Was it over states’ rights? secession? slavery? tariffs? A more nuanced look at the causes of the American Civil War.
Some time ago, I read some very interesting literature about the American Civil War, and about Abraham Lincoln in particular.
The economist Thomas DiLorenzo wrote two books about Abraham Lincoln called “The Real Lincoln” and “Lincoln Unmasked”. These books attracted lots of praise as well as criticism, for their “no holds barred” view on our sixteenth president.
DiLorenzo became interested in learning and writing about the American Civil War because he felt that as economist, he had to look at the underlying economic incentives that caused the war.
He grew up in Western Pennsylvania, and was taught growing up that “Abraham Lincoln was the hero that preserved the Union and ended slavery”. Since DiLorenzo (like all libertarians), is skeptical of any politician, he felt this sounded suspicious so he decided to do his own research.
Below, I’m going to discuss Lincoln’s views on race, slavery, the economy, and the more nuanced, but less frequently discussed incentives behind the war. Some of this may shock people (it certainly did me at first!), but I can direct anyone to sources if you don’t want to take my word for it.
I feel that it’s important to look at history from multiple viewpoints, and not get caught up in hero worship.
The real Abraham Lincoln
Lincoln is considered by the majority of the population to be one of America’s greatest presidents.
More has been written on him than perhaps anyone else. (According to one source, as many as 16,000 books!) People of both major political parties today try to identify with him.
However, much of what has been written and taught about him is either mythology, or at very least has been whitewashed severely.
I will break this up into several points below.
“Was Lincoln for racial equality?”
It’s widely assumed that “The Great Emancipator” was a champion for equality, and a hero to African Americans. This is Myth #1.
Lincoln, like most politicians, talked out both sides of his mouth. It depended on the audience he was facing. Publicly, he spoke mostly in opposition to racial equality.
Lincoln was said to have been a “lawyer’s lawyer”, meaning he could argue just about any point. When Lincoln practiced law, he successfully won many cases with various backgrounds. Although Lincoln never defended any runaway slaves, he did defend a slave owner in a dispute with a slave at one point.
Not much changed when he came to power.
Here’s a segment from his debate in 1858 with Senator Stephen Douglas of Illinois, when asked about equality:
“ I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which in my judgement, will probably forever forbid their living together on the footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes necessary that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary.”
Later on when asked about emancipation, he replied:
“Free them and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this..We cannot make them equals.”
Pretty telling, huh?
Lincoln and his plans for colonization:
Okay, so one could argue that Lincoln was indeed a racist.. but didn’t he want African Americans to become citizens, albeit without equal rights?
No, I’m afraid not. Lincoln wanted to send the freed slaves either to Liberia, the Caribbean, Central America, or anywhere else out of the country.
Lincoln supported the idea of colonization (to his dying day), which he had gotten from his political mentor Kentucky politician Henry Clay. (I will write more on him below.)
Before the war, Lincoln was asked what to do with the slaves if they were ever to be freed. He replied:
“ Send them to Liberia, or their own native land.”
Lincoln delivered Clay’s eulogy, and in it he praised the “American Colonization Society” which Clay helped to found and was president of when he died in 1852.
Lincoln said in the eulogy:
“There is a moral fitness in the idea of returning Africa her children. They will carry back to their native soil, the rich fruits of religion, civilization, law, and liberty.”
How would they have acquired any of these things while held in bondage?
Lincoln’s opposition to the extension of slavery:
Okay, but one could argue that Lincoln did indeed oppose the spread of slavery into the new territories.
This is accurate, but one has to ask; what were his motives for doing so?
In Lincoln’s first inaugural address, he said:
“I have no purpose to, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe that I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”
I’m amazed how few people know that he said this.
This quote is even on the Lincoln Wikipedia page!
The 1860 presidential election was a four man race (which Lincoln only won 40% of the vote in, by the way), and not a single one of the candidates said anything about Southern slavery.
It must be understood here, that the abolitionists at the time were a minuscule minority, and siding with them would have meant political suicide. Slavery was only discussed in regards to whether or not it was going to extend into the new territories, not whether it was to be abolished.
