The Civil War Wasn't About Slavery- Walter Williams

[jmdrake]

Walter Williams needs to read the southern declarations of secession, the U.S. constitution and Lincoln's first inaugural address in its entirety. I've posted about the before but here's the cliff notes version.

1) The U.S. constitution protected slavery. Ron Paul acknowledges this in his famous speech Sorry Mr. Franklin. We are all Democrats now. He further points out that slavery was a major contributing factor in the civil warm.

A constitution in and by itself does not guarantee liberty in a republican form of government. Even a perfect constitution with this goal in mind is no better than the moral standards and desires of the people. Although the United States Constitution was by far the best ever written for the protection of liberty, with safeguards against the dangers of a democracy, it too was flawed from the beginning. Instead of guaranteeing liberty equally for all people, the authors themselves yielded to the democratic majority’s demands that they compromise on the issue of slavery. This mistake, plus others along the way, culminated in a Civil War that surely could have been prevented with clearer understanding and a more principled approach to the establishment of a constitutional republic.

2) Lincoln was aware that the constitution protected slavery. That's why he said he didn't have the legal right to end it. But he did allude to the fact that the constitution did not prohibit stopping the expansion of slavery. This is the part of his inaugural address that ticked off the south.

Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or by State authority? The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say.

3) In every southern declaration I've every read the issue of slavery was prominent. In some tariffs and other economic issues were not even mentioned. Georgia did mention "fishing smacks" along with the slavery issue. The second sentence in the Mississippi declaration of secession leads with "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery". Mississippi hits the issue right between the eyes with this sentence.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

I know people love to hate on Lincoln. But he was actually seeking a constitutional answer to the end of slavery. Death of the institution by allowing the expansion only of "free states". Lincoln was neither saint nor ogre.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[Man from La Mancha]

I respectfully disagree. Most of the men in the Union army shared Lincoln's white supremacist views and let it be known in no uncertain terms that they were decidedly not fighting to free slaves. They were Union men, or conscripts. Many Irish immigrants were drafted fresh off the boat and fed into the maw at places like Fredricksburg. The prospect of going to war on behalf of slaves stoked the fires of the New York City draft riots.

Interesting, from which article did you find that? Thanks

.

 

[aravoth]

The Civil War wasn't NOT about slavery. It was about a lot of things and slavery was central. I mean, come on. Would there have been a civil war if slavery didn't exist? No.

Yes actually.

 

[Man from La Mancha]

Yes actually.

I'm no expert on this but thinking if there was no slavery at all in the south would they have such an economical advantage of free labor to drive prices down. But so few total people owned slave to make this an advantage? I don't know and want to lean more. Ron is so great, he said he wanted two things out of running for president, to win and to teach. Wow

.

 

[werdd]

The Civil War was not even about slavery. It was about industrializing the south and making farm subsidies of everyone. Only about 30% of the farmers in the south at the onset of the war had slaves. Slavery was just an emotional motivater to get the ball rolling. It was just a battle to have a stronger central goverment. We could of bought off all of the slave owners for way less than the north spent in financing the civil war, and the lives we lost.

 

[noztnac]

The Civil War wasn't NOT about slavery. It was about a lot of things and slavery was central. I mean, come on. Would there have been a civil war if slavery didn't exist? No.

Slavery was still legal in the north at the outset of the war. The biggest issues by far were state's rights, the tariff on imported goods, and taxes. Yes! There absolutely would have been a war had there been no slavery.

Abraham Lincoln, faced with losing the war, issued the Emancipation Proclamation is order to try to make the war about slavery. But this was well after the war started and it did not free any slaves.

 

[noztnac]

I had someone hit me with the civil war not being about slavery argument today. I said that while that may be true, if you ask an average American from 10-100 years old why we fought the civil war they will say slavery. That makes Ron Paul's statements applicable even if you disagree with the premise.
Is that a good argument

What most people have been brainwashed to believe is far less important than the truth. I'm from South Carolina. Ask any South Carolinian what the War of Northern Aggression was fought over (the Civil War to you) and almost all of them will tell you the tariff, taxes, state's rights, and slavery. I don't think any of them will mention only slavery.

Where are you from?

The reason I ask is that I went to public schools in South Carolina, North Carolina, Louisiana, Virginia, and California. The only state I was taught your version of things was in California.

 

[noztnac]

Walter Williams needs to read the southern declarations of secession, the U.S. constitution and Lincoln's first inaugural address in its entirety. I've posted about the before but here's the cliff notes version.

