Some further insights: Total causalties (soldiers and civilaians killed and wounded was about 1.8 million. Total slaves in the South -- 3.75 million (about 2% of southerners owned 75% of this figure. 25% owned slaves, 7% of that owned 75% of slaves). 500,000 slaves were held in non-southern states -- and who were NOT freed by the Emancipation Proclamation.
Ironically, in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city. In Charleston, South Carolina in 1860 125 free Negroes owned slaves; six of them owning 10 or more. http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:xlYk5IdR45QJ:www.americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm+number+of+slaves+civil+war&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4&client=firefox-a Thus, even if one mistakenly believes that the Civil War began to free slaves, it is sadly ironic that total civilan and soldiers deaths and casualties was about 50% of the entire southern slave population --- 75% held by 2% of southerners. These casualties at best were spent to accelerate emancipation by a decade or so -- over the natural course of economics and social reform. A slaveholder buyout option, as was done in Britian, would have been far cheaper and less bloody. And in reality, the Civil War, with its huge cost of the 2:1 slave to civil war casualties ratio --- actually worsened the conditions of blacks in america --- relative to emancipation in other countries --- via reconstruction corruption and racism. Only the United States and Haiti freed their slaves by war. Every other country in the New World that had slaves, such as Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela, freed them in the 19th century peacefully. ... Britain heralded the end of slavery, in the Western world at least, with its Bill of Abolition, passed in 1807. This Bill made the African slave trade (but not slaveholding) illegal. Later that year the United States adopted a similar bill, called the Act to Prohibit the Importation of Slaves, which prohibited bringing slaves into any port in the country, including into the southern slaveholding states. Congress strengthened this prohibition in 1819 when it decreed the slave trade to be a form of piracy, punishable by death. In 1833, Britain enacted an Emancipation Law, ending slavery throughout the British Empire, and Parliament allocated twenty million pounds to buy slaves' freedom from their owners. The German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer rightly described this action as one of the greatest acts of collective compassion in the history of humankind. This happened peacefully and without any serious slave uprisings or attacks on their former owners, even in Jamaica where a population of 30,000 whites owned 250,000 slaves. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/miller1.html ---- Some Books on this Issue ----- Charles Adams, When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession (New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2000) In this book Charles Adams does to our understanding of the Civil War what Copernicus did to our ancestors' understanding of the solar system. The sun does not rotate around the Earth and slavery did not cause the Civil War. Adams presents a compelling case for the true, financial cause of the war. A must read. In case anyone doubted Garry Wills' argument in A Necessary Evil that the peculiar myths and distortions surrounding the nature, formation, and meaning of the U.S. regularly stir movements committed to myth rather than reality, Adams, a historian of taxation, delivers a polemic that proves it. The Civil War, Adams argues, was not about slavery or the Union; it was about tariffs! The Southern states had a right to secede. Slavery would have ended at some point, but Lincoln did not particularly threaten it. It was, Adams maintains, the "dueling tariffs" of the Union and the Confederacy that caused the war. Within his states' rights argument, Adams maintains secession's legality should have been determined by the courts, and slaveholders should have been compensated for the property they lost through emancipation. Adams relies heavily on the European press; he asserts, but does not prove, that U.S. abolitionists were a fanatical lunatic fringe. The author clearly anticipates controversy; it should not be long in coming. Mary Carroll Book Description Using primary documents from both foreign and domestic observers, prominent scholar Charles Adams makes a powerful and convincing case that the Southern states were legitimately exercising their political rights as expressed in the Declaration of Independence when they seceded from the United States. Although conventional histories have taught generations of Americans that this was a war fought for lofty moral principles, Adams' eloquent history transcends simple Southern partisanship to show how the American Civil War was primarily a battle over competing commercial interests, opposing interpretations of constitutional rights, and what English novelist Charles Dickens described as a fiscal quarrel. 