Reflections on Apostles of Disunion by Charles Dew - By John M. Lloyd

[Eric Tipton]

REFLECTIONS ON APOSTLES OF DISUNION - BY CHARLES DEW
By John M. Lloyd

There is little doubt among historians as to the importance of slavery as one of the main causes of the American Civil War. To what extent slavery played an important role as a cause is what has been debated for the past 150 years. Charles Dew’s book Apostles of Disunion, brings to light that the main motivation for the cause of the Civil War was, at its root, slavery and ultimately racism. Dew does this by analysis of the Southern state Secession Commissioners’ writings. These commissioners were appointed by their individual states in order to take-forth the feelings and sentiments on the secession question to persuade other southern states to secede from the Union and join the fledgling Southern Confederacy.

True, the antebellum South was a classed society that was based-upon chattel slavery as its base, broad-sweeping class. True, this class-system was of a race-based nature. Also true that this system included many different gradient levels of superiority (such as unskilled enslaved blacks, skilled enslaved blacks, free blacks, unskilled poor whites, skilled poor whites, etc.). I also definitely agree with Dew’s conclusion that fear of slave uprising, like had been done in a quite bloody-fashion in Haiti in the early 19th century as well as had happened on select occasions in the South before the Civil War, was a main motivation of fear in whites in the antebellum South and this led to a sense of paranoia amongst the white populations of Southern states.

Factually, I think that Dew highlights many of the slavery and racial causes of the Civil War. Dew has done his homework in analysis and documentation of the surviving Secession Commissioners’ papers and records. He seems to be thorough in his analysis and in his narrative of what commissioners did what and when they did it.

I believe Dew gets it wrong in that he concentrates only on the topic of slavery in the pre-war South as the main cause of the states leaving the Union and, in turn, the Civil War. Dew purposefully ignores all evidence that states rights, delegation of power responsibility in government, political dealings, economics between the two factions, and cultural differences ever played a roll in the break-up of the United States. I believe this is lazy and willingly ignorant conclusion-making based-upon good, narrative research and the desire to bend this research to prove a single, narrow-minded thesis.

Dew obviously writes this book in order that he can prove his thesis that slavery and racism were the reasons for the break-up of the United States. In the book’s forward, he states it is his goal to prove slavery and racism were the direct causes of hostilities that led to the Civil War. There is a danger here that Dew obviously does not seem to worry about in that analysis of a particular topic can be bent to a certain desired end through the interpretation of the willing.

Overall, though, Dew’s book is an interesting and telling look at the slavery discussion within and amongst the southern states during the secession crisis. I am curious as to see analysis of what other topics arose from the Secession Commissioners’ interstate dialogues, as I feel this book clearly does not provide this to the reader. I also have a difficult time believing that the commissioners’ dialogue included pro-slavery exhortations only due to the fact the root causes of the Civil War ran deeper and more complex than the slavery question. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that slavery was a large part of the tipping-point into disunion, but it was not the only root cause.

At best, this book, I feel, is myopic, and at worst, borderline disingenuous. One cannot take a segment of anything that is clearly more complex than the author tells it to be and stretch it to be the sole cause of an event like the American Civil War. To do so, shows modern political beliefs read into historical events through modern-day eyes. To understand the motivations of those that lived the historical event being studied can be one of the biggest challenges of the historian. Some historians get this idea correctly more than others.

QUESTIONS:

Why does Dew just about omit States Rights, cultural, political, and economic known causes of the Civil War and focus only on slavery?

According to Dew, why did the Secession Commissioners play-up the paranoia of slave rebellion as a persuasive cause to secede from the Union?

Do you feel Dew is using a modern lens to see historical events?

