McWhorter's lead paragraph is extremely misleading. What exacerbated tensions between the south and the north was the slaveholding states desire to expand slavery into the new territories and states; in fact, to create a slaveholding empire that would extend to central America. If the south had been content to simply hold onto what it already had there is little historical reason to think that the north would have ever serious challenged the institution of slavery.

African people and their descendants had already been enslaved for more than two centuries before white southerners embarked on their "blood-drenched sacrifice". That is, white southerners and all white Americans who lived in states and territitories where slavery was not specifically banned had the freedom to subject a race of people to enslavement.

Is this McWhorter any relation to the Hudson Institutute's McWhorter?

Is this McWhorter any relation to the Hudson Institutute's McWhorter?

I don't know, but it leapt to mind immediately.

I need to make a correction.

I wrote: "That is, white southerners and all white Americans who lived in states and territitories where slavery was not specifically banned had the freedom to subject a race of people to enslavement."

I should have written: "That is, white southerners and all citizens and residents of the United States including blacks and Native Americans living in states and territitories where slavery was not specifically banned had the freedom to subject a race of people to enslavement. (Blacks who owned slaves was not a common occurrence but it did happen. Native American tribes such as the Cherokees owned black slaves.)

What exacerbated tensions between the south and the north was the slaveholding states desire to expand slavery into the new territories and states; in fact, to create a slaveholding empire that would extend to central America.

My historical education may be lacking, but this is the first time I've ever met that "slavery empire" concept. It sure seems that the common story is a bit more likely.

by 1850, slavery had become socially contentious, and southern slave owners felt the coming threat. They fought back with an attempt to stalemate the social advance, by seeking to achieve equal pro-slavery politicial power to that held by anti-slavery forces. The westward expansion was at full speed, so they sought to have as many new slave states as there were non-slave states.

Now would these people have preferred nationwide slavery? Probably, but what they really cared about was their own economic self interest. Slavery was not, in and of itself, an empire builder kind of motivation (as was say Christianity or the American Manifest Destiny driving westward expansion. There was no "leader of the slavery movement", and clearly the secession was never seen as the beginning of some greater Confederate empire.

The other large slaveholding portion of the western hemisphere was Brazil, but I've not encountered any evidence whatsoever that Brazil collaberated in any way.

Just not much of an empire there to be seen.

Now would these people have preferred nationwide slavery? Probably, but what they really cared about was their own economic self interest.

Since that self-interest required slavery to be maintained, I'd say that's a distinction without a difference.

The expansion of slavery into new states and "free" territories had become contentious but slavery itself only stunk in the nostrils of a relatively few white Americans. Abraham Lincoln and the Republican Party certainly had no intention of going to war over the issue of slavery. The desire of slaveowners to expand their land and slave holdings, which meant, in effect, increasing their power in the federal government and in determining who would be president is what caused the north's back to get up.

DW - if the institution of slavery didn't need a leader to exist as an institution why would it need a recognized leader for slave owners to want to spread slavery. By the way, if the Conferederacy had won the war then its government would have been that leader.

by 1850, slavery had become socially contentious, and southern slave owners felt the coming threat. They fought back with an attempt to stalemate the social advance, by seeking to achieve equal pro-slavery politicial power to that held by anti-slavery forces.

So.. was slavery "socially" or "economically" contentious? If your *way of life* is your polity, and slavery was the southern *way of life*, what was the competing northern *way of life* whose violent political contention with the southern for expansionist dominance of America's western reaches was worth the investment in military adventure?

Off the top, I'm not about to buy into the post hoc just-so story that abolitionism was a key tenet of the northern *way of life*, any more than I'm buying into the nth iteration of post hoc just-so storytelling being promulgated to account for the invasion of Iraq.

As an aside, I live within two miles of a Civil War battle site and within 12 miles of the Quindaro township which was arguably the largest node on the underground railroad.

