Was there ever any kind of economic bullying, in the years preceding the US Civil War? The following discourse can serve to illustrate...

Federal Government: We want the US to cease the use of slave labor.
Future Confederate: OK. That sounds good; slavery is terrible. Prices on agricultural products are going to have to go way up though, to offset the new labor costs.
FG: Well, we can't have that.
FC: What do you mean?
FG: Americans are used to paying the current prices.
FC: Well, America can't have the warm-fuzzy of abolishing slavery without the associated financial burden.
FG: Sure it can. The South will just shoulder the entire burden. Y'all have been the most enthusiastic about slavery anyway.
FC: Well, that ain't going to fly. We'll fight you over this.
FG: Bring it.

Or was there any sociopolitical strong-arming?...

Federal Government: We want the US to cease the use of slave labor.
Future Confederate: OK. That sounds good; slavery is terrible. This does serve to highlight the matter of states' rights though, which is something we feel strongly about, here in the American South. I think it merits serious discussion.
FG: What do you mean? I thought this conversation was over; we agreed on the whole abolishment of slavery thing.
FC: It's important to us that you understand that we agreed because we chose to, not because you told us to, and that we maintain that right.
FG: Heh. That's cute. We're the Federal Government; when we have a good idea, you go ahead and just comply, OK.
FC: Nah. See, we believe things a little bit different, and our way of life presents circumstances that y'all can't identify with. How can you expect all your good ideas to be as relevant for us as they are for folks in the population centers up north?
FG: What are you even talking about? We know what's best for America. When do you want to do this slavery abolishment ceremony?
FC: Well, it's now quite clear that you are on a slippery slope, with how you're considering future policy. I believe we'll fight you about this.
FG: Well, we can't help it if you're stupid. See you in the field.
FC: Fuck you.

The “Federal government” didn’t want to abolish slavery or put pressure on the South to abandon the “institution.”

There were many abolitionists in the North and even some in the South, but they didn’t control the government. The slave owners were nevertheless right to fear their influence because there was strong pressure to prohibit slavery from being allowed to spread to the new states and territories as the US expanded geographically. And why did that matter? Although I’m not entirely convinced of the contention, that was supposedly because that the slavers knew/believed that limiting legal slavery to the places it already existed would put more pressure on its existence for economic reasons.

But whatever the reason they feared that remaining part of the United States would bring an end to slavery. Ironically, of course, it was their waging war on the US was what brought it to an abrupt end rather than its ultimately dying of old, feeble age.

A couple of good books that touched on the issue and that I believe make clear that the Civil War was indeed about slavery were The Demon of Unrest: A Saga of Hubris, Heartbreak, and Heroism at the Dawn of the Civil War by Eric Larson and The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery by Eric Foner.

Was it about states’ rights? Yes: the right to keep people as chattel property. They really didn’t fear for their rights to do anything else.

I agree with Sigfreund. The Federal government didn’t particularly “strong-arm” the slaveholding States, although that was what those states feared would happen ultimately. This fear was exacerbated by the rise of anti-slavery sentiment in the North, though that sentiment was far from universal. Indeed, the Federal government had gone to some lengths to try to assuage the South’s fears on that point; e.g. the “3/5s compromise” the Missouri Compromise and the Kansas-Nebraska Act.

The problem was that the K-N Act was widely hated in the North (it was crafted by Stephen Douglas, a Northern Democrat) because it allowed citizens in Kansas and Nebraska to determine for themselves if they wanted slavery, thus repealing the “Missouri Compromise”. The ensuing violence in Kansas between pro and anti-slavery forces caused the destruction of the Whig Party and allowed anti-slavery Republicans to replace them. They elected Lincoln in 1860 and you know the rest.

The ironic part is Lincoln wasn’t particularly anti-slavery. But most of his party was, and that was enough for the South.

It’s important to remember that while the vast majority of Southerners didn’t own slaves, generally anyone with real political power did. The “States Rights” argument generally concerned fears by the landed, slave-owning upper class of loss of political power coupled with a general fear on the part of the average person of a large minority of (presumably) former slaves in the future. Both of these were non-starters for the South.

quote:

Was it about states’ rights? Yes: the right to keep people as chattel property. They really didn’t fear for their rights to do anything else.

I tend to agree.

A little context: I am a "damn Yankee". I have lived in Georgia since 2011, but was born, raised, and lived in Vermont until I was eighteen. In my early twenties, I was eager to embrace the rebel southern ideology, as those were the attitudes espoused by my friends at the time. My upbringing and education in Vermont (perhaps unexpectedly) didn't instill a strong feeling either way, when it came to the American Civil War.

