[Holly6]

A VERY brief sketch

One of the purposes of having an American Civil War thread is to present the cause and effect of the conflict to those who have an interest but not a background in the era. As with any historical event, there are a myriad of causation points involved here: the role of State vs Federal Government, the amount and use of various tariffs, agrarian vs industrial economic priorities dictated in many ways by the geographical fact that as the Eastern mountain ranges lay at an angle to the Coast of the US allowing for an excellent source of water power North and superb agricultural opportunities to the South. All of these points and more played into the conflagration. However, all of these topics pale historically in the glare of the Slavery issue which has been so minutely examined by both sides that it has become hard to discern the 1860 reality..

BACKGROUND

African slavery was introduced early in Colonial America. Labor shortages were chronic from the very beginning of settlement. The primary device was the use of an indentured contract that would provide passage and necessities for European poor in exchange for a stipulated term of labor. There were inherent problems with this program. Runaways melted into the population and there was a lack of legal protection for contractors. Eventually the indentured plan fell into disarray as a result of attacks on Virginian colonists by a combined army of workers and Native Americans. (See King Phillip’s War)
The purchase of slaves increased throughout the Colonies until the Revolutionary Era. During the 1700's individual New England colonies began to address the slavery issue in various ways regarding delayed emancipation, compensation to owners and residency or relocation of freedmen. The ability to reconcile these issues dealing with a relatively small number of Slaves allowed for this solution.

The reality of Human Bondage permeated discussions throughout the formative years of the American Government from the Dec. Of Independence to the creation of the Constitution. While the discussions occasionally became heated, both sides were able to reach various compromises due to their intense desire for a unified Nation. Eventually many of these trade-offs would come back to haunt future generations.
Throughout the first half of the 19th Century the country suffered through all the well known growing pains of Nationhood. The paramount political questions regarding slavery dealt with its spread into the new Territories and States. The American Congress has two Houses one based upon state population (House of Representatives) and the other state representation (Senate). Approval of both groups are needed for most legislation. Throughout the decades waves of immigration entered the northern ports in search of employment in the bourgeoning factory system. The population increase gave the Northern States, which was developing an active and vocal abolition movement, a complete dominance of the House. Southern states strongly relied on the spread of slavery into newly created territories and states (and Senate membership) as a means of stemming any “immediate emancipation” laws. 1859 saw an attempt by the hard line abolitionist John Brown to seize the Federal Arsenal at Harper’s Ferry Virginia and arm a rebellion of slaves leading them on a murderous rampage across the South. Though arrested and executed for Treason, he was exalted as a Martyr in the Northern Media. In Nov. 1860, the nation elected Abraham Lincoln as President of the United States. He ran on a platform that opposed the spread of slavery into the West. For those Southerners to whom slavery was a key issue, the events regarding the topic leading up to and including the election, tipped the scales toward secession from the Union.

REVISIONISM:
We all know that winners get to write the history. The issue of slavery is no exception. By the turn of the 20th Century history books were nearly unanimous in their concept that the Union Army, to a man, marched off to free the slaves against a Rebel army intent on keeping the “Negro” in bondage. Of course the reality was far more complex, even among those on both sides who considered this the ultimate motivation for combat.

:
When examined closely, Northern Abolitionist Societies seemed bound only by their dislike of slavery. They were widely diverse in their support of emancipation plans. The questions dividing them included:
Timing (immediate freedom or gradual programs some involving decades).
Compensation (none, partial or total payment for southern private property). Communities also disagreed over the sources of compensation.
Residency or re-location: Various relocation plans included reservations in the West, Caribbean, Mexico, or Africa among other sites.

In the South, these issues also made up a large part of the debate about “Our Peculiar Institution”. Slaves represented a large part of the capitalization of the Southern economy. Uncompensated, immediate emancipation would have created economic chaos. Relocation of their labor force would also be disastrous. Full residency and citizenship of emancipated freedmen would create what was seen as disastrous social upheaval.

Again, the War Between The States was fought due to disagreements over a wide range of issues. Few if any were cut and dried. This article has more “holes than filler”, but I hope it will provide a small insight into a primary issue for many political firebrands on both sides.

[Geek44]

Nice one Hal...this is perfect for somebody like myself. Thanks.
Peace.

[Geek44]

Thanks again Hal...I've just read this again. I have a question.
At the end of the ACW with the Union forces victorious, what was the eventual outcome for the slaves themselves? Consider that I once saw 'Roots' when it was on TV in the seventies...that's my entire understanding.
Interesting thoughts come up for me here. Why Africa when there was a ready supply of Native Americans? Also, I compare US history in this context against Aussie history and our treatment of indigenous Australians. No slavery, mostly just massacre, deceit, alcohol and 'death by police'.
Peace.

[Holly6]

Geek44 said:

Nice one Hal...this is perfect for somebody like myself. Thanks.
Peace.

Thanks Nick. Politics and economics? Who'd figure that would come into play on such a human subject.

[Tom Houlihan]

Geek44 said:

Why Africa when there was a ready supply of Native Americans?

The mechanisms for the trade were already in place. Africans captured other Africans to sell them. The white traders already had the markets set up, along with the means of transport.

Native Americans would be just as difficult to keep in place as the indentured servants mentioned above. Moral and other support would have been a lot more readily available had the colonials started capturing NA for slaves. Had they actually started that, at that time the natives still outnumbered the interlopers, and the colonials would have had hell to pay if any of the tribes united to defend themselves against being taken into slavery like that.

That said, some Native American tribes practiced slavery in varying degrees, though not like the colonials and Europeans did. But, had the "white man" started taking slaves on the scale needed to support the above mentioned agricultural effort, it's quite likely the natives would have been a tad more than restless.