Slavery was not, in and of itself, an empire builder kind of motivation

Abolition was sure as shit not an empire-builder motivation...., so like that 17% of proven global reserves of oil under Iraq, which also happen to be of the highest quality, what was the driving northern economic motivation for the Civil War? I've always heard that the fact that both Lincoln and Douglas were railroad lawyers is consequential..., in a Brown and Root Halliburtonesque sort of fashion.

The other large slaveholding portion of the western hemisphere was Brazil

Ah Brazil...., too much sweet Africanity which overpowered those iberians and restored their humanity far sooner than here in the Murkan badlands..., clearly an insufficient dose of jes grew has been administered to the Murkans for whom we bear evolutionary responsibility.

I knew where that "evolutionary responsibility' link was going as soon as I saw the words it's wrapped around.

Truth, I think this particular page is a better description of our evolutionary responsibility.

On the motivation for the American Civil War:

Yes, there most certainly was a plan for a slavery empire. Ever heard of the "Ostend Manifesto"? How about William Walker? Moreover, there is the speech of Robert Toombs to the Georgia legislature, generally regarded as the authoritative summary of Southern grievances.

The country has expanded to meet this growing want, and Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Missouri, have received this increasing tide of African labor; before the end of this century, at precisely the same rate of increase, the Africans among us in a subordinate condition will amount to eleven millions of persons. What shall be done with them? We must expand or perish. We are constrained by an inexorable necessity to accept expansion or extermination. Those who tell you that the territorial question is an abstraction, that you can never colonize another territory without the African slavetrade, are both deaf and blind to the history of the last sixty years. All just reasoning, all past history, condemn the fallacy. The North understand it better - they have told us for twenty years that their object was to pen up slavery within its present limits - surround it with a border of free States, and like the scorpion surrounded with fire, they will make it sting itself to death. One thing at least is certain, that whatever may be the effect of your exclusion from the Territories, there is no dispute but that the North mean it, and adopt it as a measure hostile to slavery upon this point.

The notion that slavery was endangered where it was, is totally counterfactual. The Dred Scott Decision was made in 1854, not 1814. That effectively rendered null & void the ability of any state to outlaw slavery. So did the Fugitive Slave Act. Presidents Buchanan and Pierce had given the slavocrats EVERYTHING they wanted, including nonenforcement of American treaties banning the trans-Atlantic slave trade.

Frederick Foner makes this pretty clear in his books on the subject.

DW wrote: "It sure seems that the common story is a bit more likely."

DW - The common story, as any professional historian would assure you, is generally little more than bunk. This is particularly true when it comes to unraveling the history of slavery and race relations in this country. The entire whole of American civilization was committted for more than three centuries to covering up, distorting, twisting and, if necessary, simply lying about these issues.

The notion that slavery was endangered where it was, is totally counterfactual.

Try this quote from Robert E. Lee in 1861:

"With all my devotion to the Union and the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home. I have therefore resigned my commission in the Army, and save in defense of my native State, with the sincere hope that my poor services may never be needed, I hope I may never be called on to draw my sword....."

The common story, as any professional historian would assure you, is generally little more than bunk.

The common story surely contains some amount of bunk, having been written by the winners and all.

Civil War era and the politics which led to it were well recorded, factually. In this discussion, we're onto the meta-facts, the why people did what they did rather than what they actually did. And indeed, the bunk factor increases significantly. Scoundrels and thieves acquire noble motives.

However I see no evidence whatsoever that the confederate states delusionally imagined themselves as empire builders. The fact is, that would have required substantial denial of reality. Further, if there were to have been evidence, why would it have been covered over? Tinhorn expansionists of the era are routinely historically ridiculed by those who defeated them.

That slaveholders in the south were the leaders of the secession is also beyond dispute. They (as cnulan has I suspect observed) controlled the political dialogue. They converted their own economic interest into a nationalistic sentiment that secession was the honorable course. The poor whites (including some of my ancestors) who joined them had bought into the rejection of federal authority.

