Featured Slavery and Civil war.

US History 101

 

What's this supposed to prove?

 

The op doesnt prove that

 

To the victors goes the control of propaganda.

 

He said it was not his personal goal.

 

Have you read any of the articles of secession? The declarations of causes?

The South spelled it out for all to see in their very own documents. Lincoln overriding desire to keep the Union at all costs does not negate these reasons.

The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

 

A back-and-forth argument such is this is predicated on the false assumption that there is one simple answer. It is more complicated than that. Here are short references to two of the oddities that do not fit in a simple gloss.

In his book Jack Hinson’s One-Man War: A Civil War Sniper, Tom McKenney describes Jack Hinson as “a Southerner at heart,” but one who “was firmly against secession and war.” The brutal death of his sons changed all that. Two of Hinson’s sons “were caught with rifles by a Union patrol while hunting squirrels, they were executed on suspicion of guerrilla activity, their decapitated heads delivered to Bubbling Springs, the Hinson plantation, and mounted on gateposts. That was the day that 57-year-old Hinson’s neutrality came to an end.” Hinson freed his slaves, collected his rifle, and waged his own war against the Union – beginning with “the lieutenant responsible for killing his sons” and the soldier who put his sons’ heads on his gateposts. “His story serves as a reminder that while world leaders often rely on propaganda and big ideas to serve as fuel for war, sometimes a man simply fights because of personal loss — and the need for bloodstained revenge.” See The Sniper Who Slayed More Than 100 Union Soldiers.

The Longwood Plantation in Natchez, Mississippi tells a sad story of its owners, while also revealing some of the complicated story of the war between the Northern Union and Southern Confederacy. Haller Nutt, the owner of Longwood, like many planters who thrived in the slave-based economy, opposed Mississippi’s secession from the United States. Not only that, he also refused to support the Confederacy when the state seceded. Even as the Union army invaded Mississippi, he welcomed their presence. “During the war between the states [Haller Nutt] was known to be unmistakenly not only an opponent of secession and of the Southern Confederacy, but absolutely devoted to the Union and the cause of the federal government. He was so devoted, and to such an extent, that he welcomed the invasion of the Union armies.” The property of Nutt was placed under safeguard by the Union commanders, but their subordinates, partly due to the reality of war and partly due to its excesses, did not maintain the safeguard and much supplies and property were used, destroyed or vandalized. The northern invasion and ultimate victory of the Union proved the financial ruin of Nutt, who is said to have pined away in his unfinished home until he died on June 16, 1864. His wife Julia blamed her husband’s death on “Union indifference and treachery,” and actually won a small claim against them and recovered a small amount of money.

 

I have studied antebellum times somewhat closely, as well as the Civil War itself. Whe war was a long time coming, but it seemed almose inevitable.
While Andy Jackson was POTUS, 1829-1837, there was some talk within some Southern states about defying a federal whiskey tax they didn't like, & even secession, but Jackson let it be known that any such activity would be suppressed by military force & that he'd lead it himself. Given the knowledge he meant what he said, & was a very good & ruthless general, that talk soon ended.
Slavery was a sore spot for years between mostly-southern states & mostly-northern ones. That issue became more-prominent when cotton became the king of southern crops, & the use of slaves to grow, harvest, gin it & bail it grew rapidly.
But other grievances arose between north & south, especially tariffs & taxes, which the south believed hurt them badly, as world prices for cotton were dropping as more nations began growing it. The south had become almost-exclusivly dependent upon cotton for its income. And, of course, they'd lose more money if they didn't have almost-free slave labor to prepare their cotton for the market.
The MAIN cause of Southern discontent was that the south believed the states should have control over tariffs, not the federal govt. This became a "states' rights" issue, with several states, especially southern ones, believing THEY, not the Feds, should have control of many funstions within those states, especially tariffs & taxes. Slavery was tossed in with states' rights.
But Lincoln made abolition of slavery into THE cause of the war, to incite the northern public to support the war & provide more soldiers, & it worked fairly well. ACTUALLY, many northerners were wary of abolishing slavery, as they were afraid that would allow a flood of men willing to work for less to come & take their jobs from under them.
Part of the legacy of Lincoln is that slavery was the primary cause of the war. While it certainly was a factor, it was not at all the MAIN cause. That main cause was states' rights, the idea that the individual states should have full control over all tariffs & taxes within that state, as well as control over many other factors, including slavery.

 

I'm not aware of any particular imposition the federal government was making against the southern states in regards to slavery, that would cause the South to split. Indeed, when the southern states formed their own government, this new government was effectively more anti-slavery than Lincoln's government. An example is the Confederacy's move to ban the international slave trade.

Realistically, everyone knew slavery was a bad thing that shouldn't last. That "everyone" includes the South. Yes, some people defended slavery, but they knew they were wrong, they were just dependent on slaves themselves.

 

Yes, many northerners wanted black slaves to be kept "down South", slaves or not, away from their jobs. In the days bedore unions became strong, a man could offer his services to an employer for lower pay than he was giving someone to perform the same work, and often that incoming person was a black who was an escaped slave or newly freed, not an established freedman member of the community where he showed up, These men could do all sorts of both skilled & unskilled labor well, so employers would replace an incumbent employee readily with a lower-paid person who could do the same work. And for years, white Americans were told that non-whites were inferior in many ways to whites, & many believed it.

As it turned out, the rise of the National Labor Union & the Knights of Labor right after the war, spurred largely by the end of slavery, prevented an influx of job-stealers. Before that, labor unions were mostly among specifically-skilled workers, such as cordwainers(shoemakers), farriers(horse shoe makers & horse shoers), machinists & electricians. And, of course, many Southern farmers hired their former slaves as paid servants, as they already knew the work & had their homes there. But then, they had to be worked a set number of hours, & were free to move on if they wished. And obviously, as farming methods improved, farmers didn't need as many workers, so many went north as factories were growing & needed people. Both former slaves & new immigrants found work easily enough.

And also, many more blacks became literate. With literacy came Bible-reading, & a great many blacks became Baptists !

 

Secession was about slavery. No secession, no war. It's that simple.

 

Are primary sources propaganda?

 

Slavery was an integral part of the Southern economy. Abolitionist efforts pre-dated the American Revolution. The anti-slavery sentiment was always a point of contention between Northern industrialists and Southern agrarians. Slavery in existing states was not the immediate cause of the South firing on Fort Sumter. Neither was the fact that the Federal government prohibited slave owners from bringing their slaves into the Western territories. Both of these were catalysts. The real reason was (as @Rob_BW stated) secession. Secession had started even before Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated. The Southern states had no intention to negotiate an end to slavery, although they were happy to feign an interest in doing so. John Brown's failed raid at Harpers Ferry, Virginia in 1859 was proof to the Southern states that abolitionist sentiments would use force to impose its will. The fledgling Republican party was ostensibly and anti-Slavery party and Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. In the mind of the Southern states, Lincoln's election was the last domino to fall. The result? Secession. The result of secession? War.

 

True enough, but the North could have let the Southern States secede without going to war. So that brings the Northern motivation back to preserving the Union.