A bad argument about the causes of the Civil War

 As mentioned in my last post, Dave Evans of Georgia took issue with my characterization of the Confederate flag as the “slaveowning banner.”

I should point out that Mr. Evans isn’t alone in thinking this. Even comparatively-normal Texas has this completely backwards monument to the Southern Confederacy on the lawn of the Capitol. “Confederate dead,” it says, “Died for state rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The people of the South, animated by the spirit of 1776, to preserve their rights, withdrew from the federal compact in 1861. The North resorted to coercion. The South, against overwhelming numbers and resources, fought until exhausted.”

So it is a common belief that the war was about something other than preserving the abomination of slavery. But Mr. Evans presents one of the silliest possible arguments in favor of that proposition. Over to him:

If it really had been “all about” slavery then why did Lincoln endorse and get the Northern dominated Congress to pass the Corwin Amendment which would have enshrined slavery in the US constitution making it irrevocable? Why did the original 7 seceding states not readily agree to re-enter the union with irrevocable slavery protected by the US Constitution?

The Corwin Amendment was a strange constitutional amendment that made it out of Congress in the dying days of the Buchanan Administration. A last ditch effort to prevent secession, it banned any future constitutional amendments to alter slavery: “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any state, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said state.”

It was strongly backed by William Seward and President-elect Lincoln endorsed it in a letter. Why would they do that if they hated slavery?

Simple: they knew the Corwin Amendment would be toothless. In 1861 there were 15 slave states. That was enough to do a pretty good job of preventing any anti-slavery amendments to the Constitution, at least until the number of free states hit 45 ... which was not going to happen anytime soon. (There were 19 free states at the beginning of the war.) Even you think that Delaware and Maryland were going to abolish slavery in the immediate future, then the abomination of slavery would still be safe from constitutional amendments until the number of free states reached 39, even without the Corwin Amendment.

In other words, the Corwin amendment was complete bullshit. It prevented Congress and the states from doing what the current constitutional set-up already prevented them from doing. Devoted abolitionists knew that they were giving away precisely nothing by endorsing it. What it was, was a political Hail Mary pass ... maybe the secessionists would be dumb enough to be conciliated, even though it did nothing to guarantee the expansion of slavery and it did nothing to prevent Congress and the free states from continuing to whittle away at forced labor short of changing the Constitution. 

The South did not fall for it.

There was a real “compromise” proposal out there that would have satisfied the South: the Crittenden compromise. It allowed for the expansion of slavery and insured that escaped slaves would not become automatically free in the North. The Republicans were not having any of that. So it foundered.

Note what nobody offered to try to make peace: a deal to reduce tariffs. Not even an agreement to, say, turn over tariff revenues to state governments rather than fund internal improvements. That is because secession had nothing to do with trade policy or infrastructure spending. 

I doubt that much of this is new, although most of the easily accessible stuff fails to point out why the Corwin Amendment conceded nothing to the South. So I hope that I have added at least a little value. If not, enjoy the pictures of Austin!

Further thoughts always welcome.

Comments

[Dave Evans]

Firstly, I’m not “of” Georgia. I happen to be IN Georgia….right now. These are the kinds of errors one makes when attempting to use ad hominem arguments rather than sticking to the point. Now we move on to your rather weak attempts to tapdance away from the Corwin Amendment and Lincoln’s endorsement of it in his Inaugural Address.

Firstly, the Corwin Amendment was not merely endorsed by Lincoln in a letter. He in fact masterminded it and as the leader of the Republican party, pulled all the strings he could (successfully) to ensure its passage by the requisite supermajority through the Northern dominated Congress after the Southern delegation had withdrawn. He then endorsed it in his inaugural address.

The Corwin Amendment as you pointed out, could not have been repealed except via another constitutional amendment. It explicitly protected slavery. Had there been any fears of the now totally Northern dominated federal government interfering with slavery on the part of Southerners, this certainly would have laid those fears to rest. Yet…..the original 7 states which seceded did not agree to return even should the Corwin Amendment be ratified.

Why?
If their real fears and concerns were about protecting slavery, why was this not sufficient to entice them to return? Why would they risk war and/or be willing to bear the costs of setting up a new country if their main concerns were already being addressed?

You then try the expansion of slavery gambit claiming that the Corwin Amendment did nothing to ensure the spread of slavery. Yet if the spread of slavery were their big concern, why secede? By seceding, those states were surrendering any and all claims to the western territories held by the US. There could be no spread of slavery into those territories under the very option they took. So obviously the spread of slavery was not very important to them. Otherwise there is simply no explanation for their secession.