The notion that slavery was endangered where it was, is totally counterfactual.

Try this quote from Robert E. Lee in 1861:

"With all my devotion to the Union and the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home. I have therefore resigned my commission in the Army, and save in defense of my native State, with the sincere hope that my poor services may never be needed, I hope I may never be called on to draw my sword....."

And the relevance of the quote is...

Because all of America was in empire-building mode (see the Indian Removal Act). The dispute was over slavery would be honored across the entire empire.

DW - I haven't read this quote of Lee's in a long, long time but if memory serves me correctly I believe he made this statement after the seccessionists fired on Fort Sumpter and it was obvious that there was going to be a war. In any case, this quote doesn't prove that slavery as an institution was on the verge of being abolished by the federal government. It seems to me that you are going way out a limb in order to prove a point that is not worth defending at all.

The perspective that developed on the causes of the War Between the States was shaped primarily by the losers and their sympathizers and their views prevailed over all others well into the 20th Century. D.W. Grifftith's film "Birth of A Nation" was screened in the White House and publicly praised by Woodrow Wilson.

Wanting to hold my ancestors and their progeny in chattel slavery for perpetuity may have have been, at bottom, a delusional goal but I can assure you that it was their goal.

Who were the winners of the American Civil War? Who?

Neo-confederates or apologists for the CSA invariably pull this stunt. "History is written by the winners, so even if the evidence is against us the history is all lies." Excuse me, but if history is a cruel calumny of the CSA, then why is the worst war criminal in US history, Nathan B Forrest, the butcher of Fort Pillow and founder of the KKK, treated so tenderly in every flipping textbook that mentions him?

Sometimes the people who lose the war win the peace. The British don't rule India anymore. Does that make them losers of the Battle for India? If it does, can we assume the torrent of Masterpiece Theatre movies and elegant epic movies from the UK are all slanders of the noble glorious colonialists and their golden transformation of India? The USA is, by all accounts, the loser of the Vietnam War. Who wrote the history of the Vietnam War?

The Bolsheviks won the Russian Civil War. Who writes the history of that? In English?

Civil wars don't end with peace treaties. States don't write textbooks; professors do, and trustees buy them. In the Reconstruction era, the victorious North was at once divided between farmers, workers, philanthropists, and industrialists. Did the first two somehow convert their taxes paid in blood on the battlefields, into a legend of the virtue of Free Labor? No, don't be silly.

Did the philanthropists turn to empowering and ennobling the Negro race? Some tried; more tried to escort the Freed men out of the way, still more to salve the pride of the humiliated South. Was the industrialist going to press his victory by enforcing and upholding the 14th & 15th Amendments? No, he wanted investment opportunities and raw materials, as promptly as possible. And personally, he wanted to imitate the grandeur of the the Southern gentleman. He befriended him, vacationed on his estates, and praised his past.
--------------------------------

The problem with arguments like these is that the interlocutors assume that "sides", like the sides in the ACW, were cohesive and agreed. Nothing could be further from the truth. There was a split, for example, between the "Old South" where the money was old and incomes came from investments; estates were like parks, and the slaves were being sold off to parts south and west. Here, you had aristocratic propagandists like George Fitzhugh and Edwin Ruffin. But you also had aggressively ambitious, energetic developers and projectors in the south and west, the zealots who were always racing ahead to expropriate more land, implement more modern farm machinery, have larger estates with more hands and bigger teams. These were the people who were advocates of the secession, but they carried along the others because they had a vision for the future of slavery and the mild, careful-spoken bluebloods did not.