Here’s what he said when speaking in Peoria, Illinois on October 16, 1854:
“ Whether slavery shall go into Nebraska, or other new territories, it is not a matter of exclusive concern to the people who may go there. The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these territories. We want them for the homes of free white people. This, they cannot be, to any considerable extent, if slavery shall be planted with them. Slave states are the places for poor white people to move from… New free states are the places for poor white people to go and better their condition.”
Poor, free whites couldn’t compete with the rich plantation owners. The slaves could do the work for a tiny fraction of the price that free whites wanted to be paid,(I realized that slaves weren’t paid, I’m referring to the cost of sustaining them via food and shelter), thus the free white men struggled to find work. The work was done by slaves, and the profits went to their wealthy masters. And of course, the poor white men didn’t have the money or resources to acquire their own slaves and start their own plantations.
The Republican party appealed to these poor white men in order to gain political support, which would mean more Congress and Senate seats, which would ultimately lead to Republican domination in the government.
“Wasn’t the North less racist and more accepting than the South?”
Not at all. Not even close.
It’s true that slavery was gone in the North much earlier (albeit for economic reasons), but they were not accepting of blacks in the slightest.
Some examples:
- Blacks were systematically (although not “officially”, like under the Jim Crow crow laws imposed in the South after the war), separated in different walks of life. Different train cars, steamboats, dining areas, schools, etc.
- “Black codes” existed in Northern States. For example Indiana, Ohio, and Illinois revised their state constitutions to bar blacks from entering those states. The ones living there couldn’t testify in court, or hold office.
- In 1847, Ohio prevented the resettlement of freed slaves in its territory.
- The federal government prohibited black suffrage in any of the new territories up until the 1860's.
- New Jersey and Connecticut amended their state constitutions to outlaw black suffrage in the 1840's.
- New York State voted overwhelmingly for Lincoln in 1860, but rejected a proposal to allow blacks to vote.
- Mob violence towards blacks was frequent. Irish immigrants would attack them because they were competing for the same low paying jobs.
I think that it should be clear that based off of these examples alone, the Northern support for Lincoln was not based on his alleged “enlightened views on race”.
The North also continued to enforce the “Fugitive Slave Act” requiring that escaped slaves be returned to their owners. “Slave catching patrols” were drafted from the local population, an act many Northern citizens didn’t want to participate in. Yet they had to, or else they would face a fine or jail time.
It should be emphasized here that Lincoln enforced this law, as did his federal marshals.
The Corwin Amendment
Here’s the real kicker. Abraham Lincoln himself actually came out in favor of an amendment which would have prohibited the federal government from interfering with slavery whatsoever.
It was called the “Corwin Amendment” named after Congressman Thomas Corwin from Ohio. It was the second attempt at a Thirteenth Amendment. (The third being the last which outlawed slavery for good. Ironically, signed by the same president that supported this one.)
The amendment said:
“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”
Lincoln said of this proposed amendment in his first inaugural address:
“I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution — which amendment, however, I have not seen — has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service…holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”
Upon reading this, how could anyone have believed that this man was against slavery?!
What I find especially ironic about all the points regarding his views on race, is that they’re not even that hard to find. Notice I took quotes from major speeches and debates… these weren’t taken from some obscure archives that were recently discovered.
So what was Abraham Lincoln’s real agenda?
“I presume you all know who I am. I am humble Abraham Lincoln. I have been solicited by many friends to become a candidate for the legislature. My politics are short and sweet like the old woman’s dance. I am in favor of a national bank… in favor of the internal improvements system, and high protective tariff.” -Abraham Lincoln, 1832.
Roy Basler, the editor of “Lincoln’s Collected Works” said that Lincoln barely even mentioned slavery up until 1854.
Lincoln when he said that quote above was a member of the “Whig” party.
In 1859, Lincoln said that he “had always been a Whig in politics”.
The Whig Party:
The Whig party was born out of the Federalist party. Like it’s predecessor, it stood for: - A national bank. (States issued their own currencies at the time.) This was to give the government more control on what it could spend.
- A stronger central government, with power over the states. At the time, the state laws were more distinct and states had the ability to nullify federal law.
