Events that Led to the Civil War: Slavery as an Economic Engine Not a Moal Isssue

[Rhondazvous]

Two things were going on that made the American Civil War necessary. Although abolitionist groups were busy at this time, freeing the slaves on moral grounds was not a primary factor. The two primary factors were in fact, the westward expansion of the United States and the widespread use of the cotton gin.

Now some of you have already dismissed me out of hand for suggesting that the cotton gin started the CW. But bear with me and you may find that what I’m saying is not that simple and not that far-fetched.

For a while, slavery was dying out. It just wasn’t cost effective. The cotton gin had been around for a while, but when its commercial use became widespread, labor-intensive plantations sprung up. The cotton gin allowed the south to produce a significant percentage of the cotton used in the textile mills of Great Britain. This meant the economy of the south was viable enough for it to stand on its own. Neither the south nor England liked having to go through the north as the cotton exchange middle man.

At the same time, the United States was expanding westward. The north did not want to have slavery in the new western states because it would take jobs away from white men. On the other hand, the south feared that a proliferation of free states in the west would tip the balance of power in Washington, allowing the north to impose heavy tariffs on cotton and other crops produced in the south and shipped to Europe.

Lincoln followed his Republican party line and opposed slavery in the west for the above stated reasons. This made it easy for the south to label him the anti-slavery candidate, and when he won the election, South Carolina was the first state to suceed in December 1860.

Thus the newly elected Lincoln had to go to war. Great Britain was the industrial capital of the world. If the north had to trade with the south as a separate nation, that would leave the north with no viable economic engine. The war officially started on April 12, 1861 when Confederate soldiers bombed Union soldiers at Fort Sumter in South Carolina. Clearly, hostilities began well before the “official start of the war” or else why were there Confederate soldiers and Union soldiers and why did the Union army have a fort on Confederate territory?

Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in September 1862, more than a year after the war started. This was a brilliant military strategy that had nothing to do with the president’s moral stance on slavery. He is quoted to have said that he didn’t care if the slaves were free or not as long as the union was held together.

This is what happened. The union navy had been blocading southern ships taking cotton to Great Britain, thus weakening the southern economy and causing what was called the “cotton famine” in England. British ship boulders then built ships that could break the blockade. Lincoln countered by shipping over 13,000 barrels of flour to Great Britain, thus endearing himself to unemployed mill workers and issuing the Emancipation Proclamation which not only appeased the abolitionist factions in England but was also designed to lure slaves away from the south to serve the north.

One question remains. Since the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the states that had rebelled, how did it come about that at the end of the war, all the slaves were freed? Interesting question. We could explore this together. Anybody care to shed light on this?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Since the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the states that had rebelled, how did it come about that at the end of the war, all the slaves were freed? Interesting question. We could explore this together. Anybody care to shed light on this?

The 13th Amendment.

Boru

[Minimalist]

Now some of you have already dismissed me out of hand for suggesting that the cotton gin started the CW

The cotton gin made slavery more economically viable where it existed.  But, by itself, that did not start the civil war.  Western expansion was bringing states into the union where the traditional cash crops of the southern economy would not thrive.   

The south was faced with the prospect of more non-slave states entering the union and bolstering the northern economic power base which already dwarfed the south.  Having been instrumental in the founding of the nation this was a prospect which the south did not want to risk.  More than half of US presidents before Lincoln were southerners but that included 5 of the first 7 so the handwriting was clearly on the wall.


There was another factor, though.  Almost a perception that the CW was an idea whose time had come.  Remember no one expected the fighting to last beyond a single big battle and First Manassas/Bull Run shocked the shit out of both sides.  The later engagement at Ball's Bluff was another union disaster and both were chickenshit compared to Shiloh in early 1862.
Presumably by then, no one on either side thought of it as some sort of "adventure" anymore.

[Jenny A]

You forgot the biggest economic ringer, tariffs. The Southern economy depended on shipping cotton abroad, primarily to England and purchasing foreign manufactured goods primarily from England.  Tariffs on foreign manufactured goods forced Southerns to buy what were then shoddy and overpriced Northern manufactured goods, while selling to the British who were bent on retaliation for the high tariff.  