[Pritchett Ball]

Re: Reflections on Apostles of Disunion by Charles Dew - By John M. Lloyd

I have this book, been a while since I read it. The Secession Commissioners speeches are on-line...http://www.civilwarcauses.org/commish.htm.
I'm not sure what "States rights" were actually threatened, except the expansion of slavery in the Territories. (States rights were tromped all over on, by the over-centralizing Jeff Davis government!) A lot of rhetoric was being used on "States Rights", and "self Determination" were being thrown into the mix. But those things paled to what the one thing that took center stage...slavery

The slavery question was one that was going to affect all in the South, whether they owned slaves, or not. You dared not be an abolitionist in the South, THAT brought you to a horrible end! Slavery was a big social equalizer for all the white southerners, even if you didn't much own anything, at least you were not a black person. Any change to the status of the Blacks, was going to be intolerable. A "Slave revolt" (Like Nat Turner) was something feared by most, and even a rumor of a slave revolt would get a lot of people killed, tortured, or banished. http://www.amazon.com/Texas-Terror-I...s=Texas+terror

Excerp of a letter from Mississippi's Commissioner to North Carolina:
"The question which is now submitted both to Mississippi and North-Carolina, is this, shall we sit quietly down without a murmur, and allow all our constitutional rights of property to be taken away by a construction of the Constitution which originates in hostility and hatred, or shall we, as men who know their rights, bestir ourselves, and by a firm, united and cordial "co-operation," fortify and strengthen them, that they may be transmitted unimpaired to our children, and our children’s children, throughout all generations. Wisdom dictates that all the questions arising out of the institution of slavery, should be settled now and settled forever."

I don't think Drew is off the mark, after all, he does go by what they said in those speeches, and their communications during the secession crisis, and their actions.

Kevin Dally

[Johnny Lloyd]

Re: Reflections on Apostles of Disunion by Charles Dew - By John M. Lloyd

No, I don't think he is off totally, but to take only one segment of the action of the time and to say it is representative of all of the causes of the war overlooks many other issues contributing to the war.

Slavery to a Southerner of the period (mostly rich ones) meant personal property rights. Divorce yourself from how we modern people think of the emotional idea of such an institution. To encroach upon slavery was to encroach upon the right to life, liberty, and property. The commissioners' papers clearly state these ideas. So, more than just pure racism, the fight against slavery was one of fighting for personal property, whether or not we agree to it or not as modern people looking back 150 years.

What about the balance of power in Congress being upset regarding the annexation of the Mexican Cession or Texas as slave states? What about cultural and social differences of North and South?

[jake.koch]

Re: Reflections on Apostles of Disunion by Charles Dew - By John M. Lloyd

I think you need to look at the time these commisioners are out there giving their speeches - it has been awhile since I read the book (which I think is great) - I believe it is 1860? I really think slavery is the only issue in the minds of the fire-eaters once John Brown's Raid occurs in 1859. There is alot of research showing that the militia system in the South had become little more than a social club in the years since the Mexican-American War, however once Brown's Raid occurs and the spector of slave rebellion is in the air, the militias grow, new ones spring up, they drill more, are some what fairly well organized and much more ready for the war than the north.
I personally think Dew is right in focusing only on slavery because it was the only issue volatile enough at the time to get people to seriously consider secession. I don't really think anyone would have gone to war in 1860-61 over a tarriff or any of the other "states rights" that lost causers would tell you are the real cause of the war yet are unable to mention. Just as in politics in any time period including the present, if you want somthing drastic to occur you focus on the one issue that you know will light a spark.

[Pritchett Ball]

Re: Reflections on Apostles of Disunion by Charles Dew - By John M. Lloyd

Jake:

Good post!

Kevin Dally

[Johnny Lloyd]

Re: Reflections on Apostles of Disunion by Charles Dew - By John M. Lloyd

Not at all. Slavery was -part- of the wealth and power the South had over the North that the north feared in the antebellum US. Dew puts TOO much emphasis on slavery through a modern eye in this book. Again, your average person in both the South and North in the time period didn't own slaves and was apathetic to that segment of life entirely. We lack the idea of a classed society the people 150 years ago had and lived with every day. To make the whole war about slavery is like saying the Global War on Terror was about catching bin Laden. Yes, it is a major part of it, but there are a variety of issues that go along with it to cause armed conflict.

