CoC: The Civil War and Slavery

NOTE: This is the second article in my weekly series. To see the first, click the conversing on controversy tag. This article is a reprint of a research paper that I wrote last year. I can't find my final draft so this is my second one. 
This topic is, ahem, very controversial in my neck of the woods so I want to emphasize that I don't mean to offend anyone and that I personally am not a fanatic about either side. However, after studying the time, I'd like to set the record straight based on how I see it. Some statements that may seem a little strong are meant to spark debate. Just as in a debate people take extreme positions, I'm trying to remain consistent here with a basic thesis. In reality, my views are not so black-and-white about the subject.

The Civil War must qualify as one of the most divisive topics in American history. Historians do not quibble over what happened in most cases, but rather the motivation. On this point, scholars divide sharply. No modern consensus exists upon the cause of the war. Many in the South still call it the War of Northern Aggression and justify the South both morally and legally. Due to the books written by Southern apologists, U.S. textbooks now fudge the subject and no longer say that slavery caused the war. These scholars now portray Lincoln as a calculating, racist politician who trampled on the rights of the states. More confusion exists about the war now than existed in its own time. By looking at the historical facts however, it becomes possible to clear things up and set the record straight. After careful historical review, it becomes clear that the North, led by Lincoln, walked the narrow line between idealist goals like abolition of slavery and practical concerns like preservation of the Union, while the South supported neither.

Before the war, Northerners fell into three major camps: the abolitionists, moderates, and Unionists. Abolitionists consisted of Northerners who considered slavery morally wrong. They hated the institution and believed Southerners to be immoral and wicked hypocrites. Many abolitionists worked toward the complete and total cessation of slavery. Moderates like Senator Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois did not agree with the abolitionists at all and felt that slavery should be considered an absolutely legitimate institution. However, the majority of the North turned an indifferent face to the ideological debate. Most Northerners took pride in being Unionists, or those who supported the Union, but had no ideological goals in mind. In other words, they simply condemned the South for revolting, and fought for the Union. By no means can anyone consider the North a unified whole.       

Most of the Northern leaders differed drastically in opinions. President James Buchanan, a moderate, owned slaves and supported slavery. Most Northerners disliked his administration. Sen. Douglas was considered the foremost politician of the time, a brilliant orator and writer, who helped pass the Fugitive Slave Act. Douglas staunchly believed in popular sovereignty, and moderates considered him the best presidential candidate in 1860. Politically, Sen. Charles Sumner headed the abolitionists; he believed in abolition at all costs. He daily thundered in the Senate about the moral evils of slavery and painted Southerners as hypocrites and depraved cravens (D’Souza 156). Frederick Douglass, formerly an escaped slave, later became a gifted writer and speaker. His writings became influential in combating racism and helping whites see African-Americans as fully human. One of the most famous of the abolitionist writers, Harriet Beecher Stowe, wrote Uncle Tom’s Cabin. She vividly brought the horror of slavery to the masses through the fictional tale. This book became so popular that the South banned it. Even though the book tried to be even-handed in its portrayal of Southerners, it condemned slavery on both the emotional and moral level. When Lincoln met her, he reportedly said, “So here is the little lady who started the war” (Marshall 358). Lincoln did not identify himself as an abolitionist. Although he condemned slavery, he believed it not feasible to free the slaves all at once, or legally possible.

In recent years, some scholars have naturally drawn the conclusion that the North fought against slavery. However, on closer examination, it becomes clear that many in the North favored slavery. This prompted other scholars to claim the North fought for economic reasons, in order to make money off of the South (McPherson, “Mighty Scourge” 5). According to these scholars, the North differed culturally, and the Civil War was a clash of two differing civilizations – one industrial, the other agrarian. However, the actual picture should be considered much more complex (5).

The South, compared to the industrial dynamic North, had a more stratified society. Three clear layers existed, the plantation owners, the small farmers, and the slaves. Plantation owners owned large mansions, had hundreds of slaves, and had accumulated great wealth. They fancied themselves as American aristocracy and had great pride in their manners and breeding. However, contrary to popular perception, the majority of Southern whites were actually poor farmers who owned maybe two or three slaves at most (McPherson, “Mighty Scourge” 120). These farmers relied on the big plantations for employment, for patronage, and other such advantages. Slaves of course, worked as the serfs of the whole system, with the farmers as the artisans, and the plantation owners as the barons. They consciously attempted to duplicate the medieval system, with its chivalry and gallantry. Thus, the South’s mindset grew from this system (Marshall 398). Abolition of slavery would totally destroy the very fabric of Southern culture.

