I've seen posters here argue it was states rights. I watched a documentary on the removal of Confederate statues in New Orleans. It delved into the white washing of history by the south. It talked about how some school districts taught that the war was about states rights as late as the 70s and how south focused on the benovalance of slave owners. I used to wonder why some people were so married to these ideas
You should look up "Segregation Academies". Schools that were literally created to continue all white schools. They still exist today.
as late as the 70s? I graduated high school in 2004 and that was still the way history was being taught.
The war was about states' rights but the main reason behind states rights was slavery. That said the nature of the states and the Federal government was unclear leading up to the Civil War. Issues like whether states could leave the Union and whether the Bill of Rights applied to the states were settled by the Civil War. Those questions might not have led to a civil war but were issues that needed to be determined for the continued growth of this country. So the short answer is yes, slavery was the reason for the Civil War. The longer answer is also yes but there were other factors too but slavery was the primary issue.
Hell, slavery is even a big reason the Texas we know exists today. Mexico abolished slavery in 1829. White settlers here wanted to grow cotton. Cotton in the 1800's = slaves. Naturally we focus on the history of what happened at the Alamo and Goliad because we love our mythologizing, and I'm no Santa Anna apologist, but this all comes to mind when I hear those who prefer the veneer of "states' rights" over "slavery". The former is not untrue. But the latter is the hub of the whole states' rights thing in the first place. Sorry for the slight tangent.
I remember being taught this in the 90s but that was primarily due to the fact that my history teacher at the time was quite conservative. I don't remember textbooks explicitly mentioning states rights in this context. My wife lived in Mississippi for a few years during her childhood (late 90s/early 2000s). The way these were set up (in her county anyway) was that there was your regular public high school, a county school and a private school. The latter two were nearly all white while the local public school was 75% african american. Both the county school and the private school were nearly 100% white.
You don't have to guess. They tell you exactly why. The Confederate states all issued different declarations of secession. Many literally use the literal language of "slave holding" vs "non-slave holding" to refer to the two parties to the ultimate war. The Texas one is particularly gross with nuggets like: She (Texas) was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slave-holding States. In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon the unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of the equality of all men, irrespective of race or color--a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of the Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and the negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States. We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable. That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding States.
Texans literally made it illegal to free your slaves....and made it illegal for any black person to live in the state as a free man. They went above and beyond to be as crappy about it as possible. This is all history. These are facts. They don't care about how you feel about them or how offended you are by them. (I'm not directing this at you, personally, Roxtxia). They codified racism and the belief in the subservience of people of African descent. You don't run from teaching this...you teach it, along with the good stuff. You teach it so that hopefully people don't repeat the same mistakes over and over again. That's among the chief aims of teaching history in the first place. This subject is one I'm pretty passionate about, obviously. It pisses me off.
Chalk this up to yet another stupid binary discussion. 1) Yes, the southern states withdrew from the Union due to states rights, specifically slavery. 2) The Union attacked what they deemed to be Federal property. 3) The Confederacy considered this an act of war and went on the offensive. 4a) The Union, naturally, used this as justification to raze the Confederacy to bring unity (For multiple reasons) 4b) The Union (note: In the middle of the war, not before) granted emancipation. 1, 2, 3 and 4a are all very closely intertwined. 4b is not. Again, this is not a binary topic and Americans need to stop pretending hundreds of thousands of white people gave up their lives to free slaves. The war was purely based on economics. Slavery was becoming very unpopular through out the modern world. Lincoln and most of the Northerners would have been content if the Southern States had agreed to stop the expansion of slavery, formed a plan to phase it out, or allowed the Southern states to sell their slaves to Caribbean territories. Few gave a **** about the slaves. It was all about maintaining the relationship with Europe. The Northerners were never altruistic and had their own selfish motivations. Deeming slavery bad and concern for African slaves is NOT congruent. If you're unsure about this statement, go visit the Trail of Tears.
I agree that Northerners weren't concerned with "freeing" slaves but what a common soilder felt about felt about blacks and the reason for the war are different topics. Wars aren't started by commoners
Much like the reason many kids join the military now; Its not delusions of grandeur, granting freedom to the oppressed people of the world. GI Bill, job experience and many other perks for joining the military.
YES it was. https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/reasons-secession Mississippi Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth… These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. Texas The servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations. South Carolina Those [Union] States have assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. Georgia That reason was [the North's] fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity. https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/reasons-secession
i was going to mention slavery being a cause of the texas revolution as well. its in the news right now as the authors of a book called "forget the alamo" were supposed to give a talk at the bullock history museum and got "cancelled" by dan patrick. https://www.texastribune.org/2021/07/01/texas-forget-the-alamo-book-event-canceled/ State museum canceled book event examining slavery’s role in Battle of the Alamo after Texas GOP leaders complained, authors say Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick confirmed on Twitter that he called for the event to be canceled. Abbott, Patrick and other GOP leaders are board members of the State Preservation Board, which oversees the Bullock museum.
