While it is definitely true to say that slavery was not the only issue that led to the Civil War, the more I read about the arguments that led to secession the harder it is to argue that it was a secondary cause, in the sense that it was a secondary consideration.
If you look at the wording of the resolutions that led to the secession of the 11 Southern states, like Georgia, Virginia, South Carolina, among others, while it is clear that they were asserting the rights of the states to choose, the main right they were asserting was the right to perpetuate the institution of slavery. To that end, Bleeding Kansas happened, for example. Lincoln was hated by the South precisely because he was seen as an abolitionist, and his election in 1860 precipitated Seccession.
While it is also true that only 6 percent of Southerners actually owned slaves, and most Confederate soldiers did not own slaves, this statistic is misleading because that 6 percent consituted most of the Southern agricultural economy, and also its political path. 92 percent of the Southern population were slaves - one cannot reasonably argue that slavery was not important to the Southern economy, which thrived due to free labor, nor can one reasonably argue that the economy as it stood would have been imperiled considerably if slavery were to be abolished.
The assertion of the Civil War as a primary assertion of State's Rights is a post-war justification, as is the arguments about legality of secession under the 10th Amendment and so on. The Lost Cause argument was appealing because it both soothed Southern pride as well as fed into the guilt that the North felt over the excesses of Reconstruction and agreeing with such arguments hastened the healing process between North and South.
I understand the difficulty many Southerners may have in realizing or admitting that their ancestors fought for a cause that from today's perspective is rephrensible, or even obscene. The role of history, though, is not to adjudge the rightness or wrongness of the reasons. One might argue that it was a product of their times, and of their thinking, and they were simply obsolete and did not realize it, or unenlightened.
Ultimately, however, that's not quite the point - the point is that by relegating the issue of slavery to a secondary position which it does not deserve, one is effectively distorting the truth of what happened. And the issue of slavery has been swept aside for way too long.
And truth should be truth, to the end of reckoning.
no subject
If you look at the wording of the resolutions that led to the secession of the 11 Southern states, like Georgia, Virginia, South Carolina, among others, while it is clear that they were asserting the rights of the states to choose, the main right they were asserting was the right to perpetuate the institution of slavery. To that end, Bleeding Kansas happened, for example. Lincoln was hated by the South precisely because he was seen as an abolitionist, and his election in 1860 precipitated Seccession.
While it is also true that only 6 percent of Southerners actually owned slaves, and most Confederate soldiers did not own slaves, this statistic is misleading because that 6 percent consituted most of the Southern agricultural economy, and also its political path. 92 percent of the Southern population were slaves - one cannot reasonably argue that slavery was not important to the Southern economy, which thrived due to free labor, nor can one reasonably argue that the economy as it stood would have been imperiled considerably if slavery were to be abolished.
The assertion of the Civil War as a primary assertion of State's Rights is a post-war justification, as is the arguments about legality of secession under the 10th Amendment and so on. The Lost Cause argument was appealing because it both soothed Southern pride as well as fed into the guilt that the North felt over the excesses of Reconstruction and agreeing with such arguments hastened the healing process between North and South.
I understand the difficulty many Southerners may have in realizing or admitting that their ancestors fought for a cause that from today's perspective is rephrensible, or even obscene. The role of history, though, is not to adjudge the rightness or wrongness of the reasons. One might argue that it was a product of their times, and of their thinking, and they were simply obsolete and did not realize it, or unenlightened.
Ultimately, however, that's not quite the point - the point is that by relegating the issue of slavery to a secondary position which it does not deserve, one is effectively distorting the truth of what happened. And the issue of slavery has been swept aside for way too long.
And truth should be truth, to the end of reckoning.