Although initially Southerners defended slavery apologetically, John C. Calhoun, the senior senator from South Carolina, changed that. He thundered “slavery is a great good” (Marshall 280). According to him and his supporters, Africans were fated to perpetual slavery. Southerners used verses from Leviticus and Deuteronomy to justify their position. They claimed that because God permitted the Israelites to sell themselves into slavery, and because the sons of Ham (who settled in Africa) were cursed, slavery was Biblically permissible and even “proper” (Noll 34). More than any single Southern orator, Calhoun influenced Southern thought and life. Calhoun believed that constitutionally, the South could secede for any cause the state deemed necessary. Many Southerners did not necessarily agree with his views, but rode the wave of public opinion. These moderates owned slaves but were really looking for political power and gain. For them, secession was not to protect slavery as much as it was to gain power and authority, or protect the constitutional freedoms. Jefferson Davis did not consider himself as a hard-line pro-slavery advocate, but he benefited from the movement. There also existed those who believed in the moral evil of slavery and treated any slaves they had like their family. Although these seem few and far between, they did exist. Robert E. Lee, the South’s best general held such beliefs. Although he did not agree with slavery, he believed his loyalty to Virginia trumped his loyalty to the Union. (McPherson, “Battle Cry” 281).

Today, many tend to oversimplify their portrayal of the South. Various scholars demonize the South as a racist, hypocritical society. Others say that the South simply fought for states’ rights and constitutional freedoms. Many economists say that the South focused more on financial stability and prospective tariffs on cotton than on slavery (McPherson, “Mighty Scourge” 5). These differing views pose an important question: which view is correct?

Before delving into that question, it becomes necessary to provide some historical background as well. Many significant developments occurred in the period leading up to the Civil War. Chronologically, the Fugitive Slave Act came first. With Southern support, this act passed Congress in 1850. This bill gave southern slave-owners the right to retrieve fugitive slaves in the North, even in free states. This used federal power to trample on states’ rights. Needless to say, the bill became highly unpopular in the North. However, according the South, the federal government had the duty to protect the property of its citizens.

Issue number two arose as settlers began moving into Kansas and Nebraska. These existed as federal territories, but had hopes of soon becoming states. Balance of power in the Senate became crucial to both the North and the South’s interests. If Kansas and Nebraska were admitted as free states, the South would lose potential plantation space and votes in Congress. Inevitably, the question arose: should the territories themselves decide whether they would come in as slave or free, or should the government? Congress got stuck in gridlock as Northern and Southern representatives each insisted on their stance. Many moderates, including Stephen Douglas, believed in “popular sovereignty,” or the idea that each state should decide for itself (Marshall 451). This philosophy seemed to provide a diplomatic solution to the problem. However, it became highly controversial because it struck at the fundamental question: who holds supremacy – the government or the states? In the meantime, both slaveholders and abolitionists moved in on Kansas, hoping to settle most of the territories with their respective supporters, thus ensuring a favorable vote for their side. As each group grew in numbers, disputes and bitterness grew. Kansas became known as “Bloody Kansas” as partisan warfare convulsed the territory (445). According to Douglas, it seemed perfectly reasonable to leave the decision up to the warring settlers, a stance that became more and more controversial as violence escalated.

The Supreme Court galvanized the abolitionist movement with the infamous Dred Scott decision in 1857. Dred Scott, a Missouri slave, traveled with his master to Illinois and Minnesota, where settlers had outlawed slavery. Scott claimed freedom based on Illinois law. His case went all the way to the Supreme Court, where Chief Justice Robert Taney struck down his claim. According to Taney, Scott was nothing more than property. Secondly, Taney established that federal authority trumped state law. This angered abolitionists, but the South lionized Taney (Marshall 245).

As debate intensified about these points, Douglas campaigned throughout Illinois in order to win a Senate bid. Abolitionists, meanwhile, formed a new Republican party. Republicans considered themselves more moderate than people like Sumner, but contradicted Douglas on almost every point. They nominated Abraham Lincoln as their candidate. Lincoln and Douglas arranged a series of debates to discuss, among other things, the issue of popular sovereignty. These debates provide a valuable cache of information concerning Lincoln’s positions. According to historian Peter Marshall, the strongest argument that Douglas used, popular sovereignty, came into conflict with the Dred Scott decision. Popular sovereignty held that every territory and state could decide for itself what it wanted. Taney had ruled in favor of slavery by contradicting popular sovereignty, saying an owner could take his “property” wherever he wished (451). Douglas quickly formulated what became known as the “Freeport Doctrine,” saying that a territory could, with the “passage of unfriendly legislation,” ban slavery, at least till it became a state. But Lincoln challenged Douglas on this point (452). Marshall summarizes Lincoln’s argument: “Douglas had said freedom of choice was the cornerstone of American democracy. Now Lincoln was saying that there was a higher law: A man’s freedom of choice ceased the moment that choice affected another man’s freedom. In 1858, the pro-choice argument laid America open to charges of the worst hypocrisy” (458). Lincoln challenged the heart of the issue, slavery. Although Douglas technically won the debates, Lincoln eventually won the presidency, and his philosophy governed the North in the years to come.