theres direct quotes from stephen austin talking about how texas must remain a slave country and from santa anna in early 1836 saying how they were coming to texas in part to free the slaves. santa anna - "There is a considerable number of slaves in Texas also, who have been introduced by their masters under cover of certain questionable contracts, but who according to our laws should be free. Shall we permit those wretches to moan in chains any longer in a country whose kind laws protect the liberty of man without distinction of cast or color?" https://www.houstonchronicle.com/sp...founding-father-Stephen-F-Austin-15777058.php The Texas rebels included the following in their Constitution: “All persons of color who were slaves for life previous to their emigration to Texas, and who are now held in bondage, shall remain in the like state of servitude... Congress shall pass no laws to prohibit emigrants from bringing their slaves into the Republic with them, and holding them by the same tenure by which such slaves were held in the United States; nor shall Congress have the power to emancipate slaves; nor shall any slave holder be allowed to emancipate his or her slave without the consent of Congress, unless he or she shall send his or her slave or slaves without the limits of the Republic. . . . No free person of African descent, either in whole or in part, shall be permitted to reside permanently in the Republic, without the consent of Congress. . . .”
just came across this other santa anna letter, which i had never seen before... Greater still is the astonishment of the civilized world to see the United States maintain the institution of slavery with its cruel laws to support it and propagate it, at a time when the other nations of the world have agreed to cooperate in the philanthropic enterprise of eradicating this blot and shame of the human race. Don Lorenzo de Zavala in his Trip to the United States, a work which he seems to have written to laud them to the stars while depreciating his country to the lowest depths, at a time when perhaps he was already meditating his dark treason, cannot resist the natural instinct of repulsion inspired by the contrast of the humane and truly liberal policy of Mexico and the cruel and sanguinary one of the United States in regard to the slaves. "In crossing from the Mexican Republic to the states of our sister Republic," says Zavala, "the philosopher cannot help but feel the contrast presented by the two countries, nor can he fail to experience a grateful feeling for those who abolished this degrading traffic in human flesh, removing from our midst every vestige of so humiliating a spectacle of misery." As a matter of fact, without having proclaimed as pompously as the United States the rights of man, we have respected them better by abolishing all distinctions of class or race and considering as our brothers all creatures created by our common father. The land speculators of Texas have tried to convert it into a mart of human flesh where the slaves of the south might be sold and others from Africa might be introduced, since it is not possible to do it directly through the United States. "It seems," says Mrs. Trollope, "that it is a general and deep-rooted opinion throughout the United States that the black race cannot be trusted. According to the prevailing opinion of the country, fear is the only force that moves a slave. It is not strange, therefore, that these poor wretches should act in keeping with such a policy." This mutual distrust, this reciprocal fear between master and slave will some day result in the freedom of more than three million men, a fact to which the thinking men of the neighboring republic are not blind….. What will be the course followed by the United States? To maintain and encourage this institution as long as possible and when the fatal hour of destiny arrives which is to destroy this tyrannous and opprobrious system, to treat them as the Indians, driving them into Mexican territory also…. It is upon Texas and perhaps upon New Mexico and the two Californias that the anxious eyes of those who even now are giving their attention to the future destinies of the colored race rest. As in the United States nothing is done without a preconceived plan, and since everybody works by common accord as if by an admirable instinct for the realization of the ends pursued, it is incredible that the slow working out of the means by which some day certain difficulties whose transcendental importance has been fully realized will be solved should have been ignored in their reckoning. Thus we see the concurrence of an infinite number of interests of the United States converging for the stimulation of their policy of expansion https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtid=3&psid=3657
Dan Patrick. You have to be a scumbag to serve a scumbag. I always find actual history---what truly happened---more interesting than the truths we choose to accept (COUGH January 6th COUGH). I'm not in the "woke" generation. I don't want to change history to suit us. But, you know, Columbus tortured and enslaved the indigenous, yes? Even those who served under and around him complained to the Spanish crown about him. But he gets his own holiday? But your Dan Patricks want to make it a culture war. Because, you know, liberals. (Will go to hell when Jesus comes back anyway.)
after patrick cancelled the authors of the book it ended up making the amazon best-seller list and its now on its 3rd printing. they should send him a bottle of tequila! https://jasonstanford.substack.com/...u8IsABipvO1DiflGxEUgNHqZS-7NSIL_XzOEWUqE_B-5A Why thank Patrick for censoring our book? The ham fisted repression drew national attention and launched Forget the Alamo from the 500s on Amazon’s rankings to as high as 17. A weekend long, our book has been outselling Bill Clinton and James Patterson, Matthew McConaughey, George Orwell, who probably never imagined a wannabe dictator like Patrick, and Stephen King, who most assuredly has. My Washington Post oped about getting canceled trend on Twitter. Penguin ordered a second printing, and then a third. And then on Tuesday, we got the strangest news: Amazon was sold out of Forget the Alamo. Dan Patrick had turned our book into the new toilet paper. We broke the internet. Thank goodness he didn’t allow Bryan and Chris to speak to 300 people on a Zoom call hosted by the state history museum.
Both notions that the South left from the Union because of slavery and the North didn't fight because of some pure altruistic notion of freeing slaves can be true at the same time.
Lincoln wrote in 1862, "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that." So yes Lincoln and the rest of the Union's primary concern was saving the Union and not freeing the slaves. It was only as the war progressed that freeing the slaves became more important. That was the view of the North. The view of the South though was that slavery was essential to their being so while it was about states rights states rights was important because of slavery. This is why I feel that whether Lincoln existed or not the Civil War would've been fought. As long as some states had slavery and others didn't leading to a vast cultural and economic differences that was going to lead to conflict.
