The Misconception that the South Seceded to Preserve Slavery
The notion that the Southern states seceded from the Union because President Abraham Lincoln intended to abolish slavery is a popular misconception. Historians often debate the true causes of the Civil War, but the primary motivation behind Southern secession was the desire to perpetuate and expand the institution of slavery. Lincoln's position on slavery was complex, and did not constitute a clear and direct threat to the continuation of the institution in the states where it already existed.
Abraham Lincoln's Position on Slavery
Abraham Lincoln was staunchly opposed to the expansion of slavery into newly acquired territories and states. This position was based on moral grounds and a desire to preserve the Union. According to his famous 1858 House Divided speech, Lincoln declared, 'A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free' (CNN, 2014). However, his stance did not include immediate abolition in the Southern states where slavery was already practiced.
The Southern Perspective
From the Southern viewpoint, the election of Lincoln was a significant threat to their way of life. Pro-slavery advocates viewed Lincoln's victory as a signal that their influence in federal policy was waning. Southern leaders feared and despised Northern economic and political influence and were not willing to accept any changes to the status quo.
Historian James M. McPherson wrote in his book 'Battle Cry of Freedom', 'The Southern leaders were determined to secede as soon as Lincoln or anyone else was elected president who opposed further extension of slavery. The South realized that as long as Lincoln had the power to shape national policy, its supremacy in the South was in jeopardy' (McPherson, 1988).
Immediate Secession
After Lincoln's election, the Southern states moved quickly to secede. South Carolina was the first state to take action, followed by Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas. Each state's secession was prompted not by concern over Lincoln's immediate plans, but rather by the anticipated impact of a new federal government with a different political and economic agenda.
As historian David Blight notes in his book 'A Traister's Civil War', 'Lincoln could have and might have said or done something to moderate Southern apprehensions, but that political skill was lost in the urge of Southern leaders to leave the Union before it was too late' (Blight, 2012).
The Myth of a Rational Choice
The idea that slavery was a rational economic decision is another common misconception. The historical evidence suggests that the Southern economy was heavily dependent on agriculture, particularly cotton, which relied on the labor-intensive system of slavery. However, the costs of maintaining and exploiting slave labor were considerable, and the institution of slavery was not a sustainable economic model for the long term.
Professor Eugene Genovese, a historian of slavery and the American South, argued that 'the Southern economy was not strong and could not support the expansion of slavery. The myth that slavery was a rational economic system is a fallacy. It was costly and inefficient, and its demise was inevitable' (Genovese, 1976).
Moreover, the economic benefits of slavery were not evenly distributed. While a few wealthy plantation owners did profit greatly from slave labor, the vast majority of Southern farmers could not afford the costs associated with owning and maintaining slaves. Hence, the argument that secession was a necessary step to protect economic interests is flawed.
The Real Reasons for Secession
The leaders of the Southern states seceded to preserve and expand the institution of slavery. They feared that Lincoln and the Republican Party would use their influence to limit or end slavery in the South. The election of Lincoln was the tipping point, but the desire to maintain and expand slavery was the underlying cause of Southern secession.
In conclusion, the idea that the South seceded to preserve slavery is accurate. However, the myth that Lincoln was about to abolish slavery everywhere and immediately is a simplification that does not capture the complex political and economic motivations of the time.