Scholarly history of Civil War vs. popular "history" of Civil War

[onodera]

And, of course, any potential disdain of smugness is made up in spades when the South jingoistically champions the US in foriegn affairs.

Oh, you and your crafty puns.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Case and point. Imran is a racist damn yankee.

[SpencerH]

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Ohh and lest I forget a commie.

[DaShi]

Another argument well won by morons solely through ad hominem.

[MrFun]

How about this for flawed reasoning:

Nazi Germany went to war for conquest, not just to exterminate the Jews. Therefore, even though the Holocaust happened, Nazi Germany was not anti-semitic.

[giblets]

Just like climate change debate isn't about CO₂ emissions, but about the cost of reducing them. If it cost nothing to stop emitting, nobody would complain.

Please explain. You're saying that the civil war wasn't about slavery, because southerners benefited from owning slaves?

[Arrian]

to gribbler for posting some of the declarations of secession. The Horse's Mouth, baby.

The sectional dispute, by the 1850s, had become all about slavery. Disputes over tarriffs had faded to insignificance. I find it hard to believe that, if the big disagreement between North & South was tarriffs, the only resolution would have been secession/war. The political system should have been able to handle that dispute. Slavery, on the other hand, was too much.

It's true that you can boil it down to economics, in a way. There were ~4 million slaves in 1860, and they were worth a metric ****ton of money. The North had developed an industrial economy that had no use for slaves, whereas the South had stayed agrarian and was highly dependant on slaves. Even if you believe that slavery was actually economically harmful to the South overall (and I do), the South's elite had all its capital tied up in slaves. Take that away and you take away nearly all their wealth (there is, of course, no reason that a compensation scheme could not have been designed). Thus their screeching about being made into slaves themselves (no hint of irony!) by the dastardly "Black Republicans."

Not only was the political class of the South fully committed to preserving Slavery where it already existed, but they were adamant about its expansion - not only via organizing new states in lands to the West but also via the Texas model (see plans to take over the rest of Mexico, Cuba, and other areas to the South - areas "well suited" for slavery). This was not a group that sought to be merely let alone.

I will close with this excerpt from Alexander Stephens' "Cornerstone Speech"

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.

[Arrian]

All of this is not to impune the American South today, unless we're talking about that portion of it that insists on glorifying the Confederacy.

I do not seek to glorify the Union as it existed in 1860, or 1865. If I did, it would be fair to point out its many faults.

-Arrian

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Not only was the political class of the South fully committed to preserving Slavery where it already existed, but they were adamant about its expansion - not only via organizing new states in lands to the West but also via the Texas model (see plans to take over the rest of Mexico, Cuba, and other areas to the South - areas "well suited" for slavery). This was not a group that sought to be merely let alone.

It is my understanding that the southerners were aggressively promoting slavery in new states as a holding action against the inevitable abolishment of slavery. Not that they were necessarily promoting slavery in new lands but moreover attempting to get voting blocks (New states) aligned and sympathetic to the southern interests. It all came down to getting more legislative and electoral power for themselves not necessarily a means to promote slavery for its own sake, Alexander Stephens speech notwithstanding.

[Arrian]

It was a political powerplay, yes. Prevent the North from gaining enough political power to control the government enough to use it to abolish slavery. To do this, we must have more slave states (and thus, thanks to the glorious 3/5ths rule, continue to run the country - or at least prevent the North from dominating it).

Aside from the issue of new states in the territories west of the USA, there were also numerous attempts to acquire Cuba (including by the Buchanan Administration, which tried to buy it, IIRC, but also others - failed invasions of fillibusterers and stuff) and agitation for the acquisition of the remainder of Mexico and other bits of Central America - all of which was deemed to be excellent slave-holding territory. As opposed to, say, New Mexico.

It's a bit unclear what would have happened if the CSA had won independence. Does the fillibustering stop there? There were a bunch of Southerners who wanted to pursue such things for fun & profit. Some were quite clear about how awesome it would be to construct a slave empire in the Carribean basin.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Also, for all the Southern complaints about those Yankees were were so arrogant/meddlesome/whatever, the North had a pretty solid list of complaints against Southern "Slave Power" as well. The Fugitive Slave Act being exhibit A. (edit: no, B. A is clearly the 3/5 rule).

The situation in Kansas (not simply the bits where Free Soilers and pro-Slavery settlers fought a nasty guerrila war, but the political fraud perpetrated by the pro-slavery faction before the killing really got going) amped that up to 11.

-Arrian

[Dauphin]

Please explain. You're saying that the civil war wasn't about slavery, because southerners benefited from owning slaves?

What's to explain. Or are you really slow on comprehending what I am saying, rather than just pretending?

[giblets]

What's to explain. Or are you really slow on comprehending what I am saying, rather than just pretending?

It's like saying a bank robbery is about wanting money, rather than stealing.

[Dauphin]

Well it is. Would you steal from a bank if there were only a few dollars in the vault? Doubt it.