1) The U.S. constitution protected slavery. Ron Paul acknowledges this in his famous speech Sorry Mr. Franklin. We are all Democrats now. He further points out that slavery was a major contributing factor in the civil warm.

A constitution in and by itself does not guarantee liberty in a republican form of government. Even a perfect constitution with this goal in mind is no better than the moral standards and desires of the people. Although the United States Constitution was by far the best ever written for the protection of liberty, with safeguards against the dangers of a democracy, it too was flawed from the beginning. Instead of guaranteeing liberty equally for all people, the authors themselves yielded to the democratic majority’s demands that they compromise on the issue of slavery. This mistake, plus others along the way, culminated in a Civil War that surely could have been prevented with clearer understanding and a more principled approach to the establishment of a constitutional republic.

2) Lincoln was aware that the constitution protected slavery. That's why he said he didn't have the legal right to end it. But he did allude to the fact that the constitution did not prohibit stopping the expansion of slavery. This is the part of his inaugural address that ticked off the south.

Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or by State authority? The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say.

3) In every southern declaration I've every read the issue of slavery was prominent. In some tariffs and other economic issues were not even mentioned. Georgia did mention "fishing smacks" along with the slavery issue. The second sentence in the Mississippi declaration of secession leads with "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery". Mississippi hits the issue right between the eyes with this sentence.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

I know people love to hate on Lincoln. But he was actually seeking a constitutional answer to the end of slavery. Death of the institution by allowing the expansion only of "free states". Lincoln was neither saint nor ogre.

Regards,

John M. Drake

I sent you the link. In South Carolina's taxes and the tariff are mentioned far more than slavery. And slavery seemed to be mentioned primarily to motivate other states.

 

[user]

Aside from the slavery issue, it would have been great if we'd let the South go. How do you think neocons keep getting elected today? And blue states are forced to subsidize red states through the federal government. If the South were separate, they would have to adapt to keep up.

 

[jmdrake]

I sent you the link. In South Carolina's taxes and the tariff are mentioned far more than slavery. And slavery seemed to be mentioned primarily to motivate other states.

That was not the link to South Carolinas declaration of secession. It did not mention tariffs. But even if it did that still doesn't counter my main point that every state mentioned concern over protecting the institution of slavery while only a few states mentioned economic issues and those economic issues weren't uniform. (Georgia was concerned about "fishing smacks" for instance.) Really, its simple math. Without the expansion of slavery Lincoln would have been able to amend the constitution to his hearts desire.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[axiomata]

I've noticed a lot of people are confused about the Civil War ... on both sides. It was far from black and white.

 

[noztnac]

Here's a good lecture on the subject of the tariff and the "War to Prevent Southern Independence".

I've always heard it "The War of Northern Aggression" but that is the lecturer's title.

http://mises.org/multimedia/video/DiLorenzo/1.wmv

 

[austin356]

Remember, the South fired the first shot. (Fort Sumter, 04/12/1861)

The bastards were occupying my sovereign homeland........ and you think we ain't gonna shoot a few rounds at some yankees? What if the Chinese had a base on Satan Island would New Yorkers not take offense?

 

[TooConservative]

The Civil War Wasn’t About Slavery

Walter Williams
December 2, 1998
...
Actually, the war of 1861 was not a civil war. A civil war is a conflict between two or more factions trying to take over a government. In 1861, Confederate President Jefferson Davis was no more interested in taking over Washington than George Washington was interested in taking over England in 1776. Like Washington, Davis was seeking independence. Therefore, the war of 1861 should be called "The War Between the States" or the "War for Southern Independence." The more bitter southerner might call it the "War of Northern Aggression."

For a black economist to issue such a statement is real courage. Little wonder that Walter Williams is among Rush's most popular stand-in hosts and was mentioned by Ron Paul this year when asked "Who would you pick as VP?" and he answered "Someone like Walter Williams".

There is considerable enthusiasm with many for running Williams himself for president. Williams has endorsed Ron Paul for president.

Some historians believe that the South would have returned to the Union within ten years of secession due to economic factors. They muster a good speculative case but it is only speculation. Ron Paul's recent observation on MTP that slavery was ended worldwide in First World countries by the government's buying the slaves' freedom was well-taken. Those countries didn't find it necessary to kill over a half-million people (a large percentage of the current population) in a war supposedly fought over slavery.

