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

[John W.]

At 02:07 PM 3/15/2007, C. G. Estabrook wrote:

>The war was certainly over slavery -- and Zinn doesn't disagree -- just 
>not over slavery *as a moral institution* but as an economic 
>institution.  As he says:  "The slave [sic] interests opposed [free land, 
>free labor, etc. -- i.e., an economy based on non-slave production]."
>
>The Civil War, as Zinn says, was "a clash of elites," who had 
>contradictory ways of exploiting labor.  The Northern elite lived by 
>extracting surplus value from "free" laborers by means of the wage 
>contract -- classic capitalism.  The Southern elite lived by extracting 
>surplus value directly from unfree laborers.
>
>The two systems couldn't exist side by side, and there was a long 
>competition over which would be extended.  As Lincoln said when he was 
>nominated for the Senate, in his "House Divided" speech, "I believe this 
>government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.  I do not 
>expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- 
>but I do expect it will cease to be divided."
>
>The Republican Party was founded explicitly to prevent the extension of 
>slavery into the territories (i.e., "not in States where it exists") -- to 
>be sure that labor there would be rented, not owned.  That's why the 
>election of a Republican president caused secession -- the slave interests 
>couldn't put up with such a program. (So slavery led to secession, but it 
>need not have led to war: that was Lincoln's decision.) --CGE


Well-parsed, CGE.  And "...a long competition..."  What a great euphemism!  :-P




>        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. 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. 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 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.
>>
>>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."
>>
>>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."
>>
>>  A People's History of The United States 1492-Present, pages 188-189