Sep 07 2010
The Confederacy Was About Slavery, NOT States’ Rights
Ask Americans about why Southern states ceded in 1861 to form the Confederate States of America, and chances are, they will describe it as a battle over states’ rights. That’s what author and historian James Loewen has found in his travels across the country. But in delving into the actual documents of the time, Loewen shows that the cessation of 11 Southern states centered on the institution of slavery. In his new book The Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader: The “Great Truth” About the “Lost Cause,” Loewen sets the historical record straight about a time in American history that is often invoked by conservatives today. Nearly 150 years after the Civil War he makes the definitive case that cessation and the Confederacy were about preserving slavery and white supremacy. To most African Americans this is an obvious fact, eliciting repulsion over symbols of the Confederacy that still persist in many parts of the South*. But with increasingly hysterical right wing factions that hold the idea of the Confederacy dear while expressing fears of a takeover of Big Government, a distorted history over States’ rights has become a convenient concept.
GUEST: James Loewen, sociologist and best-selling author of Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your High School History Textbook Got Wrong and Lies Across America: What Our Historic Sites Get Wrong. His other books include Sundown Towns, The Truth About Columbus, and Teaching What Really Happened. His latest book is The Confederate and Neoconfederate Reader: The “Great Truth” about the “Lost Cause.”
*CORRECTION: According to Loewen, African Americans get it wrong on the real reasons for the Confederacy in the same numbers as Whites.
Read more about James Loewen on his website: sundown.afro.illinois.edu
19 Responses to “The Confederacy Was About Slavery, NOT States’ Rights”
Neither secession or slavery cause war– invasion does! Slavery existed in several of the Union states and in Washington DC. Slavery was legal in the US. Slavery was on the verge of becoming a permanent fixture via the Corwin Amendment or proposed 13th amendment to the constitution: http://bit.ly/d4JmFy.
Ultimately is does not matter why the South seceded because this in and of itself did not cause the war. The was was fought for one reason and for one reason only– the North invaded!
The real question is why the North invaded and occupied the South.
Did they invade and occupy the SOuth to free the slaves? I think the question answers itself.
Why is it either/or and not and?
The U.S. Congress passed fugitive slave laws in 1793 and 1850 which required states where there was no slavery to aid in the return fugitive slaves.
Several states passed laws which made enforcement of the federal laws difficult.
The slaves states were angered because, being the importing and exporting states, they paid the bulk of the federal revenue, yet were not receiving the protection promised by the federal government.
Since each state joined the union voluntarily, and since according to the Declaration of Independence, governments which do not protect individual rights should be changed or replaced, 7 states left the Union.
Lincoln called for 75,000 troops to stop them. This being unconstitutional, four more slave states seceded. Then, after being invaded and put under military occupation, two more states passed declarations of secession.
The two remaining slaves states remained in the Union: Lincoln threw Maryland’s legislators in prison; Delaware, where only about 10 percent of its African population remained slaves, remained in the Union throughout the war.
So, you see, the first seven states seceded because they had no faith that the Republican party would enforce federal laws on their behalf while at the same time Congress had just increased the amount of tax the same states would have to pay to the same government.
The situation being what it was, the states exercised their right to withdraw their consent to be governed by a government not looking after their interests.
The author of this article is reasoning from a lack of accurate information.
One has only to consider the proposed Constitutional amendment known as the Corwin Amendment, and its reception (or lack thereof) by the seceded States, to know that the States did not secede over slavery.
The War was fought because the North invaded the South.
“Loewen shows that the cessation of 11 Southern states centered on the institution of slavery.”
That is a lie. Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas only seceded after a call by Lincoln to furnish troops for the invasion of their sister states. They would have stayed in otherwise. For instance here is North Carolina’s Ordinance of Secession—May 20th 1861 with no mention of slavery.
“An Ordinance to dissolve the union between the State of North Carolina and the other States united with her, under the compact of government entitled “The Constitution of the United States.”
