A Liberal Dose, January 25, 2024 "Understanding WHY the Civil War Was About Slavery"

 

A Liberal Dose

January 25, 2024

Troy D. Smith

“Understanding Why the Civil War Was About Slavery”

 

Last week I presented several primary source documents demonstrating that -at the time the Civil War started -Confederate government officials were clearly saying that protecting slavery and white supremacy was the reason the southern states seceded and formed a new government, and the reason they were prepared to fight. Now I am going to explain WHY that was.

First, as most readers are aware, Lincoln stated clearly that he did NOT want to end slavery in the South. What was the problem, then? The big argument was whether slavery would be permitted in NEW states in the West. Why would northerners not want slavery to “spread”?

Two main reasons, neither of which was tied to fighting racism or protecting Black people. First, the political: due to the 3/5ths Compromise, slave states could count 60% of their slave population toward their state population in the question of how many House of Representatives members that state could have. This meant that southern states wound up having significantly more Congressional representation than was warranted by the actual number of CITIZENS they had, which gave them a lot of political power in Washington. More new slave states would mean more new pro-slavery, pro-South members of Congress, in both houses (as each new state gets two Senators, as well- and this combined number is how we come up with how many electoral votes each state has).

Second, the economic: people in the North, by the 1850s, were championing what historian Eric Foner has called Free Labor Ideology. This does NOT mean you’re getting labor done for free -rather, it is the belief that the labor of free people, performed for wages, is superior to slave labor because it protects and improves the position of white working-class people. Where you have African slavery, white people’s labor is not in demand. Further, if a new state allowed slavery, all the best land would be bought up by plantation owners -which would hurt poor-and-working-class white people who hoped to claim small parcels of land for individual farms, and would also hurt those same people if they wanted instead to get a job in industry. While there were lots of abolitionists in the North, they were never in the majority (and were often hated, even beaten or killed, by their neighbors). The only racial concern most white northerners had… was protecting the interests of their own, and that meant preventing the spread of slavery.

Why were southerners so worried about being able to spread slavery? Two reasons. One, the political: if a bunch of new states form, and they do NOT have slavery, southerners would find themselves outnumbered in Congress, and one day Congress could ban slavery. Second, the economic: slavery existed, by the mid-nineteenth century, primarily to support cotton agriculture and give planters higher profits by having cheaper labor costs. However, so much cotton was being grown in the South that the soil was becoming moribund. Everyone knew you SHOULD rotate your crops or rest your fields, but nobody was willing to be the one to do it- and lose a year’s worth of cotton profit for that field. The fields, therefore, were “drying up.” The planter class needed NEW lands, for new fields, to plant more cotton (using slave labor, if they wanted to maintain their profit margins). So, in their thinking, if slavery was blocked from spreading to the West, the lifestyle of planters would become unsustainable. Merely blocking slavery, to them, was an attempt to kill it.

In the 1850s, southern Congressmen pushed for laws that enabled the federal government to force free states to help catch runaway slaves, whether they wanted to or not. They also opposed laws that would allow each new state to take a vote on whether to have slavery or not- Southerners wanted to force them to have slavery. Where’s the states’ rights in either of those things?

--Troy D. Smith, a White County native, is a novelist and a history professor at Tennessee Tech and serves on the executive committee of the Tennessee Democratic Party. His words do not necessarily represent TTU.

Buy the book A Liberal Dose: Communiques from the Holler by Troy D. Smith HERE

You can find all previous entries in this weekly column HERE

A list of other historical essays that have appeared on this blog can be found HERE

Author's website: www.troyduanesmith.com

The author's historical lectures on youtube can be found HERE

A Liberal Dose, January 18, 2024 "How Do We Know the Civil War Was About Slavery?"

 

A Liberal Dose

January 18, 2024

Troy D. Smith

“How Do We Know the Civil War Was About Slavery?”

 

As noted last week, more and more Americans are not naming slavery as the principal cause of the Civil War. While this used to be common in the South, it is now the case around the country.

It is not true of professional historians of the period, though. Professional historians, by definition, base their assessments on documents from the time. Here are some pertinent ones.

“The Cornerstone Speech,” given by Alexander Stephens, VP of the brand-new Confederacy, in Savannah on March 12, 1861. He spent a big part of that speech explaining why he thought the Confederate constitution was superior to the U.S. constitution- because “The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution — African slavery as it exists amongst us — the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.” There you have it: the VP said the Confederacy was formed, and a war was about to start, over the idea that slavery is “the proper status of the negro.” Whereas the framers of the original constitution believed in equality for all, Stephens said, “Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition.” 

