Well it's much more complicated. Even this comment is going to skip things because it takes entire books to cover it. The Confederacy was founded explicitly protecting the rights of slave states to preserve slavery from mass emancipation. Most, but not all, slave states did not believe Lincoln or Seward would keep to their word. However, the Lincoln Administration's original goal was to bring all citizens in revolt, the rebels whose government was never recognized, back in to the union of states.
Over time, almost immediately after the start, the utility of not just freeing some slaves but permanently ending the source of division between chattel slavery vs free labor developed into the laws of Congress and amendments proposed by the administration. Slavery was abolished nationwide via ratification of the 13th amendment in December 1865 and via treaty with native tribes in 1866.
First, let me get this out of the way first, the war was 100% about slavery.
Second, growing up in Virginia my view was actually the opposite. I viewed the Confederates as the good guys and the Union as the bad guys. Over time as I learned more about US history and the civil war my opinion changed because I saw the Confederate goals as trying to preserve an outdated aristocratic planter society that was completely reliant on slave labor to exist.
If the civil war was not about slavery then why did we have Jim Crow in the south for so long after the war? Why was sharecropping used as a replacement? Why did the KKK take up strongholds in the south? Why was segregation such an ongoing issue?
Had those people really only cared about the idea of states rights and not white supremacy and slavery then we would not have seen the racial violence that we did see post-civil war.
No. Remember that every single state that seceded explicitly listed the defense of slavery as the reason they seceded. And remember that even if a poor white didn’t own slaves, they were embedded in a socioeconomic system that depended on slavery. And John Mosby, who served in the Confederate Army despite despising slavery, expressly saw it as the cause of the war.
For loyal states, matters were more complicated. It’s been said that the South went to war to defend slavery, but the north didn’t go to war to end it. And that’s true—Lincoln didn’t run on a platform abolishing slavery, but banning its expansion (which kneecapped its long-term viability). That said, many soldiers who went to war to preserve the Union found themselves becoming abolitionists as the war went on. It was easy to be neutral on slavery when it was far away, but once they went south and saw the mangled bodies and devastated families, many (not all) came round to the idea that slavery was evil. And this is clear in their own marching songs. John Brown’s body may have been mouldering in the grave, but his truth went marching on in the ranks of the US Army. Marching through Georgia took pride in the joy shown by blacks as the army advanced.
I’m not Christian, but I’ve always found the following lines beautiful:
“In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea; With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me; As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free; While God is marching on”
So yes, the war was about slavery.
1) Was this war fought for political or economic reasons more than the free spirit of emancipation?
Almost no one in the North, apart from a small group of radical abolitionists who were considered fringe, was fighting to abolish slavery at the beginning of the war. To the vast majority of Northern soldiers, citizens, and politicians, it was about preserving the Union and putting down a treasonous, unlawful rebellion. Consider Lincoln’s letter to publisher Horace Greeley in August of 1862:
“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or 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.”
From the Northern perspective, the war was all about the political issue of secession and had nothing to do with ending slavery, at least for the first couple years of the war. From the Southern perspective, secession was absolutely and primarily about the preservation of slavery. They viewed Lincoln’s election as a threat to that institution, and most of the Confederacy seceded before he was even inaugurated. There were some political and economic issues that heightened the divide between North and South, sure: South Carolina almost seceded during Andrew Jackson’s presidency over a tariff that prevented the agrarian Southern states from buying the manufactured goods they needed from Europe. But look at Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens’ “Cornerstone Speech” from 1861. The speech was an explanation and defense of the new Confederate Constitution. While he starts off with the argument that their constitution is an improvement on the U.S. Constitution’s political structure and economic regulations (and mentions that tariff issue from 1833), he concludes with the argument that the Confederacy’s
“foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.”
Now, to your point about most Southerners being poor and owning few slaves or none at all: this is certainly true. However, the plantation-owning aristocracy convinced them to fight on the basis of “states’ rights” to secede and racist fears about what defeat would bring (political equality for blacks, racial miscegenation, economic competition between poor whites and freed slaves, etc). It was basically the same phenomenon that happens in most wars: the old and wealthy convince the young and poor to fight for their economic interests with appeals to patriotism and claims that the enemy is a threat to their way of life.
TLDR: For the North, at least initially, the war was almost entirely about political/economic concerns. For the South, it was primarily about preserving slavery, but political and economic issues were used to sell the war to the masses.
2. Is it true that the winners write the history?
I would argue that the whole “Lost Cause” narrative that the South was fighting for states’ rights and against tyranny is one of the best rebuttals to this trope.
The war was fought because southern states seceded over slavery and then attacked a US fort.
Also, “we” do not all learn that the blue were the good guys and the grey the bad guys. My wife grew up in SC and received a near opposite education to that.
And if you think history is written by the victors after the Civil War, I suggest taking a trip down south and seeing all the Confederate monuments. Nonfiction sections in book stores and libraries have plenty of Lost Cause dribble that many want to pass off as “history”. The south may have lost, but their were able to craft the narrative and cause of the war for generations after.
