Counter-Currents
2,983 words
Part 1 of 2 (Part 2 here)
The South could “win” the war by not losing; the North could win only by winning. — James M. McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom
Like my father before me
I will work the land.
And like my brother above me,
I took a rebel stand.
He was just 18, young and brave,
But a Yankee laid him in his grave.
— The Band, “The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down”
On my only real trip to the United States (Alaska doesn’t count), I visited the Carolinas and Virginia, including a sightseeing excursion to the American Civil War battlefield at Antietam. I had never seen a battlefield before, and the reality of it came all at once, like cold water in the face. One day in the not-too-distant past, these pretty fields and woodland had been sodden with blood and guts — the real stuff, not the metaphorical version. There was an excellent talk by one of the trustees of the organization which oversees what is now a tourist attraction, but was once host to a decisive battle in one of history’s most tragic civil wars, and the first of its engagements to have been planned in advance by both sides.
Antietam was so called when I visited, although many of the battles were known by different names depending on which side of the Mason-Dixon Line you were on. The Battle of Antietam was the Battle of Sharpsburg in the South. Perhaps the victors get to name the battles. After our visit, my girlfriend and I went to a secondhand bookstore in Harper’s Ferry, and I asked the proprietor if he could recommend a good book on the American Civil War. After some pleasing rummaging in a back room, the man sold me James M. McPherson’s Battle Cry of Freedom, a book I have treasured ever since and ten bucks well spent. It seems I had visited one of the key battlefields of the war, and McPherson bluntly lays out the appalling aftermath of Antietam:
Night fell on a scene of horror beyond imagining. Nearly 6,000 men lay dead or dying, and another 17,000 wounded groaned in agony or endured in silence. The casualties at Antietam numbered four times the total suffered by American soldiers at the Normandy beaches on June 6, 1944. More than twice as many Americans lost their lives in one day at Sharpsburg as fell in combat in the war of 1812, the Mexican War, and the Spanish-American war combined.
The book is praised by its editor as the most concise one-volume account of the Civil War years available, but it still comes in at around 850 pages. So, this will be a two-part review, the first concerning the war itself, the second concentrating exclusively on the role of slavery in the conflict.
The antebellum years typified America’s founding vision of itself, with territorial expansion producing economic growth which in turn promoted sustainable demographic increase, with the resultant infrastructure beginning the cycle again. Increasing industrialization meant that whereas in the first decade of the nineteenth century most Americans produced goods for their daily needs at home, as the century progressed women would increasingly buy candles and soap, then shoes and clothes, from a store. Also, there was the demographic result of Horace Greeley’s famous exhortation to “Go West, young man,” as one Illinois-bound pioneer lamented that “Old America seems to be breaking up, and moving westward.” It was a time of sheer American exceptionalism, but there was a worm in the apple.
America in the 1850s was a proverbial tinderbox, with the central tension between the North and the South over slavery laws and their implications a constant, and war threatened or warned against by politicians on a regular basis. Kansas was the first flashpoint. The Second Amendment is, as it were, under fire again today, but in the middle of the nineteenth century, freedom to bear arms meant that a shooting war was only an incident away:
Partisans of both sides in the territory were walking arsenals. The murder of a free-soil settler by a proslavery man in November 1855 set off a series of incidents that seemed likely to start the war.
That war was actually six years away, but the tension between the two factions made it inevitable, and it remains America’s most tragic self-fulfilling prophecy. Another element in the animosity of the escalation has a familiar ring today. After polling in Kansas:
[T]he initial returns seemed to indicate an astonishing proslavery victory. Closer investigation uncovered the curious phenomenon of two remote districts with 130 legal voters having reported 2,900 ballots. In one case some 1,600 names had been copied onto the voting rolls from an old Cincinnati city directory.