Lincoln was a Clay Whig, later a Clay Republican. His primary enthusiasms politically, his entire agenda actually, was the establishment of large public works civic improvement projects like the Erie Canal which was recognized as a failure only ten years after the massive effort of its construction, the supremacy of central banking (precursor of the Fed), and protectionism of certain industry by tariffs. He never held very strong views against slavery except the use of the issue against political opponents, nearly always Democrats. He favored the deportation of freed slaves to central America or back to Africa. His Emancipation Proclamation did not and was never intended to free any slaves.

 

[PHenry]

Real history resources

Interesting, from which article did you find that? Thanks

.

Actually many sources through the years. I'm kinda' old and have been studying this for quite a few years. Some good books:
'When in the Course of Human Events' by Charles Adams
'The Real Lincoln' by Thomas DiLorenzo
'Billy Yank' a compilation of letters from Union soldiers (and 'Johnny Reb', a similar volume of Confederate's letters)
Anything by Prof. Clyde Wilson of the University of South Carolina
An excellent starting point is the King Lincoln files at LRC:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/lincoln-arch.html

Merry Christmas! Allen

 

[Captain Shays]

Could you supply a link to the full story. Its worth saving in my files.
Thanks

 

[burt]

There is so much incorrect about this article it is hard to know where to start. It is very disappointing that Mr. Williams has written such a sloppy and ahistorical piece. Let me just address the following as an example.

Shortly after Lincoln’s election, Congress passed the highly protectionist Morrill tariffs.
That’s when the South seceded, setting up a new government.

Hmmm. Lincoln elected - 1861 tariff billed passed in Senate - THEN as a result, the deep South seceded? I think there is a little problem with Mr William's chronological order. Before the Senate passed the 1861 tariff bill on Feb. 20, 1861, the deep South had already seceded. Had they still been represented in the Senate they most likely had enough votes to kill the bill. When the 1861 tariff act did become law and come into effect on Apriil 1, 1861, it caused none of the remaining slave states to secede. When four of them did secede after the attack on Fort Sumter, none of them mentioned the 1861 tariff act as a cause.

Their constitution was nearly identical to the U.S. Constitution except that it outlawed protectionist tariffs, business handouts and mandated a two-thirds majority vote for all spending measures.

Yes....and it also made slave ownership an individual right and forbid any state in the confederacy from passing any law that would infringe on the right to own slaves. I think that difference in noteworthy.

By destroying the states’ right to secession, Abraham Lincoln opened the door to the kind of unconstrained, despotic, arrogant government we have today, something the framers of the Constitution could not have possibly imagined.

Oh bull. Never had there been recognized a right to unilateral secession. "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.

 

[TheViper]

I'm rather surprised that one of the big reasons for the Civil War hasn't been touched on yet. The 3/5ths Compromise played a major role in the collection of taxes and the number of congressional seats for each state.

Initially, the south actually wanted slaves counted as nothing because they were considered a property and required to pay taxes on them just like real estate property. After a while, it was understood that the it was actually better to accept them as a whole population count because it gave them more seats in the Congress. The north didn't like this idea, this reversal, and the political landscape at the time began changing dramatically leading into the 1860's. The south was taking control of the Presidency and Congress. The south wanted to secede so they could count salves as whole.

Combine that and a few dozen other factors and you have the reasons for the Civil War.

 

[Paul Revered]

When asked, "Why not let the South go in peace?"
Lincoln replied: "I can't let them go. Who would pay for the government?"

In order to coalesce the forces in the North, Lincoln had to stage an incident to inflame the populace, which he did. The firing on Sumter was, by his own admission, a setup for just such action. Lincoln was aware that provisioning Sumter could provoke a war.

Lincoln's letter to Gustavus Fox on 1 May, 1861, makes it clear that he was pleased by the result of the firing on Ft Sumter... "You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Ft Sumter, even if it should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result."

Abraham Lincoln said the following on September 18, 1858 in a speech in Charleston, Illinois:

"I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races [applause]: that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." -- Reply by Abraham Lincoln to Stephen A. Douglas in the first joint debate, Ottowa, IL; 21 Aug 1858

"I have never seen to my knowledge a man, woman, or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social or political, between Negroes and white men." Opening speech, fourth joint debate with Douglas, Charleston, IL; 18 Sep 1858

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much territory as they inhabit." -- Abraham Lincoln

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery." - First Inaugural Address

"I am a little uneasy about the abolishment of slavery in this District (of Columbia)." - To Horace Greeley

"If I could save the Union without freeing any slaves, I would do it." - To Horace Greeley

"What then will become of my tariff?" - Abraham Lincoln to Virginia compromise delegation, March 1861.

On August 14, 1862, Lincoln received a deputation of free Negroes at the White House to which he said, "But for your race there could not be war... It is better for us both, therefore, to be separated". He advocated colonization in Central America and promised them help in carrying out the project.

