This is not meant to be an apology for any region. History is a complicated discipline, and the facts and events leading to the American Civil War reveal a complex time. Below are some of my thoughts to show that the war was about more than slavery.
1) I learned long ago that to say something is ?clear? is treading on dangerous ground and typically reveals only one person?s or a certain school?s interpretation (it?s something I tell my students to avoid when writing). Put forth the argument and let the reader decide.
2) the states-rights argument is an American federal concept. Yes, slaveowners used it to protect slavery. Abolitionists, too, used states? rights arguments to nullify national laws dealing with slavery. Federalists and New Englanders used it during the War of 1812 to protect their economic interests. Throughout the early republic and antebellum eras, Americans used federal arguments to protect their interests. Southerners didn?t concoct this idea in 1861. And after the war, the U.S. did change from an ?are? to an ?is.? Make of that what you will.
3) I have long been familiar with the secession articles, and I actually did follow the link so that I could read them again (just to be sure). In them, the states offer various reasons for secession. The South Carolina convention is cited most often to prove that the South fought only to preserve slavery. That convention did indeed argue to preserve slavery. But South Carolina was one state out of eleven that seceded from the Union. Notice how some states use the term ?anti-slavery? and others don?t. Notice how some of the upper South states never mention slavery. (It must also be remembered that five slave states remained in the Union during the war). To understand the times in which the conventions occurred, one must understand what contemporaries meant by ?anti-slavery? and ?abolition.? If the North fought to end slavery, did it fight for the equality of all human beings or to eliminate obstacles to a free-labor system? To be anti-slavery and be a humanitarian are two different things. Among many antebellum works, Hinton Helper?s Impending Crisis of the South reveals that the two aren?t synonyms. The New York City draft riots also reveal this.
4) in many ways, the Civil War occurred between people who interpreted the Constitution differently and offered different definitions of what it meant to be American. George Washington was on the Confederate seal, for instance. Both sides also claimed to be heirs of the Founders’ intent. The Confederate Constitution, Southerners believed, perfected the United States Constitution and clarified previously muddied concepts. For instance, the Preamble includes such language: ?We the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government. . . .? And, ?This Constitution. . . shall be the supreme law of the land. . . anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.? The CSA Constitution outlawed the slave trade and left it the states to determine that fate of slavery within their borders (as it had been done in the New England during the antebellum era).
Asking why the North and Unionists fought is a good question indeed. Some abolitionists believed the war was a ?purifying act of God.? Others such as Andrew Johnson and Parson Brownlow, a Knoxville Whig and later Reconstruction governor of TN, believed that all questions must be secondary to whether the Union was to be preserved (Brownlow and his political allies were in no way champions of African American civil rights). Others believed that America must put down the rebellion for national pride and a show of national strength. Some believed Southern interests prevented a growing economy. Others believed the war offered an opportunity to ensure that America achieved its predestined mission. A Brooklyn minister, Samuel Spears trumpeted from the pulpit one 1863 Sunday morning: ?The United States must connect the destinies of Christianity and civilization on this continent with one permanent, indivisible, powerful, progressive nationality. . . the nation was made for growth, for increase in population, for the organization and addition of new States that glitter on its flag.?
5) I have difficulty accepting the theory that puts forth mystical aspects of the Declaration of Independence and Lincoln fulfilling prophecy and saving America. To be honest, giving messianic status to any politician alarms me, for it discourages questioning his or her actions. Also, too much information is missing between 1776 and 1861 for me to accept the mystical argument (Seemingly no one mentions U.S. history during the Articles of Confederation either). Sherman once commented that the romance of war is moonshine and that war is hell. What had to be done had to be done. Fifteen years later he talked about the war in spiritual terms. Yes, the Lost Cause argument was formed during the 1890s (in great part accepted by Northerners to finally heal a wounded nation). But many glorified the Northern cause during the latter part of the 19th century. Much scholarship has been done on the former. Little has been studied about the latter.
And lastly, I find little evidence that the Founders were unanimous. Even among those who attended the constitutional convention, were divided into what scholars compartmentalize into three schools (monarchists, nationalists, federalists). All three had different interpretations of government?s role.
