I have read the articles http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_03_2_dilorenzo.pdf , http://mises.org/daily/671, and http://blog.mises.org/7933/the-road-to-civil-war/. I am confused about what "The Road to Civil War" is saying. I am only 16 and am a little confused at times based on my age although I have read a lot of Austrian works. I have read Rothbard before, but the part in "The Road to Civil War" talking about Dread Scott and nullification confuses me. I don't know what he means by free soil, how Dread Scott has anything to do with this, and why Dread Scott means nullification and State's Rights weren't powerful enough and why they called for secession. I also read from DiLorenzo that the main problem was Tariff's that were biased in encouraging Northern production at the expense of the South. What is the real reason, and can anyone clear things up for me please. I am discussing the American Civil War in class tomorow and my textboox is telling us lies about how slavery was the main cause and it inspired Lincoln to take action, which I know is false. So if anyone can clear up whether nullification or tarriffs were the issue, what the real issue was, why secession was neccesary and how Dread Scott relates, and how slavery tied in, I would be really grateful. Thank you.
It was about a balance of power between North and South, which was an issue because their cultures and economies were different, and each only looked out for their own interests. The balance appeared to be tipping decisively towards the North, so the South abandoned ship.
The institution of slavery was the most prominent difference in cultures, so yes, it certainly had a lot to do with it, though it's obviously also the case that "it was caused be slavery" is a gross oversimplification.
As for Lincoln, it's pretty clear from various things he said throughout his life that he was always against slavery, but for him the more important issue was "preserving the Union." Successfully recognizing that this was the wedge issue of all wedge issues, and that he couldn't control the South and openly push for abolition at the same time, he tried to convince the South that he had no intention of ending slavery. We have no way of knowing whether he was sincere, but the South obviously didn't believe him. They took him as just another Northerner who would use federal power to push Northern interests. Whether that's what he would have been, we have no way of knowing.
As for why poor Southerners would fight for the right for aristocrats to keep slaves, no, it doesn't make a lot of sense. But neither do most wedge issues. How does "gay marriage" affect anyone who isn't gay and wanting a marriage license? Yet it's one of the biggest social political issues in America today. People resent being told how to live, resent being called immoral, resent being called bigoted.
And besides, it WAS an economic issue. Slavery was a major engine of the Southern economy. And some Washington liberal who's never set foot here calls US tyrants and wants to devastate our economy and put a bunch of farm animals on the same social standing as us? Etc., etc.
I think you'll find that it's a bit more complicated than that.
Lincoln is almost the father of central power. That's a big reason why he has been deified. It's been slapped on that he wanted to free the slaves AND that there were no other options to consider; and those two together is the mythical story to support central power.In reality, Lincoln was a giant corporatist (railroads) and there had been a political battle over tariffs for years. Lincoln was an outspoken racist and he supported a change in the constitution to enshrine slavery into it.In his first inaugural address Lincoln clearly outlines that he's not interested in the slavery issue but that he is interested in tax collection, and if States keep paying their taxes, that there will be no invasion:
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.[..]The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html
With this attitude, Sherman issued the following order to his troops at the beginning of the Indian Wars: "During an assault, the soldiers cannot pause to distinguish between male and female, or even discriminate as to age. As long as resistance is made, death must be meted out . . ." (Marszalek, p. 379).Most of the raids on Indian camps were conducted in the winter, when families would be together and could therefore all be killed at once. Sherman gave Sheridan "authorization to slaughter as many women and children as well as men Sheridan or his subordinates felt was necessary when they attacked Indian villages" (Fellman, p. 271). All livestock was also killed so that any survivors would be more likely to starve to death.[..]By 1890 Sherman’s "final solution" had been achieved: The Plains Indians were all either killed or placed on reservations "where they can be watched." In a December 18, 1890 letter to the New York Times Sherman expressed his deep disappointment over the fact that, were it not for "civilian interference," his army would have "gotten rid of them all" and killed every last Indian in the U.S. (Marszalek, p. 400).http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo40.html
Skeptanon:And besides, it WAS an economic issue. Slavery was a major engine of the Southern economy. And some Washington liberal who's never set foot here calls US tyrants and wants to devastate our economy and put a bunch of farm animals on the same social standing as us? Etc., etc.
Absolutely, except one minor modification. Slavery was a major economic engine of the US. At this time it was not just Southern hubris that cotton was king. Cotton made up almost half of the US economy. We were a one crop economy. Very few in the north cared enough about the plight of the african to die for his freedom and threaten the economy of the nation.
Skeptanon:As for why poor Southerners would fight for the right for aristocrats to keep slaves, no, it doesn't make a lot of sense. But neither do most wedge issues. How does "gay marriage" affect anyone who isn't gay and wanting a marriage license? Yet it's one of the biggest social political issues in America today. People resent being told how to live, resent being called immoral, resent being called bigoted.
Yet no one would die for that issue alone. Now they may be willing to die for what they see as a whole sale assault on thier culture or people. Same thing during the civil war. They would not die just for the rights of the aristocrats but if they did feel that the south as a people were in danger of being dominated and eventually destroyed by outsiders they would and did pick up arms to fight.
Southern:Very few in the north cared enough about the plight of the african to die for his freedom and threaten the economy of the nation.
I don't know if that's accurate. Maybe not to "die for his freedom," but the abolitionists did manage to find enough support to successfully abolish slavery in every northern state, presumably against the economic interests of everyone but the slaves themselves. And there was certainly plenty of conflict in Congress over slavery as a national issue, enough that the balance of power between slave states and free states was a central concern.