137 of 161 people found the following review helpful: Every year a book comes along that shatters common myths, June 29, 2000 Reviewer: Reformed Library "Reformed Library" (Vancouver, WA USA) - See all my reviews This is that book. I'm an Army veteran. My history classes were immersed in the depths of Lincoln worship. I knew the reason for the Civil War: Abolition of slavery...I would not be easily swayed. Until I read this book. Before my reaction, a brief note on the style: This book has excellent primary source documentation. It draws not only from Antebellum but Reconstructionist writings. Not just North, but also South. Not just U.S., but also foreign. Not just political, but military and civilian as well. This is a well-rounded historical presentation of the events surrounding the Civil War. More on technique: The bad stuff. The only negative criticism that I have is that not all subordinate assertions are documented. The major themes are well presented and end-noted, but arguments supporting those major themes are not well established. That's it. That was the only bad thing I have to say. Well not really. I have a lot of bad stuff to say about Lincoln's misbehavior, lack of military ethic, civilian atrocities, theft of personal property, imprisonment of the political opposition in the North, fixed elections, disallowance of Free Speech, constitutional negation (the trampling of all Amendments), invasion of a foreign country, forfeiting State's "sovereign right" to govern themselves, suspension of due legal process and ethnic cleansing. Lincoln even tried to arrest the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for publishing an opinion that demonstrated Lincoln was in error for suspending the right to trial. Lincoln forced the South into their situation. For what purpose? As Charles Adams demonstrates, it was for not for the preservation of the Union, but the preservation of the Northern economy (which would not exist if the South were a foreign nation). If you presently disagree with this summary of only a few of Adams' points, please do get this title. Check his end-notes for accuracy. Whateve you have to do, but do read this book! Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this) 70 of 87 people found the following review helpful: Well-argued, August 14, 2000 Reviewer: Chris Johnson (Webster Groves, Missouri United States) Adams' book, on the other hand, is a concise lawyer's brief. He argues that the South seceded primarily for economic reasons. Adams puts a number of disinterested European third parties on the witness stand, notably Charles Dickens, to buttress his case. And he demolishes the arguments of John Stuart Mill, the "prosecution's" star witness and the man who said the whole thing was about the protection and expansion of slavery. Although I'm not completely comfortable with Adams' argument(slavery seems to have been far more important in Southern thinking than Adams makes it out to be, and with good reason. Black people were a reality in the South but an abstraction in the North), it is difficult to disagree with it entirely. Slavery, after all, was still legal in the North and would remain so until 1865. The North ADDED a slave state during the conflict(West Virginia)and Mr. Lincoln countermanded TWO emancipation orders during the war. Thomas Jefferson was not overly terrified by the idea of secession. And Mr Lincoln himself, in 1848, admitted that any people dissatisfied with their government, had the right to form one that suits them better. Adams portrayal of Lincoln's actions early in the war(suspension of habeas corpus, illegally calling out the militia, shutting down opposition newspapers, arresting the Maryland legislature, etc.)is devastating. Although Adams does get off track now and then, When in the Course of Human Events is highly recommended for anyone interested in history as it really was. Devotees of the cult of St. Abraham, though, may want to avoid it. 7 of 9 people found the following review helpful: I Do Declare!, April 3, 2006 Reviewer: Real of the Pun (Richmond, VA) - See all my reviews I find it a healthy thing to see so many differing opinions expressed regarding Adam's book. A lively discussion does justice for those seeking some semblance of the truth. One area of contention, however, that puzzles me is the feverant declaration by a minority of readers that slavery WAS the primary reason for the Civil War. Of course there were those who fought to be rid of this most monstrous of practices and those who fought for quite the opposite reason, but given slavery was declared constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court (Dred Scott Decision in a 7-2 vote) it hardly stands to reason the Constitution was on Mr. Lincoln's side. In fact in the same decision the Supreme Court struck down the Missouri Compromise that had tried to limit the further spread of slavery in the territories. Slavery, the court said, could not be so limited and the Compromise was declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Had the south wished only to protect the institution of Slavery, it could have sat on its pea-picking duff and thumbed its nose at Mr. Lincoln, the same gentleman I assume who had not crossed his fingers when he took the oath of office to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States. The safest place for slavery's continuance would have been from within the United States, not outside its borders! Perhaps another reason existed?? 7 of 9 people found the following review helpful: Simply the Best, March 13, 2006 Reviewer: David (Tampa, FL) - See all my reviews As a card holding member of the SCV and one of the founding members of the Naples, FL Civil War Roundtable, I can only say this: if you want to know why we had "the war" and what "really" happened after it, you must read this book. Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report this) 11 of 17 people found the following review helpful: When in the Course of Human Events, September 24, 2005 Reviewer: Howard Kendall "History Student" (FL USA) - See all my reviews Since I am 80 years old - my recollection of the aftermath of the Invasion of the south by the north - is still fairly current. I remember the tales told to me by father, grandfather and mother, even the children of some freed slaves. That was in north Louisiana where General Butler - the butcher ruled. The book has a few errors in my opinion, but very few. Talk about terrorists - our government wins that game in spades. 13 of 15 people found the following review helpful: When In The Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession: A Review, September 22, 2005 Reviewer: The Constitutionist - See all my reviews When In The Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession by Charles Adams is a clever and well written work that argues the case for secession of the Southern states. In much the same way as Thomas DiLorenzo in his book The Real Lincoln, Mr. Adams illustrates the tyrannical tactics of the Lincoln White House. Shortly following the bombardment of Fort Sumpter, Lincoln and his cabinet started suspending habeas corpus. With habeas corpus suspended, the administration could now put its opponents behind bars. Adams tells the story of Justice Roger B. Taney. By the orders of General George Cadwallder, a man by the name of John Merryman was imprisoned at Fort McHenry after being arrested one night in his home. Merryman petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus from Chief Justice Roger B. Taney. Taney granted the writ and set a date for the hearing, but neither General Cadwallder or Merryman showed up. Instead, the general sent a letter to the Chief Justice explaining his actions and citing the decree by President Lincoln suspending the writ. This meant Merryman could languish in prison if the general so decided with no right to trial or an inquiry into whatever charges the general decided to make. After a couple of unsuccessful attempts to get justice for Merryman, Taney wrote a blistering opinion and sent it to Lincoln himself. In this opinion he stated: "...the people of the United States are no longer living under a Government of laws, but every citizen holds life, liberty, and property at the will and pleasure of the army officer in whose military district he may happen to be found." President Lincoln ignored this rebuke. Not only did Lincoln ignore Taney's opinion, he also wrote a standing order for the arrest of Taney who was in his eighties! Fortunately for the Chief Justice, his arrest never took place for one reason or another. However, there were plenty of men like him who stood up and spoke the truth about what Lincoln was doing who were arrested. Mr. Adams also relates the story of Clement Vallandigham. Democratic Congressman Clement Vallandigham had been a thorn in the President's side for almost two years. He attacked Lincoln's war policies while a member of the House of Representatives. Vallandigham even introduced a bill to imprison the President if he continued to make illegal arrests through military tribunals. Vallandigham later stated: "I have the most supreme contempt for King Lincoln." He should not have been surprised when soldiers battered down the door of his home in Dayton, Ohio, and took him to Cincinnati for trial where a military tribunal could quickly convict him and put an end to his critical speeches. Vallandigham and Justice Taney were just two of the many who were under the threat of arrest because they demanded justice. I enjoyed Mr. Adams's book. I would not agree with everything he says, but I believe he offers a comprehensive view of what took place during the war. Charles Adams gives his support to the Southern cause; however, he is honest about its short comings. Overall I would highly recommend this book to any avid Civil War history reader. ------ Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men: A History of the American Civil War (Paperback) >From Publishers Weekly In this insightful treatment of the Civil War (addressing the causes, the war itself and Reconstruction), Hummel's text argues against the thesis that armed confrontation was inevitable. "As an excuse for civil war," he says, "maintaining the States territorial integrity is bankrupt and reprehensible. Slavery's elimination is the only morally worthy justification." But slavery, he suggests, was on its way out in any case. Not only was it a political liability, but the institution's many-faceted costs (social cost, enforcement, uprisings, mistreatment) outweighed any profits. If, after decades of unsuccessful compromise, the North had recognized the South's revolutionary right to self-determination and had let the Gulf states secede, slavery would have succumbed in the border states. Hummel goes on to argue, as have many others before, that after a devastating war and the disappointment of Reconstruction, a federal government that once interfered only a little in the affairs of individual states "had been transformed into an overbearing bureaucracy that intruded into daily life with taxes, drafts, surveillance, subsidies and regulations." Hummel, a professor of history and economics at Golden Gate University in San Francisco, quotes David H. Donald, saying, "Before the Civil War, many politicians and writers referred to the United States in the plural"--i.e., the United States are, a grammatical agreement no longer used after 1865. With its insightful analysis (not to mention the extensive