Slavery was not the cause of the Civil War - as written by an American in 1863.

I have in my hands an original copy of J.T. Headley's Scholar's Choice award winning book The Great Rebellion; A History of the Civil War in the United States. First printing 1863, 1 of 2 volumes published by subscription only from Hurlbut, Williams and Company, Hartford, Connecticut. On page 10 in the Preface Headley lays out the causes of Civil War in Republics and how they were either to throw off despotism or were of a political character. He states: (underlining mine, italics original to text)

Ours (civil war) is of a mixed character, and hence in some respects unlike all others that have preceded it; but like all Civil Wars in republics, it sprung from a faction who sought only political power. Those make a great mistake who suppose it grew out of a desire merely to perpetuate slavery. Slavery was used as a means to an end - a bugbear to frighten the timid into obedience, and a rallying cry for the ignorant, deluded masses. The accursed lust for power lay at the bottom of it.

The entire North, including the Republican party, had repeatedly declared, in the most emphatic manner, that it had no intention to interfere with slavery in the states where it existed; for they had no right to do so under the Constitution. It's perpetuity was therefore conceded, until the states themselves should get rid of it. Hence, the southern conspirators had no fear on that point, but they knew they could not carry the people with them unless they convinced them that slavery was to be assailed in their very homes, to be followed by a servile insurrection. They desired, of course, to extend slavery, because in that way alone they could extend their power. The perpetuity of slavery was a necessary consequence of this; because the power they sought to obtain was founded on it - it was the chief cornerstone. Here is where the mistake is made in getting at the true cause of the rebellion.

The whole question may be stated thus: Southern politicians saw in the rapid increase of free states, both in number and in population, and the deep hostility to the admission of any more slave states, that the power they had so long wielded in the Government would be broken. The only course left them was to set up an independent government. Though weak at first, slave states could be added, as circumstances should determine. To effect their purpose they would seize on the tariff or slavery, or any thing that would unite the South. Calhoun tried the former and failed, they, the latter and succeeded. Thus it will be seen that the perpetuity and extension of slavery is a necessary consequence of the present rebellion, if successful; not it's first cause, - just as free trade would have followed the attempt of Calhoun to take the South out of the Union, had it succeeded.

Certain Southern leaders in league with the newspapers of the day waged a fear campaign against the people. The recent events of John Browns raid on Harper's Ferry and the bloodshed in Kansas alarmed the average Southerner. Nat Turner's rebellion and the genocide of all White people in Haiti gave further historical precedents to elicit fear.

One would have to be nearly blind to not see the parallels between 1860 and the current United States. A contentious election has divided the people along racial lines instead of geographic, threats to the President's life, the refusal of one side to recognize his legitimacy; we are at the crossroads once again and will either split as a nation or fight for control unless cooler and wiser heads prevail. It's still being done in the name of political power; white supremacy being the substitute for slavery. It was Democrats that started the Confederacy and once again it's Democrats looking to discredit their opposition through demonizing them.

Understanding the lie that the Civil War was not fought over slavery but for political power is critical. The narrative of the left is built largely upon this idea and is driving the current rush to tear down Confederate monuments across the country. The military leaders and men of the South didn't start the war; it's unfair to place the blame on them for it. They gave their lives and fortunes for their country like all patriotic Americans will do. The past can harm no one, my suggestion is to leave history alone and work together on larger problems such as unemployment, poverty, drug incarceration instead of treatment. illegal immigration, the National debt and finding a meaningful place in society for all as well as a shared vision of what we want to become.

On Dec. 24, 1860, delegates at South Carolina’s secession convention adopted a “Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union.” It noted “an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery” and protested that Northern states had failed to “fulfill their constitutional obligations” by interfering with the return of fugitive slaves to bondage. Slavery, not states’ rights, birthed the Civil War. South Carolina was further upset that New York no longer allowed “slavery transit.” In the past, if Charleston gentry wanted to spend August in the Hamptons, they could bring their cook along. No longer — and South Carolina’s delegates were outraged. In addition, they objected that New England states let black men vote and tolerated abolitionist societies. According to South Carolina, states should not have the right to let their citizens assemble and speak freely when what they said threatened slavery.

Link

I can match the words of one man too.

history truly does repeat itself

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
I have in my hands an original copy of J.T. Headley's Scholar's Choice award winning book The Great Rebellion; A History of the Civil War in the United States. First printing 1863, 1 of 2 volumes published by subscription only from Hurlbut, Williams and Company, Hartford, Connecticut. On page 10 in the Preface Headley lays out the causes of Civil War in Republics and how they were either to throw off despotism or were of a political character. He states: (underlining mine, italics original to text)

Ours (civil war) is of a mixed character, and hence in some respects unlike all others that have preceded it; but like all Civil Wars in republics, it sprung from a faction who sought only political power. Those make a great mistake who suppose it grew out of a desire merely to perpetuate slavery. Slavery was used as a means to an end - a bugbear to frighten the timid into obedience, and a rallying cry for the ignorant, deluded masses. The accursed lust for power lay at the bottom of it.

