Wednesday, December 3, 2014

Race, Slavery, and Reasons why the South Believed Succession was a Necessity - Tajae Pryce


“Southern white men did not fight for slavery; they fought for a new nation built on slavery.” This statement by historian Edward Ayers, represents the complexity of contemporary analysis of the causes of the Civil War. On one hand, there are those who express that the cause of the war was simply for the preservation of the slave institution; however, history calls for meticulous responses to questions of such importance that expand further than single causes and universal and all-encompassing agendas. Factors such as heightened tensions over the North and South’s perhaps clashing outlook of the future of economic prosperity, the debate of what defined ‘modernity’ at this time, as well as the rhetoric-heavy and dynamic conversation over state’s rights and popular sovereignty are necessary to evaluate and study in order to paint the picture of a young nation, fresh off the heels of a grand independence movement, that was about to enthrall in actions that would lead to disbandment and successions from the United States over conflicts that affected the lives of the population involved as well as constitutional interpretations that now needed to be revised or imposed altogether. Analysts must understand and take note of all of the factors that the ‘conflict over slavery’ entailed and how socioeconomic, cultural and religious experiences lead to eventual succession and militant combat. Studying the events leading up to the Civil War as well as during the conflict reveals the nation’s struggle over change and new ideas and the reluctance and imposition of such.
The discussion of modernity during the era leading up to the Civil War is one that not only serves as a factorial cause of conflict, but sets cultural attitudes people had with respect to how they saw themselves and their fellow citizens in other regions of the country. The rapid development of industries brought forth during the push for industrialization led to the hyper development, in some areas in the North, of urban environments new markets and wealth-attaining opportunities. The changes brought on by the Industrial Revolution in the North led many of its citizens and analysts to describe the area of the nation that may not have been as plantation-heavy as others as an area of modernity and progression. During this time, new ideas and the entertainment and expression of new liberalistic ideas in regards to self-determination and basic human rights challenged the Southern environment of slave labor feeding into the ever standing focus on agricultural and textile production as archaic and regressive. The social atmosphere at this period was already showing how cultural ideas and norms could cause divisive tension amongst people of the same nation with conflicting views on not only how the world worked but also how the world was supposed to work. There is little a historian can do in regards to determining what region was the more modern as the study of world history proves that industrialization cannot be used to measure the political and economic development of a society. In the case of the United States, both the northern and southern regions had been in states of economic prosperity with the South making huge profits and surplus from the agricultural niche it had always thrived on; reaping the benefits of low cost of labor to supply not only northern United States markets, but European and other world markets with cotton and its byproducts. In America’s case, these oftentimes conflicting systems both came with economic gain and the heavy infrastructural development of a growing population. The problem, however, would lie with how the American culture and society would adapt to these new ideas, and new ways of doing things. The matter of if the institutions of the past could survive and prove still effective and relevant as the United States aimed to establish itself as a global market of high influence was what needed to be asked in regards to the perseverance and perhaps expansion of slavery.
As the nation developed, new forms of industry and infrastructure also developed in a much larger scale than historical seen before. The railroad industry was rapidly materializing into a federal network established by private interests and investments. With such a laborious industry, slave labor was once again called upon to build up another branch on the nation’s backbone. This form of slave labor, however, was unprecedented as the industry that needed to be developed was not a regionally static one, but of expanding locations outside development. Slavery expanded beyond the master-slave plantation model and became a market where slave owners could manage their slaves on contracts, sending laborers to locations as needed with many times little to no face-time management. Here we also see the institution taking a new more faceless methodology in how it was carried out as it was painted in the light of other modern industries with some of its previous ‘savagery’ becoming harder and harder to identify. This system also sparked debate over what to do with newly acquired lands and territories untouched by slavery in the past as laborers entered into these lands while still under contract with their slave owner in a southern slave state. Legitimate precedence was necessary to be established in order to satisfy the constitution adapting to the social and cultural atmosphere of the time period. The acquisition of new territory, especially in regards to Nebraska, created much political conflict. Northern republicans at the time did not find the region conductive to slavery which was answered by heavy opposition by Whigs and southern democrats. The conflict created over how the Missouri Compromise was regarded shows the razor thin blanket of tension covering the nation at the time. Leaders who were more lax in regards to the enforcing of the conditions of the Missouri Compromise faced criticism from those who saw such behavior as the condoning of slavery whereas on the other hand many southerners would view the same notions as not holding and protecting the South’s interests as significant.