- A high tariff (Tax on imports). This was to discourage people from buying foreign goods, and shut out any foreign competition. The tariff was also a way for the government to collect revenue. (More on this below.)
- “Internal improvements”. Using tax dollars to fund public works such as roads and canals. Previously, these matters were handled privately.
Lincoln gained these beliefs from his hero Henry Clay, whom Lincoln called his “beau ideal of a statesman”.
Clay was a wealthy, slave owning, hemp plantation owner from Kentucky.
I often think of Clay as being sort of like the Ted Kennedy of his day.. Holding many prestigious offices, but not earning the presidency. Clay was a Congressman, Senator, Speaker of the House, and Secretary of State. He tried unsuccessfully to run for the Presidency in 1824.
Lincoln’s wife, Mary Todd’s family was good friends with the Clays. And as I stated above, Lincoln delivered his eulogy when he died.
The Republican Party:
The Republican Party, which Lincoln joined, emerged in 1850’s when the Whig Party imploded due to internal conflicts.
It picked up the Whig mantle, or what was called by one historian “Henry Clay’s American system”.
The only major difference was that it made one of its priorities halting the spread of slavery to the new territories for the reasons stated earlier.
The Civil War
So what started the war itself? Lets examine some of the underlying causes:
Tariffs
The Southern economy at the time was an agricultural, export based economy. It made most of its money by shipping cotton, hemp, peanuts, and the like to Europe, as well as the Northern States.
Now one of the biggest issues here was the tariff.
In order for the federal government to raise money, it taxed imported goods. This had three effects:
1) Since the tariff was added on to the cost of the good, this drove up the price. (For example, if an American pair of shoes cost $1.00, and a French pair of shoes cost $0.80, and there was a 50% tariff, the French pair of shoes would now cost $1.20. Thus it would be cheaper to buy the American shoes.) The North wanted high tariffs, because it made foreign goods pricier, which in turned compelled the South to buy from Northern manufacturers.
2) If anyone did buy foreign goods, that money from the tariff went to the federal government in Washington, where it was used on various public works projects. Most of these didn’t benefit the South. The Southerners were angry about this, since they had to pay more money for what they wanted to buy, and the money being taken didn’t benefit them.
3) Tariffs disproportionately affected farmers, because this discouraged farmers from buying foreign imports. This in turn meant less money for the South’s trading partners (chiefly in Europe), which lead to the trading partners to buy fewer American agricultural exports. Since the South exported up to 75% of what it produced, this was economically painful.
The North imposed Southern tariffs as early as 1824. Around this time, Southern Congressmen opposed them across the board.
In addition to saying he wouldn’t interfere with Southern slavery, Lincoln said this in his first inaugural:
“In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. 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.”
In other words, pay the tariff to the central government, or Washington will force you to!!
For those who have tried to argue that it had nothing to do with a tariff, check out Jefferson Davis’ first inaugural address:
https://jeffersondavis.rice.edu/Content.aspx?id=88
“Was secession legal?”
The country itself was formed through secession from the British Empire.
The Declaration of Independence said:
“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Shortly after assuming office, Lincoln said regarding South Carolina’s secession:
“No State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.”
Let’s compare this to what a younger Abraham Lincoln said in 1847 regarding Texas’s secession from Mexico:
“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable — a most sacred right — a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.”
Abraham Lincoln, (like his political predecessor Alexander Hamilton and others) tried to trump this by saying: “The Constitution was signed by ‘the whole people’.” rather than the individual states.
This doesn’t even make sense, when you consider that the Constitution was signed by a handful of men, each representing a state. Not everyone that had to live under it. Each state had to agree to living in the “voluntary union”.
Many don’t know this, but New England threatened to secede from the United States in the early 1800’s. This was because of a trade embargo with Europe, which was to prevent war with Great Britain or France. Both countries were at each others throats, and President Thomas Jefferson wanted to prove that the US was truly neutral by banning trade with either country.
The New England economy was heavily reliant on shipping to Europe, so this hurt them terribly.
The New Englanders invoked state nullification of federal law as a way to overturn Jefferson’s embargo. Both Connecticut and Massachusetts overturned the embargo via their state legislatures.