Lincoln famously won, and the 1860 Presidential Election was both “unique in American history” and saturated in cutlass-rattling over the Union. The keystone of the radical divide, slavery, has several aspects and, as noted, will be assessed in the second part. But for Lincoln, preserving the Union meant a qualified end to slavery — and the South would not allow that to stand. A Georgia newspaper foreshadowed the “Never Trumpers” in its editorial:
Let the consequences be what they may — whether the Potomac is crimsoned in human gore, and Pennsylvania Avenue is paved ten fathoms deep in mangled bodies . . . the South will never submit to such humiliation and degradation as the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln.
Lincoln himself would deflate this bombast, and he was — as always — clinically clear about his political aims:
The central idea . . . is the necessity of proving that popular government is not an absurdity. We must settle this question now, whether in a free government the minority have the right to break up the government whenever they choose.
Lincoln’s own rhetoric reminds us of the paucity of political debate today in terms of pure use of language, as a well-known speech of Lincoln’s exemplifies:
The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field, and patriot grave, to every living hearth and hearthstone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.
Joe Biden’s teams of speechwriters could not even attempt such a poetic flight, and British politicians speechify like faulty artificial intelligence.
Events themselves began to overtake rhetoric. The Dred Scott case began in 1850 and continued until the war, becoming “the most notorious cause célèbre in American constitutional history.” Scott was a slave who married another slave, with whom he had a child born on free soil, and his prolonged lawsuit exacerbated the inevitable tensions between slave owners and free-soilers, as did the Runaway Slave Act, which incentivized escaped slaves to make it to a free state.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s The Year America Died here.
Then there was the short-lived campaign at Harper’s Ferry led by one of the war years’ stranger characters, John Brown, but that will be for the next part. In the real world (which Brown seems not to have inhabited), the standoff at Charleston’s Fort Sumter in 1860 provides a twist which exemplifies the war. Sumter did not start hostilities simply because a certain Major Robert Anderson did not return fire during a skirmish. Anderson led the Northern garrison at Fort Sumter, although he himself was a Kentuckian and former slave owner “who sympathized with the South but remained loyal to the flag he had served for thirty-five years.” Eventually, it was to be the Battle of Shiloh which “launched the country onto the floodtide of total war.”
The conflict was not precisely North versus South. The problem of the Upper South — which was, as McPherson puts it, “facing both ways” — meant that the division had a corridor of uncertainty. As with many civil wars — plus the Berlin Wall — America’s internal conflict divided families. One example from many was “North Carolinian John Gibbon, who became one of the best division commanders in the Army of the Potomac while three of his brothers fought for the South.”
Military historians will find much to savor here, and the accounts of battles, of courageous advances and strange failures in the field, and of course the sheer savagery of warfare are both meticulous and rendered raw. Generals “led from the front, not the rear,” and were 50% more likely to be killed than privates, being an obvious target for a new aspect of war in sharpshooters. Many of the men, and some of their leaders in the field, were constantly drunk. Alcoholism, writes McPherson, was seen as a moral weakness then rather than today’s view of it as a treatable illness.
But along with the decisive events in the field, there is also an economic and social back story to the conflict I found fascinating, and which might be called “meta-warfare.”
Logistics were on the side of the South:
Confederate forces operated close to the source of many of their supplies. Invading armies, by contrast, had to maintain long supply lines of wagon trains, railroads, and port facilities.
The Southern countryside itself also became a weapon of war, with bridge-burning, tree-felling to block roads, and the tearing up of rail tracks all part of standard military practice. And for those familiar with its bounty, the South was a living pantry. The natural ability of troops to forage gave the South an advantage for the logistical reasons noted.
The economics of essentials also played a part, with salt at $2 a bag before the war and up to $60 by 1862. The usual suspects were much in evidence, as
southerners focused on Jews as the worst “extortioners.” Jewish traders had “swarmed here as the locusts of Egypt,” declared a congressman. “They ate up the substance of the country, they exhausted its supplies, they monopolized its trade.” Jews were said to be more numerous in Charleston than in Jerusalem.
