A Thoughtful Retrospective from the Author of
Conveyance
Would the Civil War
have happened without slavery?
The consensus of opinions has suggested that “without slavery
the South would not have been the agricultural juggernaut that
it became.”
Revisionist historians have been quick to conclude that the Civil
War was about slavery. It was. But not initially. In fact, it
was not officially a war objective until 1863.
Midway in 1862, following Federal defeat at the Second Battle
of Bull Run, things were looking bleak for the Union. There was
growing concern that England and France might recognize the Confederacy.
There were economic reasons to do so. The Union blockade was impacting
Britain’s textile industry to the extent that the mills were shutting
down, due to want of Cotton. Millworkers were starving.
The Confederacy Looked Like a Winner
British Prime Minister, Lord David Palmerston held great respect
for CSA President, Jefferson Davis. He had publicly lauded Davis’s
overall military experience, knowledge and competence. There was
also outrage concerning Union stoppage of the English commerce
clipper, “The Trent,” for purposefully arresting Confederate ambassadors
headed for England and France. For weeks, U.S. war with England
looked imminent.
Palmerston was a careful man. He decided to hedge his bets, suggesting
that the South needed “one more victory” before gaining England’s
recognition and subsequent military assistance. At that time the
House of Lords favored recognition. While the House of Commons
still opposed it, there was growing concern with the devastating
effect the war was having on average British citizens, such as
the textile mill workers. There was little feedback coming from
the Crown, due to a recent death in the royal family.
Summer 1862 was the Confederacy’s high-water mark. Robert E.
Lee had won impressive victories at Seven-Days and Second Bull
Run against armies that greatly outnumbered his own. In the West,
CSA Generals Braxton Bragg and Edmund Kirby Smith had occupied
key parts of Kentucky, with sights on Louisville and the eventual
kill. Abraham Lincoln concluded that “to lose Kentucky would be
to lose the entire game.”
Emancipation Proclamation Provided Double War Objective
Up until then, the Union war objective had been “to preserve
the Union.” Lincoln was not in a hurry to bring slavery into the
discussion. He reminded Congressional counterparts that slavery
was protected by the Constitution. His biggest worry was European
involvement. British recognition would have resulted in the British
Navy’ s probable destruction of the Union blockade.
The President’s reasoning suggested that if the decree was issued
prematurely, it would be seen as an act of desperation. The Emancipation
Proclamation called for freeing ONLY slaves who resided in states
at war with the United States. Slave states that did not secede
were not included.
Lee’s original goal was to cross the Potomac in route to Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania. Upon arrival, he would speak to the Pennsylvania
House of Representatives, offering a peaceful, yet permanent separation.
However, two unexpected occurrences took place.
Only 40,000 Confederates crossed the river. Nearly that same
number stayed in Virginia, objecting to the invasion. Then, Lee’s
orders were accidentally lost and later recovered and given to
Union Commander, George B. McClellan. In the end, McClellan’s
90,000 men could manage no better than a draw when confronting
Lee. But it forced Lee to return to Virginia with greatly reduced
numbers following the devastating Battle of Antietam that took
place September 17th, 1862.
The Confederacy managed two small victories in Kentucky, at Richmond
and Munfordville. Yet they failed to follow up on what would have
likely been a “victory without firing a shot” at Louisville. Instead,
the mercurial Bragg withdrew from the state after an inconclusive
battle at Perryville. Even today, “armchair generals” question
his decision.
The Emancipation Proclamation Prevented English and French Intervention
Effective January 1st, 1863, the Union was fighting to free the
slaves. Lincoln knew that neither European nation would participate
in a war that supported the continuation of slavery. The proclamation
ensured that the war would remain between North and South.
The Emancipation Proclamation is often confused with the 13th
Amendment, which constitutionally ended slavery. This took place
in 1865 following the South’s surrender. Unbeknownst to most is
the fact that slavery was gradually dying on its own! Many slaveholders
faced the realization that the institution was simply too expensive
to maintain. When compared to what Northern factory workers were
being paid by the factory owners, there was credence in this conclusion.
Some had secretly emancipated their slaves, while continuing to
pay taxes on them, opting for discretion over tax savings. Most
states levied taxes on slaves.
Was Slavery the Primary Cause of the Civil War?
The institution of slavery was one of the causes but not the
sole cause! The South wanted to sell its cotton and other agricultural
products such as sugar, rice and tobacco to England and France.
They wanted to buy consumer goods ranging from clothing to coal
oil lamps from those countries. Compared to the same products
produced in the North, they were of better quality and were less
expensive. Rather than making their factories more efficient while
reducing their profit margins, the New England states used the
electorate to unlevel the playing field in their favor. Their
enacting high protective tariffs hurt their Southern neighbors
to the extent that the South simply wanted out of the Union.
Slavery was seen in the North more as a moral and ethical issue.
That the South’s economy would be impacted was of little concern
to them. Lincoln saw it as nothing short of a backdoor wealth
transfer. He proposed a $400 payment for each slave emancipated.
Shouldering the Blame
Lincoln was deeply concerned on how the recently emancipated
slaves would find their footing in post-slavery America. He acknowledged
that even in the North, they were nothing short of second-class
citizens. He proposed a mass relocation of freedmen to what is
now Belize. This was greeted with minimal enthusiasm, both from
Congress and the freedmen themselves.
Decades passed. Both North and South accepted an 1895 SCOTUS
ruling, “Plessy versus Ferguson,” which set the standard of “separate
but equal.” The impact of that ill-advised ruling continued well
into the 1960s.
Today, it has become fashionable to assign blame to former Confederate
military icons and politicians. Statues have been eradicated.
Flags have been banned. Meanwhile, opponents of these measures
painfully remind us that “history cannot be sanitized.” The inability
of either side to take ownership in what will always be considered
America’s greatest tragedy escapes us all.
|