[Johnny Lloyd]

Re: Reflections on Apostles of Disunion by Charles Dew - By John M. Lloyd

My question to Dew would be, how is it that a modern Western society, take for example Brazil, which had slavery until 1888 and imported 40% of the total slave population of the New World from Africa, that a bloody revolution didn't ensue there when slavery was ended, but it did happen here. Based off of this, there HAD to be something more than just slavery as the argument for a war. Yes, slavery was a large part, but not the total argument.

Again, we forget there was a classed society that was in no way shape and form equality minded 150 years ago. Many people who were free, both white and black, felt "better them than I" attitude toward people in bondage. May sound unfair and harsh today, but that was the cruel truth back then.

The Constitutional interpretation conflict over if a state could nullify the Federal government's power and to what extent was also a crucial issue that played into the lead up to war. Slavery was the Achilles heel of the South regarding its total power and influence. Lincoln realized that and used it to keep France and Britain out of the war successfully.

[Pvt Schnapps]

Re: Reflections on Apostles of Disunion by Charles Dew - By John M. Lloyd

I think you need to look at the time these commisioners are out there giving their speeches - it has been awhile since I read the book (which I think is great) - I believe it is 1860? I really think slavery is the only issue in the minds of the fire-eaters once John Brown's Raid occurs in 1859. There is alot of research showing that the militia system in the South had become little more than a social club in the years since the Mexican-American War, however once Brown's Raid occurs and the spector of slave rebellion is in the air, the militias grow, new ones spring up, they drill more, are some what fairly well organized and much more ready for the war than the north.
I personally think Dew is right in focusing only on slavery because it was the only issue volatile enough at the time to get people to seriously consider secession. I don't really think anyone would have gone to war in 1860-61 over a tarriff or any of the other "states rights" that lost causers would tell you are the real cause of the war yet are unable to mention. Just as in politics in any time period including the present, if you want somthing drastic to occur you focus on the one issue that you know will light a spark.

Good points. I'd like to add that I agree that the reasons for secession often presented as alternatives to preserving slavery -- "states' rights" and the tariff -- themselves have no real meaning outside the context of slavery. What "state right" did the Confederacy promote apart from unimpeded ownership of slaves?

And why would the Morrill Tariff be perceived as less favorable to the south than the north? Because they had different economies. How did their economies differ? The seceding states had massive investments in slave-based plantation agriculture -- or, in the case of Virginia, selling their surplus slaves to owners in states that could still profitably employ them.

Two things make the tariff argument especially egregious. First, the Morrill Tariff didn't pass until southern legislators left Congress and the money was needed for the war. Second, the greatest tariff in American history was the Constitution's ban on the importation of slaves (retained in the Confederate constitution). This constraint on the free market meant that slave owners enjoyed a doubling in the value of their "property" between 1850 and 1860 (from $400 to $800 on average) without any fear of competition from overseas, where slaves could still be had from west Africa for less than $100. As late as 1873 slaves were reported as available in east Africa at less than $50 each. http://books.google.com/books?id=cm0...ica%22&f=false

That the doubling of domestic slave prices occurred in the decade leading up to the civil war strikes me as especially significant. At that point, even counties with a small percentage of slaves like Alexandria, Virginia, found themselves in a position where the value of their human "property" exceeded that of all the farms and farming equipment. That would explain why secession occurred in response to the republican party's "free labor" platform even without an actual emancipation or abolition proposal on the table. The simple threat to market value could have tremendous financial consequences, not just to slave owners, but the communities around them.

[Johnny Lloyd]

Re: Reflections on Apostles of Disunion by Charles Dew - By John M. Lloyd

But, what did slavery represent to Southereners in the prewar period? Property rights. The Federal government threatening those property rights as well as the right of a state to do as it felt necessary to preserve those rights scared many a Southerner, slave owner and non slave owner, as well as some Northerners that still supported a balance between Federal and State government power as the Constitution intended.

