Abraham Lincoln, A Good President?

mr_anonymous:

scineram:

Of course the South seceded mostly over slavery.

 

No, they did not secede because of slavery even though many leftists claim they did.  Slavery was not a devisive issue until the Union became desperate enough to make it one after the Battle of Antietam, Maryland, which was the bloodiest battle of the War.  Abraham Lincoln himself was a racist.  I would reccomend reading the "Civil War" (War of Northern Agression) chapter in Thomas E. Woods Jr. Ph.D's The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History.

You're mostly right, and scineram is mostly wrong. But we must bear in mind that many Southerners did believe that the principal issue was slavery. If you read the actual declarations of cause, some of them, like Mississippi's, only discuss slavery. Georgia's does a pretty good job of citing other issues.

I wrote about this to Tom DiLorenzo, and got a disappointing reply. His book would be immensely improved if he frankly admitted that when war breaks out, various parties have differing ideas of the reasons and goals of the war. Consider how much confusion there is about why Bush invaded Iraq, and we were all alive to witness the events themselves. Imagine two posters in 2168 arguing about "the" reason for the war?

--Len

Len Budney:

But we must bear in mind that many Southerners did believe that the principal issue was slavery.

Len Budney:

You're mostly right, and scineram is mostly wrong. But we must bear in mind that many Southerners did believe that the principal issue was slavery. If you read the actual declarations of cause, some of them, like Mississippi's, only discuss slavery. Georgia's does a pretty good job of citing other issues.

I wrote about this to Tom DiLorenzo, and got a disappointing reply. His book would be immensely improved if he frankly admitted that when war breaks out, various parties have differing ideas of the reasons and goals of the war. Consider how much confusion there is about why Bush invaded Iraq, and we were all alive to witness the events themselves. Imagine two posters in 2168 arguing about "the" reason for the war?

--Len

Thank you for making this point! There HAD to be Southerners who really believed they were seceding over slavery even if the other causes were the 'real' reasons. Also, the question as to why slavery is cited SO MANY times in SC's and Georgia's declarations of secession while sources I trust are telling me that wasn't the reason is still puzzling to me.  I even know of very intelligent libertarians who inisist that Southerners were racists who seceded to protect slavery, so this question HAS to be addressed in order to be countered, in my opinion. Otherwise, the two sides just wind up talking past each other. 

I happened to be reading DiLorenzo's Real Lincoln when I took the tour of Ft. Sumter for the first (and probably last) time.  I felt very confused rather than enlightened for having read the book, since what I was hearing on the tour also seemed to be backed up by research. When I got home that day, I thumbed through the whole book trying to find an explanation as to why the slavery explanation sounds so plausible, to no avail, of course--so that is disappointing for DiLorenzo not to consider your suggestion. (Feel free to cite that anecdote if you ever contact him again on this subject!) I think Charles Adam's in 'When in the Course of Human Events' hints as to why the slavery explanation sounds plausible on the surface--that they were using it mainly as an excuse to rally around--but I'm still looking for a frank discussion that will take this question head on.

I think Charles Adam's in 'When in the Course of Human Events' hints as to why the slavery explanation sounds plausible on the surface--that they were using it mainly as an excuse to rally around--but I'm still looking for a frank discussion that will take this question head on.

That's a great book. The best I've found so far.

--Len.

 When you guys say that the southern states seceded because of slavery what do you mean?  I have heard it a couple times, but nobody says what they mean by it.  Are you suggesting that the southern states seceded to protect slavery in their states?  Because slavery was not being challenged by the union in states where it already existed (The Missouri Compromise) and it even opened the issue of slavery up to western states with the Kansas-Nebraska Act through popular sovergnity.  All of the states that initially seceded had always had slavery, and the union was not threatening to take it away from them.  I am not saying that slavery had nothing to do with the war, it obviously played a role.  I believe that it did not become a major issue until 2 years into the war. 

mr_anonymous:

When you guys say that the southern states seceded because of slavery what do you mean?  I have heard it a couple times, but nobody says what they mean by it.  Are you suggesting that the southern states seceded to protect slavery in their states?

I mean that several states, truthfully or not, cited slavery as the casus belli. I gave a reference above to primary sources. The biggest bone of contention concerning slavery was failure of the free states to honor fugitive slave laws, which meant that escaped slaves who made it north were irrecoverable except by kidnapping. That raised the cost of slavery considerably, so even bearing in mind Lincoln's willingness to enshrine slavery forever in the Constitution, the institution was definitely under economic threat.

Ignoring for a moment the immorality of slavery, imagine if half the country declared itself a safe haven for car thieves? As soon as your car crosses the Mason-Dixon line, you know you'll never get it back, even though you're still paying on a five-figure loan for it. No matter how illegal car theft was officially, you'd be plenty steamed.

--Len

Len Budney:

I mean that several states, truthfully or not, cited slavery as the casus belli. I gave a reference above to primary sources. The biggest bone of contention concerning slavery was failure of the free states to honor fugitive slave laws, which meant that escaped slaves who made it north were irrecoverable except by kidnapping. That raised the cost of slavery considerably, so even bearing in mind Lincoln's willingness to enshrine slavery forever in the Constitution, the institution was definitely under economic threat.

Ignoring for a moment the immorality of slavery, imagine if half the country declared itself a safe haven for car thieves? As soon as your car crosses the Mason-Dixon line, you know you'll never get it back, even though you're still paying on a five-figure loan for it. No matter how illegal car theft was officially, you'd be plenty steamed.