The protective tariffs imposed on the South that Jefferson and his successor James Madison came signed into law, were a bone that was thrown to New England as an apology for the trade embargo.
So upon reading this… one has to wonder… why weren’t the Southern States allowed to overturn the tariffs placed on them as the New England states had done earlier?
“Okay, so tariffs were a major issue, but wasn’t slavery as well?”
Yes and no.
The Union was comprised of free states, and the South was where the slaves were. So this would seem logical. But lets look a little deeper.
Some facts:
-75% of white Southern families did not own slaves.
-The slave owners that owned the large plantations accounted for only about 1% of the population.
- The poor Southern whites both hated and resented the slave owners, because they couldn’t compete with them economically. Many of the plantation owners came from money, and the poor farmers couldn’t afford to work their way up to that financial status. This widened the gap between the rich and poor. Think of the slave owners as the “1%” of their day.
-Not all blacks in the South were slaves. In the Upper South, about 10% of the worked as laborers or tradesmen. In the Deep South, about 2% of them were free, but they were wealthy and owned slaves themselves.
In the book “What they fought for 1861–1865”, the author documents various letters from both sides of the war.
The letters indicate that the average Confederate soldier saw himself as fighting for freedom against an oppressive government, not for a “right” to own people.
The initial outbreak of the war was based on economic reasons such as the tariff.
And also I should point out that if the war really started over freeing slaves, why wasn’t the Emancipation Proclamation issued at the outset of the war, instead of two years into it?
And why wasn’t the Thirteenth Amendment (which freed the slaves) not signed until after the war was over?
One more point; the great Confederate general Robert E Lee also spoke out against slavery, and freed the slaves left to him by his father in law.
Fort Sumter:
It has been debated whether or not Lincoln tricked the South into firing the first shot at Fort Sumter, South Carolina that started the war.
The Southern States had announced that they would secede, and saw themselves as being a separate nation. This was right before Lincoln entered office.
Lincoln believed that the fort was federal territory, and thus believed that the Union ships moving in had a right to be there. He toyed with the idea of abandoning the fort, which would have meant recognizing Southern independence.
Confederate President Jefferson didn’t want to be viewed as an aggressor, however on April 13th, 1861, orders were given to fire on the fort when it was being resupplied.
Let me point out here that nobody was killed or even hurt at Fort Sumter, and Lincoln wrote a letter to his naval commander Gustavous Fox which said in it:
“You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail, and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result.”
Freeing the slaves during the war
The Horace Greeley letter:
In 1862, Lincoln wrote a letter to New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley in 1862. The letter was published in the paper for the public to view. In the publication, Lincoln said:
“ My paramount objective in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to slave or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union.”
Kind of hard to imagine the war started over slavery after him saying that, right?
The Emancipation Proclamation:
The Emancipation Proclamation has often been lauded as the document that announced that freed Southern slaves. However, this is only partially true.
For one, the document only applied to slaves in territory that was still held by the Confederacy. This was at a time when the Union Army occupied parts of the South, such as New Orleans.
Lincoln’s Secretary of State William Seward even mocked the document, saying:
“We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them, and holding them in bondage where we can set them free.”
The fact of the matter was that the Union was losing the war at this point. Lincoln hoped that with the majority of the Southern men fighting, and the slave plantations overseen by women and children, this could spark at slave uprising or at least the threat of one. This would cripple the Southern economy, and ensure a Union victory.
He even said right before issuing it that he had “reached the end of the rope on the military plan of the operation.”
It was true; the Union had lost several battles, and was afraid that this might lead to Great Britain and France recognizing the Confederacy as a legitimate power. This could mean potential military aid for them, or at very least pressure to end the Union blockade of Southern ports. Britain and France were hurt by the Union blockade, since they were two of the South’s major cotton buyers.
Also, many of the slaves that were in Union seized lands were pressed into service against their will. One Illinois lieutenant wrote:
“ I have eleven negroes in my company now. They do every particle of the dirty work. Two women among them do washing for the company.”
So much for “freedom and equality”.
