History Lesson - Slavery in America

So, my post yesterday created a firestorm of comments about how the Civil War was not about slavery. Now, one may argue that the people who fought for the South believed in states rights. It is said that many Russians in WWII fought for Russia, not Stalin. It is well documented by the historian S. L. A. Marshall that, in battle, men fight for each other, not a cause. But arguing that the political elites of the South didn't lead their region into war over the issue of slavery is a dangerous misreading of history.

Prior to 1820

Slavery was a bone of contention between North and South as early as the Constitutional Convention of 1787. At that meeting, Congress was prohibited from banning the slave trade until 1808 and the Three Fifths compromise (de facto allowing the south to vote their slaves) was created. By 1820, the US Congress had made a decision that the South had to have parity in the Senate, resulting in the Compromise of 1820.

Texas and Alto (Upper) Mexico

The United States in the 19th Century was very expansionistic. Various schemes were floated to conquer Cuba, adding to the slave territory. Also being settled for slaves was Texas, then part of Upper Mexico. But Mexico had abolished slavery in 1829, although the Texans got a one-year extension.

Considering that the governmental services provided to Upper Mexico were poor even by feckless Mexican standards, I am reluctant to blame that war entirely on slavery, but it was a factor. Extending slavery's reach was a definite factor in the Mexican-American War, and that factor, obvious to all, was one reason then-Congressman Abe Lincoln voted against the war.

1850s and the Civil War

By the 1850s, slavery was attempting to expand its reach. Despite their cry of "states' rights" the South was pushing the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, a Federal law reaching into Northern states. This was followed by Bloody Kansas, an attempt to forcibly make Kansas a slave state, and Dred Scott, which saw the Federal government in the form of Chief Justice Taney (from Maryland) invalidate many Northern anti-slavery laws.

Lincoln really didn't want to free the slaves, but in the election of 1860 he definitely wanted to stop the expansion of slavery into the North. This proved unacceptable to the South Carolina legislature (and others) and war broke out. The Emancipation Proclamation was an attempt to end the war, saying "come back and keep your slaves." It didn't work. Even in 1864, at Hampton Roads, Lincoln was willing to let the South back in while compensating them for the loss of slaves. It was rejected.

Reconstruction, or a Successful Insurgency

It is possible that, if the South had left peaceably, they would have freed their slaves, as did Brazil. Arguing against that is the violent insurgency led by the Ku Klux Klan during Reconstruction. That insurgency, paired with a fundamental indifference to the plight of blacks, led to Jim Crow. Yes, Reconstruction was an attempt by the Federal government to intervene in the state's actions. Of course, the states were attempting to violently deny some of their citizens civil rights.

In short, arguing that the South didn't end up going to war to defend slavery is dead wrong. As they say in the South, "that dog won't hunt."