You then claim that the Corwin Amendment did nothing to prevent Congress and the free states from “continuing to whittle away at forced labor”. This is patently false. Read the Corwin Amendment again. This is precisely what it prevented Congress from doing.

So…….numerous statements from Lincoln that he had no desire to interfere with slavery and did not believe he had the authority to interfere with slavery anyway…..the Corwin Amendment passed through Congress with the necessary supermajority and signed by the president enshrining slavery in the constitution and preventing Congress from doing anything to interfere with it…….yet 7 Southern States seceded anyway and would not agree to come back.

How can you reconcile this with your claim that “it was all about slavery”? You can’t.

What else was going on? The Morrill Tariff raised rates on many goods from 17% to 36% initially before further increases jacked that all the way up to 54%. Southerners had already seen the devastating effects on their economy of massive tariffs a generation earlier – ie the Tariff of Abominations and the Nullification Crisis which it provoked.

Numerous commentators North, South and Foreign all emphasized the importance of the tariffs and unequal government expenditures. Political leaders on both sides repeatedly emphasized the importance of the tariffs and government expenditures. The Georgia Declaration of causes went on at length about both the tariffs as well as the grossly unequal government expenditures. Robert Barnwell Rhett’s Address attached to South Carolina’s declaration of causes and sent out with it went on in exhaustive detail about the tariffs and unequal government expenditures…..yet you claim this could not possibly have had anything to do with secession or the war and that it was really “all about slavery” – and proceed to make numerous ad hominem arguments directed at me for disagreeing with you. Somebody is obviously feeling quite defensive about the very slanted version of history he was taught being questioned.………

[Noel Maurer]

Evans, dude, this is getting very old. Let me repeat. The North did not have the votes to pass a constitutional amendment altering slavery in the South. The Corwin amendment was therefore a promise to not do what the North could not do.

Kapeesh? When you get that, then we can proceed. Your questions, be assured, they have answers.

I will admit that I am enjoying this immensely. Although with a tinge of sadness. And a tinge of even greater sadness if you did indeed grow up outside the South.

[Dave Evans]

I don't disagree with that. Not only did the Northern states not have the votes to abolish slavery where it existed, they had shown utterly no inclination to do so.

That said, what you don't seem to get is that the 7 original seceding states did not go for any compromise proposals that did protect slavery and those proposals were certainly made. Ergo.....slavery or the protection thereof was obviously not what was motivating them to leave or to go to war to preserve their independence.

So if it was not slavery what was it? What did their fathers and grandfathers secede from the British Empire for? Several of them said it quite openly, and it wasn't slavery.

I too am enjoying this immensely. I have quite enjoyed watching you flail around helplessly with weak attempts at ad hominem arguments directed toward somebody you know nothing about - other than that I am posting from Georgia.

[Noel Maurer]

OK, now we are getting somewhere. I am looking forward to your admission that your ancestors were bad people. (So were mine. Like I said, they include Stalinists. And given Spanish ancestry, probably much more unsavory stuff.)

So, with the Corwin Amendment finally off the table, we can move to the Crittenden Compromise. I am tempted to elaborate, but I think it unnecessary.

[Noel Maurer]

Before my kids destroy my computer, I will admit that I do not know for sure that you are of white southern ancestry. But it seems the way to bet.

[Dave Evans]

My ancestors - including those who fought for each side as well as those who were not here yet - were people of their time. I don't know them and am in no position to judge them. I can tell you that as of the 1860 census, none of them were slaveowners like 94.37% of the total free population of the Southern states as of the 1860 census.....though if you go back far enough I'm sure we all have some in the woodpile we'd rather were not there.

Its clear that Northern politicians though Southerners were seceding over slavery as evidenced by them offering protections of slavery and repeated statements that they had no intention of interfering with it.

Its also clear that this is not what was motivating most Southerners as evidenced by them not going for any of those proposed compromises since they would all have left in place the very things that really did touch every wallet in the Southern states - the economic issues.....the very things their fathers and grandfathers had seceded from the British Empire over. A massive hike in the tariff rate was economically ruinous for them and they knew it having already gone through that experience a generation earlier.

So sorry....this war was not some noble moral crusade as some would like to protray it. It was fought over MONEY....like the vast majority of all other wars in history. Abolition was the only good outcome of the war - it was not the main issue for either side no matter how morally troubling that is for us with our modern sensibilities.

[Randy McDonald]

"Its also clear that this is not what was motivating most Southerners as evidenced by them not going for any of those proposed compromises"

Actually, yes. If you go by multiple statements from state legislators and leading politicians of the Confederacy, going right up to Alexander Stephens' Cornerstone Speech, not only slavery but white supremacy were the main reasons for creating a new country separate from the United States. "Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition."