The order also caused much outrage in the North, culminating in the Draft Riots of 1863. In addition to opposition to the draft itself, New Yorkers opposed that the goal of the war seemed to have changed. Any black person caught in public sight was killed. Buildings owned by blacks were burned down, and so were businesses that were in favor of the war. Horace Greeley’s New York Tribune office was burned to the ground. This was portrayed at the end of “Gangs of New York” for those that have seen it.
Lincoln’s other actions during the war:
What I’m about to say might surprise many people, but there is indeed evidence backing this up.
During the war, Lincoln was responsible for:
- Nullifying the emancipation of slaves in Georgia and Missouri early in the war.
- Imposing a conscription law, which resulted in the “Draft Riots” of 1863. He subsequently sent in troops to fire on the civilians resulting in up to 1,000 deaths.
- Imposing the first income tax, and severed the dollar’s tie to gold (although this was later reinstated). This lead to rampant inflation, nationalized banking, and ultimately the Federal Reserve which we have today.
- Refusing to see Napoleon III of France, who offered to mediate a peace agreement.
- Invading the South and blockading Southern ports without the approval of Congress.
- Shutting down newspapers that spoke out against the war.
- Suspending Habeas Corpus, which is guaranteed to us by the Constitution.
- Deporting Congressman Clement Vallandigham of Ohio for speaking out against him.
- Arresting members of the Maryland Legislature, the mayor of Baltimore, and Maryland Congressman Henry May.
- Creating the state of West Virginia out of Virginia, in order to secure more seats in Congress.
- Censoring telegraph communication.
- Closing churches and arresting ministers who spoke out against the war.
- Authorizing General Sherman’s “total war”, and absolute destruction of Atlanta.
- Quartering troops in private homes, thus violating the Constitution.
…. Just to name a few.
It really is amazing, isn’t it… how much of all this has been covered up, ignored, or downplayed?
Abolitionists opposed to Lincoln
I think what is very telling here, is that two men who opposed slavery also strongly opposed the Republican party, and Lincoln in particular.
Lysander Spooner was an anarchist, legal theorist, and lawyer. He also founded a private mail service which the government shut down, because it threatened to put the US Post Office out of business. He is considered today to be a libertarian hero.
He wrote the “Unconstitutionality of Slavery” in 1845. Although we take this view for granted today, he was clearly ahead of his time. He gained notoriety, and even called for the financial support of slave uprisings in the South.
He wrote letters to Secretary of State Seward, calling him a fraud and a hypocrite for espousing liberty, yet not actively moving to end slavery. One of his letters starts off with “evidence of your unfaithfulness to freedom.”
Five years after the war ended Spooner stated in his essay “No Treason” that he never changed his opinion on Lincoln, or his administration. He wrote that the war “erupted for a purely pecuniary consideration.” (Meaning for economic reasons) He said that people that had loaned the government money for the war, had done it “for control of Southern markets through tariff extortion”.
It’s really a shame that so few people know who Lysander Spooner was.
William Lloyd Garrison was the editor of “The Liberator”, an anti-slavery publication. He was famous for publicly burning a copy of the Constitution in public, calling it “a covenant from Hell” and a “pact with the Devil”. Garrison’s views got him in trouble, even leading to death threats and to his arrest in Baltimore in the decade before the war.
Garrison supported Lincoln initially, but Lincoln actually rejected him. This was because Garrison, like Spooner, believed the Southern states should have been allowed to secede.
After the war, Garrison spent a portion of the remainder of his life pushing for women’s suffrage.
Aftermath of the war
“So if all this is true… why is Lincoln so revered today?”
Well, there are a number of answers to this.
1) First and foremost, as they say “history is written by the victors.” Since the North won the war, they could write things as they saw fit, Anyone who questions the standard story is often labeled a radical, traitor, or a liar.
2) The New England clergy used his assassination to portray him (and thus his party) as heroes that died valiantly for their cause. This was when Lincoln started being compared to Jesus (“He died for America’s sins, the way Christ died for ours.”) and Moses (“He lead the people to promise land, but never made it himself.)
3) The point above lead to the government being controlled by mostly Republicans for the next few decades. With such a strong control over government, they could spin their agenda any way they wanted. Again, Lincoln was viewed as a martyr.
4) After this, the country’s political system shifted from a weaker decentralized government where the states had power over the Federal government, to a powerful central government in which the states were basically viewed as districts to be managed.