“We, the people of the State of North Carolina in convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, That the ordinance adopted by the State of North Carolina in the convention of 1789, whereby the Constitution of the United States was ratified and adopted, and also all acts and parts of acts of the General Assembly ratifying and adopting amendments to the said Constitution, are hereby repealed, rescinded, and abrogated.
We do further declare and ordain, That the union now subsisting between the State of North Carolina and the other States, under the title of the United States of America, is hereby dissolved, and that the State of North Carolina is in full possession and exercise of all those rights of sovereignty which belong and appertain to a free and independent State.”
Done in convention at the city of Raleigh, this the 20th day of May, in the year of our Lord 1861, and in the eighty-fifth year of the independence of said State.”
Hate to burst your bubble, but you need to read Charles Adams, “When in the Course of Human Events” and you will find out what the war was about….in the words of the Northern leaders. They were as much for slavery as any in the South. They simply needed the South in the union to finance the federal government. They were more racist than the South, some states with laws preventing blacks from moving into their states.
Lincoln wanted to get the Southern states back in the union, and offered to make slavery permanent to appease them. It didn’t work, because it was the unfair tariffs that had led the South to secede. If they had wanted to protect slavery, they would have been better off in the union. They have created a myth to fool those who don’t know better. Apparently, it’s working.
And the Tea Parties and 10th Amendment movement share the principles of our Confederate heritage and Founding Fathers… Limited government and States’ Rights.
It’s not slavery that was at issue, it was tariffs and the nature of government. We are seeing the same split today, as people realize that the central government is acting outside of the limits imposed on it by the Constitution (as Lincoln trampled the rights of the citizens, both parties today are following suit)
We need a Washington, a Mason, or Henry, a Jefferson, Taylor, or Davis… We need a statesman to lead us back to liberty before it is too late and we lose the precious gift our ancestors fought for. May the Lord have mercy on us.
you are full of it
Any well-researched biography of Lincoln, such as Carl Sandburg’s, will show that Lincoln was a lifelong abolitionist and associated with other lifelong abolitionists.
The economy of the agricultural South was based on slavery. So, any talk about unfair taxes, revenues, or States Rights boils down to the fact that the fountain of that economy was based on chattel slavery, human bondage.
Thanks for illuminating this deeply misunderstood issue!
I think we can all agree that States’ Rights should not include the right of residents of said states to own other human beings as property, let alone complain about the taxes.
I find it interesting that all of theses neo historians refuse to acknowlege the fact that slavery was not abolished until January of 1866. Nine months after the war eneed, and the fact that Mrs. U.S. Grant was forced to relenquish her slaves. U.S. Grant had his “manservents” with him during the war. Look at historical fact, and realize that there were several factors which caused the war, but slavery really was a back burner issue. Blacks were not treated well in northern states and Illinois had laws barring blacks from staying in the state for more than three days, after that they sold. Illinois also forbade blacks as settlers in the state. Read Lincoln’s remarks regarding blacks, and then tell the world he was not racist, he even attempted to have blacks relocated to foerign countries, in central America, and the mid east i.e. Liberia.
Note that not one of the above comments mentions the reasons that the Southern states gave as they seceded. On the Northern side, slavery had NOTHING to do with the onset of the war. The United States went to war for two reasons: to hold the Union together (that is, the U.S. did not accept secession), and because it was attacked. (You may believe that Lincoln “maneuvered” the South into firing on Fort Sumter, but no matter, fire the South did.) So, the question becomes, as I stated on the radio, WHY did the Southern states secede? And, one by one, they TELL us. To be sure, North Carolina does not tell us in its simple secession amendment, but it does tell us, and our book, THE CONFEDERATE AND NEO-CONFEDERATE READER, includes that dcoument as well.
And, no, Brett, “unfair tariffs” had nothing to do with it. Read the documents! They say nothing about tariffs! Why would they? SC had WRITTEN the tariff under which the US was operating at the time and had no quarrel with it.