So whenever the South is to be represented as defensive, rather than ambitious, then the elderly, softspoken Lee is invoked; forgotten are men like Dowdell of Alabama, J.B. Clay of Kentucky, Seward of Georgia, Barksdale of Mississippi, Crawford of Goergia, Miles of South Carolina, and so on (these names are taken from p.175 of The Suppression of the African Slave Trade, W.E.B. DuBois, 1896; they are mentioned as vociferous opponents of enforcement of then-existing laws banning the African slave trade). Jefferson Davis strongly denied "any coincidence of opinion with those who prate of the inhumanity and sinfulness of the trade." That was in 1856.We have, for example, Alexander Stephens, who said Congress: "[My object] is to bring clearly to your mind the great truth that without an increase of African slaves from abroad, you may not expect or look for many more slave states." (Ibid).

Against this we have the glowing figure of Robert E Lee, who was mainly concerned about his state bearing the brunt of a Union riposte.

I see PT Cruiser said about the same thing in fewer words.

The "Birth of a Nation" complex persists in American literary treatment of the Confederacy. Don't hold your breath waiting for some novel about the ACW in which the author relies for documentary material on slave narratives! Like, for example, Frederick O Douglass's Biography, in which he decribes how being a slavemaster changes people's personalities.

DW - I haven't read this quote of Lee's in a long, long time but if memory serves me correctly I believe he made this statement after the seccessionists fired on Fort Sumpter and it was obvious that there was going to be a war. In any case, this quote doesn't prove that slavery as an institution was on the verge of being abolished by the federal government. It seems to me that you are going way out a limb in order to prove a point that is not worth defending at all.

Your sense of timing is perfect PT (as usual), and I hadn't fully considered that nuance when posting the quote. Lee was not in any sense a secessionist leader. By that time, sevaral states including Lee's Virginia had seceeded, and the Fort Sumter first shots had been fired.

However, the point stands (and to answer p6's so what), Lee was not joining any expansionist outfit. He was refusing to participate in the upcoming invasion of the south, and he was returning to defend.

Lee is a good example because he wrote so much, so well, and because he was an extremely rational guy. Whether you agree with him or not, or whether you judge his views by today's standards or his own context, you find a good explanation of events from an influential participant.

Here's another quote, from a response to a speech by then President Pierce in 1857:

I was much pleased the with President's message. His views of the systematic and progressive efforts of certain people at the North to interfere with and change the domestic institutions of the South are truthfully and faithfully expressed. The consequences of their plans and purposes are also clearly set forth. These people must be aware that their object is both unlawful and foreign to them and to their duty, and that this institution, for which they are irresponsible and non-accountable, can only be changed by them through the agency of a civil and servile war.

This is not a rare or isolated quote. RE Lee's views on the upcoming war were publicized at the time. He hoped to head off the impending war, and he hoped to do so by negotiating compromises. He was not a defender of slavery, but he did not want to see the civil war.

But we see clearly in the writings of Lee that:
1. The secession of southern states was in response to their perception of threats from the north to end slavery.
2. The north was gearing up for war for five years before the war actually started.
3. The secsssion of the south was a somewhat reluctant precursor to forming a defensive military force and strategy.

Lastly, we come to PT's claim:

Wanting to hold my ancestors and their progeny in chattel slavery for perpetuity may have have been, at bottom, a delusional goal but I can assure you that it was their goal.

We agree on that, PT. They (southern leaders) fully wanted to be able to sell your ancestors to one another, breaking children away from mothers never to be seen again so as to gain profit. Their actions were taken to maximize the chance that slavery would continue.

We agree on that, PT. They (southern leaders) fully wanted to be able to sell your ancestors to one another, breaking children away from mothers never to be seen again so as to gain profit. Their actions were taken to maximize the chance that slavery would continue.

Therefore Lee was at best an exception.

And the southern leaders were working to insure the intended American empire had Black slaves with no shot at freedom or equality, ever.

You can't pretend otherwise. You can't defend this.

DW - Lee may have been an honorable and noble guy but to my ancestors, some of whom had been slaves on the notorious Pierce Butler plantation before being sold to a plantation owner in Louisiana in what was the largest slave auction in American history, Robert E. Lee was just another white man who wanted to keep them enslaved.