The arguments against the tariff being unfair is misfocused. The Southern congressmen were not present to continue to fight the various tariffs they had fought since the 1830s when John Calhoun did so. Might I also remind southern states agreed to end the slave trade also. It was just simply not needed anymore. Slavery was on its sunset both practically and culturally in the 19th Century.

The cotton trade having any more tariffs or other taxation against it affected planter money income. Clearly, anything the Federal Congress did to hurt the agrarian based Southern economy directly affected Southern way of life adversely. Now, question remains, how would one motivate a common, non slaveholding southerner to fight for his state? If the whole war was over slavery, then what motivated non slaveholders to fight and suffer? Clearly Southerners felt threatened regarding homes, communities, and their conceptualization of what the Founders agreed to regarding basic rights.

Back to the Dew book focus: Dew has a good argument, but his thesis is akin to saying the Iraq War was ONLY about oil. Yes, that was a large part of it, but there were other mitigating circumstances so that one should not take a part of the whole in and attempt to explain everything. To do so is disingenuous, which I believe Dew to me in this book out of his own bias.

[Pvt Schnapps]

Re: Reflections on Apostles of Disunion by Charles Dew - By John M. Lloyd

Of course southern states agreed to end the slave trade. As I pointed out, the prohibition kept the price of their own slaves at an artificially (astronomically) high level compared to what it would have been had they had to compete with the low cost of newly imported slaves.

Slavery was not a dying institution in 1860. Comparing the figures from the 1850 and 1860 census, there were more slaves and slave owners; despite this increase, the average cost of individual slaves had doubled. Time On the Cross, controversial though it was, did a pretty good job at showing the relative efficiency and productivity of slave agriculture immediately before the war.

Why would the average non-slaveholding southerner care? For one thing, if you assume that the number of slave holders represents the number of families owning slaves (an assumption made in the census) you get 1.9 million (5x384,000) people in families that own other people. Not all these are in the south, but the number would still cover a quarter to a third of all southern households. And given the wealth represented by slaves, these would not be the least influential people in their communities. They would either be, or be the major support of, the bankers, legislators, and newspaper publishers.

In addition to those directly implicated through ownership, you have those who leased or rented slaves at rates cheaper than white workers (compare labor prices in the Army Regulations for the Corps of Engineers under form 7 for free laborers and form 8 for slaves), and all those involved in industries or agricultural enterprises that depended on slave labor. And, as Mr. Dally pointed out, you might be utterly destitute and completely outside the economy but, if you were white, you were still somebody, somebody not a slave or bound by the restrictions on free blacks.

Finally, we have to distinguish between the causes of war and why people join the army. Old men care about causes. The young men who fight wars go off with their friends. As one got further into the war that wasn't enough. The south relied increasingly on conscription, the north on bigger and bigger bounties. As we indulge ourselves in our hobby it's easy to forget that the original cast may have been less enthusiastic than we are. They weren't "buffs" -- they had to fight the damned thing.

[J. Donaldson]

Re: Reflections on Apostles of Disunion by Charles Dew - By John M. Lloyd

But, what did slavery represent to Southereners in the prewar period?

The economic argument is important, but it eclipses a far important answer that incorporates economics into a larger world view. To the antebellum American slavery represented a highly regulated construction of society that depended on hierarchy that placed race at the forefront of defining the individual's place within that hierarchy. Slavery strips away social mobility, property rights, voting, and every other aspect of white society that middle class ideologies relied upon. The mythos that the poor farmer could acquire property, vote his interests, and improve his lot in life were unavailable to slaves. At the very core of the question, these items were unavailable to African-Americans; they were theoretically open to every white person, native-born or immigrant, no matter what section of the country they lived in. Secession in the defense of slavery protected not only the property rights of (planter class rich) whites could be supported by the middle/working/lower classes because it protected their right to acquire property and change their status within Southern culture. As long as you were a white man, American culture told you that you were better than an African-American, and that could not be taken away from you by any tax, rich person or other form. A white man controlled his labor, the basis for a "free" society, while a slave did not.

