Portrait of Frederick Douglass

Portrait of Frederick Douglass
Frederick Douglass

A Photo Documentary of Slavery

Wednesday, April 4, 2007

The Civil War and Slavery

Here I sit at my laptop pondering what to write in this week’s blog, flipping through the Douglass text coming to one conclusion- I have no idea what more I could say about slavery. I was not enslaved, I didn’t sit on my grandfather’s knee and hear tales of slavery, I am generally unaffected by the past horrors of slavery. Yes, I’ve read the Douglass text several times, and read other slave stories, but I remain rather indifferent. Is that really true? Can I honestly say that as a white female in twenty-first century America I have not felt something that is essentially the product of early U.S. slavery? I look up at the bulletin board behind my desk and see that this is certainly not the case- my eyes fall upon a Gone With the Wind calendar. While still unsure what to write, I start browsing my pictures on my computer and find the pictures I took while visiting the battlefields of Gettysburg. So now I realize that I have a much greater interest in slavery than I at first thought; I am completely a Civil War buff. The Civil War is definitely linked to slavery.

The Civil War was a violent, crude battle focused on the economic and social differences of the North and South. The North was a center of industry with a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. This majority factor played a huge role in the economic benefits given to the North, and the harsh circumstances Southerners faced as a result of high tariffs. While the Northern citizens were able to easily import the many luxury goods they enjoyed from Europe to support their lavish and wealthy lifestyles, the Southern plantation suffered. The Southern planter experienced poor crop prices because of the high exporting taxes as well as soils that were exhausted from cotton. The South wanted independence from the North so that they could control the import and export taxes in a way that would support their economy.

The social issue the North and South most conflicted on was of course slavery. The abolitionist movement was spreading, and even many Southerners were pro-abolition yet still supported secession. While the North was criticizing Southern planters for keeping slaves, they acted quite hypocritically. With the industrial boom came a rising demand for cheap labor. Instead of implementing a policy of slavery, the Northern factory owners maintained sweat shops. The working conditions were often as bad or worse than that of the slaves. The coal industry became larger, and these employees suffered health problems as a result from working in the coal mines without proper accommodations for respiratory health. These laborers may have been free, but they were paid meager wages and forced to endure conditions similar to those of slaves. In many cases the employees would actually live on the factory property in rundown shacks that should have been condemned. Yet despite treating men, women, and children like this, the Northerners had “better” morals.

Looking back at the choice to use the Civil War as a means for ending slavery, it should have guaranteed a certain defeat of the South. The Southern economy was already struggling enough without losing their slaves as the Union soldiers came through and freed slaves or convinced them to join the Union forces in rare cases. The loss of the slaves on a plantation meant the loss of any chance of profit for that seasons crops. No war can be fought without funding. The South was set up for defeat from the start because the North had factories already in operation which could be easily changed into factories for artillery. The South, however, did have a good start because of the skills and knowledge of backcountry living as well as the best military school in the country. The Southern generals were some of the best war strategists to ever live, no competition for the incompetent and numerous generals the North went through in the beginning.

The Civil War was fought over economics and morals. The North felt that they were morally right to try to abolish slavery, choosing sweat shops instead. The South felt that the U.S. government was not treating them fairly, preferring to look after the economic well-being of the North instead of the nation as a whole. Each side had a valid reason for fighting for the cause. The Union forces ultimately won, defeating the Southern culture of slave-worked plantations and further damaging the economically handicapped South. What if slavery had not been one of the issues of the Civil War? Would the tide of the war have turned? Would the North have remained as dedicated to maintaining the Union as a whole?

3 comments:

APeterson said...

I understand your point that both sides had reasons to go to war with each other, but i disagree with the sweat shop point. Although the conditions in the sweat shops were terrible, the people who worked in them WERE free to leave and go home at the end of the day if they choose to. The slaves were not allowed such a pleasure and had to eat, sleep, and live where they worked not matter what they wanted. The morals of the South were far worse than the North because they had slavery, when the North did not.

Whether or not the conditions were bad or worse than that of the slaves, the workers in the sweat shops were free to leave, when the slaves were not. I know after reading this text that if I had the choice of either lifestyle, i would most definately take that of a free sweat shop worker, rather than a chained slave.

rroberts said...

While I do agree that there were economic and moral ideals behind the Civil War, I think you left out the part about the South wanting to secede from the Union. While slavery played a huge role in the reasoning behind the War, the idea that the South was going to form their own Union seperate from the North was the main factor behind the war. The South knew that they didn't stand a great chance against the North, who had all the factories and a larger population that would easily combat the south. What the Southerners used, and you mentioned this in your article, was the strength that came from fighting in the South, on their farms, in their woods, and next to their homes. The South drew most of their success from the fact that it was a battle waged on their soil, which they knew infinitely better than the North did. Luckily for us, the North still beat them down.
I also liked your point about trying to figure out what the Civil War meant specifically to you, because I think that's pretty significant too. As I was reading in another blog, it's hard to really understand something unless you can relate to it and put yourself in the specific time and place. I think that going to places such as Gettysburg, where we went on an 8th grade trip, meant nothing to us back then because we were immature and wanted to do other things like talk to girls or listen to our cd players. Reflecting back on those memories of seeing Gettysburg, going to Fort Sumter, and experiencing the Civil War monuments can only help us understand our past.

B. Sallows said...

In response to the last comment, you are absolutely correct. The South did want to form their own nation, and it was not entirely a war based on differing opinions. I also agree that taking children to historical monuments is pointless unless they have some reason to be personally invested in the history.

In response to the comment by apeterson, true, freedom is one of the most important rights we are fortunate enough to have. Living free but in horrible conditions would likely be a much more fulfilling life than one in slavery.