Yeah. This is kind of what I meant. I get the impression that for a lot of people it was largely a "culture war," with the abolitionist movement seen as a weapon for outsiders to attack their way of life. Not that slavery was the only issue, obviously, but I think it's fair to say that it was the biggest issue.
Skeptanon: Southern:Very few in the north cared enough about the plight of the african to die for his freedom and threaten the economy of the nation. I don't know if that's accurate. Maybe not to "die for his freedom," but the abolitionists did manage to find enough support to successfully abolish slavery in every northern state, presumably against the economic interests of everyone but the slaves themselves. And there was certainly plenty of conflict in Congress over slavery as a national issue, enough that the balance of power between slave states and free states was a central concern.
I think it is fairly accurate. A bunch of irish immigrants, mid western farm boys, and new england fisherman are not going to risk thier lives and kill for abolition. Now it is true that there was an influential and wealthy abolition lobby that was more than happy to send these innocent pawns to die for thier cause. But we have to separate the politics of the times from the motivations of the average people who did the dying. For example I have no doubt that the wealthy slave holders in the South were motivated by the threat to their livelyhood. Hence in much of the political rhetoric of the time slavery was the focus. But for the average soldier slavery was a minor issue. Their homeland was being invaded and they took up arms to defend Dixie. And to be fair many in the north felt that the South was not leaving peacefully and initiated the war by firing on Ft. Sumpter.
Skeptanon:Yeah. This is kind of what I meant. I get the impression that for a lot of people it was largely a "culture war," with the abolitionist movement seen as a weapon for outsiders to attack their way of life. Not that slavery was the only issue, obviously, but I think it's fair to say that it was the biggest issue.
I would agree except for slavery being the biggest issue.
Joe: but to be fair, here is the body of the Cornerstone speech made in 1861 by Alexander Stephens the VP of the CSA:
but to be fair, here is the body of the Cornerstone speech made in 1861 by Alexander Stephens the VP of the CSA:
And? The opinion of a private citizen, not policy of the federal government. People throw that speech out there like its some kind of smoking gun, when all it is is Stephens' own opinion, given in Georgia, before the new union was even started.
To the OP: very complex answer. But actual hostilities would never have commenced if Lincoln hadnt issued the militia call up.
sicsempertyrannis: Joe: but to be fair, here is the body of the Cornerstone speech made in 1861 by Alexander Stephens the VP of the CSA: And? The opinion of a private citizen, not policy of the federal government. People throw that speech out there like its some kind of smoking gun, when all it is is Stephens' own opinion, given in Georgia, before the new union was even started. To the OP: very complex answer. But actual hostilities would never have commenced if Lincoln hadnt issued the militia call up.
and I think that its clear, especially from reading the other secession declarations that Slavery was AN issue. It would be pretty crazy to think it wasn't a factor at all. I think its important to note that the North was not full of abolitionists and that everyone fighting was there to free the slaves, but its also important to note that many of the big whigs in the South didn't see anything wrong with owning other humans, and that is just not a defendable position, regardless of what kind of culture those people grew up in. Seems to me that both sides got a lot of things wrong.
Joe: and I think that its clear, especially from reading the other secession declarations that Slavery was AN issue.
and I think that its clear, especially from reading the other secession declarations that Slavery was AN issue.
Not denying that. In fact, I would be a fool to deny that. But that didnt cause the hostilities; the call up for troops was the de-facto war declaration (and it caused the CS congress to formally declare war in return) But most South opponents use that speech like it supposed to be 'proof' the CSA was supposed to be some kind of proto-Nazi white supremacist republic.
This thread reminds me that my public junior high American history teacher actually told us that the Civil War wasn't mainly about slavery. However, I can't remember what she said it was actually about.
Cal: This thread reminds me that my public junior high American history teacher actually told us that the Civil War wasn't mainly about slavery. However, I can't remember what she said it was actually about.
Wow were you raised in the South and go to private school. Lol good to see that some teachers do question the "official" truth.
I think an interesting thought experiment might be to try a guess at wether or not there still would have been war if you could account for the variables. Obviously, that is an impossible task, but I find it an interesting one nonetheless. If you assume that all the states were either all slave or all free, but then hold true all (or as much as you can) of the other factors, would it still come to war? would there still be secession? Then somehow imagine no tariffs or state's rights issues, but you have slavery in the south and free states in the north. Would there have been secession? war? Like I said its impossible to tell, and its even harder because slavery was in the background behind other types of issues so you can't really separate.
I always thought the USA invaded the CSA because the south had WMD's...
sicsempertyrannis:But most South opponents use that speech like it supposed to be 'proof' the CSA was supposed to be some kind of proto-Nazi white supremacist republic.
It kind of was. A sort of war socialism.
Joe: I think an interesting thought experiment might be to try a guess at wether or not there still would have been war if you could account for the variables. Obviously, that is an impossible task, but I find it an interesting one nonetheless. If you assume that all the states were either all slave or all free, but then hold true all (or as much as you can) of the other factors, would it still come to war? would there still be secession? Then somehow imagine no tariffs or state's rights issues, but you have slavery in the south and free states in the north. Would there have been secession? war? Like I said its impossible to tell, and its even harder because slavery was in the background behind other types of issues so you can't really separate.
Exactly. Historians then and now try to make the claim that it is one thing. Slavery. It is an impossible task to determine how much one factor or another was to blame. But what we do know is that much of the history that we know is politically motivated.
scineram: sicsempertyrannis:But most South opponents use that speech like it supposed to be 'proof' the CSA was supposed to be some kind of proto-Nazi white supremacist republic. It kind of was. A sort of war socialism.
Not even close.