Not that it has anything to do with the topic of this thread, but “Northern ship captains” would have had absolutely no ability to kidnap any more than a few African natives who hadn’t yet learned to not satisfy their curiosity by approaching the ships when they first appeared along the coasts. So yes, they depended upon the “slavers,” and the slavers were primarily other African natives who did the kidnapping and transporting of the victims to the ships. As in most of the rest of the world at the time, slavery was common in Africa long before the Northern ship captains showed up there.

Legally and morally the captains and crews of slave ships were principals who were just as guilty as the Africans who seized and transported other Africans to become slaves, but they didn’t—and couldn’t—have accomplished it by themselves.

All that is hardly missing from the history books. It’s just necessary to spend a minute or two to find such accounts. Plus another fascinating true fact is that during the latter part of the slavery era in the US most (all?) new slaves were the result of impregnations of women slaves by other slaves or by the slave owners who then enslaved the resulting offspring.

It may be that the ones who brought the slaves from Africa haven’t gotten as much attention as they probably deserve is at least partially because they didn’t initiate the deadliest war in American history by aggressively attacking a United States military installation.

Another detail concerning the Ships and ship captains that brought the slaves from Africa - if my memory serves, something in excess of 80% of the slave ships were British owned.

So even the ship owners in the North didn’t, generally, make their money slaving.

Gentlemen, I thank all who contributed to this thread. I have learnt more about the War between the States on this thread than I have done in the preceding sixty-something years of my learning life.

All without rancour, and all with good manners.

I'm very grateful to you all.

Thank you, Veeper, for that video link. I think that man is likely informed, objective, and credible. That video breaks it down simply and relays the info effectively.

92fstech, I very-much appreciate your reply. I believe Jesus would never have endorsed slavery. I don't need the New Testament to address it directly. I think God gave us an inherent morality, and I think He and His only Son were intentionally vague and/or omissive, so that we could show our full potential without relying on written directions for everything.

Also, I don't think the ~160 years since the American Civil War have broken any real new ground, in Bible interpretation. If we know in our gut now, that Jesus frowns on slavery, the American South knew it then. They chose to suppress that inherent moral gut feeling, and used certain bible references to bolster their current cultural and economical fancy.

Something everyone who is interested in the subject should know is that Britain, which at the time was ruled virtually entirely by rich “white” men, was the first major power to attempt to end slavery by various means as discussed at length in the Wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...n_the_United_Kingdom

A significant extract:
“Abolitionist Henry Brougham realized that [slave] trading would continue, and so as a new MP successfully introduced the Slave Trade Felony Act 1811. This law at last made slave trading a criminal felony throughout the [British] empire, and for British subjects worldwide. This proved far more effective and ended the trade across the Empire, as the Royal Navy ruthlessly pursued slave ships. In 1827, Britain defined participation in the slave trade as piracy and punishable by death.”
[Emphasis added.]

An interesting, well-researched fictional account of what the slave trade was like for a British subject who participated in it (albeit reluctantly) is in Flash for Freedom!, a 1971 novel in his “Flashman” series by George MacDonald Fraser. Fraser is probably my favorite novelist of all time for his fascinating tales based on historical events. I really should start rereading them.

quote:

An interesting, well-researched fictional account of what the slave trade was like for a British subject who participated in it (albeit reluctantly) is in Flash for Freedom!, a 1971 novel in his “Flashman” series by George MacDonald Fraser. Fraser is probably my favorite novelist of all time for his fascinating tales based on historical events. I really should start rereading them.

I share your love of GMF. I’ve been a fan since high school and own every one of the Flashman Papers. They’re hilarious and informative.

My favorite quote from FFF: (Flashy contemplating the struggling, wailing and fighting to get slaves aboard the slave ship: “It was like trying to get Irish infantry aboard a troopship.”

A guilty pleasure is Flashman.

quote:

Originally posted by Milliron:
My favorite quote from FFF: (Flashy contemplating the struggling, wailing and fighting to get slaves aboard the slave ship: “It was like trying to get Irish infantry aboard a troopship.”

I loved the comments like that throughout the series.

That was one of the tamest, and was of course written in a much more tolerant era. I can only wonder how most of the books would be viewed by all the various groups desperately seeking ways to be offended and outraged today.

quote:

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.
...

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.

Yes, good points.

The Civil War settled, rightly, the question of slavery in the US.