My grandfather, in Vermont, was a Confederate sympathizer and apologist. He unfortunately died before my brain had matured enough to discuss these things in any meaningful way with him. He had a significant physical library that was heavily-equipped with American Revolution and Civil War literature, and displayed far more Confederate memorabilia in his home than is common here in Georgia. He even made a regular habit of flying the battle flag on a hilltop behind his home.

A recent trip to visit Vermont for the first time in six years had my wife, daughter, and I driving from GA to VT. Seeing the attitudes displayed on that Northern trek is somewhat interesting. You see no shortage of Confederate battle flags flown between GA and VA; some very large and prominent. They appeal to that rebel spirit, and often rouse a comment of appreciation. Especially nowadays, when that symbol really sticks-it to the contemporary left. These displays of Confederate support quickly cease around PA, when they're replaced with a pro-Union sentiment. Things obviously lean further left, in general, as you progress northward, but there is still a strong conservative attitude in rural areas, as one would expect. Once in Vermont, though, it's rainbow and BLM flags around every corner.

We stayed in the house that my grandfather occupied before he died. There is a print of a painting of Confederate soldiers on display, as well as photos of his battle flag(s) flying on that hilltop. These images first served to rouse that rebel spirit, and give us a taste of home. They later, somehow, motivated a more critical discussion of the Confederacy with my wife and good friend in Georgia. I think that these symbols and attitudes are too often adopted by Conservatives in the American south. A rebel attitude is certainly attractive, in our current political and cultural climate, but the American Confederacy is not a good movement (for lack of a better word) to align with. Credibility is important, when we try to spread the conservative word, and the Confederacy and it's motivation of slavery erodes credibility.

States' rights are great, but a state's right to infringe upon human rights is nothing to feel good about. It's not something to die for, and definitely not something to kill for. If there is proof that the South was willing to abandon slavery, and was fighting for something more sophisticated, it shouldn't be cryptic or hard to find.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: KSGM,

I enjoyed the book: Slavery Was Not the Cause of the War Between the States: The Irrefutable Argument. - Gene Kizer Jr.

Basically, the north had nothing without cotton. The south wanted to build a port in Norfolk, VA that would have moved the center of trade away from ports in the north. The north and the Morrill Tarrif wanted to raise tarriffs on imported goods from 15% to 35%.

So, my opinion is that the war was about economics and slavery is used to justify the raising of an army by Lincoln.

quote:

So, my opinion is that the war was about economics and slavery is used to justify the raising of an army by Lincoln.

Ah, a counter. There is no doubt and economic angle, and it is often cited by Confederate sympathizers (my friends included). I think the economics of slavery likely weighed heavier in the equation than a 20% increase in tariffs.

This is why I posed the theoretical discussions in the OP. I believe, in order for the Confederacy to be morally justified in their actions, and for sympathizers to justified in their support, the persistence of slavery must be able to be confirmed as having no weight in the Confederacy's decision-making.

I appreciate the replies, gentlemen.

I would go back a few decades and read about the slavery issue in the north first.
I grew up near John Browns birthplace so I knew a little about that, but otherwise there was a lot less discussion about the Civil war, much more about the Revolutionary war.
Even now, having lived in both north and the south, I find there is a lot of misunderstanding of each other.

Some of this is fuzzy, some I still strongly recall.

Several/maybe most Southern states had provisions for freeing the slaves, so long as they were purchased.

TMK, every other nation bought the slaves to free them.

I THINK I remember something that most of the major slave holders were heavily in debt to English banks, and had borrowed against their slaves at grossly over-inflated values, and that the North didn’t want to pay those prices/the Northern Industrialists viewed the South’s trade with Europe as competition.

I’m fairly certain I remember an economic analysis by Jefferson? Writing about how much cheaper it was to hire a laborer than to have a slave to perform the role.

That much of the South was either second sons of English aristocracy/wanted to depict themselves as such, was another issue.

Anyone who wants to be a “noble” needs to have peasants.

I thought it was something to do with Amazon.com mixing up a couple orders being delivered over in Virginia near Washington DC, due to different ways the same address was listed for a shipment of Dixie Cups and shipment of Mason Jars, for two different parties...

Ah, yes. Every American schoolchild knows about the kerfuffle over the Mason Dixie Prime.

You’re applying modern day notions and concepts to a still-pretty-loose confederation of states at the time. IIRC the whole idea of a “federal government” dictating to any state was not even a thing yet and was more post-Civil War

The North vs. South thing had been going on forever with various levels of sound and fury. Ranging from secession threats (earliest one I'm aware of here was Massachusetts, in the 1780s during the Articles of Confederation period, over southern interests blocking a proposed treaty with Spain) to forcing compromises between mercantile and agricultural interests.

