I should probably just ignore Trump’s utterances as nothing more than noises coming out of his mouth hole, but this one was like catnip to me.
People don’t ask that question, but why was there a Civil War? Why could that one not have been worked out?
Slavery. The answer is slavery. Where can you compromise? You have, for example, the people in power in Mississippi declaring in their articles of secession:
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
On the other side, you have those such as William Lloyd Garrison writing things like:
Assenting to the “self-evident truth” maintained in the American Declaration of Independence, “that all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights — among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” I shall strenuously contend for the immediate enfranchisement of our slave population. In Park-street Church, on the Fourth of July, 1829, in an address on slavery, I unreflectingly assented to the popluar but pernicious doctrine of gradual abolition. I seize this opportunity to make a full and unequivocal recantation, and thus publicly to ask pardon of my God, of my country, and of my brethren the poor slaves, for having uttered a sentiment so full of timidity, injustice and absurdity. A similar recantation, from my pen, was published in the Genius of Universal Emancipation at Baltimore, in September, 1829. My consicence in now satisfied.
I am aware, that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not cause for severity? I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject, I do not wish to think, or speak, or write, with moderation. No! no! Tell a man whose house is on fire, to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hand of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; — but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest — I will not equivocate — I will not excuse — I will not retreat a single inch — AND I WILL BE HEARD.
Meanwhile, federal enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act in the northern states was causing considerable consternation in those areas (even while the Southern states bemoaned insufficient federal enforcement in the northern states). In my bicentennial series, I passed along a few stories in Indiana during the 1850s. Lawyers in Indianapolis working for an escaped slave named “West,” turned to fiery invective when their legal arguments failed:
The fugitive act is a godless law, it is an unutterably infernal law and if its provisions are carried out, it will drag God Almighty from his throne, and inaugurate the reign of the devil upon the earth. There is not a doctrine taught by Jesus Christ which is not derided and trampled under foot by the law.
Following the unsuccessful defense, West was taken by train out of Indianapolis. “The crowds surrounding the train were ugly, and a great deal of security was required. There were at least two attempts to block or derail the train by blocking the tracks. The whole undertaking had cost West’s purported owner a great deal, and angry sentiment had been aroused in the people of Indianapolis.”
The question of whether people can be owned and their labor extracted by force for the benefit of their “owners” is not one that lends itself to compromise. That’s why there was a Civil War.
It is axiomatic that slavery was the cause of the American Civil War.
As a corollary to that fact, in my reading of history those who ascribe causes other than slavery for the Civil War have, shall we say, alternative agendas.
That this question even bears asking is abhorrent, but understandable, given the sewage drain it came from. The precipitating event of the Civil War was, to paraphrase an admitted racist southern politician, slavery then, slavery now, and slavery forever.
When the confederacy states state brazenly and clearly in their various articles of secession that they were secceeding to avoid having abolition forced upon them, it is best and most propitious to take them at their word.
So, have you read the 2016 dystopian but totally believable novel that shows the US in modern days after there was no Civil War? It is set in Indianapolis by the way. “Underground Airlines” by Ben Winters. Coincidentally, the author lived in Indy and is returning on May 8 to lead a discussion of the book at the JCC. What do you think would have happened if the Civil War had been avoided by a “deal”? Of course, slavery does not exist everywhere, but where it does it is not only legal, it is industrialized. And there is a career to be had in chasing down runaway slaves, and by the way, it is a federal job. Because it’s legal, don’t you know?
While I agree that slavery was the root cause of the American Civil War, President Trump does have a point that perhaps, just maybe, the issue of slavery could have been worked out. We have examples from other countries — Brazil in the Americas comes to mind — where slavery was eventually outlawed without the need for a civil war. I am not saying that abolishing slavery in the USA would have been easy and it may not have been feasible at all however the idea of ‘working it out’ should not be rejected out of hand.
Trump doesn’t have a point even if there are interesting points to be had. Trump’s babbling about what Andrew Jackson said about the Civil War reflects a deep ignorance on his part.
Seems like the country was paralyzed for a decade or so as it tried to work it out. (Meanwhile millions of black Americans were being treated as beasts.) However, when an election didn’t go their way, white Southerners decided to commit treason and open fire on American soldiers. At that point, there probably wasn’t any acceptable compromise in the cards.
Where can you compromise? The country had been compromising since its founding. When the Constitution was written, it clearly allowed slavery, but refused to call it by its true name. Further, the Constitution deliberately left the right for a state to secede as ambiguous. That was the only way to induce all of the states to sign on.
The right to hold slaves in the Slave States was never at issue legally. Consider this from Lincoln’s first inaugural address:
“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.” He goes on to recite the fugitive slave clause and states that it is as much a part of the Constitution as any other, and that he is taking an oath to support the whole Constitution.
Yes, the Confederate States foolishly seceded primarily over the issue of slavery. And President Lincoln chose war to deal with that secession. Your contention that the Civil War had to be fought because of slavery I do not find compelling.
President Trump merely asked the question many of us have asked when we read about that horror show that was the war – why couldn’t they have worked it out?
Where can you compromise? Well, maybe withdraw Federal troops from Ft. Sumter. Just a thought.
Whatever it may have turned into, and whatever its historical result, the war was absolutely NOT entered into to destroy slavery, but to preserve the Union. ( see e.g. Lincoln’s well-known letter to Horace Greeley)
I am an admirer of Garrison, but for his time, he was an absolute fringe loony. You would be hard pressed to find even 5% of the population who would hold his views. He even believed, for example, that women should be allowed to vote! To cite Garrison as representative of the Northern side is quite misleading.
So I mentioned above a novel about a modern day America where the civil war was averted by a deal. Any deal would have to have allowed slavery to continue in some form and in some places. ******SPOILER ALERT***** In the book, slavery still exists today and is legal because of the deal, is run by corporations, and the economy is dependent on it. Slaves do run away and there is an “underground” that seeks to help them. The runaways are chased down and returned by … federal employees.
Much of the book takes place in Indianapolis, by the way. You will recognize familiar places and names.
I am woman!!! Hear me roar!!! Watch me vote!!!
Honest Abe has always been one of my favorite POTUSes from history, but he and I would have disagreed on this for sure!!!
If he had time-traveled to this time, I wonder what he would think of a world where our last POTUS had 50% Negro blood; some White Folks worked for Negroes; and women were business-owners and voters. AND there was this Negress named Oprah who was worth several million dollars!!!