I turned on CNN this morning and found a lengthy discussion about Nikki Haley not mentioning slavery as a cause of the Civil War. Haley’s comments at a New Hampshire town hall meeting last night were something about individual rights, etc., without ever using the word “slavery.”
What was the major cause/reason for the Civil War? In Oklahoma in the 1950s I was taught the answer: states’ rights. It was about the right of the southern states to maintain their way of life. It was an agricultural economy, and yes, slave labor was an inherent part of it. The southern states were prepared to secede from the Union to preserve their right to their lifestyle and economy.
Nikki Haley is a southerner, born and raised in the South. I understand what she was saying. I understand why she didn’t immediately cite slavery as the cause of the Civil War. I am a bit surprised and/or disappointed that not one of the four CNN panelists this morning mentioned states’ rights, but they are all younger than I and their educations were more recent than mine.
PBS provides a brief explanation of the causes of the Civil War and it says, in part:
A common explanation is that the Civil War was fought over the moral issue of slavery.
In fact, it was the economics of slavery and political control of that system that was central to the conflict.
A key issue was states’ rights.
Of course the Civil War was about slavery. But that was only a part of the larger issue of states’ rights and whether the southern states had the right to secede from the Union. Politically it may have been less than ideal for her not to say “slavery,” but I get where she was coming from.
_____________
Featured image: Brian Snyder/Reuters
You are being frightfully reasonable, Colorado. But even we outlanders know that large numbers of the people in dark blue owned slaves, which seems to point towards something other than slavery per se being the heart of the matter.
It’s always been a simplistic view – and a pretty woke one – to claim slavery as the cause of the civil war.
There were some southerners who owned slaves and opposed secession, and went so far as to “wear blue” and fight on the union side but they were by no means the majority.
It is not “simplistic” to cite slavery as the cause of the civil war. It’s factual.
True, to cite slavery as the only cause is to simplify a more complex explanation.
I was born and raised in Louisiana. My ancestors fought, and died in the Civil War — for slavery.
That’s what it was about. Slavery. Slavery is the primary “cause” cited by just about every southern state in their written statements on why they were seceding. Yes, I was taught in Louisiana schools back in the 1960s and 70s that really, it was all about “States Rights.” I was also taught that Harriet Beecher Stowe was a dirty liar, that slaves, really, honestly, were treated just fine, and that Reconstruction was a nightmarish police state in which ignorant black ex-slaves were allowed to run for office and wreak havoc on innocent whites. (I swear to God, one of the “educational” films we were shown in a school included a clip from BIRTH OF A NATION.) One of my “history” textbooks included helpful illustrations of “Carpetbaggers” (A fat, cigar-chomping man standing beside a carpetbag”) and “Scalawags” (A thin mustachio’d man who looked like Victor Jory in GONE WITH THE WIND.)
All this, by the way, at a time when Civil Rights activists were being murdered and a black American attempting to vote in the American South might be risking his or her life.
I’m with you, Jinx. States’ Rights was the argument made to justify secession, and no wonder. The right to own human beings was the foundation of the agrarian South’s economy and therefore the motive to secede was slavery. Period. Full stop.
Hard for me to cite any relevant Oklahoma history since Oklahoma wasn’t a state until 1907. We were more focused on Indian Territory and the Five Civilized Tribes.
Questions people need to ask Donald Trump at rallies should include more fundamental ones like in this case. Questions might include, “Why did America fight in WW I ?” And, how about, “Do you think the first amendment protects atheists and agnostics too?”. Also, “Do you think that poor people should have the right to vote? If so, how would you define ‘poor’?” I’m sure I could think of more, but I’m out of time right now.
Great point, Jim. Questioners should be nailing him on the really basic stuff, just like they’re trying to nail his wannabe Republican opponents. I wonder if anybody’s ever asked him specifically about the cause of the Civil War. What do you suppose he’d say? It’s a cinch he can’t quote Hitler (although he might paraphrase), but beyond that I can’t imagine. I’d love to see him trying to answer your questions.
“States rights” has always been a convenient euphemism for conservatives, especially Southern conservatives, going all the way back to the Constitutional Convention, when they demanded to insert a protection for states’ rights to do things their way, primarily maintaining the practice of slavery. It’s also why slaves were counted for population purposes (read: Electoral College) so the South could maintain more political sway in the Union and in Congress, again to protect slavery. “States rights” has also expanded over the past two centuries to cover a lot of other things the South wanted to maintain unto themselves, like Jim Crow laws, and voter suppression, etc.
When talking about slavery became politically incorrect in the decades after the Civil War, “states rights” became the new dog whistle because it sounds rather benign and fairly positive if you don’t know what it’s really about.
I don’t know that states’ rights was as much a euphemism for slavery per se as it was a broad term that included slavery and all the other differences between North and South at the time. But then, meanings and interpretations change over time, get twisted to suit specific purposes, are subjected to presentism, etc. As a candidate for President of the United States, nothing Haley says will make everyone happy and everything she says will offend someone. Guaranteed.
Pied, for those who insist on the simplistic slavery answer, I recommend reading “THE REAL LINCOLN” by Thomas J. DiLorenzo. For context.
Given the condensed, compressed (of necessity), scrubbed, interpreted, and reinterpreted versions dished out in history texts and classes, we could probably all benefit from additional study. Even if the class is “just” American History, that’s more ground than can possibly be covered in depth in one semester. And there are about 60 more years of it now than when I was in school.