The volatile elements on what was done in the Kansas-Nebraska situation as well as a social culture being exposed to some of the untold of stories of how the master-slave relationship worked further divided the people. The southern institution was looked at by the world as an outrage against basic humanity. New literature such as Uncle Tom’s Cabin and other accounts reached northern and European markets and led them to question the ideals of southern identity; an identity southerners were quick to defend and protect. By the mid-19th century, the United States was enthralled with an influx of European immigration. Immigrants came from different regions at times with different religious and economic backgrounds and changes in political representation as well as economic policy were necessary.
 Political leaders with new ideas and agendas captured the tension and attempted to grab control of a nation on the edge of division. Politicians such as Abraham Lincoln aimed to resolve the issues of slave expansion while adhering to the progression of not only economic markets and systems, but the mentality and ideas shared by the people. Lincoln created a sense of progression and fairness although from an evaluative standpoint, heavy ambiguity could be detected in his platforms. For instance, Lincoln expressed the idea that slavery was immoral and had always been, going as far as to cite the ideologies of the Founding Fathers, and that the institution should not be spread into any new territory acquired by the nation. However, Lincoln also served to uphold the constitution where slavery was permitted, stating that the institution should be protected in states where it already existed. The political environment of the time period showed its heavy volatility as parties disbanded and reformed in order to represent and account for new ideologies and candidates for leadership were critically chosen and stern on their stances. The state of the nation’s moral equity was a heavy player in the political arena as traveling religious agents and organizations rose exponentially in the early 19th century attempting to reach and account for the many different faces of America. Religious literature became more readily available to isolated areas in the form of tracts and reprinted editions of the Holy Bible. The religious push would go on to both reinforce conservative behavior and practice as well as urge progression and ratification of such expressing the notion that “man did not have to be as before”. In the South, specifically, religious division was highly prevalent. The struggle between the ‘old, right ways’ challenged by new interpretations of the same teachings or new ones all together divided the people enough that political parties were starting to not necessarily be entirely regional affiliations.
The societal structure of the South at this time was challenged and conservation efforts were at a fever pitch. With new ideas and leaders such as Lincoln, many southerners and eventual secessionists felt it would be only a matter of time before turmoil ensued with free blacks, voting on actual issues taking place. The most extreme side of this spectrum envisioned a society where black people would dominate and retaliate heavily against white society creating a state of crime and violence with white interest being disregarded as socioeconomic regression would take place.  Succession was presented as the only option to conserve rightful society and to reject the ‘socialist’ insertions that would come from Lincoln and the shortsighted liberal collective. Secessionists felt that they were doing the right thing and did not necessarily view themselves as the renegades or rebels as history tends to describe them, but as conservatives with the option to fight for the preservation of the nation in which their ancestors fought for and their descendants would live in. Fighting to resist a deconstructed social system led to the creation of such, however. As the perhaps unforeseen, to such extent, repercussions of succession were quickly felt. The South was reminiscent to a war torn, poverty stricken nation state as most of the Civil War’s battles were fought in the region and their middle class male population were all used in the war effort. Women and children had to work to put food on the table like never before as their husbands, fathers and brothers left their communities to go on and battle the far superior in terms of technological and strategic Union military often leading to acts of dissertation and resistance to conscription. The vision was lost amongst the apparent classist leadership during the war period with upper class, able-bodied men granted low combat jobs and faced little relocation in order to protect financial institutions while men who as a whole more than likely were not grand slave owners or industrious tycoons fought to protect such assets. This alone would lead to the weakening of the Confederate movement. The motivation to fight to the end to protect morality was quickly dissipating and surrender to the Union was favorable as a whole.

Suggesting that slavery was the root cause of the Civil War structurally identifies both the fundamental spark of succession and the preceding combative events and the ‘final straw’ analogy of the entire conflict but that suggestion fails to explain the fundamental reasons of why slavery was such a divisive matter. The connection race and slavery had on the United States’ history is recognizable but may not be shown as relevant as it actually is. The bringing of an enormous population of Africans to what would be a new European colony had implementations yet to be understood dealing with the structure of society. The intentions of the initial slave traders and how black people were viewed and understood to be were not positive associations. These ideas were deeply planted into the psyche of the Americans and reinforced for centuries and centuries through the master-slave plantation model and barbaric and savage connotations. The economic success brought on by slave labor created a sense of moral rightness in the slave system; quite frankly, keeping blacks captured and working was seen as the right and godly mission and in many cases, racism was not presented with hate but as a representation of the patriarchal mindset of Western society and Abrahamic religious teachings. The reasons for succession were heartfelt and clear, but the reality of its repercussions and hard lesson learned about the need for change in systems proved to be one that the south was not prepared to handle that rapidly no matter how fervently race relations and practices were enforced in their cultural consciousness.

No comments:

Post a Comment