5) Historians generally favor the presidents that were in charge during war time or signed tons of bills into law. Since Lincoln fits the former, naturally he would be portrayed in a more positive light.
“Could another road have been taken? Could the slaves have been freed without a war?”
Granted, there is no such thing as a controlled historical experiment… but I’m willing to say that the answer to those questions is yes.
The fact is that almost all of Western Civilization abolished slavery peacefully. The French, the British, the Dutch, the Danes, etc. This was often done through financial compensation to the owners.
Now, I know that many may read this and think that the advocating of buying people is immoral… which it is.
However, this was certainly a better alternative to war, and the long term effects of this should be analyzed.
Let’s taken Great Britain:
Britain knew that if their slaves were freed by force, the former owners would want revenge on them. It would have been harder to protect them, and the local citizens would most likely have refused to do it.
So they decided to financially compensate the owners. The slaves went off on their own, and started new lives. The former slave owners used the money to invest in new machinery and technology. Hence, this is why the Industrial Revolution started in Great Britain. Sometimes the former slaves would even go back and work for their old masters, but for pay.
Contrast this with the United States where the slave owners did want revenge, culminating in the rise of white supremacist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, and a bitter legacy which has lasted to this day. Notice that despite a history of imperialism and racism, Britain doesn’t have the severe racial tensions today that we do.
In addition to being horrendously immoral, slavery is a bad economic system, and here’s why:
- A slave does what he or she has to avoid the lash. Since the prospect of economic mobility isn’t there, there is little incentive to be educated (which was forbidden) and to develop new skills which would be valuable to employers.
- Subsequently, a slave can’t start a business and accumulate capital. For instance, a slave couldn’t open a carpentry shop, produce wooden items, sell them, save money, buy new equipment, hire people, and expand operations. Free labor can do all that.
- Since a slave doesn’t have the ability to buy, this limits potential customers.
- Since free labor couldn’t compete with the plantation owners on an economy of scale, this suppressed wage growth and opportunity. That had problems in of itself.
One economist wrote that for what the Civil War cost the Union, they could have freed each slave, and bought them forty acres and a mule! And these are just the costs of what the Union spent on its army and navy; this doesn’t account for all the property damage, not to mention the 700,000+ lives lost. (That number keeps going up too, as more and more casualties are uncovered. This was about 1/6th of the US population, which would be over fifty four million deaths today.)
Slavery was dying in the United States as it was in other countries. New technology, via Britain was making it less and less profitable, and more and more people were opposing it on moral grounds.
In addition to compensation, here are some other ideas that the government could have done to speed up the process and averted this war: - Ended the Fugitive Slave Act. This would have made long term escape more likely, and incentivized more slaves to have fled North.
- Financed slave uprisings in the South. This was done, but to a very small degree.
- Allowed the South to secede peacefully, and offer to readmit it to the Union once slavery was abolished, and perhaps a compromise could have been reached on the tariff question.
- Signed the Thirteenth Amendment into law earlier, thus enticing more slaves to escape into Northern lands.
The Civil War legacy to this day: - Poisoned race relations in the South, and the Jim Crow laws, which held back African Americans for more than a century. The consequences of which are felt to this day.
- Created a bitter attitude among certain southerners to the North.
- The rise of white supremacy groups such as the KKK.
- The end of state sovereignty over the central government. Lord Acton (who famously said “absolute power corrupts, power corrupts absolutely.”) even wrote Robert E. Lee a letter lamenting the fact that one of the last checks on Federal power was now gone.
- A more centralized banking system, ultimately leading to the creation of the Federal Reserve.
- The increased abuse of executive power, and disregard for the legislative and judicial branches.
- We will never know what scientific and cultural advances we could have made had the war not happened and all of those people had survived. Not to mention that the resources used could have gone to more productive means, which would have grown the economy faster. Who knows? Maybe the Industrial Revolution could have occurred earlier.
As Dr. DiLorenzo pointed out, ending slavery was more an inadvertent benefit that came from the war, not the goal of the war itself.
I know that this was quite long, but thank you all for reading! Any feedback is greatly appreciated.
-STK
