Pendrake, you get points for the correct use of "manumission". * * * I find it curious that some make the assumption that Slavery, as an institution, is morally wrong when there were arguments made in antebellum South that because Slaves and Slavery are mentioned in the Christian Bible, then the institution was divinely sanctioned and blessed. It was, indeed, the duty of all good Christians to support Slavery. To do otherwise is to deny Christianity.
Slavery was a major issue that was a factor of the war, but I'm sure that there was more. The North had had freed slaves for a long time, so I'm sure that caused the South to really start despising the North.
The South also had freed slaves, as long as it had slaves or longer. Africans were part of early exploration expeditions and virtually every colony. Don't forget, Africans have been leaving Africa to seek better places for hundreds of thousands of years. We all have African heritage. Many who weren't emancipated were bond, especially in Virginia. Slavery was a false issue. Yes, there were true abolitionists such as the Quakers, but most anti-slave sentiment was thinly disguised anti-Negro sentiment.
Slavery as a means to an economic issue is an interesting way to view this entire conflict. Most Southern states had been indoctrinated and became "comfy" with the practice after engaging in it for so many years. I think it is an important part of the War but there are also other factors that must be considered.
I've seen movies and documentaries about slavery and literally some people sacrificed themselves to put and end to it, the war was not the end to slavery, was just the beginning of the end because the fight continued for decades longer.
Yes, the main issue surrounding the Civil War was in fact slavery. Anybody who says otherwise is probably just a neo confederate attempting to rewrite history. There were other issues involved in the conflict, mainly a large conflict over the economic differences between the North and South, as well as how much power the centralized federal government should have. But when you get down to the nitty gritty, the war was over whether or not black Americans should be able to be held as slaves, or not. And the union was clearly on the right side of history in their cause.
gmckee-- I take exception to being lumped in with the class of Neo-Confederates over the issue of causes of the ACW. I see myself more closely aligned to Carl Sandburg. I suggest you may benefit from a trip to your local public library to look up one of his lesser known works: Storm Over the Land. It opens with a powerful enumeration of what Mr. Sandburg envisions as many of the causes of the war. By the way, don't bother with the rest of the book (after first chapter) as he bogs down with another telling of the life of Lincoln -- something he covers better elsewhere. And if you bother to read the speeches of the Senators and Congressmen who left the US Legislature prior to the war, you should be surprized to learn how rarely Slavery is mentioned. If you want more I can suggest other books.
The cause of the ACW was slavery. The facts point this out in great detail. All you have to do is look at the secession documents themselves. The secession conventions were loaded with speeches which outlined the threat to slavery from a Republican administration. Please read Charles Dew's Apostles of Disunion where he goes over the secession speeches at the conventions. Dew is a historian. You can also read some of William Freehling's books where he writes about what caused the Civil War in great detail in his two volume set, The Road to Disunion. Freehling is also a historian. He too says that slavery caused the ACW. In fact, almost all historians say that slavery caused the ACW. The few that do not say that are outliers who are on the far right edge and heavily engaged in the neo-confederate ideas. They write history to suit their politics which is to say they do a very bad job of writing history.
History is pretty much what people wrote at the time, that is how memory is preserved, but in the case of slavery there is not much room for doubt I believe.
Gloine -- odd that you cite T. Freling's work, as I have them in my small library. And I will dispute with you the notion that Slavery was the cause celibe, the causis belli, for the ACW. It is hard to get hundreds of thousands of men to take up arms in the name of Slavery or anti-Slavery. But it is easy to imagine editorial writers and political orators making the case for young men to take up arms for the cause of Liberty and Political Freedom. The battlecry of the troops were LIBERTY and States Rights, not "Oppress the uppity Negroes". That the Republican Party won the Presidency when their candidate was not on most ballots in the South was political point which the Southern members of Congress to take their leave. They left before Lincoln even got to Washington. Americans were taught in most schools that Slavery was the cause of the ACW; I will grant you that. But they were also taught that Columbus sailed in 1492 to prove the world was round. Both "factoids" are false. Both are simplified History dumbed-down for the masses. It has been discovered that the Columbus myth was created by Washington Irving in his two-volume biography of the Admiral of the Ocean-seas. The myth that Slavery was the cause was taught in American schools for several reasons. It was simpler. Also, it dovetailed well with Civil-rights movement of the 1950s and '60s. But it was not the real truth. The Slaves were not freed by Republicans at the start of the war. They were not abstractly freed until the aftermath of the bloody battle of Antietum. Yes, slaves were "liberated" before then. It may surprize you to learn these laborers were "liberated" not by a Republican but by a DEMOCRATE general/lawyer/poltitician. This fellow went so far as to nominate Jefferson Davis to be the Democrat candidate for the presidency campaign of 1860. This Democrat officer, Ben F. Butler, was asked to return casual laborers (slaves) during the 1861 Penisula Campaign. Being a Lawyer in civilian life he knew the law of land warfare which allows a belligerant to declare something of use to the enemy as CONTRABAND, and confiscate said product. Normally this was applied to something like lumber or grain, but Major-General Butler recognized that LABOR was of use to the Confederates (to build defences). He kept the slaves even though by US Law they should have been returned to their slave-masters. The next day, and during subsequent days more Contrabands crossed the battlelines. Soon the trickle became a flood.