The Civil War was also fought on ocean and inland waterways, making Britain’s naval expertise a factor in terms of foreign assistance. Britain was close to joining the war in favor of the South several times, and “commerce raiders built in Britain represented an important part of Confederate naval strategy.” Liverpool, in McPherson’s view, was made as a port city by American slavery. The closest to British engagement was the imprisonment of two Confederate diplomats en route to London and Paris, which caused an irate Prime Minister Palmerston to send troops to Canada and augment the Atlantic fleet. The railroads, while relatively new, played a large part in troop transit, with the “largest Confederate railroad movement of the war” taking place, appropriately, at Chattanooga.
The war had social effects for women. Inspired by Britain’s famous nurse Florence Nightingale (despite current attempts to replace her in the national consciousness with the black Mary Seacole), many women turned to nursing, decrying their apparent societal position as unfit to attend to men at war. Kate Cumming of Mobile wrote of a field hospital in 1862 that
[t]he foul air from this mass of human beings at first made me giddy and sick. We have to walk, and when we give the men anything kneel, in blood and water; but we think nothing of it.
Although twice the number of Civil War fatalities died from disease than from bullet or bayonet, McPherson compares this with the ratios for the Napoleonic Wars (eight to one) and America’s own Mexican War (seven to one).
Women also played a less honorable part in the war, as with the bread riots of 1863, in which
[g]roups of women, many of them wives of soldiers and some armed with knives or revolvers, marched in a body to shops owned by “speculators” and asked the price of bacon or flour. When informed, they denounced such “extortion,” took what they wanted, and marched away.
These ladies would be right at home in the shopping malls of today’s America.
You can buy Tito Perdue’s novel Opportunities in Alabama Agriculture here.
Wars also produce new language. Northern textile manufacturers were able to convert recycled wool into a material called “shoddy,” undoubtedly reflecting its appearance. If you have ever worn sideburns, you are obliged to General Burnside, who wore a vast set of mutton-chop whiskers, and those rogue deserters who stole and filched became known as “bummers.”
Whereas television coverage of Vietnam made it the first “real-time” war, and Gulf War I was the first “Star Wars” conflict, with high-resolution missile strikes resembling video games appearing on the nightly news, the American Civil War was one of the first photographed, and some haunting shots are reproduced in McPherson’s book. Old war photographs have a special poignancy.
Surrender was both inevitable and sudden. Lee’s last resort was too desperate even for him, as it was proposed that his army should disperse into the woods and fight on as guerillas. Lee reportedly balked at the idea of marauding gangs destroying rural Virginia as they had done to Shenandoah, and sent a note to Grant offering to accept terms. The meeting of the two men — Lee in full dress uniform, Grant fresh from the field and spattered with mud and blood — showed a social aspect of the war, which has been called a rich man’s/poor man’s war, not least in Britain with its ingrained class system. Even Karl Marx, sponging from Britain as he then was, weighed in on the Democrat side. At the scene of formal surrender, social standing was reversed as “the son of an Ohio Tanner dictated surrender terms to the scion of a First Family of Virginia.”
The American Civil War was both world-historic and a lesson for America on the visceral horror of warfare. One of the casual, media-friendly phrases tossed around today is that something or other is “an existential threat.” The account of a Northern Bluecoat at Antietam could find its way into any collection of existentialist writings:
The truth is, when bullets are whacking against tree-trunks and solid shot are cracking skulls like eggshells, the consuming passion in the breast of the average man is to get out of the way. Between the physical fear of going forward and the moral fear of turning back, there is a predicament of exceptional awkwardness.
The South lost not only in blood but in treasure, being left an “economic desert” after surrender and the end of the war:
The war not only killed one-quarter of the Confederacy’s white men of military age. It also killed two-fifths of southern livestock, wrecked half of the farm machinery, ruined thousands of miles of railroad, left scores of thousands of farms and plantations in weeds and disrepair, and destroyed the principal labor system on which southern productivity had been based.
Even the battles won by the eventual losers of a war become Pyrrhic.
The US Constitution was forever changed by the war, and not to the benefit of the people:
Eleven of the first twelve amendments to the Constitution had limited the powers of the national government; six of the next seven, beginning with the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865 [effectively ending slavery], vastly expanded those powers at the expense of the states.