Since we're talking before the Civil War, the southern states held considerable power within the government and there had been a lot of Presidents from the south as well. There wasn't consensus enough to politically support trying to knuckle the South.

I remember an exhibit at the Gettysburg battlefield museum. It had a graph of the market value of two things at the time. The value of all rolling stock, railroad equipment, train stations, locomotives, track and real estate/right of ways in the entire US, and the market value of the slaves in the south.

You may be surprised (I certainly was) that those values were about the same in the 1850s. So, it would have taken a LOT of knuckling. Or, if one inclined to buy the slaves to free them - in those days before paper money, it would have taken a huge quantity of gold/silver to make the South give up those slaves.

Plus, even if there had been political will, there was not a lot of Federal muscle to apply - the Federal government was tiny until Lincoln had to expand it to run the Civil War. They ran the country on, essentially, tariffs and excise taxes. Today, with our ridiculously overstaffed Federal executive financed via income taxation (and unlimited debt, as well) which could run rampant over any recalcitrant state/region, if push came to shove the peacetime Federal governments of the 1850s might not actually have much chance of bullying anyone.

Recall Lincoln had to call for volunteers (a lot of them) when it looked like push was going to come down to shove.

quote:

You’re applying modern day notions and concepts to a still-pretty-loose confederation of states at the time. IIRC the whole idea of a “federal government” dictating to any state was not even a thing yet and was more post-Civil War

I got this impression from the other posts as well. That is a good point.

This is really an unanswerable question. Was the Civil War about slavery? You will get all sorts of answers. Teaching in the south I would ask my students, "Was the Civil War about Slavery?"

NO!! it was about states rights!!!

Then I ask, had there been no slavery, would there still have been a Civil War? Yeah, it gets complicated.

What about the fact that most (95%) of the soldiers that fought for the south did not work or come from a plantation. They did not own slaves.

Some say the Civil War did not become about slavery until Abe passed the emancipation proclamation. (which only freed southern slaves).

I believe it was about the distribution of power of the southern states. The expansion of slavery into the new territories, that would likely soon be states, threatened the balance of power.

quote:

Originally posted by xd45man:
I enjoyed the book: Slavery Was Not the Cause of the War Between the States: The Irrefutable Argument. - Gene Kizer Jr.

Basically, the north had nothing without cotton. The south wanted to build a port in Norfolk, VA that would have moved the center of trade away from ports in the north. The north and the Morrill Tarrif wanted to raise tarriffs on imported goods from 15% to 35%.

So, my opinion is that the war was about economics and slavery is used to justify the raising of an army by Lincoln.

The North had nothing without cotton? Surely you mean the South. 90% of U.S. manufacturing output occurred in the North. Now it is true that Southern cotton exports were worth more than all other U.S. exports combined (hence the South's desire to see it continue unmolested). But the money, industry, and population were all concentrated in the North. For instance, for every hundred firearms produced in the South, the North produced 3200. Only 40% of the North's population was agrarian, Over 80% of the South was.

TBH, the notion that slavery was not the cause of the Civil War is modern revisionist nonsense. Read any of the individual Confederate states' statements of secession. Universally, they state that the reason that a given state was seceding was because of Northern hostility to the institution of slavery, quite specifically. Read in the most charitable light to the Confederacy, the reason is simple: abolishing slavery represented an existential threat to the cotton growing agrarian economy of the South. Georgia, for example, stated that if the North were to free the slaves it represented a loss of $3,000,000,000 in property held by Georgia citizens. That's billions. Viewed in that light, it's maybe not so strange this occurred.

quote:

You’re applying modern day notions and concepts to a still-pretty-loose confederation of states at the time. IIRC the whole idea of a “federal government” dictating to any state was not even a thing yet and was more post-Civil War

This isn't really true. The Federal government most certainly had an idea about whose was the law of the land, and it wasn't the states. Andrew Jackson very nearly sent troops into South Carolina in 1832 when they nullified the tariff of 1828 (SC regarded the tariff as unfair because it was on imported goods and SC imported most of their goods, being mostly agrarian). SC essentially said the tariff was unenforceable in SC, and Jackson requested and received authorization from Congress to use force to impose it. The matter was solved when a compromise tariff was created and SC agreed to that. Amusingly, they "nullified" Jackson's Force Act as well, and Jackson (himself an ardent States' Rights defender--just don't tell HIM he can't do something) said:
"the tariff was only a pretext, and disunion and Southern confederacy the real object. The next pretext will be the negro, or slavery question." He ought to have known, he was from there. There's a reason SC was the first state to secede from the Union.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Milliron,

Thank you, Milliron, for the detailed address of two interesting assertions.

Related to the individual statements of secession, the Constitution of the Confederacy also specifically mentions the persistence of slavery.

