Grant on the causes of the American Civil War: excerpted from his
Personal Memoirs, Chapter 16 (public domain, published 1885, from the Penguin Classics
edition of 1999).
Up to the Mexican War there were a few out and out
abolitionists, men who carried their hostility to slavery
into all
elections, from those for a justice of the peace up to the Presidency of the
United States. They were noisy but not numerous. But the great majority
of people at the North, where slavery did not exist, were opposed to the
institution, and looked upon its existence in any part of the country as
unfortunate. They did not hold the States where slavery existed responsible
for it; and believed that protection should be given to the right of property
in slaves until some satisfactory way could be reached to be rid of the
institution. Opposition to slavery was not a creed of either political party.
In some sections more anti-slavery men belonged to the Democratic party,
and in others to the Whigs. But with the inauguration of the
Mexican war, in fact with the annexation of Texas, "the inevitable
conflict" commenced.
As the time for the Presidential election of 1856 -- the first at which I had
the opportunity of voting -- approached, party feeling began to run high. The
Republican party was regarded in the South and the border States not only
as opposed to the extension of slavery, but as favoring the compulsory
abolition of the institution without compensation to the owners. The most
horrible visions seemed to present themselves to the minds of people who, one
would suppose, ought to have known better. Many educated and, otherwise,
sensible persons appeared to believe that emancipation meant social equality.
Treason to the Government was openly advocated and was not rebuked. It was
evident to my mind that the election of a Republican President in 1856 meant
the secession of all the Slave States, and rebellion. Under these
circumstances I preferred the success of a candidate whose election would
prevent or postpone secession, to seeing the country plunged into a war the end
of which no man could fortell. With a Democrat elected by the unanimous vote
of the Slave States, there could be no pretext for secession for four years.
I very much hoped that the passions of the people would subside in that time,
and the catastrophe be averted altogether; if it was not, I believed the
country would be better prepared to receive the shock and to resist it. I
therefore voted for James Buchanan for President. Four years later the
Republican party was successful in electing its candidate to
the Presidency. The civilized world has learned the consequence. Four
millions of human beings held as chattels have been
liberated; the ballot has been given to them;
the free schools of the country have been opened to their children. The
nation still lives, and the people are just as free to avoid social intimacy
with the blacks as ever they were, or as they are with white people....
The Republican candidate was elected, and solid substantial people of the
North-west, and I presume the same order of people throughout the entire
North, felt very serious, but determined, after this event. It was very much
discussed whether the South would carry out its threat to secede and set up a
separate government, the corner-stone of which should be, protection to the
"Divine" institution of slavery. For there were people who believed in the
"divinity" of human slavery, as there are now people who believe Mormonism
and Polygamy to be ordained by the Most High. We forgive them for
entertaining such notions, but forbid their practice. It was generally
believed that there would be a flurry; that some of the extreme Southern States
would go so far as to pass ordinances of secession.
But the common impression was that this step was so plainly suicidal for the
South, that the movement would not spread over much of the territory and would
not last long.
Doubtless the founders of our government, the majority of them at least,
regarded the confederation of the colonies as an experiment. Each colony
considered itself a separate government; that the
confederation was for
mutual protection against a foreign foe, and the prevention of strife and
war among themselves. If there had been a desire on the part of any single
State to withdraw from the compact at any time with the number of States was
limited to the original thirteen, I do not suppose the would have been any to
contest the right, no matter how much the determination might have been regretted. The problem changed on the ratification of the Constitution, it certainly ceased on the formation
of new States, as least so far as the new States themselves were concerned.
It was never possessed at all by Florida or the States west of the
Mississippi, all of which were purchased by the treasury
of the entire nation. Texas and the territory brought into the Union in
consequence of annexation, were purchased with
both blood and treasure; and Texas, with a domain greater than that of any
European state except Russia, was permitted to retain as state property all the
public lands within its borders. It would have been ingratitude and injustice
of the most flagrant sort for this State to withdraw from the Union after all
that had been spent and done to introduce her; yet, if separation had actually
occurred, Texas must necessarily have gone with the South, both on account of
her institutions and her geographical position. Secession was illogical as
well as impracticable; it was revolution.