It may still be too early to assess the effects of the ominously-numbered Thirteenth Amendment, but the role of blacks in the American Civil War was the catalyst for larger concerns over property rights. The threat of, and Northern warnings against, secession as a result of slavery and opposition to it had been the fuse slavery lit.
As a segue into the next part, it might be wise to consult the men who actually did the fighting on the subject of slave emancipation:
While northern soldiers had no love for slavery, most of them had no love for slaves either. They fought for Union and against treason; only a minority in 1862 felt any interest in fighting for black freedom.
McPherson quotes an Illinois soldier “not in favor of freeing the negroes and leaving them to run free among us.” The troopers were in favor of colonization for blacks, as was Lincoln himself. To the men who fought on the blood-soaked turf of Antietam/Sharpsburg and elsewhere, the high ideals of office were a luxury, and they were deaf to any humane argument on the basis of an equality in which few of them believed. It was as though, as Bluecoats did in the field, they had stuffed their ears with plantation cotton to lessen the roar of the big guns. However much slavery is currently being placed at the center of the American Civil War, there was at the time just as much surrounding politicking as you would expect that had nothing to do with skin color, and a close watch was kept on the economic side of the war as well as ideological concerns.
British schoolchildren learned no American history when I was at school, and what little they learn now will be both spurious and confined to the subject of slavery and the inherent evil of the white man. Most of the British who have heard of Abraham Lincoln will have done so because Daniel Day-Lewis won an Oscar for playing him, and if we know the names of Robert E. Lee or Ulysses S. Grant it will be via other movies. So I have nothing to set Battle Cry of Freedom against, I can only recommend it. American readers will be familiar with the subject in a way the British are not. There has been some chatter over the last few years about a second American Civil War, and some might say it has already begun. If so, and it devolves into a race war, it might be that slavery is still a causal factor.
The American Civil War was fought over slaves and slavery, but at a secondary level. It was ultimately about property and property rights, because slaves were considered to be legally-held property in the antebellum, Democrat South. When we come to look at the role of slavery in the war that divided the world’s greatest nation, we will also see how it became a circumstance no white man in the West will ever be allowed to forget.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate at least $10/month or $120/year.
- Donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Everyone else will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days. Naturally, we do not grant permission to other websites to repost paywall content before 30 days have passed.
- Paywall member comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Paywall members have the option of editing their comments.
- Paywall members get an Badge badge on their comments.
- Paywall members can “like” comments.
- Paywall members can “commission” a yearly article from Counter-Currents. Just send a question that you’d like to have discussed to [email protected]. (Obviously, the topics must be suitable to Counter-Currents and its broader project, as well as the interests and expertise of our writers.)
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, please visit our redesigned Paywall page.
11 comments
Bruce Catton, another very good historian of the war, wrote that on the most basic level, the war was caused by the results of the Industrial Revolution, in the context of two very different societies within America–north and south. He believed that most of the conflicts between the regions might have been resolved peacefully, but not slavery, about which men were not willing to compromise. And, like other historians before our time who were able to see and explain what happened relatively clearly, Catton placed some of the blame on radical abolitionists, who inflamed the situation. There were other, more moderate abolitionists who understood the need to avoid radical measures. In the south radicals also arose on behalf of slavery and secession, the Fire-Eaters. And as was suggested in the review, most northern soldiers fought mainly because of patriotism.
Like many tragedies in history, it wasn’t a simple story of good versus evil. If someone should be blamed, I’d blame the radicals, north and south. And if you want to read about amazing heroism, the Union and Confederacy both provided that. As someone wrote long ago, the Civil War is like an American Iliad, with many unforgettable characters. And as Mark Gullick wrote, to visit the battlefields and consider what men did at them is really awe-inspiring. Americans used to understand that very well, and many used to appreciate both sides.
My karaoke version of “The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down.”
Why did the South fight the Civil War?
Wrong question: why did the South decide to secede (they fought because they were invaded, which is why the South could “win by not losing”)?
