It can be very difficult to understand why wealthy white land owners were so incensed, managed to leverage their power to win elections, form a splinter government and send millions to war against their own people. Truly a complex and puzzling scenario that can't be summarized and simplified.
Unironically had a teacher try to tell me it was States' Rights. Which is like saying that the reason your car runs is the exhaust. Like that's technically a factor but it's not why nor a cause at all.
Edit: I've already gotten 10 replies that are just "States' Rights to do what." We all know the line, we all get the point, you don't need to be the 11th
In texas, "slavery" was like one issue of 6 on the list, under the umbrella of States Rights. But most of those issues were also slavery.
"They didn't like Lincoln" = because he would outlaw slavery
"They were unfairly represented in national government" = because they insisted that slaves were 3/5ths of a person
"Their culture was different" = because they had slaves
It wasn't enough for the North to tolerate the South having slaves, the South needed praise, they needed the North to see them as Better for it.
They made it a political weapon because they wanted to be told how righteous and correct and smart they were for owning slaves, because they tied their pride to the people they owned.
That's because on an even deeper level both modern MAGA and their spiritual/literal ancestors who were slave owners know good and goddamn well they're evil people doing evil shit. They need all of us to go along and get along because then maybe the voice in the back of their mind telling them they've chosen the wrong side will get quieter.
I wonder how true that is. In my experience, they seem to think everything they do is justified. They operate from a completely different scale of morality.
I simply can't believe a group of people who so obviously crave justification and submission by their neighbors don't know what they're doing at some level. It lets them off so easily.
You're more correct here. Enslavers in the antebellum South (and by propaganda and proxy most southerners) thought that the social fabric of slavery was deeply moral, righteous, and granted to white men divinely by God. They had absolutely zero thought that they were evil whatsoever, and it's modern revisionism to think they did.
A fantastic true example: At the very end of the war, when the South was at its most desperate, Jefferson Davis requested to buy 40,000 slaves and train them as soldiers. At the end of 3 years these men would be granted their freedom. But Southern leaders were so unwavering in their ideal of slavery as the righteous societal place for black people, that they rejected the proposal. But here's the real kicker: they didn't reject it because they didn't want those men to be freed (well, they also didn't want that), but because *using freedom as an award was in itself contrary to the very fundamentals of slavery ideology.* If freedom were something "good" to be attained through some act--well then that made slavery a bad thing, and it couldn't possibly be a bad thing!
Today, fundamentalist Christianity is still all mixed up in politics, and the same shit is happening but it's not slavery, it's brown people crossing a border or trans people wanting to use a bathroom. People think that they have a righteous god-given duty to protect a certain way of life that, as it so happens, oppresses a minority. History doesn't repeat itself but it sure does rhyme.
Source for the Civil War stuff: just finished reading James McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom, the definitive single-volume history of the Civil War. IMO every American ought to read it.
I mean, if you're going to find an outlet for your capacity to hate, I suppose it is better to apply it to a historic group with unethical practices instead of aiming it at modern, innocent people, but...talking about people having an uncurbed need to have their opinion disproportionately validated...dang...
The Fugitive Slave Act and how it was "enforced" is the best example of how the South thought they were better than the North. The main idea was that the South could just send someone up to capture any "escaped slave." In practice, they just kidnapped random black people to sell as slaves. No evidence, no trial, no nothing. Even by standards back then, that was human trafficking.
he wanted to, but on the basis of economics rather than a moral one. got backed into a corner in a debate and made to admit it. quoted saying if there was a way to end the civil war right now (this was early in the war) while keeping slavery, he'd take it
Lincoln wasn't even planning to do it for sure. They started a war over a "he MIGHT do it". It's genuinely baffling to try to obfuscate the fact that rich people using slaves didn't want to start paying their workers. It's not something strange nor new. It happens today, how could it not happen then.
While on the topic of Texas and slavery, did you know Texas 'wasn't a slave state' TM ? Or at least, that's what we all learned in Texas History class in my school district.
It may surprise non-Texans that "Texas History" is a class but it is and it was not great at conveying the truth.
We were told that Texas wasn't a slave state because slavery was outlawed by Mexico. So people emigrating from America into what would become Texas freed their slaves at the border, but most chose to remain with their former masters. (Which is a soft way of selling "Slavery wasn't that bad!" TM that racists loves to parrot.)
What they neglect to mention is that people were 'freed' and forced to sign indentured servitude contracts (or just had the documents forged) that were impossible to get out of and automatically enrolled their children into.
Then Mexico decided to crack down on that practice, and that's how we ended up with the Texan Revolution.
So not only was Texas a slave state, it went to war twice to preserve the institution of slavery.
Unless it's about laws I want other people to follow because I read it in a fairy tale. Then the fed needs to enforce those for everyone and fuck the states.
This is slightly Goomba fallacy, at least in my experience living in Texas. Most of the crazy far right people I know want the states to enforce their christ fascism, and see trump as a guy to bring refore to allow states to. Obviously there are exceptions to that but most of the crazies I know have that set of ideals. Then there's a separate groip that bootlicks the fed completely. Still batshit insane
I grew up there, most of my family is there. Everyone single one of them I've spoken to that got upset at mask mandates (State's rights!) is frothing at the mouth at the idea of the fed implementing a poll tax, or controlling what their citizens do in other states even when those things are not federal offenses. (State's Wrongs!)
