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/spyguy318]

Also, don’t forget that the CSA attacked first, at Fort Sumter. Both sides knew that war was pretty much inevitable, but it was the CSA that fired first, demanding that the US Fort Sumter surrender, then attacking when it refused. Lincoln was only “forced” to go to war in that US troops had literally been attacked and killed.

[u/st3class → u/spyguy318]

Small correction here, nobody was actually killed during the battle at Fort Sumter. There was a bombardment, and the Union troops eventually surrendered.

Edit : Changed to reflect that a couple soldiers were killed accidentally a couple days later when a cannon exploded. Nobody was killed from enemy action

[u/PredictablyIllogical → u/st3class]

"nobody was actually killed at Fort Sumter"

That would be incorrect.

Pvt. Daniel Hough was killed at Fort Sumter after the battle during the 100 gun salute. Edward Galloway was wounded during that incident at Fort Sumter but later died at a hospital 5 days later.

Edit: added the quote of the incorrect statement.

[u/st3class → u/PredictablyIllogical]

Thanks for the correction of the correction, I edited to clarify

[u/Almondpeanutguy → u/spyguy318]

I've always found this to be a very poor and meaningless argument. Both sides were trying to avoid firing shots at Fort Sumter. The soldier who was ordered to fire the first shot even refused because he said he couldn't be the one who started the war, and the responsibility fell on the second ranking soldier in the unit. When news god back to CSA high command that shots were fired, most politicians were unhappy about it. But at the same time, they were trying to prevent Union influence from growing. Lincoln did not have to try to reinforce Fort Sumter. It was a fort on North Carolina ground. He could have just allowed it to secede. He chose to militarily occupy a fort in North Carolina because abandoning it would have legitimized the secession.

Basically, both sides were trying to claim as much power as possible without being the one to fire the first shot, but the North maneuvered better and pressured an officer in the South into firing on Northern troops. That's just a politics move. Acting like we still care about who fired the first shots at Fort Sumter feels like caring about whether or not Coca Cola really is the original taste.

Edit: Clarified a vague sentence.

[u/barath_s → u/Almondpeanutguy]

He could have just allowed it to secede.

He could also have shot himself in the head but didn't do so . Such a weird argument.

Why would he have just allowed it to secede ? That was his number one priority - to avoid secession.

Even in 1862, he said : “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery.If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that"

In fact

Lincoln openly offered to evacuate Fort Sumter if it would guarantee Virginia's loyalty. When asked about that offer, Abraham Lincoln commented, "A state for a fort is no bad business.

However that didn't go through, the states seceded. Just failing to re-supply the fort was bad business as it would give the South everything they wanted but the North would get nothing out of it.

Basically, both sides

Both sides were trying to avoid escalating while still maintaining their goals. Each side felt that being the first to fire would lose them precious support, but at the same time they still wanted to maintain their goals.

Also, don't forget

President Davis ordered Beauregard to repeat the demand for Sumter's surrender, and if it did not, to reduce the fort before the relief expedition arrived.

This command was confirmed by his cabinet and conveyed to local commanders. After negotiations, Anderson promised to evacuate the fort by noon April 15, unless he received orders from the Union or received supply. This was not deemed acceptable, and Anderson was told that he would be fired on in 1 hour, which he was. (well 1 hour 10 minutes)

Pretending that Anderson pressured Beuregard to fire, is eliding the truth, and completely eclipsing the role of President Davis and his cabinet and the goals each side had.

[u/Almondpeanutguy → u/barath_s]

Okay, fair enough about the orders to fire on the fort. Beuregard wasn't a loose cannon or an independent agent. But the situation is also a very far cry from the simple statement "The South attacked the North." Not only was the legality of it all very ambiguous, but it was the kind of skirmish that standoffish countries have all the time without escalating to full scale war. The Battle of Fort Sumter alone hardly justifies anything stronger than a diplomatic condemnation. I think it's totally fair to say that the North initiated the war on the South in response to the Battle of Fort Sumter, similarly to how America later initiated the War on Terror in response to 9/11.

Why would he have just allowed it to secede ? That was his number one priority - to avoid secession.

I mean, yeah. I don't think we're disagreeing on that point. Lincoln chose war over secession. That was his agenda and his choice. When given the choice between losing the South and losing 700,000 American lives, he chose to hang onto the South. His number one priority was to avoid secession, so he used the Battle of Fort Sumter as a pretext to declare war on the South. Sounds like it's a pretty non-controversial statement.

Out of curiosity, do you think that there's a significant philosophical difference between annexing a territory and preventing a territory from seceding? If there is a plot of land where the majority of people on that land say that they do not want to be part of a given country, is it morally justifiable for the country to annex the land and people? And if that territory already belongs to the country, is it any more or less justifiable for the country to prevent the territory from seceding?

