A Balanced View of the Civil War

Anyone who has ever attempted to pry into the intricacies of the American Civil War knows that it can be an emotional undertaking. Seeing the photos and reading the accounts involved in that conflict have a way of doing that. However, the truth need not fall into obscurity or become the victim of modern propaganda wars. The question that will forever surround the American Civil War will be, "How much of a factor, if any, did slavery play in the events that lead up to the bloodiest war in American history?" This article attempts to address that question.

There are two dominant camps, or schools of thought, that dominate the conversation surrounding this war. The first I dub the "Politically Correct Propagandists" and the other the "Southern History Revisionists". The titles alone should tell you where more than 95% of Americans fall in regards to their view of their Civil War. The situation really is that bad; the truth of history has been greatly obscured.

The Politically Correct Propagandists have a narrative that goes something like this. Slavery was legal in the South, not the North. The God-fearing Northerners headed by Abraham Lincoln and the abolitionists sought to make slavery illegal but the mean, ignorant, and very white southerners (who all owned slaves) hated all things virtuous so much so that they were willing to kill the Northern liberators so they could continue to enslave men.

The Southern History Revisionists have a narrative as well. They will tell you that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery . . . Period. They will tell you that the eleven states that succeeded from the Union, all of which were slave states, did so for other reasons. Various reasons are put forth and usually they are economic in nature. For them the bloodiest war on the North American continent was all over the price of cotton. The North was ripping off the South so they succeeded.

If both of these positions sound like caricatures of ludicrous positions that is because they are. In all fairness, both camps have greater intricacy to their respective narratives but anyone who has read at length about the Civil War knows what I am getting at. Two very different camps, who have an agenda at stake twist history to fit their meta-narrative. Like so many things in life (though not all) the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Between the founding of America and its Civil War, slavery was allowed under federal law. By the time of the Civil War many states had outlawed slavery on their own. For various reasons, these "free" states fell along geographical lines. There are several reasons put forward for this. These would include, though not limited to, soil depletion, climate, religious demographics, and the abolitionist movement. Not only in the northern United States, but around the world, slavery was ending. France had ended slavery with its revolution. The British Empire ended slavery in 1834. Even in America, the importation of slaves was outlawed in 1808.

It is important not to isolate America from the rest of the world in terms of its history and its civil war. This is so often done and it is a tragedy. The American Civil War is a civil war and as such, it has similarities and differences with civil wars throughout history. Even the fact that we refer to as "The Civil War" seems a bit myopic.

Many in America saw the handwriting on the wall in terms of slavery. As new states entered the union, there was a very important question as to whether they would allow slavery or not. Those on both sides of the issue knew that if a disproportionate amount of states came into the union as free, then it was only a matter of time before the House of Representatives and the Senate would vote in legislation to abolish slavery. Many in the South wanted some of the soon-to-be western states to come into the union as "slave" states in order to maintain the status quo. However, the sentiments or America (and the world) were indeed changing and new states, like Kansas, were coming into the union as "free".

Again, slavery was on its way out around the world. Those who were pro-slavery in the South knew very well about how the French and British empires had done away with slavery. Against this backdrop it makes sense that when an avowed abolitionist, like Abraham Lincoln (who was from a newly formed abolitionist minded party - The Republican Party) came to power, the South wanted out of the union. Economically, both individuals and the system of the South stood to lose a considerable amount should slavery be abolished. Furthermore, there were different cultures and different ideas about life that were at variance. The South maintain much more of the classism that had been apart of western culture for the past millennium; the North had a higher percentage of immigrants - often low class. The South was more agrarian where as the North was more industrial.

When words like "it" and "they" get thrown around in terms of who governs a region or nation, it is wealthy individuals that are meant. The South is not, nor every was, a monolithic entity. There were slave owners in the South, but not everyone owned a slave. There were even Southern abolitionists (this part gets lost in history). The South had its own burgeoning middle class, although smaller than that in the North, and it was this class that was often indifferent to, or even against, slavery. Many a Southern man fought for the union during our civil war. Whole units were made up of enlistees from southern states. Many, though not all, came from the middle class that often did not see eye-to-eye with upper-class politicians. For an excellent read on the huge number of southern men that fought for the union I highly recommend Lincoln's Loyalists by Richard Nelson Current.

The North is no monolithic entity either and there were a multitude of opinions on what do about the South and slavery before and during "The Civil War". Many in the propaganda war will be quick to tell one who inquires about how there were Northerners who at one time held slaves, or that came from families that did. This too goes by the way-side of reductionist history. Sentiments towards blacks, both free and slave, varied. There is no doubt that a Northern upper-class existed that benefited from slavery indirectly. Any time a Northerner did business with a Southerner there was a very good chance slave labor was used on the Southern end of things.

But was the Civil War caused, at least in part by slavery? The answer is "yes" and "no" but mostly "yes".

For the succeeding, southern states there is no question that slavery was a reason for why they left. How can I state this? Well, the men of that time left written documents for us read that leave no doubt as to what they meant. The numerous testimonies of Congressmen who left to join the Confederacy affirm that the South left the Union, due in large part, over slavery. The Confederate Constitution contained specific references to slavery and affirmation of its perpetual legality in the Confederate States of America (Article I Section 9 and Article IV Section 2). Article four, section three, of the Confederate Constitution reads " . . . the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress . . ."

The Vice President of the Confederacy, Alexander Stevens (a former U.S. House of Representatives member from Georgia) contrasted the ideals that spawned the U.S.A. with that of the Confederacy. In a speech, entitled "African Slavery: The Corner-Stone of the Southern Confederacy" he stated, "Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid - its cornerstone rests - upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man." Could it get any clearer than that?

For the North the issue is not so cut-and-dry. The North went to war over secession. Even though by federal law slavery was legal, the U.S. government was not about to let half the nation go for any reason, even to defend a system (slavery) that was enshrined in its constitution. Which presents another interesting question. Did the southern states, or any state, have the right to leave the union of American states if it/they so desired?

It is understandable that southerners would want to distant themselves from slavery. But rewriting history is not the way to do it. Not all Southerners are history revisionists. Shelby Foote (now deceased) is a Southern historian of note who is fair, balanced, and worth listening to in regards to the Civil War.

On the other side of things, the North draped itself in false righteousness when both during and after the Civil War it condemned a system it was apart of. Furthermore, just because a person was against slavery does not make him/her moral or not racist. Union General William Sherman was a known Indian hater, and many in the North (including Lincoln) proposed sending blacks back to Africa or to somewhere else in the Americas.

Slavery is a diabolical institution that plagued, and still plagues, the world. It cuts across races, religions, ethnicities, etc. The point is, it was not just an American problem. America was slow in getting rid of slavery, but not the slowest. Brazil got rid of slavery in the 1880's and in some parts of the world it is still practiced. The sad thing is hundreds of thousands of Americans died because there were those in the South who wanted to keep it going, and there were those in the North who were unwilling to let the South leave.