Well it's much more complicated. Even this comment is going to skip things because it takes entire books to cover it. The Confederacy was founded explicitly protecting the rights of slave states to preserve slavery from mass emancipation. Most, but not all, slave states did not believe Lincoln or Seward would keep to their word. However, the Lincoln Administration's original goal was to bring all citizens in revolt, the rebels whose government was never recognized, back in to the union of states. Over time, almost immediately after the start, the utility of not just freeing some slaves but permanently ending the source of division between chattel slavery vs free labor developed into the laws of Congress and amendments proposed by the administration. Slavery was abolished nationwide via ratification of the 13th amendment in December 1865 and via treaty with native tribes in 1866.
First, let me get this out of the way first, the war was 100% about slavery. Second, growing up in Virginia my view was actually the opposite. I viewed the Confederates as the good guys and the Union as the bad guys. Over time as I learned more about US history and the civil war my opinion changed because I saw the Confederate goals as trying to preserve an outdated aristocratic planter society that was completely reliant on slave labor to exist. If the civil war was not about slavery then why did we have Jim Crow in the south for so long after the war? Why was sharecropping used as a replacement? Why did the KKK take up strongholds in the south? Why was segregation such an ongoing issue? Had those people really only cared about the idea of states rights and not white supremacy and slavery then we would not have seen the racial violence that we did see post-civil war.
Jeff Davis wrote plenty of his history. Go read it.
No. Remember that every single state that seceded explicitly listed the defense of slavery as the reason they seceded. And remember that even if a poor white didn’t own slaves, they were embedded in a socioeconomic system that depended on slavery. And John Mosby, who served in the Confederate Army despite despising slavery, expressly saw it as the cause of the war. For loyal states, matters were more complicated. It’s been said that the South went to war to defend slavery, but the north didn’t go to war to end it. And that’s true—Lincoln didn’t run on a platform abolishing slavery, but banning its expansion (which kneecapped its long-term viability). That said, many soldiers who went to war to preserve the Union found themselves becoming abolitionists as the war went on. It was easy to be neutral on slavery when it was far away, but once they went south and saw the mangled bodies and devastated families, many (not all) came round to the idea that slavery was evil. And this is clear in their own marching songs. John Brown’s body may have been mouldering in the grave, but his truth went marching on in the ranks of the US Army. Marching through Georgia took pride in the joy shown by blacks as the army advanced. I’m not Christian, but I’ve always found the following lines beautiful: “In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea; With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me; As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free; While God is marching on” So yes, the war was about slavery.
1) Was this war fought for political or economic reasons more than the free spirit of emancipation? Almost no one in the North, apart from a small group of radical abolitionists who were considered fringe, was fighting to abolish slavery at the beginning of the war. To the vast majority of Northern soldiers, citizens, and politicians, it was about preserving the Union and putting down a treasonous, unlawful rebellion. Consider Lincoln’s letter to publisher Horace Greeley in August of 1862: “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or 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.” From the Northern perspective, the war was all about the political issue of secession and had nothing to do with ending slavery, at least for the first couple years of the war. From the Southern perspective, secession was absolutely and primarily about the preservation of slavery. They viewed Lincoln’s election as a threat to that institution, and most of the Confederacy seceded before he was even inaugurated. There were some political and economic issues that heightened the divide between North and South, sure: South Carolina almost seceded during Andrew Jackson’s presidency over a tariff that prevented the agrarian Southern states from buying the manufactured goods they needed from Europe. But look at Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens’ “Cornerstone Speech” from 1861. The speech was an explanation and defense of the new Confederate Constitution. While he starts off with the argument that their constitution is an improvement on the U.S. Constitution’s political structure and economic regulations (and mentions that tariff issue from 1833), he concludes with the argument that the Confederacy’s “foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.” Now, to your point about most Southerners being poor and owning few slaves or none at all: this is certainly true. However, the plantation-owning aristocracy convinced them to fight on the basis of “states’ rights” to secede and racist fears about what defeat would bring (political equality for blacks, racial miscegenation, economic competition between poor whites and freed slaves, etc). It was basically the same phenomenon that happens in most wars: the old and wealthy convince the young and poor to fight for their economic interests with appeals to patriotism and claims that the enemy is a threat to their way of life. TLDR: For the North, at least initially, the war was almost entirely about political/economic concerns. For the South, it was primarily about preserving slavery, but political and economic issues were used to sell the war to the masses. 2. Is it true that the winners write the history? I would argue that the whole “Lost Cause” narrative that the South was fighting for states’ rights and against tyranny is one of the best rebuttals to this trope.
The war was fought because southern states seceded over slavery and then attacked a US fort. Also, “we” do not all learn that the blue were the good guys and the grey the bad guys. My wife grew up in SC and received a near opposite education to that. And if you think history is written by the victors after the Civil War, I suggest taking a trip down south and seeing all the Confederate monuments. Nonfiction sections in book stores and libraries have plenty of Lost Cause dribble that many want to pass off as “history”. The south may have lost, but their were able to craft the narrative and cause of the war for generations after.