It may well be that 94% of Confederate whites were not slaveowners. It can also easily be the case that many of this 94% quite likely the idea of being in a position of unquestioned dominance over the non-white slaves they lived near.

[James Davis Nicoll]

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

If they weren't leaving over slavery, they sure mentioned it a lot.

[Noel Maurer]

Dave, it gets worse for you, because the Revolution was not fought over taxes. You see, taxes went up after independence, rather radically, and everyone knew that they would. Rather, the Revolution was fought because the radical Whigs in the colonies rightfully thought that London had broken a constitutional settlement by taxing them to pay for their own defense. That meant they had no rights in the imperial system, at least by their lights. But it was common knowledge that independence would mean higher taxes and more trade restrictions than remaining within the Empire.

[Noel Maurer]

You've also clearly not thought through the fact that nobody appears to have said, "Reduce tariffs and we stay in the Union."

Or that California and Minnesota stayed on the Union side.

Sorry, man. Your ancestors who fought for the CSA were assholes even by the standards of 1861.

(BTW, this ain't about you anymore. We're piling in for the sake of our other readers.)

[Carlos]

This turkey isn't arguing in intellectual good faith. That's been clear from his first post. He's been repeating boilerplate arguments from white Southern nationalist sites, the same way a Nazi apologist repeats crap from Stormfront -- and actually, some of this stuff is found on Stormfront, too, since there's overlap in those worldviews.

Case in point, his "none of them were slaveowners like 94.37% of the total free population of the Southern states as of the 1860 census." As though you had to own a slave to fight for slavery! I'm insulted that someone thinks that argument is convincing. And then he follows up with some snark about the "woodpile", which of course comes from the phrase "nigger in the woodpile," whose origin is known to anyone with a passing interest in the language of the Civil War. I bet he thought that was a real knee-slapper.

Upshot: this guy is a predictable and not very inventive troll who has admitted to baiting you for his personal amusement. Why let him take up valuable air on your blog? He's enjoying wasting your time. And he's wasting mine, since I can't take it out of him with a horsewhip, which is what he deserves. (And see, Noel, a positive use for the smartphone: I would film it, and watch it over and over.)

[Noel Maurer]

I didn't know that phrase, Carlos! Pretty vile.

Anyway, I am amused that the dude can't seem to recognize that nobody but nobody said, "Cut tariffs and we stay in the Union." Nor did any of the remaining slave states secede between the passage of the first Revenue Act of 1861 and the outbreak of hostilities following Fort Sumter.

Oh, well.

But there are people who come here who might not know the details. It's worth pointing out how risible it is to claim that the South seceded over anything other than slavery.

Which is not to say that the North fought the war for abolition. It didn't.

[Noel Maurer]

Readers: southern leaders didn't reject the Crittenden Compromise. President-elect Lincoln did.

And as we pointed out earlier, first Revenue Act of 1861 passed after the slaver states seceded. If they hadn't, it would not have. And nobody said, "We'll secede if you pass it."

I suppose Mr. Evans is a troll. But that makes me sad.

It's like finding someone who still thinks Stalin was an okay fellow. "You know, Sovietizing eastern Europe, that was just about security, no other way to do it but to establish Moscow-run Communist one-party states. After all, some people even said that security was the reason after Stalin did it! So they must be right. And it was 1945, a different time. Who am I to judge?"

[Noel Maurer]

Actually, Carlos, I think I know who this fellow is. If I'm right, he's not a troll.

He holds a very strange and inexplicable opinion, however. Even more inexplicable if he is who I think he is.

[Noel Maurer]

By the way, readers, there is an answer to the query: "If secession was to allow for the expansion of slavery inside the United States, then why secede?"

[doug]

Notably, the Confederate States did *not* "any and all claims to the western territories held by the US," in fact one of the first orders of Confederate business was to lay claim to what is now Arizona and New Mexico. Also, one may well ask - if the tariff was such a big deal, you would think that a first order of business would be for the Confederates to reduce the tariff. However, they left the existing rates in effect for some time before getting around to reducing them. (Of course, by this time Confederate imports had been drastically reduced by the Union blockade, so the point was rather moot, except as a propaganda ploy aimed at Europe.)

The Confederates seceded to protect slavery, the Union fought to halt secession, the Civil War was about slavery. This is not complicated.

[doug]

*that is the Confederates "did not 'forfeit' any and all claims.."

[Libearls Destroy America]

You fucking lying Libtard yankee whore.

If the Corwin amendment was as toothless as you say than why did the slave states feel the need to secede?

Why not just bear with Lincoln?

[andrea]

Happy to get this one