Tweet
Re: Reflections on Apostles of Disunion by Charles Dew - By John M. Lloyd
If Slavery and Race were not the main issue, why did that seem to be the main issue being fought once the war ended. What I mean is were the Klan, the White League, and the Red Shirts and any other similar groups commiting acts of terrorism and violence against the freedmen because of the tariff? Were the dozens of freedmen lynched or shotdown near Vicksburg alone done so because of the tarriff? It was because they were now legally equal with former slaves and they were prepared to do (and did) anything they could to reverse that. The racial strife that occurs during Reconstruction is in my opinion a pretty good support for Slavery being the cause of the war on the front end. As someone mentioned earlier even if someone did not enlist in the Confederate Army because they owned slaves or were supporting slavery, they still had the mindset that they were white and therefore still above a slave.
I don't want to hijack the thread by referencing a couple other books to support this (I'll have to stop being lazy and do some reviews myself), however there are some good ones that cover the violence during Reconstruction(Redemption: The Last Battle of the Civil War) as well as the concept of "Whiteness"(Whitewashing America: Materiel Culture and Race in Antebellum Imagination) in the 19th Century South.
One other thing I'd like to mention - the South always proclaimed that they were forced into the war etc., yet it was always the North that was forced to compromise begining with slavery during the Declaration of Independence, the Compromise of 1820, the Mexican War Treaty, the Compromise of 1850 with its strong Fugitive Slave Act(talk about states rights being infringed upon!), and the Kansas-Nebraska Act, all of which were arguments over slavery. It is not until just a decade after the North starts to finally stand their ground with the Wilmot Proviso(in my opinion unfortunatley one of the less appreciated moments in American History) and the rise of the Freesoil Movement that the South tries to take their ball and go home. The fact that there is a Freesoil Movement to begin with should further underline this point. There are more books in this area that should be discussed on here, specifically The Impending Crisis: 1848-1861, and Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men. Anyone who has read the latter cannot try and say Northerners were not rascist either for what it is worth.
The question I always ask visitors when this topic comes up is - If there was not the institution of slavery present in the United States in 1861 then would there have been a war? If slavery was not the cause of the War then why did Alexander Stephens say that "Slavery is the Cornerstone of the new Republic" rather then "The Protective Tarriff is the Cornerstone of the new Republic" ?
Others have already given facts to support that slavery was in no way on its way out. Another comment we get from visitors is that there was nowhere conducive for slavery to expand to as the Southwest is a desert. I'd first say look south to Cuba and Central America - the filibusters had been trying to annex and control slavery in those areas for ten years, just look up William Walker and John Quitman. As for the Southwest, you can farm it if you can irrigate it, and there are mines as well - you can't tell me mine owners wouldn't have jumped at the chance to use slave labor in Arizona and New Mexico.
Great discussion and view-sharing on all parts!
If Slavery and Race were not the main issue, why did that seem to be the main issue being fought once the war ended. What I mean is were the Klan, the White League, and the Red Shirts and any other similar groups commiting acts of terrorism and violence against the freedmen because of the tariff? Were the dozens of freedmen lynched or shotdown near Vicksburg alone done so because of the tarriff? It was because they were now legally equal with former slaves and they were prepared to do (and did) anything they could to reverse that. The racial strife that occurs during Reconstruction is in my opinion a pretty good support for Slavery being the cause of the war on the front end. As someone mentioned earlier even if someone did not enlist in the Confederate Army because they owned slaves or were supporting slavery, they still had the mindset that they were white and therefore still above a slave.
I don't want to hijack the thread by referencing a couple other books to support this (I'll have to stop being lazy and do some reviews myself), however there are some good ones that cover the violence during Reconstruction(Redemption: The Last Battle of the Civil War) as well as the concept of "Whiteness"(Whitewashing America: Materiel Culture and Race in Antebellum Imagination) in the 19th Century South.
One other thing I'd like to mention - the South always proclaimed that they were forced into the war etc., yet it was always the North that was forced to compromise begining with slavery during the Declaration of Independence, the Compromise of 1820, the Mexican War Treaty, the Compromise of 1850 with its strong Fugitive Slave Act(talk about states rights being infringed upon!), and the Kansas-Nebraska Act, all of which were arguments over slavery. It is not until just a decade after the North starts to finally stand their ground with the Wilmot Proviso(in my opinion unfortunatley one of the less appreciated moments in American History) and the rise of the Freesoil Movement that the South tries to take their ball and go home. The fact that there is a Freesoil Movement to begin with should further underline this point. There are more books in this area that should be discussed on here, specifically The Impending Crisis: 1848-1861, and Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men. Anyone who has read the latter cannot try and say Northerners were not rascist either for what it is worth.
The question I always ask visitors when this topic comes up is - If there was not the institution of slavery present in the United States in 1861 then would there have been a war? If slavery was not the cause of the War then why did Alexander Stephens say that "Slavery is the Cornerstone of the new Republic" rather then "The Protective Tarriff is the Cornerstone of the new Republic" ?
Others have already given facts to support that slavery was in no way on its way out. Another comment we get from visitors is that there was nowhere conducive for slavery to expand to as the Southwest is a desert. I'd first say look south to Cuba and Central America - the filibusters had been trying to annex and control slavery in those areas for ten years, just look up William Walker and John Quitman. As for the Southwest, you can farm it if you can irrigate it, and there are mines as well - you can't tell me mine owners wouldn't have jumped at the chance to use slave labor in Arizona and New Mexico.
Great discussion and view-sharing on all parts!
Comment