Ironically the Civil War boosted the North's manufacturing capabilities, and not having factories of their own was one of the many reasons the South lost.

[Rhondazvous]

You forgot the biggest economic ringer, tariffs. The Southern economy depended on shipping cotton abroad, primarily to England and purchasing foreign manufactured goods primarily from England.  Tariffs on foreign manufactured goods forced Southerns to buy what were then shoddy and overpriced Northern manufactured goods, while selling to the British who were bent on retaliation for the high tariff.  

Ironically the Civil War boosted the North's manufacturing capabilities, and not having factories of their own was one of the many reasons the South lost.

No, Jenny, I did not forget. In fact, a great deal of this article centers on the shipment of cotton from the south to Great Britain and how that laid the stage for the war. I also mentioned how the south and England resented the north being the middleman and putting tariffs on cotton.

[Minimalist]

And Britain calmly moved their production to Egypt while the war raged.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Great Britain was the industrial capital of the world. If the north had to trade with the south as a separate nation, that would leave the north with no viable economic engine.

I disagree. Firstly, the North had a sound basis for heavy industry, in shipbuilding; it had huge deposits of iron ore around the Great Lakes; it had a healthy agricultural sector in the Ohio and Upper Mississippi basins; and it had international commerce with three large international ports in Boston, New York, and Philadelphia.

Clearly, hostilities began well before the “official start of the war” or else why were there Confederate soldiers and Union soldiers and why did the Union army have a fort on Confederate territory?

The fort was started building in 1828 in order to defend against a future war with Britain, or any other oceanic European power. It was manned by American soldiers. But you're right that hostilities started long before -- even long before Harper's Ferry. The border war in the Kansas and Missouri territories was a significant influence on Congressional attitudes about westward expansion, and they were largely based on differences over slavery.

Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in September 1862, more than a year after the war started. This was a brilliant military strategy that had nothing to do with the president’s moral stance on slavery. He is quoted to have said that he didn’t care if the slaves were free or not as long as the union was held together.  

It wasn't military strategy at all; it was political strategy. Lincoln aimed to comb some fence-sitters into the Union camp, and tug at European sentiments regarding the evils of slavery in order to further isolate the Confederacy -- but the fact is that the Union blockade by that time was already biting, and it only got worse.

Also, if you read the Emancipation Proclamation closely, you will find that it only emancipated slaves in Confederate territory -- i.e., in territory not conquered by the North. the EP did not apply to land conquered by the Northern Army. As such it was seen, even in that time, as a political gesture.

Since the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the states that had rebelled, how did it come about that at the end of the war, all the slaves were freed?  Interesting question. We could explore this together. Anybody care to shed light on this?

They were probably freed in order to avert any more wars costing over 600,000 deaths, I would guess.

[Minimalist]

If the north and south had wanted to fight about "slavery" they could have done so any time in the 40 years since the Missouri Compromise.

If you take the time to read the diaries of confederate and union enlisted men there was practically no talk of slavery as a "cause."  The north was fighting against "treason" and the south was fighting for what they perceived as their "rights."  Few southerners owned slaves and even fewer owned more than one or two.  The upper class beat the drums for war but they were careful to hide it from the guys in the ranks.

The name of Sam Watkins' book is Company Aytch ( H ).  Fascinating reading.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty_Negro_Law

While this new provision provoked little criticism in some areas of the South, such as Virginia,[8] it proved extremely unpopular with much of the rank-and-file soldiery in the Confederate Army. Sam Watkins writes of his own feelings toward this particular provision:

A law was made by the Confederate States Congress about this time allowing every person who owned twenty negroes to go home. It gave us the blues; we wanted twenty negroes. Negro property suddenly became very valuable, and there was raised the howl of "rich man's war, poor man's fight."

[Thumpalumpacus]

... but at the same time, the specific state right in question was the right to regulate slavery. This, of course, is at the political and not at the front-line level.

[Minimalist]

Union recruiting posters from 1861:









But, what has to be the most ironic of them all is this poster for the 54th Massachusetts Regiment.


http://www.masshist.org/database/viewer....arge#page1

They wouldn't even talk about fighting slavery to black troops.