[Holly6]

Tom Houlihan said:

Geek44 said:

Why Africa when there was a ready supply of Native Americans?

The mechanisms for the trade were already in place. Africans captured other Africans to sell them. The white traders already had the markets set up, along with the means of transport.

Native Americans would be just as difficult to keep in place as the indentured servants mentioned above. Moral and other support would have been a lot more readily available had the colonials started capturing NA for slaves. Had they actually started that, at that time the natives still outnumbered the interlopers, and the colonials would have had hell to pay if any of the tribes united to defend themselves against being taken into slavery like that.

That said, some Native American tribes practiced slavery in varying degrees, though not like the colonials and Europeans did. But, had the "white man" started taking slaves on the scale needed to support the above mentioned agricultural effort, it's quite likely the natives would have been a tad more than restless.

Tom pretty much hit this. By the mid-late 17th Century, Europeans, Dutch and Portugeese in particular, had set up the necessary logistical train to provide Africans to different Western Hemisphere Colonies and the European Continent.
The Spanish probably had the greatest "success" in enslaving Natives during the initial contact with the New World. However, the body count became incredible due to the introduction of European diseases.

The American Natives practiced a form of slavery, primarily using captives of War. However, these were predominatly female and many times, the women would eventually become accepted by the Tribe.

Early European attempts to enslave male Native Americans became failures. Many tribes had a warrior code not unlike the Japanese. Again, disease took a major toll, and as the animosity between Settlers and Natives grew, Native slaves could look for help even from traditional foes. "The enemy of my enemy", thing.

Suprisingly, some Tribes, particularly in the South, had members that became African slave owners. In particularly the Cherokee who managed to take some of their slaves into the Indian Territory during the relocation under Jackson.

[DocCasualty]

Holly6 said:

A VERY brief sketch

Very nice summary! Having grown up in the North, I too grew up with a distorted perspective of all of the issues leading to the ACW. Reading on my own with an open mind helped remedy that.

Not to hijack the thread but have any of you looked at an American high school history textbook lately? My son is a Junior (Grade 11) and I was thumbing through his book a couple of months ago. I was sparked to do this when I asked him what they were studying and he said the Civil War. As I questioned him about what they were learning and he said "we mostly talked about Slavery". I was pretty surprised to see that there was an entire chapter on Slavery that was as long, if not longer, than the entire chapter devoted to the Civil War. I agree it is an important topic, but I think it raises some question of balance and perspective.

I was somewhat relieved when I spoke with his teacher and found she had a lesson plan that did not remain stuck to the text. I still can't help but think political correctness is driving much of what I unfortunately see as revisionist history though. Don't even get me started on our President Elect's choice to discuss "dropping the atomic bomb on innocent citizens" on the anniversary of the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor!

[Panzermacher]

Hal, not much I can say or add to what you said/ You and the boys here have covered all the bases. I tip my gray Kepi to ya.....

[Holly6]

Panzermacher said:

Hal, not much I can say or add to what you said/ You and the boys here have covered all the bases. I tip my gray Kepi to ya.....

Thank you Chuck. I hold this as high praise indeed. The sketch on 'States Rights" scares me to death.

[Holly6]

DocCasualty said:

Holly6 said:

A VERY brief sketch

Very nice summary! Having grown up in the North, I too grew up with a distorted perspective of all of the issues leading to the ACW. Reading on my own with an open mind helped remedy that.

Not to hijack the thread but have any of you looked at an American high school history textbook lately? My son is a Junior (Grade 11) and I was thumbing through his book a couple of months ago. I was sparked to do this when I asked him what they were studying and he said the Civil War. As I questioned him about what they were learning and he said "we mostly talked about Slavery". I was pretty surprised to see that there was an entire chapter on Slavery that was as long, if not longer, than the entire chapter devoted to the Civil War. I agree it is an important topic, but I think it raises some question of balance and perspective.

I was somewhat relieved when I spoke with his teacher and found she had a lesson plan that did not remain stuck to the text. I still can't help but think political correctness is driving much of what I unfortunately see as revisionist history though. Don't even get me started on our President Elect's choice to discuss "dropping the atomic bomb on innocent citizens" on the anniversary of the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor!

It's a little hard to consider History education "off topic" considering what I do for a living.
Sadly, I agree with your assessment of today's text offerings. National publishers have to develop a product that is non-offensive to a polarized Country. What they end up with is pure mush. Send your Son's Teacher a coffee mug. It sounds like she has the professionalism and ethics to continue to learn and grow in her career, so as to present a balanced presentation of her subject.

[Geek44]

DocCasualty said:

Very nice summary! Having grown up in the North, I too grew up with a distorted perspective of all of the issues leading to the ACW. Reading on my own with an open mind helped remedy that.

Fascinating stuff guys. Thanks for your time on this.
Of course now that you mention a few things like existing slave trade routes through Africa it makes sense. I was surprised to learn that Native Americans still outnumbered the European population. There's my ignorance again. I know little of their history also.
Peace.

[Tom Houlihan]

Geek44 said:

I know little of their history also.

If it's any consolation, Nick, you now know more than a lot of Americans!

[HMan]

Holly6 said:

Geek44 said:

Why Africa when there was a ready supply of Native Americans?

... The Spanish probably had the greatest "success" in enslaving Natives during the initial contact with the New World. However, the body count became incredible due to the introduction of European diseases...

If you ever wondered why European diseases were so much deadler to Natives then vice-versa,
the book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" is excellent.

To oversimplfy, there is only certain animals that can be domisticated.
The old world had more of these than the new (perhaps partly because
by the time humans got to the new world their hunting technology was
much better & they might have wiped out any good canidates).

Many terrible diseases start from animals, plus with animal raising you
can support a much bigger population. A disease that is deadly in
a small population would quickly die off because it can't spread to
a new host.