Only eight days earlier, at his first Inauguration, Lincoln had said, “One section of our country believes slavery is right, and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong, and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute.”

Georgia’s declaration of secession said, “The people of Georgia… present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.”

The South Carolina declaration said, “An increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations.”

The Mississippi declaration said, “In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course. Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.”

The Texas declaration described their state “as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.”

I could go on and on. But let me conclude with a resolution passed in Cookeville on April 22, 1861, urging Tennessee to secede. It was written by Judge Erasmus L. Gardenhire:

"The antislavery party is the enemy of the Union and the Constitution, advocating the equality of the negro and the white races and the abolition of slavery. To accomplish this the antislavery party has been organized and now constitutes the dominant party in all the free States. And now, having possession of the Federal government in all its departments, it is attempting by conquest and coercion to carry out its damnable heresies entertained for many years toward the South and its institutions.”

But wait, you say, what about states’ rights? I say: states’ rights about what? Slavery. Nikki Haley said the federal government had stepped on “the rights and freedoms of the people.” Their rights to do what? Enslave other people.

I will wrap up this topic next time with a more detailed explanation. For now- the documents speak for themselves.

--Troy D. Smith, a White County native, is a novelist and a history professor at Tennessee Tech and serves on the executive committee of the Tennessee Democratic Party. His words do not necessarily represent TTU.

Buy the book A Liberal Dose: Communiques from the Holler by Troy D. Smith HERE

You can find all previous entries in this weekly column HERE

A list of other historical essays that have appeared on this blog can be found HERE

Author's website: www.troyduanesmith.com

The author's historical lectures on youtube can be found HERE

A Liberal Dose, January 12, 2023 "Why Nikki Haley Could Not Say the Word 'Slavery'"

 

A Liberal Dose

January 11, 2024

Troy D. Smith

“Why Nikki Haley Could Not Say the Word ‘Slavery’”

 

As you probably know, a couple of weeks ago Nikki Haley, at a town hall appearance, was asked this question by someone in the audience: “What was the cause of the Civil War?”

Her initial response: “Well, don’t come with an EASY question!” implying that this was an extraordinarily complex subject. She followed that with a long, rambling answer that, no joke, would take up this entire column if I quoted it verbatim. The gist was, she claimed the Civil War was about government overreach, “the role of the government and what the rights of the people are.” The questioner expressed shock that she could give such a long answer and not once mention slavery. “What do you want me to say about slavery?” she asked. This has proven to be very controversial, because reputable historians almost universally name slavery as the primary cause of that conflict, which is what we all USED to be taught in school, and USED to be considered common knowledge.

Surveys have shown, though, that more than half of Americans do not name slavery as the primary cause of the Civil War -and that number grows larger every year. Interestingly, the age group least likely to name slavery is those under thirty, which to me demonstrates the de-emphasizing of accurate history in public school in recent years, which is probably further demonstrated by the fact the age group MOST likely to correctly identify slavery is those over sixty-five. Also interesting: almost an equal percentage of Southerners and non-Southerners identify states’ rights as the primary cause of the war, so it’s not a regional thing.

Still, even given all that… most people I’ve talked to who do not believe slavery was the primary cause of the war will qualify their answer by saying things like “It wasn’t JUST about slavery” or “slavery was a factor, but not the biggest one.” Nikki Haley went on forever naming off (mostly irrelevant) things and never ONCE mentioned slavery at all. By the next day she was explaining herself: of COURSE it was about slavery, everybody knows that, she was just naming off the OTHER things. But that was not the question posed to her. She has also dug her hole deeper by saying (again, no joke) that she had Black friends growing up. And that no one cares except the media. And that the questioner was obviously a Democratic plant -as if only a Democrat would ask such a question or complain about her answer. Which is, actually, very telling.

Over the last several years, a certain segment of the Republican electorate -probably much higher among die-hard Trumpists -has embraced the iconography and history of the Confederacy, and minimized the role (in the war and in American history) of slavery. The fact that DeSantis criticized Haley’s response is especially rich, given that it’s his state that wants to teach kids slavery was beneficial for Black people because it taught them a trade. I think there are two things going on here: one, conservatives love a good states’ rights, anti-federal-government-intervention argument. Two, if the Civil War was not about slavery, then neither was it about race or racism, and we can therefore declare those things nonexistent.