Now, the right of revolution is an inherent one. When people are oppressed by
their government, it is a natural right they enjoy to relieve themselves of
the oppression, if they are strong enough, either by withdrawal from it, or
by overthrowing it and substituting a government more acceptable. But any
people or part of a people who resort to this remedy, stake their lives, their
property, and every claim for protection given by citizenship -- on the issue.
Victory, or the conditions imposed by the conqueror -- must be the result.
In the case of the war between the States, it would have been the exact truth
if the South had said, -- "We do not want to live with you
Northern people any longer; we know our institution of slavery is
obnoxious to you, and, as you are growing numerically stronger than we, it may
at some time in the future be endangered. So long as you permitted us to
control the government, and with the aid of a few friends at the North to enact
laws constituting your section a guard against the escape of our property, we
were willing to live with you. You have been submissive to our rule
heretofore; but it looks now as if you did not intend to continue so, and we
will remain in the Union no longer." Instead of this the seceding States
cried lustily, -- "Let us alone; you have no constitutional power to
interfere with us..." Individuals might ignore the constitution; but the
Nation itself must not only obey it, but must enforce the strictest
construction of that instrument; the construction put upon it by the
Southerners themselves. The fact is the constitution did not apply to any such
a contingency as the one existing from 1861 to 1865. Its framers never
dreamed of such a contingency occurring. If they had forseen it, the
probabilities are they would have sanctioned the right of a State or States
to withdraw rather than that there should be war between brothers....
There is little doubt in my mind now that the prevailing sentiment of the South
would have been opposed to secession in 1860 and 1861, if there had been
a fair and calm expression of opinion, unbiased by threats, and if the ballot
of one legal voter had counted for as much as that of any other. But there
was no calm discussion of the question. Demagogues who were too
old to enter the army if there should be a war, others who entertained so high
an opinion of their own ability that they did not believe they could be spared
from the direction of the affairs of state in such an event, declaimed
vehemently and unceasingly against the North, against its aggressions upon
the South; its interference with Southern rights, etc., etc. They denounced
the Northerners as cowards, poltroons, Negro-worshippers; claimed
that one Southern man was equal to five Northern men in battle; that if the
South would stand up for its rights the North would back down. Mr.
Jefferson Davis said in a speech, delivered at La Grange, Mississippi,
before the secession of that State, that he would agree to drink all the blood
spilled south of Mason and Dixon's line if there should be
a war. The young men who would have the fighting to do in case of war,
believed all these statements, both in regard to the aggressiveness of the
North and its cowardice. They, too, cried out for a separation from
such people. The great bulk of the legal voters of the South were men who
owned no slaves; their homes were generally in the hills and poor country;
their facilities for educating their children, even up to the point of reading
and writing, were very limited; their interest in the contest was very
meagre -- what there was, if they had been capable of seeing it, was with the
North; they too needed emancipation. Under the old regime they were looked
down upon by those who controlled all the affairs in the interest of slave
owners, as poor white trash who were allowed the ballot so long as they cast
it according to direction.
I am aware that this last statement may be disputed and individual testimony
perhaps adduced to show that in ante-bellum days the ballot was as untrammelled
in the South as in any section of the country; but in the face of any such
contradiction I reassert the statement. The shot-gun was not
resorted to. Masked men did not ride over the country at night intimidating
voters; but there was a firm feeling that a class existed in every State with
a sort of divine right to control public affairs. If they could not get this
control by one means they must by another. The end justified the means. The
coercion, if mild, was complete.
Notes:
Grant's views are clearly his opinion, and as in all things, the victor writes
history (literally, in this case). Slavery was the major
factor in causing the south to secede. See A Declaration of the Immediate
Causes which Induce and Justify Secession of the State of Mississippi.
The North was right to interrupt and destroy that absurd and morally bankrupt
practice in the United States. But there were other causes, with state
sovereignty (States' Rights) being one, the onerous (to the South)
protectionist tariffs against European goods (e.g. the
Tariff of Abominations of 1828) another.
I disagree with the implication in the last two paragraphs above,
that the Confederate soldiers sent into battle were unwitting pawns, sheep
led to the slaughter by confederate leaders. Perhaps there is some truth
to this, but it is a universal truth, not unique to the southern side.
Moral sentiment was no different in the North, despite their cause being
opposite. Demagogues were not unique to the South, either. Wars
throughout history have been initiated by men who, in their arrogance,
claim a "divine right" to wage war. The Civil War was not the last time
this happened, nor will it cease to happen again any time soon.