The issue of Slavery, then… where do we start? I suppose we start with the obvious. Here are my thoughts, in general, on slavery:
- Slavery is a moral evil, detestable in every way.
- American, so-called “chattel” slavery was particularly abominable.
- Slavery is a stain on our Nation’s past.
- Slavery ending was a good thing.
- Each person, regardless of race or gender, has worth, and deserves his liberty insofar as he doesn’t harm others.
I’m not sure all of that needed to be said. After all, this is the 21st century. The civilized world has done away with the practice of slavery altogether, as well it should have. I’ve never met a single person who believed slavery to be anything but evil.
Having said that, then, what are the big issues, in terms of the Civil War, as they relate to slavery? Certainly, there has to be a discussion of the role of slavery in the causes of the Civil War. There should also be conversation about the role that slaves played in winning their emancipation. There should be honest talk about how slaves were treated, which includes both the goods and the bads. There should also be some discussion of the legal and moral issues involved in slavery, in the context of the mid-Nineteenth century. Finally, as comparative history is all the rage among academics these days, there probably ought to be discussion about the entire world-wide slave trade. There are countless other historical implications for slavery; these are the ones that most affect the Civil War time period. I’ll hit on just two of them here.
Slavery as a cause. So, was the Civil War caused by slavery, or was it State’s Rights? I can’t answer that one. Not because I don’t have an answer, but rather because I think it’s the wrong question. I think the better question is this: “What role did slavery play in the starting of the Civil War?” That one, I can try to answer.
North and South had long been at odds, and had long had divergent cultures. These differences were most noticeable in the issue of slavery; it is the issue of slavery and the “Three Fifths compromise” that convinces the Southern States to ratify the Constitution. But slavery was, by and large, not the cause of the division; rather, it was a cultural characteristic of Southern culture that came into conflict with radical elements of Northern culture. Thus, when the antislavery movement, followed by the more radicalized abolition movement appeared in the North, the cultural conflict heated up, and helped to push the Nation into Civil War.
Beyond culture is, of course, the question of State’s Rights. I’ve told you before, in my first post, that I tend to take a person’s motive as it is stated, unless there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Thus, when Governor Pickens signs the order of Secession and claims to be doing so for the cause of State’s Rights, I believe him. Now, I may or may not have a different idea about what State’s Rights are, but I take him at his word regarding his own motivations. I can’t go as far as many historians who insist that secession was all about economic reasons, that Southerners just wanted to keep their slaves out of greed or whatever other nefarious purpose they might have had.
Legal and moral issues. Immoral or not, Slavery was legal in the United States in 1860. According to law, slaves were property, and as such had value as property. This is how the Federal government got involved in the slavery issue in the first place: it was considered part of Interstate Commerce. Removing slaves from their masters was, in a legal sense, thievery.
Now, which moral imperative is higher, stopping thievery or guaranteeing liberty? Liberty, obviously, wins out. This is the argument that the radical abolitionists used. The problem with the argument then, as it is now, is this: it isn’t an either/or equation. There was, and is, a middle ground, a way to compromise so that, in the end, both are guaranteed. The South was willing, by 1860, to make many concessions about slavery, its regulation, and its expansion. In fact, there were many in the South (and the North) who put forth ideas about how to end slavery over time. In some other countries, the government had purchased the freedom of slaves when they ended slavery. England was, of course, the best example of this. When England ended slavery, slave owners were compensated for their lost “property.” In addition, the system was shut down over a period of 4 years, rather than instantly, so as to keep from severely impacting the British economy.
Many Southerners, including Southern politicians, would have been amiable to these sorts of compromises. The Republicans, led by Lincoln, however, would have accepted nothing less than total and instant abolition.
Hindsight. Hindsight being what it is, we can speculate with a fair degree of certainty that, if left alone, slavery would have died out before the end of the century. We can also see, for example, that compensating slave owners would have cost much less than the Civil War, both in terms of dollars as well as in terms of lives. This is what makes the Civil War the tragedy that it is: ultimately, it was a war that didn’t have to happen. Radical elements in both the North and the South would have none of it: blood was going to be shed, and they were going to go into battle to defend their ideas.
