Tanner Rotering

The article in the Richmond Times-Dispatch by Charles F. Bryan, Jr. entitled, “Yes, Slavery Caused the Civil War” (published August 15, 2010) presents a very poor case for Bryan’s point of view.  Bryan argues that without the issue of slavery, the South would have no reason to secede from the Union.  While this is true for the most part, this does not mean that “Slavery Caused the Civil War.”  In reality, the war was primarily concerned with the issue of secession from the Union.  The South fought the North because the North was infringing upon (as the southerners viewed it) their right to secede from the Union and form their own confederacy of states.  While the issue of slavery was the cause of secession, which was the cause of the war, to say that slavery caused the war is taking a logical liberality that is not fully warranted.  It is logical to say that without slavery, the Civil War would have never happened, but it is not logical to say that slavery was the cause of the Civil War, because it was only a motivation behind the cause.  To prove this point, imagine if the North and the South had still disagreed concerning slavery, but the South had not seceded.  Would there have been a war?  Of course not!  Slavery had existed for years beforehand, but no war had resulted.  The instigating factor that caused the war was secession.

There would not have been a civil war if the North had not desired to take back the South, and the North would not have wanted to take back the South if the South had not seceded from the Union.  In his first inaugural address, Lincoln says

I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws, the Union is unbroken; and to the extent of my ability I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States.…  I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.…  The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion — no using of force against or among the people anywhere.

This clearly illustrates that Lincoln in no way intended to show aggression toward the South except for the purpose of preserving the Union.  In Lincoln’s second Inaugural address he expresses the same notion.

While the inaugeral [sic] address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war — seeking to dissole [sic] the Union, and divide effects, by negotiation.  Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish.  And the war came.

One might consider this point to be a contradiction to a point made above concerning the differentiation between a cause and a motivation behind a cause.  Slavery motivated secession and secession motivated the North to take back the South, so wasn’t secession simply another motivation behind the cause of Northern aggression?  Once again, here is a slight misinterpretation of the issue.  The North trying to take back the South was not the cause of the war; it was “the war.”  In general the most immediate and fundamental motivation of the initial aggressor can be considered the cause of a war, and in this case it is secession.  While the North was not technically the first to take military action directed toward the South, it was the first to aggravate the other side by not removing its forces from enemy territory, but instead, sending supplies into aid these forces.  Regardless of whether these actions were justified, the North was the first aggressor and its aggressions were indeed intentional.  Lincoln knew that the conflict would break out between the Union and the Confederate States of America, and he wanted to justify his military actions by allowing the South to take the first shot at Fort Sumter.

Lincoln did not initiate the war to eradicate slavery.  Lincoln began to pursue Emancipation for the slaves only after the war had already begun.  He decided that, in order to put the South at a tactical disadvantage, he would emancipate the slaves in the states that had seceded, but again, this was not the cause of the war; it was a reaction that occurred because of the war.  In 1862, Lincoln said, “If I could save the union without freeing any slaves 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.”  Also, in his first inaugural speech he says, “It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you.  I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that ‘I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists.  I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.’”  Congress also had no intention of interfering with the institution of slavery but only of maintaining the Union.  In 1861, Congress adopted a resolution which stated, “This war is not waged … for the purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the established institutions of those States, but to maintain the States unimpaired; and that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war should cease.”  Clearly the North did not begin the war because of slavery but because of secession.

All of Charles F. Bryan, Jr.’s arguments are essentially proving that the South seceded to preserve slavery, but this does not prove that slavery caused the war.  The conflict concerning slavery caused the secession and secession caused the war.  Many people may consider this a trivial distinction, but understanding the cause of the Civil War is a fiery issue today, and if one is going to argue for hours about it, one ought to  pay close attention to this important distinction.

Because of Southerners’ reliance upon slavery they considered states’ rights an important issue.  The Confederate States of America was based upon the idea that states have a right to secede from the Union because the Union was a voluntary organization formed by the consent of the states themselves.  Lincoln, along with many other Northerners, believed otherwise.  He considered the Union to have been formed by the consent of the people, as a perpetual, never-ending institution.  This debate was at the heart of the issue of secession, and this was the real philosophical conflict that lead to the martial conflict known as the Civil War.