"What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races." From a speech in Springfield, IL; 17 July 1858

"Such separation ... must be effected by colonization ... to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be." - From a speech delivered in Springfield, IL; 26 June, 1857

"The [Emancipation] proclamation has no constitutional or legal justification except as a war measure." - Letter to Sec. of Treas. Salmon P. Chase; 3 Sep 1863

"The suspension of the habeas corpus was for the purpose that men may be arrested and held in prison who cannot be proved guilty of any defined crime."

"Arrests," wrote President Lincoln to that Albany committee of Democrats, "are not made so much for what has been done as for what might be done. The man who stands by and says nothing when the peril of his Government is discussed cannot be misunderstood. If not hindered (by arrest, imprisonment, or death) he is sure to help the enemy."

Under Lincoln's definition, silence became an act of treason.

"Much more, if a man talks ambiguously, talks with 'buts' and 'ifs' and 'ands' he cannot be misunderstood. If not hindered (by imprisonment or death) this man will actively commit treason. Arbitrary arrests are not made for the treason defined in the Constitution, but to prevent treason."

Lincoln supported his home state's law, passed in 1853, forbidding blacks to move to Illinois. The Illinois state constitution, adopted in 1848, called for laws to "effectually prohibit free persons of color from immigrating to and settling in this state."

Lincoln blamed blacks for the Civil War, telling them, "But for your race among us there could not be a war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you one way or another."

Lincoln claimed that "the people of Mexico are most decidedly a race of mongrels. I understand that there is not more than one person there out of eight who is pure white."

Repeatedly over the course of his career, Lincoln urged that American blacks be sent to Africa or elsewhere.

In 1854, Lincoln declared his "first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia - to their own native land." In 1860, Lincoln called for the "emancipation and deportation" of slaves.

And, while prosecuting the war to "free the slaves," Lincoln said: "I cannot make it better known than it already is, that I strongly favor colonization...in congenial climes, and with people of their own blood and race." Annual message to Congress; 1 Dec 1862

In his State of the Union addresses as president, he twice called for the deportation of blacks. In 1865, in the last days of his life, Lincoln said of blacks, "I believe it would be better to export them all to some fertile country with a good climate, which they could have to themselves."

The following is a quote from the London Spectator, dated October 1, 1862 concerning the Emancipation Proclamation:

"The principle [of the Proclamation] is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States government."

The following post was taken from Newsmax.com by John R. Lynch, a member of the John B. Hood SCV Camp 1208 in Los Angeles, CA

"....more and more people are recognizing Lincoln and his unholy war as the beginning of the end for America. The intentionally-misnamed American Civil War was the first, most fundamental, and most significant assault upon state sovereignty by big government in our nation's history. To be more precise, it was the event that first "rewrote," or re-interpreted, the Constitution in such a way that it became an instrument of tyranny, rather than freedom. Far from what we've been taught, the understanding of the Constitution that prevailed in America after the war was entirely at odds with the understanding of the framers in the beginning. (As an indication, look in vain for quotations from the framers in any of Lincoln's writings. They're simply not there.) Thus, if it took some time for conditions to develop to the point where the tyrants waiting in the wings were ready to move (the "conditions" being, mostly, the deaths of those old enough to remember what the Constitution really said and meant), it nevertheless set the stage for them and provided an incalculable service by silencing and impoverishing that great part of America that had been faithful to the Constitution of their fathers."

http://www.scvcamp469-nbf.com/lincolnquotes.htm

 

[Travlyr]

"....more and more people are recognizing Lincoln and his unholy war as the beginning of the end for America. The intentionally-misnamed American Civil War was the first, most fundamental, and most significant assault upon state sovereignty by big government in our nation's history. To be more precise, it was the event that first "rewrote," or re-interpreted, the Constitution in such a way that it became an instrument of tyranny, rather than freedom. Far from what we've been taught, the understanding of the Constitution that prevailed in America after the war was entirely at odds with the understanding of the framers in the beginning. (As an indication, look in vain for quotations from the framers in any of Lincoln's writings. They're simply not there.) Thus, if it took some time for conditions to develop to the point where the tyrants waiting in the wings were ready to move (the "conditions" being, mostly, the deaths of those old enough to remember what the Constitution really said and meant), it nevertheless set the stage for them and provided an incalculable service by silencing and impoverishing that great part of America that had been faithful to the Constitution of their fathers."

From Brother Jonathan to that creepy Uncle Sam and his red & blue team.