--Len

Yes, which of course makes no sense (to me, at any rate) since out of the Union, there would then be no obligation whatsoever for federal enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Law which would drive the cost of slavery even higher.

So what I'm wondering is why was such a (seemingly) irrational rationale given as the cause for separation--and how many Southerners really believed separating from the Union was necessary to protect slavery?

Yes, which of course makes no sense (to me, at any rate) since out of the Union, there would then be no obligation whatsoever for federal enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Law which would drive the cost of slavery even higher.

You're absolutely right. In fact, IIRC, there were northern abolitionists who advocated northern secession for basically that reasons (EDIT: IIRC huh! Paul already said that at the top of this very page). And also to distance themselves when divine retribution started raining down, of course.

So what I'm wondering is why was such a (seemingly) irrational rationale given as the cause for separation--and how many Southerners really believed separating from the Union was necessary to protect slavery?

We're way outside my competence here, but I'd speculate that the slavery rhetoric was just to rouse the rabble, who didn't think past the Northern "provocation" to consider points like you mention above. The usual "our whole way of life is threatened" schtick. Much like today. The folks doing the rabble rousing were I think much more focused on the fact that northern policies produced a massive wealth transfer from south to north.

Neglect of the fugitive slave laws imposed a cost on southerners, but it wasn't nearly the biggest cost. The Georgia declaration of cause cites federal subsidies of fisherman ($500K in that day's dollars), protectionism of shipbuilders, federal funding of buoys, lighthouses, etc. ($2M in that day's dollars), subsidies of postage primarily benefitting manufacturing interests ($7M, according to the document), etc. Money quote: "... free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy..."

--Len

Len Budney:

I mean that several states, truthfully or not, cited slavery as the casus belli.

--Len

Just a question, would 'casus belli' really be the correct choice of words? Maybe I'm unclear what the term means, I understood it to mean the 'reason (or reasons) to go to war.'  Didn't the South want peaceful secession? If that's so, wouldn't their reasons given be 'reasons for secession' and not 'reasons for war'? Or is that not a relevant distinction. Thanks.

Broken Window:

Just a question, would 'casus belli' really be the correct choice of words? Maybe I'm unclear what the term means, I understood it to mean the 'reason (or reasons) to go to war.'  Didn't the South want peaceful secession? If that's so, wouldn't their reasons given be 'reasons for secession' and not 'reasons for war'? Or is that not a relevant distinction. Thanks.

Yeah, you're right again. I was thinking of the "reasons for the war" from the southern side, but the south didn't wage war, they peacably seceded. Casus secessioni?

--Len

I think casus discidi would be proper - "cause of separation".

 Check out this video http://millercenter.org/scripps/digitalarchive/forumDetail/3668 for a good explanation of the causes of secession (although some of his remarks are statist claptrap). I think it sounds pretty plausible and jives with a lot of other stuff I've read. He basically says that a minority of "fire-eaters" (fanatically proslavery) were able to cleverly convince the more moderate southerners to secede (with a little help from Lincoln's beligerence).

I must add that Jeffrey Rogers Hummel's Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men is the best libertarian history of the period and comes to a somewhat similar conclusion as Freehling as to the causus secessioni. I think Adams When in the Course of Human Events is good but doesn't go deep enough. Another gripe with Adams' book is that he calls the hardcore abolitionists "lunatics" (they were heroes) and even implies that slave revolts were not justified. He sometimes seems to be more in love with the old South than he is with liberty.

Len Budney:

Yeah, you're right again. I was thinking of the "reasons for the war" from the southern side, but the south didn't wage war, they peacably seceded. Casus secessioni?

secessionis

scineram:

and the CSA should have expanded after secession even at the expense of the USA to make for new slave states. Is this false?

Yes and no.

There was a provision for the admission of new states into the Confederacy but it was different from the US constitution.

The biggest problem with admitting new states is same problem that occurs when allowing secession. It suddenly creates new political majorities and minorities. The first big North/South dispute took place over the acquisition of the Louisiana territories. Later North and South argued over admitting Texas, and then argued again over the Mexican war. One of the major defects of the US constitution is that it provides for the admission of new states but does not provide for the acquisition of new territory. The founders thought the Ohio territories would become states and they thought existing states would divide themselves, but the constitution is silent beyond that. So descisions to acquire territory and to create new states were made on ordinary simple majority votes in the House and Senate, as if this were like any other piece of legislation. As a result, most of the serious sectional disputes were about the disposition of new territories as the empire moved west.

The confederates recognized the problem and stipulated in their constitution that a two thirds vote was needed to admit any new state. This may or may not have been an impediment to admitting new states from the western territories. I suspect New Mexico and Arizona would have quickly been added. But I think sectional factions would have arisen in Dixie just as they had in the US. After all, Virginia is nothing at all like Texas. I don't think the Confederacy would have expanded very much.

majevska:

I think Adams When in the Course of Human Events is good but doesn't go deep enough. Another gripe with Adams' book is that he calls the hardcore abolitionists "lunatics" (they were heroes) and even implies that slave revolts were not justified.

The hardcore abolitionists were lunatics, not  heroes. Read anything about the history of John Brown to see what I mean. The moderate abolitionists - the ones who wanted to secede - were the most sober and  principled faction in the whole slavery dispute. But the extremists were nuts.

Where does he imply that slave revolts were not justified? I don't remember that.