All his fretting about his beloved Virginia (I hated reading that crap in elementary school. My junior high and high school teachers were too smart to repeat that sentimental bushwah.) etc. didn't mean jack if you were a slave. Lee fought to secede from the Union. Lee's writings on the causes of the Civil War are not credible. His writings on the war itself deserve a measure of respect.

Robert E. Lee was just another white man who wanted to keep them enslaved.

Lee is actually the classic liberal vs revolutionary.

He wanted to end slavery, but was not willing to go to war over it.

When the revolutionaries win, in retrospect the liberals can look like the enemy, and maybe they are. But there exist many questions for which this phenomenom applies, and we benefit from lack of war.

Lee fought to secede from the Union.

Indirectly, sure. He fought for the secessionists, clearly. But he was not a secessionist.

Lee's writings on the causes of the Civil War are not credible.

I can sure understand a black man rejecting Lee out of hand. I'm willing to recommend him as a fellow intellectual, a man who truly thought things out. That doesn't mean I agree with what he says, it means that I agree with his rationality in the context which he lived. And I assert that he was a credible reporter, that his dilemmas were sincere.

Consider this PT. If I rejected people out of hand which I hold fundamental disagreements with, I'd have rejected you. And I'd have been the loser.

Therefore Lee was at best an exception.

Agreed, agreed, agreed.

And the southern leaders were working to insure the intended American empire had Black slaves with no shot at freedom or equality, ever.

You can't pretend otherwise. You can't defend this.

If it seems like I'm defending this p6, then I'm miscommunicating. I hold no secret wish that the south had prevailed. I hold no respect for what they were up to.

My only claim here is that Robert E. Lee was an honest human being, willing and able to credibly explain a middle ground perspective regarding how the Civil War was caused.

DW - "Consider this PT. If I rejected people out of hand which I hold fundamental disagreements with, I'd have rejected you. And I'd have been the loser."

I understand your point but there are some issues over which we can't have a "fundamental disagreement" and still hope to maintain a dialogue. I will not, for example, have a dialogue with anyone who denies that the Nazi's and their allies killed nearly one-third of the Jews in world and intended to kill all of them if they had succeeded in winning the war. I cannot have a dialogue with anyone who believes that African people benefited in some ways from being enslaved (one of the owners of the Coors Brewery actually made this claim in a speech made about 10 years ago) in the Americas.

I don't reject Lee as a military strategist and leader. His views, however, on the origins and causes of the War Between the States which are enormously sympathetic to fellow Virginians and the South are not credible and should be not be given the benefit of the doubt. Even liberals, DW, will defend their class interests under the guise of being objective.

By the way, calling Lee a liberal in the context of slavery and the Civil War requires greater explanation on your part.

When the revolutionaries win, in retrospect the liberals can look like the enemy, and maybe they are. But there exist many questions for which this phenomenom applies, and we benefit from lack of war.

This we benefit from lack of war comment sounds jarringly like the post hoc rationalization of the invader/subjugator/colonizer self-interestedly promoting the benefits of subject acquiesence. Israel would benefit from Palestinian acquiesence. Murkans would benefit from Iraqi acquiesence - particularly as the bogged down corporate expeditionary force struggles to figure out how to go about approaching the Iranian end-game objective of the overall campaign.

but I digress...,

My only claim here is that Robert E. Lee was an honest human being

It appears to me that Lee was an internally consistent self-talker. This is a far cry from an *honest* human being. *Honest* human beings are incapable of violently subjugating and appropriating the labor value of other human beings, period. An honest human being has an objective conscience. From what I've seen here, Lee was not burdened by any such dissonance arising from his myriad ethical failings toward others. No, Lee was a parasitic Murkan exemplar who simply eschewed dwelling on or revelling in the sadistic and subhuman sausage factory realities underlying the *way of life* which he and his loved ones enjoyed, and, which he personally violently defended.

He and everything he stood for are fundamentally indefensible.

