| |
The American Civil War may have ended 140 years ago, but the battle over the genesis of that war rages on.
Scholars and amateur historians alike continue to feverishly research and build arguments in support of their particular position. Was the Civil War fought over slavery or states’ rights? The answer is clear.
To say that the Civil War was fought over slavery is being narrow-minded. Any war is far too complex to label one issue as the sole cause. Slavery did have a role in the start of the war, but it is merely a subcategory for the main issue.
Think of it as an umbrella. The umbrella is states’ rights and under the umbrella lays taxation, trade, culture, and slavery.
For those who believe the war was fought over slavery, please consider the following. Missouri was the first state west of the Mississippi. In what was labeled the Missouri Compromise, the state legalized slavery on the condition that other territories that had not yet reached statehood would be free. Subsequently, during the Civil War, Missouri pledged its fealty to the North. While many of Missouri’s citizens did fight for the South, the state itself funded the Union. Therefore, contrary to popular belief, the war was not slave states versus free states. To be particular, there were actually 19 free states and 15 slave states prior to April of 1861. Hence, four slave states did not join the Confederacy.
Secondly, I do not believe that 620,000 Americans in that era would have died and millions more risked dying solely for slaves. That doesn’t make any sense.
Thirdly and most importantly, the South understood the Constitution. The Founding fathers, in Article V, clearly explained the process that must be adhered to when amending the Constitution. The bill must pass with a two thirds vote in the House and the Senate and must also be ratified by three fourths of the existing states.
Before the Civil War began, 34 states made up the U.S.. After South Carolina seceded from the Union, 10 more states followed. Those eleven states encompass a large enough percentage prior to 1861 that an amendment banning slavery would not have been possible. Therefore, the issue of slavery would have been left up to the states to decide for themselves.
The aforementioned bill may have passed with the super majority in the house as well as the senate. However, even that is assuming that both senators and all congressmen in their respective states would have voted straight party lines.
So I ask, why would the South fight over an issue in which they had constitutional control?
The truth is that by the mid-1800s, the North and the South just became disenfranchised with each other. For example, the South was mostly agricultural while the North was more industrialized. As a result, the idea of lifestyle reflected their culture. The South felt that their agrarian existence depended on slaves. The north went along with the idea to appease their southern brothers. However, when the abolitionists’ movement gained steam, the South feared that Washington would placate to the North’s cries. These and other disputes between the federal government and the states had limited the power of the states and southerners called this into question. And, to make matters worse political parties were unstable to say the least. Lincoln was only elected in 1860 because the Democrats had split themselves into separate geographical factions. The South made it very clear that they would secede if Lincoln was elected before the issue of freeing slaves was considered inevitable.
On April 12, 1861 when confederate troops under General P.T. Beauregard opened fire on Union held Fort Sumter in South Carolina, starting the four year battle between states and brothers, the South was not just protecting their right to have slaves; they were protecting their rights to be states.
|