Recently, scholars have recast the Civil War in the context of popular sovereignty. According to these scholars, the Civil War was about states’ rights, as indicated by the debates. The former President of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis, and vice president, Alexander Stephens, supported the theory. James McPherson, one of the foremost Civil War historians, writes, “After the war, Davis and Stephens changed their tune and insisted that slavery was just the question upon which the philosophies of Federalism and Centralism clashed” (“Mighty Scourge” 4). According to Davis, “states’ rights” caused the war. Recently, economists have proposed an alternate cause. According to these scholars, the South fought over tariffs imposed on the South’s cotton plantations by the North (5). Almost every possible alternative cause has been suggested.

However, when analyzing the issues carefully, slavery emerges as the clear-cut underlying premise.  The clearest indication of the cause of the war comes from speeches made by secessionist commissioners. These men, prominent figures in their states, came together at “secession conventions” in order to discuss Lincoln’s ascendancy to the presidency. Upon reading their speeches, the cause becomes clear. Texas concluded that Lincoln’s “all men are equal” doctrine contradicted divine law (Dew 13). South Carolina argued that the Republicans planned to exterminate slavery, giving ground for secession (13). Georgia deplored the government’s plan to “violate their property” (14). Mississippi stated that their position “thoroughly identified with slavery” (14). Even Maryland sent a commissioner to the convention. Judge Harris declared, “Our Fathers made this a government for the white man, rejecting the negro, as an ignorant, inferior, and barbarian race., incapable of self government and not, therefore, entitled to be associated with the white man upon terms of civil, political, or social equality” (24). After clearly stating his belief, Harris concluded by thundering: “If white Southerners want to avoid submission to negro equality, then secession is inevitable” (25). Other delegates concurred. According to Henry Spratt, leader of the South Carolina delegation, “states’ rights were based on the South’s right to own slaves” (44). Spratt clearly refutes the post-war notion of states’ rights rather than slavery being the main issue.

When drawing up the documents of secession, each state laid out its reasons. According to South Carolina, Northern abolitionists had conspired against them, inciting rebellion among the slaves (55). They threatened to force miscegenation, or intermarriage between blacks and whites. Abolitionists wanted to exterminate slavery. Virginia put it a little more delicately: “The Black Republican party of the North embraces a sentiment of hatred to slavery as extreme as hatred can exist...and is well along the road to acquiring the power to abolish slavery” (65). Virginia delegates foresaw a slow death. For them, secession preempted Republican plans to eventually subdue the South.

Alexander Stephens, the vice president of the Confederacy, held what most considered moderate views. However, in a speech on the eve of the war, to a South Carolinian crowd, Stephens clearly stated the purpose of the coming war. In his “Cornerstone” speech, Stephens declared the difference between the North and South: the North believed “all men were equal” while the South believed “some men were equal” (Noll 17). Stephens called slavery the “cornerstone” of real government (18). He vehemently termed the Declaration of Independence as “fundamentally wrong” (D’Souza 152).

Lincoln summed everything up beautifully in one of the most famous Civil War quotes ever, when he said: “To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest [of slavery] was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by war...Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came” (McPherson, “Mighty Scourge” 1).

All this contradicts those who claim states’ rights as the only cause. The pre-Civil War record very clearly indicates that slavery caused the war. Revisionism, spread in part due to Davis’ post-war writings, occurs after the fact. When perusing the writings of Southern politicians and orators before the war, there is no doubt about the cause. While economic theories may contain grains of truth, the clear-cut issue was slavery, and what to do with it.

This leads to a different question: who held the right view on slavery? Before going any further, most people consider slavery morally wrong. The Bible says, “He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death” (English Standard Version, Ex. 21.16).  No one can consider Southern slavery Biblical. Rather slavery must fall into the immoral category.  In the years since the war, scholars and theologians have come to a clear consensus about this issue. With the exception of supremacist fringe groups, people universally acknowledge slavery as an evil, rather than a “great good.” It seems clear that the South fought for the wrong reason. Even if economic and pragmatic justifications for keeping slavery are used, they do not trump the moral implications of such a system.

