Civil War not about slavery?

Question

Why is it so many southerners are obsessed with claimming the Civil War wasn't about Slavery? Let's face it, if those guys were crusading for State's Rights, they wouldn't have voted for the Fugitive Slave Act, or would have at least seceded from the Union right then, rather than impose slavery on northern states like that. Hard not to view it as propaganda, along the lines of today's pols that are all for state's rights or home rule till they get elected to Congress or the State house and get a taste of power and the joy of cramming their assorted pet beliefs down everyone's throat. Does this position date back to Civil War, as a way to get all the non-slave holders to show up? or is it a post-war invention, allowing descendents to distance themselves from the issue, while holding on to their reverence for their bellicose ancestors, in much the same way as most Northerners focus on the ending slavery part and ignore the "for the Union" issue.

Answer 1

I was thinking of the same question too, since I see southron, and a few others here doing exactly that. It surprises me to see this debate is still happening, 145 years later, but nevertheless - a debate is a debate. It is precisely these people who have inspired me to read deeper (and deeper) and read the words of the people who lived at the time and their reasons. I would go with the latter reason you offered, "it allows them and their descendants to distance themselves from the issue." Recently I have found two quotes and a newly-published book that in one way or another explain the issue of slavery and its relevance in the U.S. Civil War.

Answer 2

~To Myredneck:

With all your whining, isn't it interesting that the "Father of the Constitution", James Madison, was a Virginian and he and George Mason (a brother Virginian) are chiefly responsible for the Bill of Rights. Already a minority of population when they decided to sign the constitution and join the union, the southern states through their 20 (or 25 if you include Maryland) southern delegates (of the 55 present - poor Rhode Island was not represented at all and had no delegates in attendance) ratified the Constitution. I guess they couldn't look around the room and figure out that if the country was divided on regional lines, they were a minority. Maybe that's why they insisted that every 5 or their slaves counted as three people when it came time to allot congressmen. Of course, every state has always had equal representation in the Senate. And isn't it likewise interesting that the oppressive Federal government was headed by a southerner for most of the time leading to the Civil War: 9 of the first 15 presidents were southerners (with seven of them coming from Virginia). With that disparity, I understand how the south felt under-represented. However, you are correct that the war had nothing to do with slavery. When the constition was signed, slavery was legal and present in all thirteen states, and Lincoln said more than once that he would readily approve slavery if it would preserve the union.

Answer 3

The Confederacy did not fight to preserve slavery, they fought to defend the Rights of the States. Also the Union did not fight to abolish slavery.

ANYONE whom thinks the "War Between the States" was over slavery, or that the South fought to defend slavery is an ignorant and obviously harbors hate towards Southerners and people of the occupied Confederacy.

Read the Ordinances of Succession for each Confederate State, only 3 of the 15 declared slavery as a reason for leaving the Union and starting the war.
If you believe that 3 states controlled all 15 Confederate States and territories and led them off to war for that reason, then you must also think America currently is 100% behind the Iraqi War.

Also Jefferson Davis and the Confederate Congress in March of 1865 issued the Confederate Emancipation, thus freeing all slaves in Dixie, why free all the slaves if they were fighting only for slavery.

Also explain to me why the Confederacy had 30,000 FREE Black Troops fighting in the war as early as 1861 which was recorded by British observers as being both free and well armed. But some how after the war the Union made no mention of them. Black Confederates existed, and they existed years before their Union counterparts.

Slavery and racism did not become part of the Confederate lore until much later after the war ended, when the KKK which was not based in the South, they operated in all of the States rose up and began to practice hate against former slaves.

Also the KKK's flag was the American flag from 1865-1955, almost 100 years. It was not until the Civil Rights movement that the flag was changed to the Rebel Flag.

The KKK is not a Confederate group, and has hijacked the Confederate flag in the same way Terrorists have hijacked the religion of Islam; groups like the Sons of Confederate Veterans and such fight each day to destroy the KKK, but can't seem to kill them off thanks to stupid people that believe the flag is all about racism.

In closing everyone that sees the Rebel Flag as a racist symbol is a bigot.