I got this quote from the following URL but have seen it other places:
https://www.nellaware.com/blog/william-tecumseh-sherman-quotes.html#:~:text=General%20Sherman%2C%20from%20a%20letter,now%20it%20is%20too%20late%E2%80%A6
General Sherman, from a letter to his wife written in July, 1864.
“Three years ago by a little reflection and patience they could have had a hundred years of peace and prosperity…Last year they could have saved their slaves, but now it is too late…Next year their lands will be taken…and in another year they may beg in vain for their lives.”
“Last year they could have saved their slaves…” The Emancipation Proclamation was on January 1st of 1863, so it was more like a year and a half.
But at least General Sherman does not seem to believe the war was fought over slavery.
My understanding was always that is was about tariffs (follow the money), but what was the deeper ROOT cause for why the South wanted to secede? I think the quote makes that blazingly clear.
Another good book on the Civil War is Charles Adams’ When in the Course of Human Events. Adams, who was an economic historian and a leading expert on the history of taxation, makes a strong case that the cause of the war was economic rather than ideological.
The North benefitted from the Southern slave economy, and was perfectly willing to allow the South to have as many slaves as they pleased. Lincoln even supported an amendment that would have guaranteed the legality of slavery in the South permanently if it would appease the Southern states. However, the South still seceded because they wanted to be able to set up free-trade ports and avoid the tariffs that subsidized Northern industry. The Northern financial establishment could not tolerate that, and so pressured Lincoln to go to war.
Adams’ book is unique in that it thoroughly examines how Europeans perceived the conflict. Interestingly, Charles Dickens and John Stuart Mill got into a heated debate about the causes of the war, with Dickens arguing that it was “a fiscal affair” and Mill arguing that the conflict was primarily over slavery. I find it fascinating that the same debates that historians have today were also taking place, in Europe, as the war was unfolding.
The Civil War was filled with contradictions.
One of the great ironies of the conflict was how a people whose grandfathers rebelled for independence against the Crown could treat their own secessionists so harshly.
It is hard to imagine that the rank and file on the Northern side were motivated to fight for ideas. Most would have joined out of a sense of adventure and social pressure because their friends, kin, and neighbors enlisted. All it would take was the first few fanatics and newspaper readers to start the mass hysteria.
Another irony is that the Secretary of State of the Confederacy was a Sephardic Jew named Judah Benjamin. His memorial did not escape the iconoclasts during the BLM slave revolt, but it was also the Jewish community in Charlotte NC who want it removed, too.
There are many well researched books about the Civil War, but they are all second hand except the individual memoirs. Ambrose Bierce wrote one of the few pieces of literature by a combat veteran with extensive experience in the war. He was also severely wounded. It is a short story collection called, “Tales of Soldiers and Civilians” which might be “truer” in a grittier sense than some of the non-fiction accounts of cause and effect.
While northern soldiers had no love for slavery, most of them had no love for slaves either. They fought for Union and against treason; only a minority in 1862 felt any interest in fighting for black freedom.
Like so many things involving American blacks, they’ve been led to believe that they were far more integral to the war than they ever really were. The institution of slavery may have been seen as a threat by northern industrialists because of the free labor that the major producers in the South could take advantage of, and many northerners certainly may have balked at what they perceived as southern recalcitrance, but only the most radical of yanks gave a rat’s ass about the “dignity” of slaves or blacks in general, or wanted slavery abolished for moral reasons.
Also, re the names of battles, the Union tended to name battles after a nearby natural landmark, whereas the Confederates named them after the closest town.
Great article, by the way. Looking forward to reading the second part.
“re the names of battles”
This extends to names of armies, which could be confusing. The Union had “Army of the Tennessee” named after the river. The South had “Army of Tennessee” named after the state.
The Civil War was not fought to free slaves, but to enslave free men. It was a total fraud and you need look no further than the quote from Lincoln above:
” We must settle this question now, whether in a free government the minority have the right to break up the government whenever they choose.”