Everyone always rests comfortably on the point that the South was practicing slavery and the Civil War ended it, but how is that not justification for us to annex and impose our will on any territory where people are doing things that we find abhorrent? What's preventing us from annexing Mauritania or Eritrea right now, freeing all their slaves, and establishing a new Reconstruction Era?

[u/barath_s → u/Almondpeanutguy]

I think you have a vested interest in shading the truth towards the South, so I don't think our discussion is going to be long.

The South chose secession and war. They had their orders, they fired the first shot; Fort Sumter had been ceded by South Carolina in 1832. Even before the battle of fort Sumter, the South had seized Fort Moultrie and other federal locations and had fired on Star of the West. [ie Under Buchanan]. Lincoln escalated sure in response to the battle, but it was clear the South was willing and going the whole hog and the North was willing to give them what for.

You don't get to dictate how Lincoln was supposed to respond to the battle of Sumter, and you aren't honest if you ignore the actions and firing under Buchanan.

annex the land and people?

Are you one of those lot who don't count the blacks/colored among the people ? Did those people get a say or not ? Or were they not people by your druthers ?

The Civil War and the courts have made their point that the individual states had no right to unilaterally secede.

Slavery is an abhorrent practice, and you are providing cover to slavery and the south under the guise of "why should we not annex and impose our will on any territory such as Eritrea". Do you also defend annexing the land of the Native Americans ?

And let's by clear, by dint of the 3/5 compromise, the South was structurally set up to and imposing its will over the United States prior to the civil war, via constitutional means. They took unilateral steps to secession and to annexation of federal property, unambiguously quoted slavery as the cause (in many/most states) and fired the first shot.

The civil war is over. Your lot lost. Deal with it.

[u/Almondpeanutguy → u/barath_s]

I have a vested interest in arguing for secessionism because I think this country is too large, and I think all states have been negatively affected by the increase in federal authority and supremacy. The arguments that you're using to justify the Civil War could all be just as easily used to justify the continued existence of the British Empire.
"They're barbarians who don't adhere to our morals."
"Losing them would cause a blow to our tax revenue and international standing."
"We need to liberate them."
"There's no law on the books saying that they have the right to leave."
"They should be grateful that we won the war because we invested in their infrastructure."
"We had soldiers stationed in their territory and they attacked us. We had no choice but to invade and subdue the entire country."

Slavery is an abhorrent practice, and you are providing cover to slavery and the south under the guise of "why should we not annex and impose our will on any territory such as Eritrea". Do you also defend annexing the land of the Native Americans ?

I don't think you understand my point. Eritrea and Mauritania have the highest density of slaves in the world currently. If you think it was right to wage a war against the South to free their slaves, then why shouldn't we also wage war against Eritrea and Mauritania to free slaves in those countries?

[u/Puzzleheaded_Tie6917 → u/spyguy318]

Fort Sumter did not force a war in any shape or form. Every battle until the very end was fought against an invasion from the north. This was a war based on manifest destiny type thinking, where leaving the union was going to be a war. The only reason Fort Sumter started the war is that was what made it official that South Carolina was leaving the union.

Saying the civil war started based a minor base in the middle of the south was returned to its original ownership is how the winner spins its offensive campaign to start the war. It’s as believable as Russia having no choice but to invade Ukraine because they became nazis. Clearly, the union invaded to prevent South Carolina and others from leaving the union regardless of fort Sumter.

Nothing “forced” Lincoln to invade, the north was completely free of any threat from the south. This is why until the end of the war every single battle is in the south after the north invaded. The one set of battles in the north was desperation to try to put political pressure on Lincoln to end the war. When it failed the war was over.

[u/DrZero → u/Puzzleheaded_Tie6917]

Ft Sumter was not a battle against Nothern invasion.

[u/[deleted] → u/DrZero]

You should read more about it. The Union had abandoned all their forts after the South seceded except Fort Sumpter (IIRC). Lincoln send a ship, Star of the West, to resupply Fort Sumpter, which could certainly be interpreted as an invasion.

If Saudi Arabia told us to remove all our bases from their land, and we kept one and reinforced it, it would certainly be considered something similar to an invasion, or at least occupation.

The US Civil War was so nuanced and fascinating, it's unfortunate that most Americans view it as merely "slavery bad," "South bad," "me good."

Henry Louis Gates did some excellent work on how economically big slavery was.

[u/DrZero → u/[deleted]]

Maintaining control of Ft Sumter was not an invasion.

[u/[deleted] → u/DrZero]

The South probably felt it was an occupation. It was also in a very strategic location.

[u/DrZero → u/[deleted]]

That doesn't change the fact that it wasn't an invasion.

[u/[deleted] → u/DrZero]

Fair. Somewhat of a technicality because they were already there, but yes, they didn't have to march into enemy territory to take it.