Incidentally, “John,” four slave states remained in the U.S.: Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware. Not two. In addition a fifth, West Virginia, became a state by seceding from Virginia and remaining in the U.S.
The responses above are wonderful — they make precisely the case that I made on the air — Americans have NO idea why the South seceded because they have not read the documents!
The State Secession documents…actually, ********** is referring to the Declarations of the Causes of Secession issued by four of the States seceding from the Union (the rest did not explain their reasons)…do cite slavery as the prime reason for secession. Southerners often cite conflicts over high tariffs and other economic issues as the cause of secession, and a superficial reading of these Declarations of the Causes of Secession does seem to contradict this, as conlawyer points out. However, what these Declarations were doing was providing a legal basis for secession, just as the original Declaration of Independence set out the legal basis for America’s secession from the British Empire. The Southern States needed a clear, unambiguous violation of the Constitution by the Northern States to justify their “breaking of the contract” represented by the Union. It was not unconstitutional for Congress to levy tariffs on imported goods bought by Southerners, or to spend the money thus raised on internal improvements and business subsidies for capitalists in the Northern States. So although the South might have liked to secede over these issues (the Republican Party platform called for high tariffs, internal improvements, and business subsidies, and indeed, soon after taking control, they passed the highest tariff in American history, which would have devastated the South economically), legally, they could not have justified “breaking the contract” between the Southern States and the rest of the Union on that basis. However, the Northern States were in clear violation of the Constitution by acts of their legislatures and decisions by their State Courts which nullified and prevented enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Clause of the Constitution (and the various Fugitive Slave Acts which were passed for the enforcement of said Clause). And it is this which is prominently cited in the Declarations of the Causes of Secession. Also, it is noteworthy that the Declaration issued by the State of Georgia does, in fact, talk about the tariff issue as well as slavery…indeed, it states that it was the alliance of Northern anti-slavery agitators with the Northern mercantilist/high tariff faction (represented by the Republican Party) which had allowed the election of Abraham Lincoln, thus creating the need for secession. So slavery is not the ONLY issue discussed in these declarations.
Robert P. Perkins
Bingo, Brett! You hit the nail on the head! It was ALL about money!!
You know the old saying: “Follow the money!”
Lincoln was under extreme pressure from Northern businesses to not lose the Tariff being paid by the Southern States. Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, by themselves, were keeping the national treasury about 75-90% full all the time.
When Lincoln grasped the amount of money the South put into the national treasury (which was spent for improvements in the North), his explosive retort was, “What about MY tariff?”
The largest slave market in the USA at the time, was in Washington, DC, right across Pennsylvania Avenue from the Capitol Building, which was built using slave labor.
A newspaper in New Hampshire said: “The Southern Confederacy will not employ our ships or buy our goods. What is our shipping without it? We must not let the South go.”
If tariffs had nothing to do with it, why did Lincoln and Northern newspapers say that it did. Why did Southerners for 50 years say that it was. I’m sorry that you don’t want to look at the facts, but they are there. Read the book.
Lincoln said he had no right nor inclination to free slaves. The North said let our brothers go in peace. We wish them well. Let them keep their peculiar institution, which still existed in several Northern states.
A week later they were calling for the total destruction of the South.
What happened during that week.
The Confederate Congress would not pass a high tariff.
Lincoln was content to let the South go its own way, so long as they paid the tariff. The Lincoln regime was trying to figure out how they were going to collect the tariff at sea, outside the Southern ports.
Tennessee did not secede until Lincoln’s illegal call for volunteers to invade the South. As he said, If we let the South go, who will pay for my government.
There were supporters of slavery in the North and South, but slavery was becoming unprofitable, and the main discussions were how to do away with it as other countries had. The North, or US Congress had said no to reimbursing owners for slaves as other countries had done. The North had already made their profits from slavery.
