900,000. If to this number the exempts and details are added it will be seen that most of the military population was reached and allocated, if temporarily and improperly in many instances. While the figures upon which this deduction is made are conjectural, they do not seem extravagant, in view of such testimony as we have, and they will serve to emphasize a fact generally accepted, that, as things go in war, the South gave very liberally of its military population.

The Southern Draft was considered the first "modern" draft as it provided exemptions for key trades and professions. It also gave an exemption to those who owned more than 20 slaves - a tact which prompted those to grumble that it was a Rich man's war, but the poor are the ones who fight it. This number would not include those who were paid money to "volunteer" or who served as a substitute for someone else, both sizable numbers. .

L-

[ThoughtCriminal]

56. 88% of the slave owners didnot qualify for that exemption

88% of slave owners had fewer than 20 slaves. They were still vested in slavery, but not excluded from conscription.
Also remember the exemption only applied to the slave "owners" which would generally be a parent, not other members of a slave holding family.

None of what you posted refutes the strong support, financial and social interest in slavery that they had for enlisting and fighting. I do not know, and your source does not quantify what percentage re-enlisted when their obligation was up. But whatever motivation they lost, it was they preservation of slavery that motivated a very large percentage to get into it. If they became disillusioned later, they were not the first or last soldiers to discover that war sucks way more than they expected.

I find it difficult to find reliable estimates of the number of volunteers vs conscripts. but it seems that conscripts made up about 25% to 33% of the Confederate army.

[psychmommy]

35. It was about states rights

States right for allowing people to own people. Only black people can work in the tropical environments, lol. You can't make this mess up.

[Major Nikon]

38. It was actually diametrically in opposition to states' rights

In almost all the secession documents was either the explicit or implicit declaration that the Northern states didn't have the right to oppose slavery. They claimed they had a "constitutional right" to the return of their "property" which fled to the Northern states.

[whereisjustice]

42. Yes, and you can hear the echoes of that arg in the "freedom of religion" debate in which

conservatives claim they have the right to restrict your behavior such that it agrees with their religion.

[Major Nikon]

54. It's the same warped logic

There's always a fresh supply of dipshits that believes their "freedom" allows them to impose on the freedom of others.

[heaven05]

63. that tropical environment thing of the

black being more accustomed to hot weather environments, African descent you know, was one of the reasons for the 9th and 10th Calvary(colored), 24th and 25th Infantry(colored)fighting against the First-american nations in the southwest. Why the were sent to Cuba to fight Cubans in a less well known but vicious battle for Kettle Hill. It was a resounding 'victory' for the black troops but Teddy took upon himself to name the San Juan Hill battle as proof of his 'victorious white troops at San Juan, the battle(s) were for the capital of Santiago Province, Cuba. Kettle Hill was by far the most bloody engagement of those two battles. Yet it was hardly ever mentioned. Just Teddy and his 'Rough Riders' and San Juan Hill. Wonder why...hmmmmmmm

[calimary]

45. ANY time that "states' rights" thing comes up - it's all about sanitizing racism. lee atwater

recommended as much.

http://www.thenation.com/article/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/

lee atwater was one of the most vile excuses for a human being imaginable. He worked the political propaganda game and was a MASTER manipulator. At one point he was chair of the RNC. He worked for reagan and bush1. He SPECIFIED using strategic phrases to smokescreen the message being communicated, in particular - "states' rights." If you say things like "states' rights" and "forced busing" you can SOUND like you're not a racist even though you are. Vile, vile beast. So vile he summoned Michael Dukakis to his bedside when he was dying of cancer - to apologize for having lacerated his reputation with the Willie Horton smear to win the election for george-the-first. Dukakis later said he forgave atwater.

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/13/us/gravely-ill-atwater-offers-apology.html

He's on my list of people to forgive. And I'm working on it. And I'm not nearly there yet.

[whereisjustice]

50. great point and most recently, the racism behind the campaign "protecting against voter fraud".

[malaise]

58. Excellent post

They know - they just want to deny the truth

[EndElectoral]

61. "a Southern confederacy to preserve the blessings of African slavery"

The blessings? I suppose slavery was a religious entitlement.

C'mon, this had nothing to do with states rights. States rights was an excuse to justify an intolerable practice.

Cheap labor, property, racism and acquisition of wealth had more to do with it than states rights. Comments that the negro is mentally inferior and would be better suited to work in the tropical conditions needed to farm cotton. Property in that once a product is purchased it is "mine" and I'll be damned if I give up my investment.

Even today industry looks for the cheapest labor it can find, and what is better than zero wages - slavery. However, slavery still required a minimum to be used for food and cheap housing. Today, companies now rely on cheap labor abroad rather than housing slaves on our soil. There is something innate in our financial system that will attempt to get away with as little as possible to make the largest profits for the owners.

In many ways things haven't changed that much. Racism still exists - (ie) recent Charleston shooting. Cheap labor - more and more outsourcing. Acqusition of wealth - the 1% grows wealthier and wealthier while the division of wealth among the rest grows less and less and the wage between CEO and worker expands further and further apart.

Racism was an integral part of the confederacy action, but so was the fianancial aspect. The states right's argument to me is hogwash.

[appal_jack]

62. Excellent history & analysis. Huge K&R. nt

[Zorra]

70. Great post, bookmarking, thank you. nt

[One_Life_To_Give]

71. Pickett just wanted some Apples from NY

And those nasty Army of the Potomac Bluebellies said he couldn't have any. And when he tried marching up to ask why they threw all kinds of stuff at him and his men. Whom were never quite the same afterwards.

[Yupster]

75. Pickett visited Lee after the war and was very bitter

After the visit, he told the other officer, "that old man destroyed my division."

The only good part for Pickett was that two of his five brigades missed the battle of Gettysburg as they were left in Virginia.