[Michael Comer]

Re: Reflections on Apostles of Disunion by Charles Dew - By John M. Lloyd

Excellent discussion. I have not read this particular book, but this thread is enticing me to do so - exactly what it was hoped the 'Book Shelf' would do.

[Johnny Lloyd]

Re: Reflections on Apostles of Disunion by Charles Dew - By John M. Lloyd

Still, follow the money. Slavery was money and the basis of an antiquated economic system. Slavery was also property rights. It was culture as well. To violate any elicited a visceral reaction enough to start a war. The Secession Commissioners were merely a mouthpiece at a later point to focus further frustrations by Southerners against what they saw as an encroaching Federal government upon personal freedom- Dew's thesis is all post-fact and not at the root of the problem, which Dew uses to represent the whole argument, that the Southerners were just a bunch of racists and they started a war.

Whether or not that personal freedom was at the expense of another race (which, in the period, was a radical idea to call Black Americans as 'people' in both North and South) is an entirely different matter- follow the money trail. You have to see it from the white Southerners' point of view from back-then, not modern hindsight.

I think the crux of any of this is how one views the US Constitution. If someone sees the States as always subservient to the Federal goverment with no rights of their own, then you might personally come-up with the anti-States Rights conclusions after reading this book. (I'd argue that that is not the case.)

[Pvt Schnapps]

Re: Reflections on Apostles of Disunion by Charles Dew - By John M. Lloyd

Saying that secession had more to do with states asserting their rights against the federal government than slavery per se just fuels the same circular argument. What rights are they asserting and why? Why are all the seceding states run by slaveholders? Are all the loyal states run by politicians who simply don't care about their own states' rights?

To me it also raises another issue. Back in the day everyone complained about "sectionalism" -- the tendency of states in one region to try to get their way against states in another. This seems a much more useful picture of the power factions in play than the more modern picture of states against federal "tyranny." The federal government of 1861 only existed as a construct of the states, and it could only wage war with the support of the majority of them, reinforced by significant factions in the states that seceded. Its entire budget in 1860 was about $90 million, about two-thirds of the value of annual cotton exports overseas. To see the war as a matter of the tyrant Lincoln and the big bad federal government against states exerting rights that don't seem to appear in the actual text of the Constitution, is a distinctly contemporary take on things.

But I agree with Mr. Welch that slavery wasn't just an economic factor, and I think his discussion of the racial factor goes pretty far to explain the persistence of the institution. Kolchin's Unfree Labor notes that liveried servants appear both in the case of Russian serfs and US slaves, not for their actual value but as status symbols. Owning other people was always about more than just the money.

And, leaving aside the question of who started the war, I don't mean to suggest that "Southerners were just a bunch of racists." So what if they were? How many people weren't in 1861? Certainly not those northerners who felt that free blacks could all be repatriated to Africa, nor the northern states that kept them off the rolls of voters and out of the ranks of the militia. Given how people felt about Irish and German immigrants, it would be a rare white man who didn't view blacks as inferior.

One difference then between northern and southern whites is that the latter were more or less trapped in an economy that depended on slave labor and a social structure wedded to those slaves being black. Another is that southern whites lived in a bi-racial world, a creole society that perhaps had more in common with Cuba and Nicaragua than western Europe. It was easy enough for someone from New England to be an abolitionist -- they couldn't grow cotton or tobacco if they wanted to and there were virtually no blacks around. I have no sympathy with secession, which more and more strikes me as a kind of rebellion of the 1%, but I can understand the frustration that southern whites might have felt when accused of barbarism by people who hadn't a clue about the world they lived in.

[Pritchett Ball]

Re: Reflections on Apostles of Disunion by Charles Dew - By John M. Lloyd

Well Eric...That's another fine topic you got us into discussing! Great thoughts posted, y'all!

Kevin Dally