Lincoln said that the North would do exactly as the South had done if the roles had been reversed. The North simply didn’t want blacks living among them. The North did not have a monopoly on anti slavery sentiment. The first two emancipation periodicals were published in Tennessee. And leader both in the North and South wanted to relocate slaves back to Africa. It is much more complex than most have time to study. The simple fact is that the South would have had slavery protected by staying in the Union, if that was all they wanted.
As a Black man, I’m sure glad the South lost and the North won. I don’t think northerner where better than southerners on the issue of slavery. I want even get into the arguments about the causes of the Civil War. To this end, the north winning did help end this institution earlier. One funny thing, most southerner made no issue about slavery being an honorable institution before they lost the war. The documentation is vast about their feelings. After loosing the war and world opinion, there seems to be a great shift in the reasons behind the war.
Actually slavery was why the SOUTH went to war. Actually to spread slavery, not protect it.
In fact, to the North the war was NOT about slavery, at the start. It was very much about the SPREAD of slavery to the south.
Slavery was ALWAYS the issue to the SOuth — and they bragged about it, at the time.
Lincoln reluctantly made it about slavery almost 2 years AFTER the South made it about slavery. In a sense, Lincoln finally agree with the South. Okay, he said, its about slavery now.
How can you tell?
Pretty easy. Read the Southern Ultimatums issued March of 1861. As the Richmond newspaper called the Ultimatums “The True Issue”.
What was the true issue?
Read their ultimatums and find out.
Let me give you a hint. The first Ultimatum was that the North — meaning Lincoln — had to violently push slavery into the territories.
Now, Kansas had just voted slavery down 98% to 2%. And Kansas had just kicked out the Southern thugs and terrorist who were sent to kill and intimidate whites who were against slavery.
All five ultimatums by the South were about slavery. All five had to do with the SPREAD of slavery to where people didn’t want it.
The SOuth did not even mention the “tariff” that many people today use as an excuse.
If it was about the tariff, why didn’t the SOuth say so at the time? Why were all their Ultimatums about slavery??
If it was about the tariff, why did Jefferson Davis say specifically it was NOT about the tariff?
Many people today are so stupid, they think the SOuth paid high taxes. Actually the South paid very little. The tax was on ENGLISH goods, not Southern. And the North bought 10 times as many English goods.
There were some in the South who voted FOR the tariff. And the Morril tariff didn’t even pass till AFTER the South seceded.
That’s right, it didnt even pass till after the South seceded. SO that can’t be the reason they seceded.
Slavery is the ONLY issue discussed in the Five Ultimatums from the South.
All five Ultimatums — slavery. The first Ultimatum, that the North force the spread of slavery into the territories.
That’s the right FIRST ultimatum was about spreading slavery — by force, by violence, against the will of the people there.
Think about that.
None of the Ultimatums were about taxes. All were about slavery.
Since the South paid virtually no taxes to the federal government anyway, its silly to say the war was about taxes.
And the SOuth said over and over what it was about — slavery
The lost cause theory strikes again! At the end of the civil war the former CONfederates were utterly devastated at their loss. After all, they had been told that God was on their side, But they lost (and we know that God doesn’t lose) The CONfederate veterans and the sons of CONfederate veterans that came after them have been trying to white wash the image of the CONfederacy since they lost in their war against the U S government.
Their constitution, articles of secession, newspaper articles and CONfederate congressional records all support the fact that their entire government and their motivation or starting a war was to support African slavery(especially in the new territories).
Some southern women writers of the time even stated that many southerners supported slavery as it gave them easy access to Negro concubines.
I can only assume that she was referring to both male and female.
Hey there! This is my 1st comment here so I just wanted to give a quick shout out and tell you I
genuinely enjoy reading your blog posts.
Can you recommend any other blogs/websites/forums that go over the same topics?
Appreciate it!
[…] http://uprisingradio.org/home/2010/09/07/the-confederacy-was-about-slavery-not-states-rights/#sthash… […]