Would the Civil War have happened without slavery?

On Jan 2, 2024

Op-ed views and opinions expressed are solely those of the author.

The consensus of opinions has suggested that “without slavery the South would not have been the agricultural juggernaut that it became.”

Revisionist historians have been quick to conclude that the Civil War was about slavery. It was. But not initially. In fact, it was not officially a war objective until 1863.

Midway in 1862, following Federal defeat at the Second Battle of Bull Run, things were looking bleak for the Union. There was growing concern that England and France might recognize the Confederacy. There were economic reasons to do so. The Union blockade was impacting Britain’s textile industry to the extent that the mills were shutting down, due to want of Cotton. Millworkers were starving.

The Confederacy Looked Like a Winner

British Prime Minister, Lord David Palmerston held great respect for CSA President, Jefferson Davis. He had publicly lauded Davis’s overall military experience, knowledge and competence. There was also outrage concerning Union stoppage of the English commerce clipper, “The Trent,” for purposefully arresting Confederate ambassadors headed for England and France. For weeks, U.S. war with England looked imminent.

Palmerston was a careful man. He decided to hedge his bets, suggesting that the South needed “one more victory” before gaining England’s recognition and subsequent military assistance. At that time the House of Lords favored recognition. While the House of Commons still opposed it, there was growing concern with the devastating effect the war was having on average British citizens, such as the textile mill workers. There was little feedback coming from the Crown, due to a recent death in the royal family.

Summer 1862 was the Confederacy’s high-water mark. Robert E. Lee had won impressive victories at Seven-Days and Second Bull Run against armies that greatly outnumbered his own. In the West, CSA Generals Braxton Bragg and Edmund Kirby Smith had occupied key parts of Kentucky, with sights on Louisville and the eventual kill. Abraham Lincoln concluded that “to lose Kentucky would be to lose the entire game.”

Emancipation Proclamation Provided Double War Objective

Up until then, the Union war objective had been “to preserve the Union.” Lincoln was not in a hurry to bring slavery into the discussion. He reminded Congressional counterparts that slavery was protected by the Constitution. His biggest worry was European involvement. British recognition would have resulted in the British Navy’ s probable destruction of the Union blockade.

The President’s reasoning suggested that if the decree was issued prematurely, it would be seen as an act of desperation. The Emancipation Proclamation called for freeing ONLY slaves who resided in states at war with the United States. Slave states that did not secede were not included.

Lee’s original goal was to cross the Potomac in route to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Upon arrival, he would speak to the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, offering a peaceful, yet permanent separation. However, two unexpected occurrences took place.

Only 40,000 Confederates crossed the river. Nearly that same number stayed in Virginia, objecting to the invasion. Then, Lee’s orders were accidentally lost and later recovered and given to Union Commander, George B. McClellan. In the end, McClellan’s 90,000 men could manage no better than a draw when confronting Lee. But it forced Lee to return to Virginia with greatly reduced numbers following the devastating Battle of Antietam that took place September 17th, 1862.

The Confederacy managed two small victories in Kentucky, at Richmond and Munfordville. Yet they failed to follow up on what would have likely been a “victory without firing a shot” at Louisville. Instead, the mercurial Bragg withdrew from the state after an inconclusive battle at Perryville. Even today, “armchair generals” question his decision.

The Emancipation Proclamation Prevented English and French Intervention

Effective January 1st, 1863, the Union was fighting to free the slaves. Lincoln knew that neither European nation would participate in a war that supported the continuation of slavery. The proclamation ensured that the war would remain between North and South.

The Emancipation Proclamation is often confused with the 13th Amendment, which constitutionally ended slavery. This took place in 1865 following the South’s surrender. Unbeknownst to most is the fact that slavery was gradually dying on its own! Many slaveholders faced the realization that the institution was simply too expensive to maintain. When compared to what Northern factory workers were being paid by the factory owners, there was credence in this conclusion. Some had secretly emancipated their slaves, while continuing to pay taxes on them, opting for discretion over tax savings. Most states levied taxes on slaves.

Was Slavery the Primary Cause of the Civil War?

The institution of slavery was one of the causes but not the sole cause! The South wanted to sell its cotton and other agricultural products such as sugar, rice and tobacco to England and France. They wanted to buy consumer goods ranging from clothing to coal oil lamps from those countries. Compared to the same products produced in the North, they were of better quality and were less expensive. Rather than making their factories more efficient while reducing their profit margins, the New England states used the electorate to unlevel the playing field in their favor. Their enacting high protective tariffs hurt their Southern neighbors to the extent that the South simply wanted out of the Union.

Slavery was seen in the North more as a moral and ethical issue. That the South’s economy would be impacted was of little concern to them. Lincoln saw it as nothing short of a backdoor wealth transfer. He proposed a $400 payment for each slave emancipated.

Shouldering the Blame

Lincoln was deeply concerned on how the recently emancipated slaves would find their footing in post-slavery America. He acknowledged that even in the North, they were nothing short of second-class citizens. He proposed a mass relocation of freedmen to what is now Belize. This was greeted with minimal enthusiasm, both from Congress and the freedmen themselves.

Decades passed. Both North and South accepted an 1895 SCOTUS ruling, “Plessy versus Ferguson,” which set the standard of “separate but equal.” The impact of that ill-advised ruling continued well into the 1960s.

Today, it has become fashionable to assign blame to former Confederate military icons and politicians. Statues have been eradicated. Flags have been banned. Meanwhile, opponents of these measures painfully remind us that “history cannot be sanitized.” The inability of either side to take ownership in what will always be considered America’s greatest tragedy escapes us all.

DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW

Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!

Success! Thank you for donating. Please share BPR content to help combat the lies.