The South had no intentions, no plans to “break up the government.” The South had no plans to invade the North, to kill and plunder and rape Northerners and to occupy and govern Northerners with out their consent. The founding principle of the United States was that “governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The 13 colonies withdrew their consent to be governed by the Crown or Parliament and declared their independence. Before he became president, there was no greater supporter of the right of secession than Abraham Lincoln who supported this right in a speech to the House of Representatives in 1848 and again in 1852, in which Lincoln stated:
“Whereas, in the opinion of this meeting, the arrival of Kossuth in our country, in connection with the recent events in Hungary, and with the appeal he is now making in behalf of his country, presents an occasion upon which we, the American people, cannot remain silent, without justifying an inference against our continued devotion to the principles of our free institutions, therefore,
“Resolved, 1. That it is the right of any people, sufficiently numerous for national independence, to throw off, to revolutionize, their existing form of government, and to establish such other in its stead as they may choose.”
As President of the US in 1862, however, he had no such respect for the rights of Southern people, who manifestly were sufficiently numerous for national independence. Prior to Ft. Sumpter in April 1862, only seven states had seceded. Virginia created a convention to study the issue of secession and overwhelmingly voted to remain in the Union. Then came Ft. Sumpter. Lincoln sent out a demand for Virginia to provide 75,000 volunteers to fight the Southern states that had left the Union. Virginia had referendum and the majority voted for secession. It was not about slavery. It was about the demand of Lincoln for Virginians to fight their fellow Southerners. Likewise, Tennessee, North Carolina and Arkansas seceded as well.
Note: Lincoln did not demand that these states free their slaves. Lincoln demanded that they wage war against their fellow Southerners. Also note that no state was threated with invasion, raping and looting and being burnt to the ground over slavery, but over failure to support the War. Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky and Utah territory all had slaves and none were invaded and plundered and burned to the ground. Note also that Southerners actually got to vote on the issue of secession and war.
Interestingly, most histories (written by the victors) express fear that the Southerners would re-open the international slave trade. There was some sentiment for this but in Feb. 1862 at the constitutional convention of the newly seceded states, the vote as 6 to 1 AGAINST opening the slave trade. This face is conventiently omitted from virtually all histories as is the fact that secession came in two phases, before and after Ft. Sumpter.
The Union invasion of and plundering, raping, burning and murdering of Southern people and their states was among the most barbaric raping and looting expeditions in history. It bore much more similarity to the Red Army’s “liberation” of Eastern Europe than to the Continental Army’s victory over the British.
If the South had seceded many hotly contested issues would have been resolved, namely the spread of slavery into the western territories which would be off limits to the Confederate states after secession. The fugitive slave issues would have been put to rest as well.
The North versus South war was not about the issue of slavery. Enough people in the North owned slaves and supported slavery. The war was about whether individual states would have the right to decide for themselves or whether they would have to obey a centrally elected government. The centralists won. Try looking up authentic quotes, documents on the war. Modern US books greatly distort the real history.
First, to Don: it is Ft. Sumter, not Sumpter.
Traddles: On the north and south fanatics causing the war: In his History of the American People, Paul Johnson stated that two states caused the war: Massachusetts and South Carolina.
I think the curious thing about the Civil War is that, for all the warfare and its great effects on society, no real war novels came out of it, nor much immediate literature on actual combat. There was Ambrose Bierce’s An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge, and later Stephen Crane’s The Red Badge of Courage, there wasn’t much war literature.
But there was enormous writing on personalities and causes, as well as the ethical and national reasons. A good compendium is Edmund Wilson’s 1962 Patriotic Gore, a large study in the thought and life of those in the era. Somewhat like Lytton Strachey’s Eminent Victorians, Wilson offers dozens of profiles, from Harriet Beecher Stowe to Grant to Sherman, and countless others. It’s a remarkable, readable volume.
As for the cause of the war, Wilson argues that it was simple nationalism, which was the trend in the 19th century. Gore Vidal made a similar argument in his novel Lincoln, where he compared Lincoln to Bismarck, both of whom constructed empires.
Wilson notes how people like Sherman, Lee, and others got along with each other, but once the war got going, that ended in the process of destruction. As Wilson concluded in his preface: “We have seen, in our most recent wars, how a divided and arguing public opinion may be converted overnight into a national near-unanimity…The unanimity of men at war is like a school of fish, which will swerve, simultaneously and apparently without leadership, when the shadow of an enemy appears, or like a sky-darkening flight of grasshoppers, which, also all compelled by one impulse, will descend to consume the crops.”
The Tariff was designed to promote Nationalism and domestic Manufactures and was never intended to be wielded as a weapon ─ as it was later by the fanatically sectarian Abolitionists of the North. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton’s reports on tariffs and manufactures in the Washington Administration was quite clear on this.
As the North gained in economic and political power, however, and no longer had a stake in slavery after the slave-trade ended in 1808, the great fear up North was that slave-states would gain in political power by expanding the Peculiar Institution out West.
Therefore Abolitionists tried to buy up land in Kansas to prevent poor Southern crackers from acquiring homesteads, on the notion that they were going to bring the duskier-hued persuasion along with them to work the fields. Thus the “Bleeding Kansas” conflicts were born.
Abe Lincoln ran for President and was elected in 1860 on a third-party Republican ticket dedicated to Free Soil, i.e., opposing the expansion of slavery, which is why the South expected the worst from him.
The reality is that Slavery wasn’t going out West because even with the Cotton Gin it was barely profitable for the existing cotton-picking Southern planterocracy. And the arid West just wasn’t going to grow cotton without some sort of modern irrigation infrastructure. Negro slaves weren’t good for much else besides picking, and Lincoln wasn’t building any modern Federal irrigation dams with all of that tariff money.
In 1860, South Carolina, the first state ultimately to secede from the Union after the election of President Lincoln, produced sixty percent of the cotton produced in the United States ─ about 176 million pounds.
In 2020, Arizona alone produced about 160.4 million pounds of high-quality cotton, thanks to modern irrigation. No obsolete farm implements need apply.
The South’s answer to Northern hostility, however, was not Nullification of Federal laws that they did not like, nor Secession. But the planterocracy-controlled state legislatures were not thinking too much outside of the box in the 1860s.
The fact is that manumission was almost impossible to execute without also putting freed slaves onto some kind of lifetime dole. Perhaps diverting some of that Federal tariff money to ship slaves back to Africa could have been negotiated instead of “Rebellion.” Hard to reason with Abolitionist Puritans, though, I suppose.
So, in the event, many Southern states seceeded from the Union. If these states had the right to freely join the Union in the first place, then they should have had the right to freely leave it.
But there was the little problem of Federal properties like Fort Sumter. Both sides had agreed that South Carolina and so on would compensate the Union for the property that the Federals would vacate, but just how much had not yet been agreed upon. The Southern planterocracy-dominated legislatures were not overly generous-minded, and the Northern Abolitionists were only too keen for exacting punishment. When President Lincoln reinforced the Federal garrison at Fort Sumter, South Carolina started shooting.
This gave Mr. Lincoln an iron-clad excuse to send troops to “preserve the Union” and later to conscript troops to “free the slaves.”
Southerners rallied to fight the invasion. My 3rd Great-Grandfather owned land in Arkansas and was conscripted in the CSA as a private soldier and gunsmith. The Cato Springs area near Fayetteville is named after the family. But they did not own any slaves. Mr. Cato did not have to die of hunger and disease in a Union PoW camp at Alton, Illinois near the end of the war, but that is exactly what happened.
No thanks, Mr. Lincoln. Outright traitors have done less damage to the Republic.
After the war, and hundreds of thousands of deaths of soldiers alone, the South agreed to the 13 Amendment banning slavery. Then the Radical Republicans imposed the 14th and 15th Amendments on the defeated and disfranchised South, limiting state sovereignty and actually giving the Negroes citizenship.
Assuming that we could go back to status quo ante or something similar, the 14th Amendment needs to be reworked to end propositional or “GPS citizenship,” and the 15th repealed outright and replaced with some kind of racial statecraft codifying into the highest law of the land the “free Whites of good character” concept from 1790.
🙂
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment