the Civil War

Back in eighth grade, I had this American History teacher that was awful for a multitude of reasons.  He never gave feedback on low scores, never taught the class any history, he expected us to do project after project with no guidance, and he tried to argue that the sun was not a star.  One of the things he was most passionate about was the argument that the American Civil War was not about slavery; it was about states rights.  At the time, we were all mindless middle schoolers with no real understanding about what that meant but it was different and different must be right.  As it turns out, this idea that the Civil War was not about slavery is a relatively common one on various parts of the internet.  To those that argue that the Civil War is about state's rights, I offer this one question to you.  A state’s right to what?  Secede from the Union?  Why would they want to secede?  They wanted the right to own slaves.  Given the various laws, compromises, and arguments in the legislative branch before this point and the secession convention documents directly talking about slavery, it is far fetched to even imply that slavery was not a major issue for the Civil War.   

Before we get into the discussion of state’s rights, let’s take a look at the issues Congress was trying to fix before the war.  Wars do not simply just happen overnight.  Tensions build up over time through differences.  In the early 1800’s, Congress was relatively balanced between slave states and free states.  This ensured that no one could try to force laws regarding the abolishment or expansion of slavery through.  No progress either way could be made so everyone was overall unhappy.  However, as we continued to expand westward, more states wanted to be admitted to the Union.  Missouri wanted to be admitted as a slave state, which would upset the balance in the Senate.  The Missouri Compromise was made so Maine could be accepted as its own free-state.  The compromise also stated that the 36 30 line would be drawn.  Any states that wanted to be accepted into the Union above the line will become free-states and anyone below it would be slave-states.  Eventually, California wanted to be admitted into the Union as a free-state.  After a lot of debate, it was decided that California could be admitted as a free-state as long as there would be no more slavery transactions in DC and fugitive slave laws would be strengthened.   

Eventually, the Kansas-Nebraska Act was passed and erased the original Missouri Compromise line.  People in each state would vote if they would be a slave state or a free state.  The compromise also gave a bunch of land to slave states and allowed slavery to continue expanding.  Kansas was the first state to be added under this new law.  Now that the people decided if slavery would be permitted in Kansas, people rushed to move to Kansas.  Abolitionists and slave owners moved into Kansas in large numbers and started a string of violence that is now known as Bleeding Kansas.  When the election took place, massive amounts of voter fraud was found.  People would go to multiple towns and vote multiple times, but this fraud was ignored.  Kansas would vote for slavery and punish people that interfered with slavery to death.  Eventually this would be reversed in Kansas when it returned to the Union as a free state.  The violence in Kansas would later be viewed as the prelude to the Civil War by historians.  Two groups of people fighting to decide if people should be allowed to have their freedom stripped from them based on the color of their skin.  This fight was not about taxation, the economy, or states rights.  It was about the spread of slavery.   

Eventually, Abraham Lincoln would win the election of 1860 with 40% of the popular vote in a 4-way race.  Despite Lincoln’s speeches stating that he had no intention on abolishing slavery, many southern newspapers claimed that he did and continued to fuel propaganda and fear into the southern states.  After the election, South Carolina would secede from the union.  Mississippi, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas would later join them.  

There were also a few attempts at bringing everyone back to the Union at the Washington Peace Conference.  The Border State Plan wanted to reestablish the Missouri Compromise line and to keep the ban on slavery north of that line.  Then a constitutional amendment can be made to protect slavery where it already exists.  The Crittenden Compromise was very similar to this idea but would also ban slavery north of the line with an amendment.  The Peace Conference ultimately suggested these plans with the addition that new territory must be approved by senators from slave and free states.  None of these plans would be implemented and peace would not be kept.  However, note what is absent from these plans.  There were no talks from either side about state’s rights in the Union, economic issues, or any other distracting issue.  They were trying to figure out what to do about slavery.  Their main concern was with slavery.   

When each state seceded, they each had a convention with a document outlining why they decided to secede from the Union.  On January 26th, 1861, Mississippi made “A Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Indue and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi From the Federal Union” in which it said  

“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 the commerce of the earth...These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. “ 

Mississippi’s document is focused on the fight against slavery from the north.  There is very little discussion outside of the impacts of the abolition of slavery.   

Georgia’s “Report on Causes for Secession” makes a similar claim that “For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slaveholding confederate States, with reference to the subject of African slavery”.  Virginia’s Secession Convention stated that “African slavery is a vital part of the social system of the States” and that any interference with the practice was “offensive and dangerous”.   

These documents show us the reasoning behind the secessions.  They were not concerned with state’s rights as much as they are with preserving their ability to own and practice slavery.  Any discussion about state’s rights is meant to justify their secession and not a root cause of their secession.   

If we want to look more into what the confederacy believed after it was formed, we can look at the Cornerstone Speech by the Vice President of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens.  In there he says  

“Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite 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. 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. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.” 

This part from his speech shows that the Confederacy was about the idea that “the negro is not equal to the white man” and that idea justified them treating other humans as slaves.  It was not built on the idea that the federal government was too powerful.  It was built on the rejection of the idea that slavery was immoral. 

Going back to my eighth-grade history teacher for a minute, was he right?  Was the Civil War all about the states’ rights to secede from the Union?  It is only true when you fail to look at the greater picture.  All of the compromises, lines, and debates before the War focused on slavery.  The peace conferences tried to appease states by limiting slavery.  The documents outlying why many states left the Union revolve their argument around their right to own slaves.  Sure they were fighting for state’s rights.  The right to own slaves.   In history, it is important to look at in context of other events before and after as they can say a lot more about an event than the event itself.  

Alexander, Stephens. “Cornerstone Speech.” American Battlefield Trust, https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/cornerstone-speech. 

 Down below are some of the secession convention documents, which I highly suggest reading if you want to understand more about the Confederate States.