One thing I have beef with, where the Confederacy is concerned, is the offensive disregard for God. I don't know what the South's religious demographics were like, compared to the North, in the 19th century, but the South (at least where I live) certainly fancies themselves some Christian folks nowadays.

In addition to the specific mention of slavery in their constitution, the preamble has a bit more to say about God, than the US constitution. There's nothing Godly about slavery, and I find the preamble sentiment in contradiction with the slavery statements.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
There's nothing Godly about slavery ....

Unfortunately many/most in antebellum South (and much later) believed exactly the opposite.

Histories about the times and place often identify many specific Christian clergy in the South who stoutly defended slavery from the pulpit. They preached that slavery was supported by the Bible, and actually with good reason. Those “servants” the Commandment says we must not covet weren’t employees who might be hired away by offering them higher wages. It’s pretty obvious that we’re not supposed to covet the things that belong to another, and in that case, slaves. And that’s just one example that could be cited in the Book itself, not to mention what I believe is generally understood by biblical and other scholars.

Even those opposed to slavery gave up looking for support on purely biblical grounds because they had to admit that the Bible was on the others’ side. They could, and did argue that slavery was immoral on ethical grounds, but not because the Bible condemned it.

Indeed. There are statements in both old and new testament that seem to condone slavery. Considering Moses' leading the Jews out of slavery is a somewhat noteworthy event, I don't know that I am convinced by those statements. Jesus also doesn't strike me as someone who would condone what we know as slavery.

This article makes an interesting case for the term slavery having a different meaning at the time of the scriptures' writing.

https://stimpy77.medium.com/do...slavery-e9c9fcbacada

quote:

the notion that slavery was not the cause of the Civil War is modern revisionist nonsense

I think the revisionist argument has probably been made both ways. I also think the contemporary conservative seems to cry REVISIONIST! more than the contemporary leftist. That would be counterintuitive, in this case, as the notion that slavery was not the cause rather suits the conservatives; some of whom are Confederate apologists.

Thank you, everyone, for the thought-provoking comments.

Slavery was evil when the South practiced it. Slavery was great when the Northern Ship Captains and Slavers were kidnapping people in Africa and bringing them here.

As is always the case, the victors write the history.

As a follower of Christ, I believe that people have value, and as an American I strongly value freedom and individual liberty. My life is a juxtaposition of those two things, and as such I can't personally reconcile slavery to be anything but a reprehensible and immoral practice.

That said, Old Testament law did provide for slave ownership, however there were certain guidelines about how enslaved people were to be treated, and at least in the case of other Israelite slaves, they were supposed to be freed after seven years and their property returned to them. That type of slavery was really more of an indentured servitude than the type of slavery practiced in the South prior to the Civil War. The rules for enslaved foreigners were different, but there were still stipulations about how they were to be treated, and this by a people group who outright genocided certain nations at God's command, and even got in trouble on several occasions for not completely wiping some of them out.

The New Testament changed a lot of things, but Jesus didn't come as a political figure to challenge governments or cultural norms at an institutional or macro level. His message was about individual repentance and forgiveness, and the responsibilities that come with that. He didn't preach for or against slavery directly, but he did call for people to love one another and for his followers to serve in obedience.

Probably the best New Testament teaching we have about slavery is Paul's letter to Philemon. Philemon was a Christian slave owner who's runaway slave, Onesimus, had come into contact with the Apostle Paul and through interacting with him came to know Christ. Paul then sent Onesimus back to Philemon, his master, with a letter explaining the situation and calling for Philemon to treat Onesimus as a brother in the Lord. Instead of commanding Philemon to take a certain course of action, Paul appeals to him to do the right thing as a believer in Christ. The New Testament doesn't explicitly tell us the outcome of this, but it's clear that the relationship between Onesimus and Philemon changed for the better (and probably freedom) as Paul separately references Onesimus bringing a message for him to the Collossian church in Collosians 4:9.

As to the original question about the Civil War, I imagine all of the above were factors. Conflict is complicated, and is typically not just fought about one issue. Even if the overarching institutional reasons are one thing, individuals may have their own motivation. It's documented fact that ending slavery was a motivator for many who fought for the North, and whether Lincoln's motivation for the emancipation proclamation was purely altruistic or not, there was clearly enough anti-slavery sentiment in the North that he knew signing it would garner him support.


It's an interesting question on a personal level as well...I have a number of ancestors who fought on the Union side during the war, and while I know a few things about their service I don't know why they chose to go fight. I've never viewed that side of the family as particularly moral or religious, although it's possible that changed some over the generations. The ones who served were dead 80-100 years before I was born, so I obviously never had the opportunity to get to know them.