So-called liberals and conservatives engaged in the political theatre of distracting self-talk, but who share in common, a way of life which infrastructurally depends on the dehumanization and sadistic sausage factory treatment of other human beings here and abroad - are actually members of the same Murkan polity - none more noble than the other. The only difference is that some actively revel in the sausage making, while others would really rather not trouble themselves to think about it.

My only claim here is that Robert E. Lee was an honest human being, willing and able to credibly explain a middle ground perspective regarding how the Civil War was caused.

What value has a "middle ground explanation" for a war to keep people enslaved?

None.

Reinforcement of self-calming automatism and buffering against the objectively terrifying prospect of a glimpse into the closet of sheer moral horror that is the catalog of Murkan crimes against humanity, oops, I meant Murkan history...,

Lionization of the hasnamussian noble savage Lee, compels me to pay homage to a genuinely honest human being killed by Lee for acting on convictions arising from objective conscience...,

"The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion ... but rather by its superiority in applying organised violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do."

Original Axis of Evil: Colonial Empires

always and everywhere, remember yourself...,

Who was it that said, "The true hypocrite is the one who ceases to perceive his deception, the one who lies with sincerity"?

The American writer Lee Harris was spot on the dot in his article “Good American Hypocrisy” when he wrote, "America’s current critics need to recognize that in pursuing its self-interest the United States is hardly unique--what singles us out from among nations is our obdurate hypocrisy. We have to pretend to ourselves that we are doing the right thing--often at the cost of actually doing it.” Go talk of Schiavo's right to live or die.

United Vegetative States of Murka

By the way, calling Lee a liberal in the context of slavery and the Civil War requires greater explanation on your part.

In this context, a "conservative" prefers the status quo, a "liberal" wants and works for change, and a "revolutionary" demands change under threat of violence.

Liberals and revolutionaries have traditionally been at odds with one another, which is considered ironic because they seek the same goal. P6's observation, What value has a "middle ground explanation" for a war to keep people enslaved? captures this in reverse. One could ask "what value had a 'middle ground explanation' against a war to free slaves?". The revolutionaries in this situation were those northerners willing to initiate war to free the slaves. The liberals were both northerners and southerners who opposed slavery, but were looking for a non-violent solution. The conservatives included both slaveowners and poor whites who feared the competition for jobs.

PT observes:

His views, however, on the origins and causes of the War Between the States which are enormously sympathetic to fellow Virginians and the South are not credible and should be not be given the benefit of the doubt.

Yes indeed Lee was sympathetic to Virginians. How does that impeach his credibility? We're not discussing here whether to agree with Lee's intentions, we're discussing whether he was a credible reporter.

I'm willing to investigate alternative narratives by influential participants which show something at odds with Lee's reports.

Israel would benefit from Palestinian acquiesence.

Yes Israel would, as would the Palestinians, an observation which is totally distinct from one's views on what should happen.

There exist within both Israel and the Palestinian terrirories a lot of liberals looking for some non-violent solution. There exist primarily within the Palestinian territories those who ridicule such efforts as ineffective, and turn to violence. Clearly the violence has a cost, and eliminating such costs would benefit both sides.

This dynamic appears a hundred times or more at any moment in history. Consider a recent example where the liberal side prevailed: ending the Vietnam war. Many of my generation saw violent opposition to the war as justified, but they never really gained much support. Eventually the liberal position prevailed.

The conservatives included both slaveowners and poor whites who feared the competition for jobs.

Interesting how the Murkan conservatives are almost invariably fearful and violent in pursuit of their self-interests here, in southeast asia, and now in the middle east.

All-in-all - not a glowing endorsement for Murkan conservatism. Strikes me as a mentality constantly encountering its own self-made evolutionary blind alley..., but constitutionally incapable of realizing its condition absent catastrophic failure.

Hey, isn't that a verbose way of saying insane?

i.e., doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results, hmmm....,