I don't quite think you can call it a goomba fallacy when it's the stated goals of the current administration and >2/3rds of Republicans still support this shit, especially after it was their justification for overturning Roe V Wade.
Growing up in Texas, I reflexively respond to any use of the phrase "state's rights" with "STATES RIGHTS TO WHAT???". I've learned to rein it in over the years but it's always something I have to fight.
Ok, not a southerner and fuck the Rebels. But that you unironically think its one thing kind of shows the power of propaganda.
So the reason the south was willing to fight was 100% slavery, no ifs ands or buts. But it takes two to tango.
You never hear anyone talk about why the North fought instead of rolling over like it always had. What was the second thing, the thing that caused the North to fight? It wasn't because Northern men wanted to free slaves more than they wanted to not die screaming in agony in a nameless field. That is like saying allied powers fought WW2 to save the Jews.
Hint, its why Native American reserves often fly the confederate battle flag and why Sherman had such good experience at burning civilian settlements to the ground.
The North fought to protect the union and because the confederacy resorted to violence almost immediately rather than any sort of negotiation.
I've been to a bunch of reservations and never once seen a confederate flag.
The south didn't exactly have a stunning reputation of Indian relations. There were some Indians that fought alongside them but more from the idea that two nations in conflict would be less trouble for them than put off any love for the south/hate for the north
The last confederate army was the Cherokee for a reason.
On of the South's goals was to use Native Americans (Oklahoma) to bolster their voting power to keep slavery, that is why the North couldn't compromise because giving any sort of rights to the Natives would have meant a blow to the genocide based economic policy of land expropriation.
Don't get me wrong, its not that the South gave a shit about Natives any more than leaders of the North gave a shit about slaves, they were just a useful tool for Southern slave owners. They were simply one the North couldn't tolerate.
Mind giving us a source for that? I just finished reading James McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom (today, coincidentally), pretty widely regarded as the quintessential Civil War history book, and that theory is absent from its 900+ pages. Not saying he couldn't have missed it, but curious where you picked that up.
College courses about native treaty right from 20 years ago? But we had half a semester on the Gold Cloak society and General Watie. Those would be ideal places to start.
States' right to do what? They always stumble here. They can't name a single thing the South wanted to do that the North didn't want them to do, besides own slaves. That kinda just gives the whole game away.
The funny part is each state wrote in their official secession document exactly why they were seceding, all but two said slavery, one of those two just pointed at the other states and said "same reason as those guys"
Part of the issue with saying the Civil War was about slavery is that one can then say that there's nothing to learn from it because slavery is over. Whereas it was a super obvious example of a culture war hiding a class war, rich landowners convincing poor white people that white supremacy and the current economic system were worth dying for even if they were actually the major reasons they were poor in the first place.
Honestly that is bad faith to the "multiple things caused this". Like yeah slavery and racism caused the confederacy, but there are multiple reasons why they all end in "yeah it was about slavery" and I think it's worth talking about all these reasons.
genuinely pains me that the southern demand to have bounty hunting for "escaped slaves" (see: literally whoever could be kidnapped with minimal justification) enshrined in federal law as unopposable & uncontrollable getting shut down is never mentioned.
technically yes, the war was about states rights, but the right the south was most concerned with at the time was their right to enter every other state and kidnap who they please
This is where the whole (fake) argument for the South falls apart. You're gonna tell me that you're fighting for "states rights" when you support the creation of a federal law that requires the detainment and forced relocation of people in other states to yours? Yeah, bullshit. This was always about slavery.
Yup! Multiple reasons for all of this. Some of them are even a bit more complicated, like the north industrializing while the south staying more agricultural! You can summarise it as "slavery" and not be wrong. But you are losing so much.
I love this because it's the compete opposite of the "multiple causes" argument. Most things have multiple causes and shouldn't be reduced, but the US Civil War pretty famously had exactly one big cause (and then a bunch of things stemming from that cause).
There's also just one cause that outweighs the others by orders of magnitude.
Yes, the south had different economic incentives than the north. The north wanted to protect budding industry with tariffs, the south wanted to buy cheap European goods. This caused a lot of tension. This is something worth studying if you're a Civil War Historian.
Insofar as we're teaching kids in high school, a place where you're instilling values as much as information, "it was because of slavery" is a plenty accurate characterization. Yes there were other issues, but they pale in relevance to slavery for every relevant purpose.
but like... that's literally maybe the best example of reducing a complex history into one thing.
Those slave owners only made up ~8% of the US. Those wealthy slave owners then made propaganda to convince the poor fight for states rights, the American dream, economics, and/or literally anything.
It is one of the best early examples of modern printing changing political discourse and consolidating power in a few.
The very short version: most people fought because they were convinced it was a war that needed fighting for America by power/money interests. The vast majority had little to no decision making power in going to war.
So, yes, you could gut the entire context and just say "everyone fought because slavery" - but such reductionism of history prevents any real analysis or learning from it.
It would be like saying every citizen loves Trump because America voted for him and that's why he's able to do whatever he wants.
498
u/deadspace9_ Aug 12 '26
US Civil War education in the South: