A Necessary Conflict
And an opportunity for re-examination
- By Carey Winfrey
- Smithsonian magazine, April 2011, Subscribe
With our cover story in this issue about the bombardment of Fort Sumter by Confederate artillery, we begin our coverage of the Civil War’s sesquicentennial. Over the next four years, we plan to examine the major battles, pivotal moments and social currents that so divided our country—and shaped its future—a century and a half ago.
In April 1861, the people of Charleston, South Carolina, were in a celebratory mood. The state had just seceded, which most residents felt was a victory in itself, and no one was anticipating four long years of bloodshed and 620,000 dead. “When you walk through Charleston or stand at Fort Sumter,” says Fergus M. Bordewich, author of “Opening Salvo,” “you can place yourself there and see the future they didn’t see. It’s quite dramatic.”
Bordewich, who has written three books on slavery and the antebellum period, sees these events more clearly than most. He grew up in Yonkers, New York, listening to Civil War stories told by his grandmother, herself the child of a Civil War veteran. For this article, he interviewed a wide gamut of people, from African-American scholars to members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, who still feel, intensely, the rightness of the Confederate cause. He spent days at the South Carolina Historical Society reading period letters, memoirs and diaries. He talked to scholars in New York, South Carolina, Georgia and Washington, D.C. and he read deeply in the accounts of members of the Fort Sumter garrison during the bombardment. “They were choking on smoke,” he says. “The fort was on fire. They were in cramped, almost airless brick compartments, being fired on from different directions. They were essentially in a trap.”
Bordewich believes that Fort Sumter—or some other flash point—was virtually inevitable. “I think it was an unavoidable conflict, a necessary conflict,” he says. “The people of 1861 were finally paying the unpaid dues left by the founders of the Republic and their successors for their failure to find a political solution to the problem of slavery. It finally had to be solved with guns. Make no mistake, the war was about slavery. It was not about legalistic arguments. It was not about economics. It was not about tariffs. It was fundamentally about slavery: one part of the United States, which was wedded to slavery and did not want to exist without it, versus another, which rejected the expansion of slavery. I think the memorializing of the war during the sesquicentennial is an opportunity to examine that—along with the great military drama of the war itself. It’s an opportunity to come to grips with the fact that war over slavery was inescapable.”
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.
Comments (3)
I see that the myths and wishful thinking that the war could have been avoided still persists. I suspect that many Americans cannot stomach the idea that one of the major reasons behind the Civil War was slavery. If the Civil War could have been avoided, one might as well say the same about the American Revolution. After all, we really did not have to go to war against Great Britain. The U.S. would have eventually won its independence, just as countries like Canada and Australia did. But I suspect it is more palatable to many Americans that we fought a bloody war over the rights of the Colonial elite - rich, white men than we did over the freedom of African-Americans.
Posted by L Jones on October 10,2012 | 03:30 PM
Dear Sir:
As a subscriber to your magazine I am interested in “From The Editor” as in other parts of your fine magazine. To your article in the April issue I take exception. You say the Civil War was all about slavery, not legalistic arguments; not about economics, and not about tariffs. How silly such an argument. There is an old adage that is attributed to Lincoln, “Keep you mouth shut and people will think you a fool (other words could be used, ignorant, etc.), open it and remove all doubt.”
I suppose you think the south was not hurt economically by the tariffs. Those tariffs kept plants from moving to a better climate, southward, and the effect of them lasted until 1949 when Ellis Arnold, Governor of Georgia, went before the United States Supreme Court and had the South put on an equal footing with the North . The war was caused by Lincoln invading Virginia after the eleven states below the Mason Dixon Line nullified the tariffs and seceded from the Union.
In 1828 the railroads were opening up the nation, so to speak, and manufacturing plants were beginning to learn that A better climate for the manufacture of their goods was southward. To stop any of this movement the “Northern Establishment” in congress enacted the tariff of that date. Later in 1832 they strengthened that tariff with another one. And the Legislature of South Carolina came out with a “Nullification” clause over which President Andrew Jackson threatened war.
When the eleven states seceded Lincoln built up Fort Sumpter, and which the South bombarded. Then came the Virginia invasion. Lincoln did not invade to “abolish slavery” but to “save the union.” Only 2% of the south was interested in slavery which left 98% without slaves. Do you really think the hundreds of thousands of southern boys went to war to save slavery for the 2%? Do you think Robert E. Lee went to war to save slavery? He had already pardoned his family’s slaves. And the new constitution of the Confederacy made it illegal to bring in any new slaves.
And of course all the others were brought here by “Northern Slave Traders.”
The reason Lincoln came out for abolishing slavery is that he needed a “Rallying Cry” because he was losing the war. That was at least a year after the war started.. The south had a total of 500,000 under arms; the north 2,500,000. And if you know your history, Lincoln made an arrangement with Liberia, Africa to take back the slaves. That explains his saying about a “house divided can not stand.’ A few years ago there was a rebellion in Liberia, the name of the rebel, “John Taylor,” not exactly an African name Also in Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation he only freed the slaves below the Mason Dixon Line. The slaves in the other slave states, Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland and Missouri were not freed until the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
I have a minor in American History from The Alabama Polytechnic Institute, completed in 1948. The text book we studied did not mention slavery as a reason for the war. Since the civil righters have gained so much popularity, history has been rewritten and the reason has changed to slavery. It is much more dramatic a reason and it enhances their prestige.
I wish your magazine would interview Pat Buchanan about the civil war, as he would give you entirely a different reason than yours and most of the present day politicians.
And to further explain the economics factor, my Father was a telegrapher on the Southern Railroad in Pell City, Alabama in 1920. A northern manufacturer came down and wanted to open a manufacturing plant there to make overalls, as there was a mill there that made the thread he wanted to use; an unfinished product. After checking he found that he could open his plant above the Mason Dixon Line, manufacture his finished product there by shipping thread to that plant; and sell his product in all markets cheaper than making his finished product below the line. Freight rates made the difference The effect of those tariffs lasted for 121 years.
Eleanor Roosevelt made a trip south while her husband was president, in the 1930's. She was asked about her trip and her explanation was “one has to close their eyes because of the poverty down there.” She was too proud to give the reason, and possibly didn’t know it. She should have come south after we gained equal footing and see the improvement. We have more automobile plants than the north, and many other factories as many have moved south.
If you have any rebuttal, I would like to hear from you.
Sincerely,
John Howard
Posted by John Howard on May 8,2011 | 04:34 PM
I disagree with your statements that the War Between The States was inevitable. While the war was primarily about slavery, the other factors you trivialized (tarrifs, economic imbalance, etc.) were additional smoldering fodder.
The truth is that if cooler heads had prevailed on both sides war could have beeen averted. The radical abolitionists in the north and the extreme states righters in the south are both to blame for bringing the national debate to the abyss of war. As most historians will acknowledge, there were cooler heads in both the north and the south who knew slavery was evil and had indeed recognized that the worldwide trend for some years had been to outlaw slavery. It may have taken a few more years, but the trend away from slavery was clearly taking place in the the mid 1800's, even in the American South. I remember hearing Shelby Foote say something similar about how integration was mishandled. He claimed that if we had integrated the schools over a12-year period, beginning with the first grade that we would not have had the racial tensions of the 1960's. The same principle applies in my opinion to the War Between The States. A few more years of patience, negotiation and political prodding would have seen the end of slavery in America.
Sincerely,
W. P. Blackman
Posted by William Patrick Blackman on March 30,2011 | 04:56 PM