But did it settle the question of States’ rights? Many believe that it also answered, once and for all, the question of States’ rights to secede.

There's no question that following the civil war, the Union was preserved and the institution of slavery was ended. But there's also no question that the powers of the federal government were expanded... slowly and gradually at first, but it was only a generation or so after the civil war that the 'progressive' movement began which brought the trifecta of the 16th and 17th amendments and the Federal Reserve Act in 1913.

All of this vastly expanded the power and reach of the federal government, and the power of the States to settle issues locally receded.

But, now, there is a growing sense that the federal government controls too much of our daily lives and that States should take back some of that power ceded to the federal government.

It definitely did expand the power of the federal government, and I believe usurped a lot of the authority from the states that the founders intended for them to have. IMO the south was correct in its assertion of states rights, it's just very unfortunate that their argument was severely tainted due to its being intertwined with the morally reprehensible issue of slavery.

I know it's likely not a historically accurate quote, but in the movie Gettysburg, General Longstreet makes the comment that they should have freed the slaves and then fired on Ft. Sumpter. IMO, if they had done that it would have bolstered their moral argument in support of their position, and also taken away a lot of the emotion that was used to persuade northerners to become involved in the fight.

If instead of shooting at each other they had found a way to negotiate an end to slavery while still retaining the rights of states to self-administer within the bounds intended by the constitution, they might have preserved the union AND avoided a lot of the federal overreach that we are experiencing today. Not to mention avoided killing a large percentage of the nation's military-age males.

That line from Gettysburg is often cited, when discussing this matter with a Confederacy sympathizer who emphasizes the states' rights argument.

What would have been the motivation for bloodshed, though, had that been the case? The matter of states' rights could have been hashed out in a civil manner (as 92fstech stated). The South wouldn't have had any justification for lethal aggression. Not that they had it anyway. The North did have justification for lethal action, as they were defending the human rights of the slaves. Just like our inarguably righteous involvement in WW2, the North had a moral obligation, and moral justification, for its aggression.

quote:

There's no question that following the civil war, the Union was preserved and the institution of slavery was ended. But there's also no question that the powers of the federal government were expanded... slowly and gradually at first, but it was only a generation or so after the civil war that the 'progressive' movement began which brought the trifecta of the 16th and 17th amendments and the Federal Reserve Act in 1913

As best I can tell, the support for this statement would be found in the fact that the South was very underrepresented in the federal government, in the decade following the war. So, because they were underrepresented, they couldn't oppose government growth that the overrepresented North was keen on?

I hate it for them, but they shit on their chances of championing states' rights, when they chose slavery as their platform.

If the South's true motivation was the more sophisticated and pure one of states' rights, they should have put as much distance between themselves and slavery as possible. It doesn't take 160 years worth of wisdom granted by hindsight to see that.

To ask, whether slavery or states rights was the cause of the Civil War is to make a logical mistake. The two are absolutely interlocked and can't be separated for analysis.

Condemnation of slavery could not result in more than moral indignation unless it comprised a constitutional/legal violation. It is only in that context that action is elicited and even required.

The answer to "Was slavery or states rights the cause of the Civil War?" is: yes.

Is that to say that someone in the 19th century couldn't be for states' rights without being for slavery?

There've been a couple comments that implied slavery was losing traction anyway. There've now been a couple comments that imply that some aspects of the US would have been better in the future, had the Confederacy won, when it comes to state's rights.

Everyone can agree that our interference in WW2 was justified and righteous. But what if the Nazis were slowing down in their holocaust efforts anyway? What if there were some potential positive future aspects of not squashing their efforts immediately?

I think any positive aspects of the South's victory in the Civil War would have been far outweighed by negative ones. What might segregation and the civil rights era have looked like, had slavery persisted longer, even though it may have petered out eventually anyway?

Why would anyone be "for states rights" unless there was some issue that brought up the whole question of states' rights?

There were other relatively minor conflicts between the government and states involving taxes and tariffs-- the Whiskey Rebellion the most serious.

Slavery ignited the fire storm.

quote:

Why would anyone be "for states rights" unless there was some issue that brought up the whole question of states' rights?

Once it was brought up, it should have immediately been isolated from slavery. That would have been the obvious wise move.

quote:

Once it was brought up, it should have immediately been isolated from slavery. That would have been the obvious wise move.

I think justjoe's point is that back then it was impossible to isolate the two.

