Mr. Green's thesis is simply wrong. Yes, slavery was a divisive issue of the time, but not the reason for Lincoln's invasion of the south. After decades of economic abuse by the industrial north, the agrarian south realized that it would be unable to obtain significant political power in the union and would continue to be bled dry via harsh tariffs. Northern corporate-crony lawyer Lincoln's election was "the straw that broke the camel's back" and the southern states said "we're done." As is well-documented, they had every right to secede. Lincoln attempted to resupply Ft. Sumter, goading the south into firing on it, and this "they attacked us first!" tactic worked, drumming up support for his invasion to keep the union together by force, in the process destroying it in a philosophical sense. (By the way, what kind of "great leader" says "if you leave the union, we'll kill you"?)
In contrast to Mr. Green's assertion, I believe that if the south had won the war, slavery would have petered out over time. If nothing else, advancements in agricultural technology would have made paying wages more economical than purchasing, feeding, housing and otherwise supporting slaves at some point. I also believe that whites' attitudes would have changed over the years, especially after every other country in the world abolished slavery.
(Note: I'm not from the south and the idea of slavery is anathema to my beliefs.)
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2013,
Charleston City Paper