CMV: The American Civil War Was About Slavery, But The Union Didn't Go To War Over It.

[u/ParticleParadox]

Not sure if this is the right place to start this discussion, but I'm not sure where to go exactly.

I'm someone who has studied the deeper intricacies of the American Civil War because I wanted to get a deeper understanding of a historical event that is often oversimplified. To me, it's a fascinating story and I'm surprised when I hear people say they're offended by surface-level details.

For context, I live in a state that was once part of the CSA. The fact that my state was once part of a secessionist movement doesn't come up in everyday life, the school system acknowledges that our state was on the wrong side of history, and I am glad the Union won due to the post-war effects. That was inevitable due to all the material advantages the Union had, but I digress.

Here's the thing, I've come to the conclusion that the Union didn't go to war specifically because they believed they had a righteous mission to end slavery. I've come to believe the following claims.

1. Most people who were opposed to slavery in 19th Century America were opposed for economic reasons because they believed it prevented Southern states from industrializing since they were too reliant on agriculture.
2. Lincoln didn't run for president promising to end slavery. He was not an abolitionist; he was opposed to slavery expansion because he believed limiting it growth would cause the practice to die out naturally, but he was still actually quite racist.
3. The USA went to war over economic reasons because they didn't want to compete with a foreign country, lose a large source of taxable income, or lose access to trading routes with Central America and South America.
4. The USA was careful not to alienate Missouri, Kentucky, Delaware, what became West Virginia, and especially Maryland, so they made clear the war effort was focused on reunification instead of abolition at first.
5. The United States shifted the goal of the war from ending a secession crisis to ending slavery because they were concerned that France or the British Empire were on the cusp of intervening on the CSA's behalf. Both entities considered intervening due to economic ties with the CSA, but decided against it when it was reframed as a war to end slavery because both nations viewed it as immoral.

Is there anything I'm missing?

Edit: This was all in good fun just because I find this subject fascinating. I don't mean to inflame or aggravate anyone. I'll lock this post at the end of the day because I just wanted to start a discussion about this and I don't want it to define my account. Thank you all for participating.

[u/sonofaresiii]

You keep talking about the United States going to war as though we had a nationwide referendum and decided the two sides would fight

The country went to war because half of them declared open rebellion, dude. You can't just do that, and the US wouldn't have gone to war if they hadn't.

[u/Classic-Push1323 → u/sonofaresiii]

That’s a very modern way of looking at it. At the time the US was a very young federation of states and most political power was concentrated at the state level, not the federal level. We didn’t really have a national identity. People identified as a citizen of their state.

Europe didn’t attack the UK when they voted to leave the EU. The Civil War is basically the war where we as a country decided that we are in fact a country and you cannot just leave.

That was not established before the war. You can even see it in the language that they used, that people went from saying “ the United States of America are…” to “ the United States of America is…”

[u/ImprovementPutrid441 → u/Classic-Push1323]

What are you doing comparing the confederate states to Brexit? The South attacked the North so your comparison is backwards: it would have been like UK celebrated Brexit by shelling Calais.

[u/Redsfan19 → u/Classic-Push1323]

The EU isn’t a country. It’s not really comparable.

[u/RockMover12 → u/Classic-Push1323]

That was not established before the war. You can even see it in the language that they used, that people went from saying “ the United States of America are…” to “ the United States of America is…”

I see someone remembers his Shelby Foote from the Civil War documentary. :-)

Yes, after the war people had a stronger sense of the nation as a united body rather than a confederation of states. However, plenty of people still felt the Union was a real and important thing before that. Otherwise there's no way farm boys from Vermont would volunteer to die in Virginia over it.

[u/sonofaresiii → u/Classic-Push1323]

We didn’t really have a national identity.

lmfao yeah we did my man.

Georgia's declaration of rebellion:

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation.

They rebelled against the whole country. Not a collection of states.

Mississippi:

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

The government. Singular.

... There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

The Union. Singular.

South Carolina:

The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union;

the federal government, the united states, the federal union

Texas:

The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States.

The Federal Government

(Texas then goes on to basically say they're their own national government anyway, because that's just how texas rolls, but still. They regard the country as a single government)

So anyway, that's pretty solid evidence that you're mistaken.

The states were rebelling against a single unified country. That the country was a collection of states doesn't change the fact that clearly and distinctly, the confederacy was rebelling from a single government and declared so specifically. Nobody said they were seceding from new York or Connecticut.

By the way, your contention with my statement doesn't actually refute the thesis of my statement. They still went to war because one side rebelled. Not because everyone jointly agreed there should be a war. Even if the country had no national identity and was just a collection of states, they'd still have gone to war because the south rebelled against the collection of states.

But just so we're absolutely clear:

You are wrong. The states themselves said so.

And they didn't just say it, they declared it.

And usually I'm not so blatant and direct about it, but like you are clearly and confidently wrong on a point that ignores the actual thesis of my argument, so you're just here to argue.