My point is that now that the slavery question is settled, it's no longer impossible to talk about States rights without any mention of slavery. No one today who wants a smaller, decentralized government wants to own slaves.

I read both U.S. Grant’s autobiography and Ron Chernow’s biography of Grant, both excellent reads and highly recommended.
I gained a much greater appreciation of the role of slavery in the Civil War. Grant himself said, “The cause of the Great War of the Rebellion against the United States will have to be attributed to slavery.”
Grant’s own writings and the deeper dive into his life through Chernow’s work points out the great divide between families, and pro and anti slavery factions in the north and the south, years ahead of the war’s beginning. The great conflict was inevitable.

quote:

Originally posted by justjoe:
To ask, whether slavery or states rights was the cause of the Civil War is to make a logical mistake. The two are absolutely interlocked and can't be separated for analysis.

Condemnation of slavery could not result in more than moral indignation unless it comprised a constitutional/legal violation. It is only in that context that action is elicited and even required.

The answer to "Was slavery or states rights the cause of the Civil War?" is: yes.

I agree with this. The Confederate States insisted they had the right to enslave Negroes. The Northern states and the Federal government wished that practice to end. The Southern states did not.
The two issues are inexorably entwined.

quote:

As best I can tell, the support for this statement would be found in the fact that the South was very underrepresented in the federal government, in the decade following the war. So, because they were underrepresented, they couldn't oppose government growth that the overrepresented North was keen on?

I hate it for them, but they shit on their chances of championing states' rights, when they chose slavery as their platform.

If the South's true motivation was the more sophisticated and pure one of states' rights, they should have put as much distance between themselves and slavery as possible. It doesn't take 160 years worth of wisdom granted by hindsight to see that.

The South didn't have much choice in that regard. They were in a bit of a pickle when the government was formed in 1787. The white population of the South was low relative to numbers of slaves. The North wanted slaves taxed as property, which they specifically were, but the South didn't want that for obvious reasons. Failing that, the Northern states then insisted that they not be counted at all for purposes of representation as they weren't considered citizens. The South balked at that as well as the Northern states would have considerably more representation in the Congress due to their disparate populations. So the compromise was to count 3/5 of slaves as citizens in order to get the Southern States to agree to the Constitution.

The net result was that pre-Civil War the Southern States were disproportionately represented in Congress relative to their numbers of actual voting citizens.(over 40% of House seats vs. about 28% in actuality) Hence the North's desire that slavery not be expanded into the new territories.

Once slavery ended, the 14th amendment terminated the 3/5ths arrangement and the South found themselves with more citizens, but ones who were most definitely aligned with Northern interests, or more accurately Federal ones. Enter Jim Crow.

It has been postulated that the South's inclination toward States' Rights was simply a product of their agrarian, rural nature. It was very difficult to manage a mostly rural population without local control, as opposed to centralized control, like the Statehouse or heaven forbid, Washington D.C. The county Sheriff in many Southern states wielded a great deal of power then and still do today. I completely agree with this analysis. The North was made up of smaller, more populous and much more urbanized states that were relatively easy to manage from Washington, D.C., and they were much closer. This disparity persists today.

What's interesting now is that the rural/urban divide is much smaller today. The rise of the suburbs and the internet mean that governance truly can be centralized. So the argument about the need for local control isn't what it used to be.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
Also, I don't think the ~160 years since the American Civil War have broken any real new ground, in Bible interpretation.

Not to open up a new rabbit hole to fall down, so I’ll keep this brief, but many scholars, and clergy for that matter, would disagree. I find this YouTuber’s discussions of religious matters very interesting and thought-provoking even with my general lack of belief. He discusses historical issues more than religion per se, but he is evidently very well qualified regarding the latter as well:
https://www.youtube.com/@metatronyt

There are many other examples that can be found that address new interpretations or disagreements.

To return to the original question, ultimately what matters regarding religious questions is not what the authors of Scripture in ancient times meant by their writings, but how they are interpreted. I still recall an exchange I had with another member here when I quoted a bit of Scripture to illustrate a point I was making. His response was that what it said wasn’t what it meant and, “Find someone to explain it to you.” That is, I was interpreting it wrong and his different interpretation was correct. If the slave owners of the mid-19th century believed that the Bible sanctioned slavery, that’s all that was necessary—no matter how wrong they might have been.