Answer 4

Try hard to concentrate here. To southerners, secession was in large part over the issue of slavery, but the war was not. Note that there's a difference. The Confederacy did not invade the north (at least not until Gettysburg), and some New England states had considered secession earlier, so the view of the time was not that such a thing was unthinkable. Most white southerners didn't own slaves, but they didn't like being pushed about by Yankees. Perhaps they were being overly optimistic when they agreed to the Massachusetts Compromise limiting their power in the House of Representatives.

Answer 5

yes, the Civil War was about the end of slavery but there were , however other points of view.
1. States rights
2. preservation of an agrarian as opposed to the industrial capitalism way of economy in the North
3.Lincoln's original intention was that of the preservation of the Union . He was against slavery going further into any new territories and by that means slavery would die out by the natural order of things.
4. It was not until after the victory the narrow victory at Antietam did Lincoln propose the Emancipation Proclamation on September 22, 1862 to take effect on January 1, 1863. It was a shrewd political move with the congressional elections coming in November and the Lincoln presidency shaky at best.
5. With the election of the Radical Republicans to Congress did the abolition of slavery finally take shape as the one proposed in the Constitution.Lincoln pushed the abolition of slavery as a political plan , due to the far reaching aspects that a change of attitude was necessary for the North to achieve this purpose, a morale booster and a motive for winning for which the South had from the beginning and to preserve the Union which would not have taken place if slavery continued and a bloody civil war put the country at the vital impasse of no return.

Answer 6

Slavery was not an issue in starting the war. Lincoln supported slavery until 2 years into the war, then issued the emancipation proclamation in direct contradiction to his earlier views. He worded the proclamation carefully so he would free no one with the proclamation.

When Lincoln was elected he stated his support for slavery in his first inaugural address.....by then war was imminent and he still stated his support for slavery and racial inequality.

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this, and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them."
Abraham Lincoln; March 4, 1861

Through the American Colonization Society (ACS) the plan was hatched in the 1820's and 1830's to remove all freed blacks from American soil to the African nation of Liberia. This was supported by several of the slave states in America, but was supported by several northern states and personally by Abraham Lincoln himself. He thought that the 'inferor' blacks did not belong in the United States. In 1862, Abraham Lincoln made the United States the first nation to formally recognize the nation of Liberia.


"I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”
Abraham Lincoln, 1858

Another fact that clearly demonstrates that slavery was not a factor in starting the war, was that the top 3 Confederate military commanders (Lee, Jackson, and Longstreet) all favored the abolition of slavery and petitioned the Confederate Congress to do so. The Confederate Congress tabled the idea of abolition long before the United States Congress did so.

99% of Confederate Soldiers and Citizens had absolutelty no stake in slavery whatsoever. Only the extremely wealthy owned slaves. The vast majority of men who fought for the Confederacy did so because their homes were invaded and their way of life threatened.

Answer 7

Slavery was, of course, a major reason for the Civil War. In the South, it was an economic issue, not a moral one. Further, states rights AND which society, the industrial North or the agrarian South, was going to control the rich lands of the West, were other major issues.

Chow!!

Answer 8

the civil began because the north was trying 2 keep the nation united, all 1 country, since south states seceded. later the president tried to free the slaves in the south, which made them even more determined 2 stay apart from the Union. As 2 y they're so obsessed with the cause, probably because they wanna prove that they fought 4 their lives 4 sumthing other than keeping ppl under their property. also, their politicians, so who nos wuts goin on in their heads, right?

Answer 9

slaves were property, plain and simple. the southern states did not take kindly to having the feds tell them that they could not have/keep their property. seeing as how their economy was based on slavery, they saw it as the feds taking away their right to earn a living/make money, whatever you want to call it. and while the northern states were growing by leaps and bounds with industry, the south was and still is relatively behind the times when it came to making money without industrialization. the south took it as a personal affront that slavery was going to be illegal.

Answer 10

Let's say that computers are outlawed by the federal government. States that still like and who have economies and infrastructure based on computers will say that it is a state issue. They want to keep using computers and the federal government has no right to tell them they cannot use them... Obviously I am trivializing the issue here but I hope you get my point. Perhaps the argument was that the Bill of Rights protects US citizens, and slaves were not US citizens.