bibliographical essays that elaborate each chapter), Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men will supply both the academic and Civil War buff with an added perspective on the causes and consequences of the Civil War. Copyright 1996 Cahners Business Information, Inc. >From Library Journal Hummel (history and economics, Golden Gate Univ.) presents some uncomfortable truths for both sides of the Civil War. For the South, Hummel builds a case that the war was indeed about slavery. For the North, he shows that a war to preserve the union was morally bankrupt and that freeing the slaves was the only justifiable reason for fighting. Yet Hummel demonstrates that even a war for such a noble cause was probably unnecessary, since slavery was politically doomed in an independent South. Hummel also illustrates some of the cost of the war, such as Lincoln's suppression of political opposition, the closing of dissenting newspapers, and the creation of big government under Republicans Lincoln, Johnson, and Grant. Here, Hummel steps on some toes. A worthwhile purchase for public and academic libraries.?Robert A. Curtis, Taylor Memorial P.L., Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio ------ Myths of American Slavery (Hardcover) by Walter Donald Kennedy By 1861 the South was contributing 80% of the country's revenue through trade with Britian and recieving next to nothing in return. This, and the South's ever slipping grip on states' rights was what inspired the South to fight for its independenece. Now that we have covered the TRUE reasons for the War Between the States, lets look at a few facts... 1.) As mentioned earlier 93% of southern families owned no slaves at the outbreak of the war. 2.) Lincoln, in his inaugural address and throughout the war, stated that he had no desire to free the slaves and he felt he had, "no lawful right to do so." (inaugural speech) 3.) Were the slave states remaining in the Union fighting to abolish slavery, even as it flourished within their own borders? 3.) What slaves did the Emancipation Proclamation free? Hmmm...the slaves in the states of rebellion! Did Lincoln really expect the Confederacy to free the slave because he told them to? Why did he choose not to free the slaves in the territories? It was a shrewd political move to incite slave rebellions in the South and to discourage Europe from providing aid to the South. 4.) The glorious Unioin general U.S. Grant, and future president, owned slaves until the end of the war. He said concerning the war, "If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission and offer my sword to the other side." 5.) After Lincoln's issue of the Emancipation Proclamation, whole regiments like the 101st Illinois refused to fight. Enlistments went down, desertions went up, and northerners were furious at Lincoln (emancipation meant millions of slaves would come north!). 6.) Modern historians now estimate that 13,000 blacks saw combat in the Confederate army. Thousands more served as cooks, teamsters, and body servants. Are we to believe that these men would fight to preserve the institution that kept them in bondage? --- In [email protected], new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Lincoln -- Among Our Greatest Presidents? > > Based on some afternoon reading and thinking. Its amazing how myths > are born and survive. > > 1) The Civil war produced huge casualities > > The war produced more than 970,000 casualties (3% of the population), > including approximately 620,000 soldier deaths two-thirds by disease. > > USA > Killed in action: 110,000 > Total dead: 360,000 > Wounded: 275,200 > > CSA > Killed in action: 93,000 > Total dead: 258,000 > Wounded: 137,000+ > > Total > Killed in action: 203,000 > Total dead: 618,000 > Wounded: 412,000+ > > > 2) Reconstruction Set Race Relations Back by Many Years > > The initial flurry of Reconstruction civil rights measures was eroded > and converted into laws that expanded racial segregation and > discrimination throughout Southern institutions and everyday life. In > exchange for its acceptance of reintegration into the Union, the South > (along with the rest of the country) was allowed to reestablish a > segregated, race-discriminatory society. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction > > > 3) The Civil War was Not about the Abolition of Slavery > > Letter to Horace Greeley > President Abraham Lincoln > > Executive Mansion > Washington, August 22, 1862 > > Hon. Horace Greeley: > Dear Sir. > > I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself > through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or > assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now > and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I > may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against > them. If there be perceptable [sic] in it an impatient and dictatorial > tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have > always supposed to be right. > > As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I > have not meant to leave any one in doubt. > > I would save the union. I would save it in the shortest > way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be > restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there > be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same > time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who > would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy > slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this > struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save 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 all the slaves I would do it; > and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I > would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I > do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forebear, > I forebear because I do not believe it would save the Union. I shall > do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and > I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the > cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I > shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. > > I have here stated my purpose according to my view of > official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed > personal wish that all men everywhere could be free. > > Yours, A. Lincoln. > > 4) Slavery had almost reached its outer limits of growth by 1860, so > war was unnecessary to stop further growth. The institution was > already on the road to ultimate extinction, (see #5).4) Only Seven > percent of slaveholders owned roughly three-quarters of the slave > population. > > Ramsdell, Charles W. "The Natural Limits of Slavery Expansion," > Mississippi Valley Historical Review, 16 (Sept. 1929), 151-71, in > JSTOR says slavery had almost reached its outer limits of growth by > 1860, so war was unnecessary to stop further growth. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War > > The plantation system, in effect, determined the structure of Southern > society. By 1850, there may have been fewer than 350,000 slaveholders > in a total free population of about six million--representing > approximately 36% of white households. There was sufficient social > mobility in free southern society that an even larger proportion of > free southerners might expect at some point to own slaves. However, > the proportion of slaveowning households would decline, by 1860, to > approximately 25%, and the distribution of slave ownership was highly > concentrated within a small minority of slaveowners that owned the > majority of slaves. Perhaps seven percent of slaveholders owned > roughly three-quarters of the slave population. This plantation-owning > elite, known as "slave magnates," was small enough as to be comparable > to the millionaires of the following century. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War > > > 5) Succession Could have Occurred Peacefully or the war could have > been averted by skillful and responsible leaders. > > One possible "compromise" was peaceful secession agreed to by the > United States, which was seriously discussed in late 1860and > supported by many abolitionistsbut was rejected by James Buchanan's > conservative Democrats as well as the Republican leadership. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War > > But the idea of the war as avoidable did not gain ground among > historians until the 1920s, when the "revisionists" began to offer new > accounts of the prologue to the conflict. Revisionist historians, such > as James G. Randall and Avery Craven saw in the social and economic > systems of the South no differences so fundamental as to require a > war. Randall blamed the ineptitude of a "blundering generation" of > leaders. He also saw slavery as essentially a benign institution, > crumbling in the presence of nineteenth century tendencies. Craven, > the other leading revisionist, placed more emphasis on the issue of > slavery than Randall, but argued roughly the same points. In The > Coming of the Civil War (1942), Craven argued that slave laborers were > not much worse off than Northern workers, that the institution was > already on the road to ultimate extinction, and that the war could > have been averted by skillful and responsible leaders in the tradition > of the great Congressional statesmen Henry Clay and Daniel Webster. > Two of the most important figures in US politics in the first half of > the 19th century, Clay and Webster, arguably in contrast to the 1850s > generation of leaders, shared a predisposition to compromises marked > by a passionate patriotic devotion to the Union. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War > > Needless War School > > * Craven, Avery, The Repressible Conflict, 1830-61 (1939) > o The Coming of the Civil War (1942) > o , "The Coming of the War Between the States," Journal of > Southern History 2 (August 1936): 30-63; in JSTOR > * Donald, David. "An Excess of Democracy: The Civil War and the > Social Process" in David Donald, Lincoln Reconsidered: Essays on the > Civil War Era, 2d ed. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1966), 209-35. > * Holt, Michael F. The Political Crisis of the 1850s. (1978) > emphasis on political parties and voters > * Randall, James G. "A Blundering Generation," Mississippi Valley > Historical Review 27 (June 1940): 3-28 in JSTOR > * James G. Randall. The Civil War and Reconstruction. (1937), > survey and statement of "needless war" interpretation > * Pressly, Thomas J. "The Repressible Conflict," chapter 7 of > Americans Interpret Their Civil War (Princeton: Princeton University > Press, 1954). > * Ramsdell, Charles W. "The Natural Limits of Slavery Expansion," > Mississippi Valley Historical Review, 16 (Sept. 1929), 151-71, in > JSTOR says slavery had almost reached its outer limits of growth by > 1860, so war was unnecessary to stop further growth. online version > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War > To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