Revisionism emerged to get around this. In order to truly lionize Southern leaders and advocate the Southern way of life, revisionists realized they must deal with the slavery issue. Supported by Davis’ post-war writings, revisionists have proposed states’ rights as the ‘real’ cause of the war. Even revisionists do not believe that slavery was right, but that it simply did not cause the war. A famous revisionist once said the cause of the war “was anything but slavery” (Noll 76).

Having examined the South’s attitudes on slavery, one must consider Lincoln’s position as well. According to many modern scholars and revisionists, Lincoln comes across no better. He secretly espoused racist beliefs according to some. They quote Lincoln in his debate with Douglas as saying:

I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily have her for a wife...I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races – that 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 races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on  terms of social equality (McPherson, “Battle Cry” 258).

These scholars insist Lincoln simply did things for political gain, not for moral principles. Clearly, Lincoln did have racist attitudes. He did not believe in racial intermarriage or even political and social rights for blacks. Given these views, Lincoln would most likely have supported segregation.  

However, he believed that all men had the right to ‘life, liberty, and happiness.” To Lincoln, the negro may not hold himself equal to the white, but he definitely should consider himself a man (McPherson, “Battle Cry” 186). He need not get the right to vote, but he deserved liberty. “[Whether or not the black man is equal to the white man mentally or morally], in the right to eat bread, without leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal...and the equal of every living man” (186). Under the eyes of the law, Lincoln believed wholeheartedly in the equality of blacks.

Lincoln received criticism for not signing the Emancipation Proclamation earlier, and restricting the proclamation to the states in rebellion, leaving out the border states which permitted slavery. However, for Lincoln, the Union was always more important than emancipation. As Dinesh D’Souza points out, without the Union “there would be no emancipation” (158). According to his letters, emancipation only became a valid course of action after the South rebelled. At that point, Lincoln had little to lose.

Having looked at both the North and South’s positions on slavery, it becomes necessary to consider a different question. Did any valid reason for secession exist? Did the South have any justification for it? As already noted, the South could not justify secession based on slavery. Second, Lincoln never threatened slavery in the South. Lincoln stated repeatedly that he would not outlaw slavery, but restrict its spread to the territories (McPherson, “Battle Cry” 227). Southerners did not fight due to a threat to slavery, but because of a future, perceived threat. Additionally, the South had imposed their will on the North countless times, as evidenced by the Fugitive Slave act, and could not legitimately justify their actions. In hindsight, the South’s claim of fighting for freedom comes across as ludicrous. They fought to preserve their freedom to oppress other men. As such, it should be impossible to compare the Civil War to the American Revolution in the 1700s.

Second, the South cannot claim states’ rights as a justification for secession. Lincoln did not trample the law, but instead seems largely consistent with it. He only suspended laws during the war, in response to war emergency. People like Jefferson Davis considered the Civil War a fight between federalism and states’ rights. Lincoln supported a strong central government, while the South defended the states’ rights. This overlooks the fact that the right Southerners sought to uphold was that of slavery. But second, to propose states’ rights as justification for secession becomes hypocritical in context. The South repeatedly trampled on the rights of the Northern states, using the federal government to their advantage, as mentioned earlier. Southerners come across as simply opportunistic in embracing the states’ rights cause.

Therefore, it seems clear that the South perpetuated an institutional evil in seceding, and triggering the Civil War. Although revisionists claim otherwise, slavery caused the war. The South fought to preserve it, while the North fought to thwart it. Second, Southerners cannot justify on the legal level. Southerners changed political philosophies as benefited them. Secession became the fashionable way to justify the Southern way of life, a way of life built on slavery. When looking at the facts, perhaps it is better to call the war ‘the Southern Rebellion.’

Works Cited

Dew, Charles B. Apostles of Disunion: Southern Secession Commissioners and the Causes of the Civil War. Charlottesville, VA: UP of Virginia, 2001. Print.

D’Souza, Dinesh. Letters to a Young Conservative. New York, NY: Perseus Books Group, 2002. Print.

Marshall, Peter and David Manuel. Sounding Forth the Trumpet: God’s Plan for America in Peril, 1837-1860. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Company, 1997. Print.

McPherson, James. Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era. New York, NY: Oxford UP, 1988. Print.

---. This Mighty Scourge: Perspectives on the Civil War. New York, NY: Oxford UP, 2007. Print.

Miller, William Lee. Arguing About Slavery: The Great Battle in the United States Congress. New York: Alfred A. Knopf Inc., 1995. Print.

Noll, Mark.The Civil War as a Theological Crisis. Chapel Hill, NC: U of North Carolina P, 2006.Print.

The Holy Bible. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2001. English Standard Version. Print.



If you were infuriated by this article or delighted - If you enjoyed it or were intrigued by it - If you would like to see more articles like this....Subscribe! Send this to a friend! Leave a comment! Thanks!