Nikki Haley is not dumb. She knows that a good percentage of the Trump base that she wants to win over believe fervently that slavery was not the cause of the war, said belief reinforcing or buttressing a lot of their political beliefs (or vice versa). She knew an accurate answer would offend them and cost her their vote. Her (non)answer was purely political.

But the fact so many people are developing such views only emphasizes the need for teaching more accurate history -not less.

Many of you will not agree with my assessment about the basic question. Next time I’ll lay out why slavery is the only correct answer, with evidence.

 

--Troy D. Smith, a White County native, is a novelist and a history professor at Tennessee Tech and serves on the executive committee of the Tennessee Democratic Party. His words do not necessarily represent TTU.

Buy the book A Liberal Dose: Communiques from the Holler by Troy D. Smith HERE

You can find all previous entries in this weekly column HERE

A list of other historical essays that have appeared on this blog can be found HERE

Author's website: www.troyduanesmith.com

The author's historical lectures on youtube can be found HERE

 

A Liberal Dose, January 4, 2023 "Three Years Ago This Week: Was It an Insurrection?"

 

A Liberal Dose

January 4, 2024

Troy D. Smith

“Three Years Ago This Week: Was It an Insurrection?”

 

 

Since last week, Maine has joined Colorado in ruling that the 14^th Amendment bars Trump from running for public office. As I wrote last week, the amendment is clear -the only question is, did Trump participate in an insurrection? His defenders (and quasi-defenders) keep pointing out that he has not been convicted of anything, and that is true -he is, in fact, about to go on trial. The problem is, if he gets elected president before those trials conclude, he can simply order the government to drop all charges and then that question will be moot. This is why the 14^th Amendment was proposed and ratified -the knowledge that someone who has clearly shown a past willingness to violate their oath to the Constitution might still be popular enough to get elected, and that is a threat to the republic. Trump has clearly shown what he is capable of, and is still flat-out telling us what he plans to do if he gets another shot at it. It’s going to be interesting to see what the Supreme Court rules, because I honestly believe it could go either way. Whatever they decide regarding the ballot issue will be the final word on that question, and I will accept it whether I agree with it or not. However, I continue to believe that it is my duty (and my right), and that of anyone who is paying attention, to keep sounding the alarm in hopes of getting through to some voters who might be on the fence or not paying attention.

Let’s look, once more, at what we have learned via the many investigations so far. Trump’s defenders continue to deny that January 6 was an insurrection, saying it was just a bunch of protesters who got carried away and who had no real ability to overthrow the government. That is not the complete truth, and it is not the point. We now have plenty of evidence that, although most of the participants were unaware of it, the event itself was planned and coordinated ahead of time. The goal was to prevent the certification, by Congress, of the electoral votes by the end of that day, as the Constitution requires. The accusation is that Trump not only planned the riot and stirred it up, but that he made no effort to stop it once it was underway, in hopes of stopping that certification -and that he and others had illegally conspired to set up fake electors to be used instead. That is insurrection.

I now want to address something that I have debated bringing up. I never thought I would see the day that my friend John Gottlied would impugn my integrity, attack my character, and literally call me a liar. Tying his assertions to a statement about me teaching young people is wildly irresponsible, because I think we all realize in our current environment there are people who might use that to threaten my job or even my physical safety. He was so confident in his statements it almost made me doubt myself, so I went back and re-read my own column that he was responding to.

In that column I listed off all the things Trump has been charged with, accused of, and/or found liable for. Whether you believe the evidence backs that up or not, it is a cold, hard fact that he HAS been charged, accused, and/or found liable for those things, which is exactly what I said. I then pointed out that, in the past, the mere accusation of such things would end someone’s political aspirations. There is not one untrue or misleading statement there. John concluded by saying (of himself) “I might disagree with other’s opinions but never intentionally mislead or insult.”

I invite you to re-read what I actually said and then his (extremely insulting) response. And then, by all means, do think for yourself.

--Troy D. Smith, a White County native, is a novelist and a history professor at Tennessee Tech and serves on the executive committee of the Tennessee Democratic Party. His words do not necessarily represent TTU.

 

Buy the book A Liberal Dose: Communiques from the Holler by Troy D. Smith HERE

You can find all previous entries in this weekly column HERE

A list of other historical essays that have appeared on this blog can be found HERE

Author's website: www.troyduanesmith.com

The author's historical lectures on youtube can be found HERE