State's Rights? Seriously? Okay, name them. I can guarantee you that Freehling agrees that slavery was the cause of the Civil War. Find those wonderful state's rights and post the heck out of them. Meanwhile let's go with why the states seceded as in Charles Dew's Apostle of Disunion which used primary sources to discover what the people said at the secession conventions. Then let's go look at the actual secession documents which flat out state that slavery was the issue. I don't know where you learned history, but it is wrong. Go get James McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom. Go get Stephen Woodworth's This Great Struggle. Get David Potter, Michael Holt, Gary Gallagher, Allan Guelzo, William Davis, and Brooks Simpson. Every single one of them is or was a historian and every one of them agreed that slavery was the cause of the Civil War. That is why it is taught in schools. IT is the truth. The state's rights garbage is exactly that...pure garbage.
Here is the link to Jefferson Davis' farewell speech to the Senate. http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/DavisSpeech1861.pdf He mentions the word slave three times in which he makes it clear that slavery was an issue. He also used the word Rights six times...but never put the word in context. He said rights, but never said what rights. What rights were they? The right to secede is one he claimed, but that right was not only disputed; it was flat out rejected as unconstitutional then and still is today. No one takes the idea seriously that men fought over whether or not a state could secede. That was ludicrous. They fought over the issue that they seceded over and that issue was slavery. Disagree? Let's check in with South Carolina. In their secession document found here at the Avalon Project, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp we find why they left the Union. Slavery. The first part of the document is their attempt to legitimize their secession such as using the compact theory which is incorrect and a rejected idea. They then get into the real issue here: The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." A quick word search then reveals the subject to be mentioned 18 times in the document. It constantly refers to the slaveholding states as the injured party. Why slave holding states and not any other? For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. That explains that.
I enjoyed reading your posts, @gloine36 ... thank you for writing them. I wish I could say that solid and true facts will get you anywhere when trying to get people to understand things, but when minds are closed, it just doesn't work. When minds close, ears close. Sad. Anyhow, you mentioned Gary Gallagher... I took one of his classes a few years ago. Very enjoyable! Oh, and to naysayers, we're talking about the University of *VIRGINIA* GASP! I do declare, that was a Confederate state!
Kate, Thank you for the kind words. I was fortunate enough to go through Peter Onuf's Thomas Jefferson class earlier in the year via Coursera. While nowhere near being a college level course by any stretch of the imagination, it was interesting to listen to Onuf speak on Jefferson. I particularly liked the video aspects showing the grounds of the University of Virginia and Monticello. Alvin Toffler wrote, "The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read or write, but those cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn." This is particularly important in today's world because we have many who chose to ignore the facts in favor of comforting beliefs. What people should be doing today is asking questions of everything. That is how they will learn. If something cannot stand up to the question and answer process, then it will fall by the wayside. That is why those historians were able to develop the interpretations they arrived at. They asked questions and upon consulting the sources of which there are plenty, arrived at the interpretation that they did. Their results are undergoing the same question and answer process and has withstood it quite well. The process of historical analysis is not liked by some, but they dislike the answers to the questions.
This has recently been brought to my attention: http://www.salon.com/2014/09/07/we_...r_were_built_on_forced_migration_and_torture/ What an interesting and fresh perspective on the Peculiar Institution, one which was perpetuated in the US via the Jim Crow laws and many subtile attitudes. It is perptuated but police violence and penial incarsuration. It is perpetuated by poor education and ghettoized housing.
Baptist's book is being discussed quite a bit right now on multiple forums. It is a very well documented historical work. If you like that book I would recommend River of Dark Dreams by Walter Johnson. http://www.amazon.com/River-Dark-Dr...10904644&sr=8-1&keywords=river of dark dreams
That seems a really interesting book on this topic gloine, thanks for sharing it, I'm going to give it a look.