The entire North, including the Republican party, had repeatedly declared, in the most emphatic manner, that it had no intention to interfere with slavery in the states where it existed; for they had no right to do so under the Constitution. It's perpetuity was therefore conceded, until the states themselves should get rid of it. Hence, the southern conspirators had no fear on that point, but they knew they could not carry the people with them unless they convinced them that slavery was to be assailed in their very homes, to be followed by a servile insurrection. They desired, of course, to extend slavery, because in that way alone they could extend their power. The perpetuity of slavery was a necessary consequence of this; because the power they sought to obtain was founded on it - it was the chief cornerstone. Here is where the mistake is made in getting at the true cause of the rebellion.

The whole question may be stated thus: Southern politicians saw in the rapid increase of free states, both in number and in population, and the deep hostility to the admission of any more slave states, that the power they had so long wielded in the Government would be broken. The only course left them was to set up an independent government. Though weak at first, slave states could be added, as circumstances should determine. To effect their purpose they would seize on the tariff or slavery, or any thing that would unite the South. Calhoun tried the former and failed, they, the latter and succeeded. Thus it will be seen that the perpetuity and extension of slavery is a necessary consequence of the present rebellion, if successful; not it's first cause, - just as free trade would have followed the attempt of Calhoun to take the South out of the Union, had it succeeded.

Certain Southern leaders in league with the newspapers of the day waged a fear campaign against the people. The recent events of John Browns raid on Harper's Ferry and the bloodshed in Kansas alarmed the average Southerner. Nat Turner's rebellion and the genocide of all White people in Haiti gave further historical precedents to elicit fear.

One would have to be nearly blind to not see the parallels between 1860 and the current United States. A contentious election has divided the people along racial lines instead of geographic, threats to the President's life, the refusal of one side to recognize his legitimacy; we are at the crossroads once again and will either split as a nation or fight for control unless cooler and wiser heads prevail. It's still being done in the name of political power; white supremacy being the substitute for slavery. It was Democrats that started the Confederacy and once again it's Democrats looking to discredit their opposition through demonizing them.

Understanding the lie that the Civil War was not fought over slavery but for political power is critical. The narrative of the left is built largely upon this idea and is driving the current rush to tear down Confederate monuments across the country. The military leaders and men of the South didn't start the war; it's unfair to place the blame on them for it. They gave their lives and fortunes for their country like all patriotic Americans will do. The past can harm no one, my suggestion is to leave history alone and work together on larger problems such as unemployment, poverty, drug incarceration instead of treatment. illegal immigration, the National debt and finding a meaningful place in society for all as well as a shared vision of what we want to become.

Your right. It was the fact that if they had to pay slaves they would be poor. It's exactly what happened.

a reply to: bknapple32

Here's what Ill say. The reasons are debated. There are numerous reasons. But to say slavery was not the cause.. Are you saying it was not THEE cause , or not a cause at all?

Cause imo it certainly played a part. where it lands in the top 3 reasons? I dont know.

Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens disagrees:

The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us; the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.

Wikiquote


and if he left any doubt ... he went on to say that ...

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. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day.

EDIT: I have always maintained the same argument ... that there was a constellation of political and economic concerns for the Civil War.

I was mistaken. It was about slavery and White Supremacy.

The Morrill Tariff was a major factor on the civil war. The north claimed it was ALL about slavery but that wasn't the case. Sure slavery was part of the reason (for the 6 percent that owed slaves) but it was not the whole story. Remember the victors write history.

Northern political dominance enabled Clay and his allies in Congress to pass a tariff averaging 35% late in 1824. This was the cause of economic boom in the North, but economic hardship and political agitation in the South. South Carolina was especially hard hit, the State’s exports falling 25% over the next two years. In 1828 in a demonstration of unabashed partisanship and unashamed greed the Northern dominated Congress raised the average tariff level to 50%. Despite strong Southern agitation for lower tariffs the Tariff of 1832 only nominally reduced the effective tariff rate and brought no relief to the South. These last two tariffs are usually termed in history as the Tariffs of Abomination.

U. S. tariff revenues already fell disproportionately on the South, accounting for 87% of the total even before the Morrill Tariff. While the tariff protected Northern industrial interests, it raised the cost of living and commerce in the South substantially. It also reduced the trade value of their agricultural exports to Europe. These combined to place a severe economic hardship on many Southern states. Even more galling was that 80% or more of these tax revenues were expended on Northern public works and industrial subsidies, thus further enriching the North at the expense of the South.

www.thetribunepapers.com...

a reply to: PlasticWizard

The 6 percent that ran the entire economy of the south.

They knew it would collapse with the end of slavery. Plain and simple.

1863 is nothing like 2017. Please stop watching the news. It's getting to you.

If you research it though, you'll see that SLAVERY was the cause of the civil war. We can blame Lincoln for officially starting it perhaps, but there were many tipping points or flashpoints that led to it, with Slavery at the core of all of them.

John Brown and his raid on Harpers Ferry.
Most declarations of succession listed slavery right on the document
the fights over the right to slavery in those territories that had not become states yet (kansas nebraska act for one example)
Nat turners slave rebellion

and a dozen others but at their core it's all about slavery and not really states rights.

originally posted by: bknapple32
a reply to: bknapple32

Here's what Ill say. The reasons are debated. There are numerous reasons. But to say slavery was not the cause.. Are you saying it was not THEE cause , or not a cause at all?

Cause imo it certainly played a part. where it lands in the top 3 reasons? I dont know.

The north didnt care about ending slavery, but freeing slaves to also fight there war was leverage against the south and beneficial to the north. But no, niether the north cared about freeing slaves. The reasons for the civil war starting had nothing to do with slavery. Without really going to a library and really learning i know there are those who will fight to the end against this just like they do about democrats being the southern states, or democrats starting the KKK, they refuse to learn the truth. The nazis have a closer relationship to the democrats, pfffft.

So the Confederacy wasn't going to perpetuate slavery but they made sure to cover slave owners rights in their Constitution. ARTICLE IV

(3) No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried 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 slave belongs,. or to whom such service or labor may be due.

(3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States

One would have to be nearly blind to not see the parallels between 1860 and the current United States.

You're right and like back then we have a bunch of racist white aholes that want to be in charge while crying they are being persecuted.

It was Republicans that started the Confederacy and once again it's Republicans looking to discredit their opposition through demonizing them.

I fixed it for you. People have a tendency to forget that after the civil rights act the Parties switched sides.

a reply to: luthier

Yeah cause the other 94 percent just sat there watching slaves do all the work and did nothing to earn an income. It was going to collapse with the tarrifs. Plenty of jobs back then had nothing to do with slaves but they were still being tariffed and It wasn't the South job to pay for the North. This is before income taxes too. The majority of the federal governments money came from tarrifs on the South.

And none of those issues talk about the economic power in the country at that time. The north, having abandoned slave labor as the cornerstone of its economy had rapidly industrialized while the south remain with its economy based on slavery. So many in the south realized that with the industrialization of the north their ability to produce weapons and a stronger economy would soon outstrip any ability that the South had to compete.
If we failed to take into account the industrial revolution and it's effect upon the nation at that time we cannot grasp the entire picture of the secession of the southern states

originally posted by: PlasticWizard
a reply to: luthier

Yeah cause the other 94 percent just sat there watching slaves do all the work and did nothing to earn an income. It was going to collapse with the tarrifs. Plenty of jobs back then had nothing to do with slaves but they were still being tariffed and It wasn't the South job to pay for the North. This is before income taxes too. The majority of the federal governments money came from tarrifs on the South.

So in your opinion the vast majority of state economy did not come from slave plantations? And yes the populations were very low compared to today...but hey why use facts.

Yes Lee and Davis were not racists. But they knew the economic impact and just wanted to do it slowly. It came down to slave labor not necessarily outright racism that cam later when there were less jobs as blacks worked for less.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
And none of those issues talk about the economic power in the country at that time. The north, having abandoned slave labor as the cornerstone of its economy had rapidly industrialized while the south remain with its economy based on slavery. So many in the south realized that with the industrialization of the north their ability to produce weapons and a stronger economy would soon outstrip any ability that the South had to compete.
If we failed to take into account the industrial revolution and it's effect upon the nation at that time we cannot grasp the entire picture of the secession of the southern states

Yes another good point but the south was the raw material and agriculture as well for the factories and food supplies.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

And you guys claim that people who want to remove symbols of hate are trying to re-write history???

LOL.

Here is a speech by the Vice President of the Confederacy.

Our new government is founded upon exactly this idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone 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. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth

Yeah...really had nothing to do with slavery or racism.

/eyeroll

Maybe it was the cause, maybe it wasn't....it's in the past.
One thing is for certain though...JT Headley will not be writing the book "A History of the 2nd Civil War in the United States 2017-2018"
Published around 2019-2020...it will be a short book because it will be a short war.
A brief synopsis - cover your eyes if you don't want to know the ending.......As the main antagonists, the Leftists lose.

THEY hate history like this...BUT

REMEMBER,the south were European sympathizers and wouldn't have HESITATED to incorporate their elitist values as well.
All the WHILE the poor guys caught fighting for their beliefs aren't to blame themselves.

originally posted by: RazorV66
Maybe it was the cause, maybe it wasn't....it's in the past.
One thing is for certain though...JT Headley will not be writing the book "A History of the 2nd Civil War in the United States 2017-2018"
Published around 2019-2020...it will be a short book because it will be a short war.
A brief synopsis - cover your eyes if you don't want to know the ending.......As the main antagonists, the Leftists lose.

The fact that you not only genuinely believe this but revel in the idea is disgusting.