In many ways, it’s possible to understand the rise of the abolitionist movement as a cause of the Civil War. The abolitionist movement was radical not only in its aims, but it was radical in its methods, as well. The movement had as its goal nothing short of the immediate and instantaneous ending of slavery. While the goals of the abolitionist movement may have been noble, it was ironically this movement that is largely responsible for the bloody conflict of the American Civil War.

To understand how the rise of the abolitionist movement can be seen as a cause of the Civil War, it’s important to understand how the abolitionist movement was different in its aims. For decades, since the founding of the United States and even going back to colonial times, there had been a strong antislavery movement in the country. While it was centered in the North, there were many people opposed to slavery in the Southern states, as well.

This antislavery movement sought to end slavery legally and legitimately, through the course of law. They were strong proponents of legislation that would stop the expansion of slavery, for example. There were those in the antislavery movement that proposed legislation that would actually purchase the freedom of slaves, as had happened in Europe. This sort of solution would have ended slavery, but done it without the violence and death that the Civil War brought.

In contrast, the abolitionist movement sought to end slavery by any means necessary. So, famous abolitionist John Brown resorted to theft, and to attacks on federal officers, in his effort to end slavery. The radical abolitionists had no interested in ending slavery in a peaceful or legal way. They wanted to end slavery at the point of the bayonet.

Much has been written in regard to Abraham Lincoln and his connection to the abolitionist movement. At the time of Lincoln’s election, there were many people in the south who recognized that the newly-formed Republican part was, in many was, the party of abolition. While there were some Republicans who would have preferred to end slavery legally, the party platform called for the immediate eradication of slavery.

It is Lincoln’s abolitionist position, or at least the theory that he was beholden to abolitionists for his election, that led the South to secede. They believed (correctly) that Lincoln would try to forcibly end slavery – which he did with the Emancipation Proclamation. Indeed it is the Emancipation Proclamation that demonstrates what it was the South feared – that the abolitionist movement would overtake the presidency.

photo credit: pcopros

(This is a long-overdue book review for me.  I trust that, even if you’ve read and forgotten Confederates in the Attic, you’ll bear with me as I dredge up old bones!)

Tony Horowitz, in the 1999 book, Confederates in the Attic: Dispatches from the Unfinished Civil War, chronicles time spent amount modern-day history enthusiasts with a penchant for dressing up like Johnny Reb.  Horowitz, in this book, chronicles time spent among Civil War reenactors;  particularly, Civil War reenactors who reenact on the Confederate side.

By his own admission, Horowitz is fascinated with Confederate history.  He writes about painting a mural of Pickett’s charge on the ceiling of his attic as a small boy, and about looking at books on the Confederacy with his father.  Confederates is, in part, an attempt at introspection.

photo credit: pcopros

I think this is where Confederates fails.  Horowitz, in attempting to examine an obsession that is similar in some ways but vastly different in principle from his own.  Horowitz is a Northerner, and takes a Northerner’s view of the Southern Life.  The fact is, however, that it really is difficult to do this.  Horowitz, while he does reach some degree of objectivity, seems to be projecting either his own biases or the biases of those around him onto the reenactors.  In addition, the implicit conclusion is that those who hold the Confederacy dear do so for racist reasons.  I think that this is more than a little bit insulting, and it misses the point that race isn’t the be-all and end-all of history.  Whatever Horowitz may be as a journalist and pundit, he misses something important here in terms of the history.

Still, Confederates is worth the read, if only to be shocked and amazed by some of the more bizarre practices that Horowitz chronicles.

Selected reading:

Before we move too far beyond the Civil War it’s probably worth taking a moment think about the outcomes. This bloody conflict that left our nation in tatters was, ultimately, a bit of a mixed bag in terms of what it did for us as a people and as a nation.

To think about the outcomes of the civil war, however, we need to think about it in the context of the various factions involved. Some groups, such as Moderate Republicans, fared pretty well by 1865. Other groups, such as Southern Democrats, didn’t do so well. African Americans and Radical Republicans saw some of their goals a complex to wild others would take many years to be implemented .

Let’s look first at these successes experienced by the Moderate Republicans as a result of the Civil War. The Moderate Republicans set out to end slavery. This they accomplished, as evidenced by the passing of the thirteenth amendment. Moderate Republicans also sought political rights for African-Americans. In this way they experienced a limited amount of success, but it would take many years before things like Jim Crow laws and Black Codes would be wiped from the landscape, allowing African-Americans to vote freely, and without threat of reprisals. In fact, the 14th and 15th amendments were attempts to deal with the Black Codes, and to help guarantee African-American political rights. Moderate Republicans also saw the restoration of the union as a goal of the war. In this regard, they were slowed by Radical Republicans, in that Reconstruction was a much more intense, prolonged, and arduous process than what the Moderate Republicans , for the most part, would have hoped for . Finally, Moderate Republicans sought the triumph of Free labor. Their success here was limited by failures that would occur in the sharecropping system and in the Freedmen’s Bureau.

The radical wing of the Republican Party, shared some goals with the Moderate Republicans. They sought the end of slavery; they sought political rights for African-Americans; they sought Free Labor. However, the Radical Republicans also sought full political and social rights for African-Americans. It would take Republicans almost an entire century to pass a Civil Rights Act implementing these ideas.

there can be no question, that the end of slavery was of immense benefit to African-Americans. This radical change in the Southern way of life put African-Americans on an entirely different footing, legally if not socially or economically. Still, African-Americans would have to fight every step of the way to see their political rights implemented. To some degree, there is still a fight to provide equal social rights for African Americans almost 150 years later. Racism, which was perhaps inherent in the slavery system, became rouge, and at times more dangerous and more violent than it had been when it was institutionalized.

This leaves us with the Democrats. The handful of northern Democrats left would have liked, by 1865, to see a quick restoration of the Union. Obviously, this wasn’t going to happen. The Southern Democrats lost the most. They sought to maintain the Southern culture and to secure States’ Rights. These efforts failed, as evidenced by the military occupation of the South during reconstruction, as well as a much stronger Federal government.

So, was it worth it? I suppose it depends on who you ask. For my part, I believe that slavery had to end; it was a festering wound, a dark mark on the soul of every American, Northern and Southern. I’m not certain that the Civil War was the best way, or the only way, to end it, however. I believe that the Civil War did not (and could not) end racism, guarantee equal social or economic rights, or force a Free Labor system on the South. I would have liked to have had restoration, rather than Reconstruction. I would rather have resolved the issues without throwing away so much State and Local power to the Federal government.

If Civil War was the only way to end slavery, if it could have secured equal social rights for African-Americans, and if it could have happened without the usurpation of power by the Federal government or the systematized destruction of the South, I’d say it was worth it, hands down. As it stands, I think that Civil War was the worst possible way for us to go about things, and is as dark a mark on our souls as slavery itself.