Slavery & Civil War - was Re: [Peace-discuss] Membership, AWARE endorsement

[John W.]

At 11:27 AM 3/15/2007, Chuck Minne wrote:

>Here is what this guy Zinn says about it:
>
>
>Behind the secession of the South from the Union, after Lincoln was 
>elected President in the fall of 1860 as candidate of the new Republican 
>party, was a long series of policy clashes between South and North. The 
>clash was not over slavery as a moral institution - most northerners did 
>not care enough about slavery to make sacrifices for it, certainly not the 
>sacrifice of war.

True enough, with certain exceptions.  But the Civil War was most assuredly 
over slavery as an economic institution.  There wasn't a greater cause of 
the Civil War.  The Civil War was not PRIMARILY about tariffs and a Bank of 
the United States.


>It was not a clash of peoples (most northern whites were not economically 
>favored, not politically powerful; most southern whites were poor farmers, 
>not decisionmakers) but of elites.

ALL wars are clashes of elites.


>The northern elite wanted economic expansion - free land, free labor, a 
>free market, a high protective tariff for manufacturers, a bank of the 
>United States. The slave interests

*Ahem*  The SLAVE INTERESTS.  Hello?


>opposed all that; they saw Lincoln and the Republicans as making 
>continuation of their pleasant and prosperous way of life impossible in 
>the future.
>
>So, when Lincoln was elected, seven southern states seceded from the 
>Union. Lincoln initiated hostilities by trying to repossess the federal 
>base at Fort Sumter, South Carolina, and four more states seceded. The 
>Confederacy was formed; the Civil War was on.

So to demonstrate how complex were the causes of the Civil War, Zinn 
disposes of them in two short paragraphs.  "The Confederacy was formed; the 
Civil War was on."  Sweet.  :-)


>Lincoln's first Inaugural Address, in March 1861, was conciliatory toward 
>the South and the seceded states: "I have no purpose, directly or 
>indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States 
>where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no 
>inclination to do so." And with the war four months on, when General John 
>C. Fremont in Missouri declared martial law and said slaves of owners 
>resisting the United States were to be free, Lincoln countermanded this 
>order. He was anxious to hold in the Union the slave states of Maryland, 
>Kentucky, Missouri, and Delaware.
>
>It was only as the war grew more bitter, the casualties mounted, 
>desperation to win heightened, and the criticism of the abolitionists 
>threatened to unravel the tattered coalition behind Lincoln that he began 
>to act against slavery. Hofstadter puts it this way: "Like a delicate 
>barometer,  he recorded the trend of pressures, and as the Radical 
>pressure increased he moved toward the left." Wendell Phillips said that 
>if Lincoln was able to grow "it is because we have watered him."

This, too, is ALWAYS true.  No man is an island.  Why is this always used 
to diminish Lincoln?  Ask not for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for THEE.


>Racism in the North was as entrenched as slavery in the South, and it 
>would take the war to shake both. New York blacks could not vote unless 
>met- owned $250 in property (a qualification not applied to whites). A 
>proposal to abolish this, put on the ballot in 1860, was defeated two to 
>one (although Lincoln carried New York by 50,000 votes). Frederick 
>Douglass commented: "The black baby of Negro suffrage was thought to ugly 
>to exhibit on so grand an occasion. The Negro was stowed sway like some 
>people put out of sight their deformed children when company comes."

It looks like poor old Frederick Douglass needed a better proofreader.  :-(



>A People's History of The United States 1492-Present, pages 188-189
>
>
>Karen Medina <kmedina at uiuc.edu> wrote:
>Carl Estabrook wrote:
> >The civil war was about slavery.
>
>I am the first to admit that I know very little about history compared to 
>just about anybody, but I think I agree with Carl on this one as well.
>
>The South wanted to secede from the union. Dividing the union was the one 
>thing the President did not want to happen. But, ultimately, the reason 
>the South wanted to secede was because they were afraid of financial 
>setbacks if they could not use forced labor.
>
>-karen medina
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20070317/1a9d44bb/attachment.html