Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
I'm sorry, I don't know what you are pointing out here. I understand the clauses, but what are you relating them to?
As the portion of your post I quoted makes clear, they relate to implied powers. They are two places in the Constitution where one can find implied powers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
It's not my misconception. It's what the Southern people of the antebellum South believed, not that Northern states actually could abolish slavery, but that they endeavored for that end.
"Slavery needed to be abolished but, the Northern states were going about it in the wrong way. It was unconstitutional and unfair to the slaveholding states."
Looks pretty much like your belief. You specifically claim that "Northern states" were "going about it [abolishing slavery]." They weren't doing that in southern states.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
Taney's words:
"The only two provisions which point to them and include them, treat them as property, and make it the duty of the government to protect it; no other power, in relation to this race, is to be found in the constitution; and as it is a government of special, delegated powers, no authority beyond these two provisions can be constitutionally exercised. The government of the United States had no right to interfere for any other purpose but that of protecting the rights of the owner, leaving it altogether with the several States to deal with this race, whether emancipated or not, as each State may think justice, humanity, and the interests and safety of society, require. The States evidently intended to reserve this power exclusively to themselves..."
I really hate this. I don't want to argue for Taney, but I see the logic regarding slave status. What I don't see logic in is the emancipated slave part. A free person should have citizenship status regardless of his race or where he immigrated from and most especially if he was born in the U.S..
And Taney claimed any free black born in the US could never be a citizen, whereas the Constitution doesn't back him up on that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
As I've said, I, personally, disagree with Taney on that point.
So then his decision wasn't legally correct?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
But, does it make Scott free just because his owner took him to a free territory? Maybe it would depend on residency status, if it were temporary or permenant.
It depended on the law of the state into which his master took him. If the law said that if a master brought a slave voluntarily into the state, then that slave was free, then the slave was free. Taney made the claim that such laws were unconstitutional and that any law restricting slavery from any territory was unconstitutional.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
If a marriage took place between same sex partners in a state that recognized such marriages and the couple moved to a state that didn't legalize same sex marriages, would that make them not married? I'm not clear on this.
We're getting into some uncharted region here. The Defense of Marriage Act specified states do not have to honor gay marriages if they were legalized by another state; however, this provision has not been tested in the courts.
I fail to see how you can claim the Mississippi Declaration of Causes has no authority to make conclusions for Mississippi.
I didn't. I questioned that the two men you listed had the authority or right to speak for the state.
Your quote from the Mississippi Declaration of Causes, "Our position is thoroughly identified with slavery." I suggested that it doesn't specifically state that slavery is the cause for secession.
The Mississippi Declaration of Causes lists their grievances leading up to secession. I realize Mississippi and other slave holding states had been under attack because of slavery and they understood that the Northern states wanted slavery abolished and would apparently stop at no means to justify that end. Mississippi wasn't willing to abolish slavery in order to please people outside their state and the slavery problem was clearly not inside the state. My contention is that the state seceded because of the animosity that had built up over Northern hostility toward slavery. These people (Mississippians) had bruised pride, were outraged and felt violated. They felt a Union with people so hostile to them wasn't in anyone's best interests. I do not believe they thought Northern states could accomplish abolition within the state of Mississippi.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cash
"What was the reason that induced Georgia to take the step of secession? This reason may be summed up in one single proposition. It was a conviction, a deep conviction on the part of Georgia, that a separation from the North-was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery." [Henry L. Benning to the Virginia Secession Convention, 18 Feb 1861]
Georgia's Declaration of Causes doesn't reflect Benning's words. Among grievances arising from slavery there are numerous other causes listed. Georgia, like Mississippi knew the Northern states couldn't accomplish abolition of slavery in their state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cash
If you check the transcripts of the South Carolina Secession Convention, you'll see that Lawrence Keitt's statement was generally shared by the delegates and that his arguments were agreed to. Henry Benning was a delegate to the Georgia Secession Convention and he faithfully reported to the Virginia Secession Convention the reason for Georgia's secession.
I'll look it up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cash
Actually, this is false. Nobody was interfering with state sovereignty and rights. In fact, the slaveholders wanted the opposite. They demanded the Federal government interfere with the state sovereignty and rights of free states. They demanded the Federal government force these states to repeal their personal liberty laws designed to help keep their black residents from being kidnapped off the streets.
Had their personal liberty laws not been passed for the express purpose of thwarting the fugitive slave law, I'd have more sympathy for them. Actually their black residents, if they were being kidnapped, most likely happened because of the difficulty Southern slave owners had in retrieving their property in the North.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cash
Wrong again. State rights had nothing to do with it. The slave states were more than willing to trample all over state rights if it meant protecting slavery.
I believe that is a matter of opinion. By denying the right of slave owners to retrieve their property, Northern states were depriving Southerners of their rights. If any other brand of criminal was hiding in a Northern state, a bank robber for instance, don't you think the state which the fugitive fled to should turn him over to the state he committed a crime against? This is more proof that the North was trying to eliminate slavery in the South and that was illegal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cash
And you're laboring under the misconception that "Northern states" were dictating any state issues regarding slavery or any other issue. That's a completely false and ahistorical argument. And you're also claiming that the conditions in a small minority of factories were prevalent throughout all factories. Such was not the case.
No misconception. I don't believe the Northern states were dictating. I believe they were attempting to dictate through their words and actions against slavery.
I'm sure all factories weren't unsafe, but many were notoriously dangerous and unhealthy for the workers that were mainly women and children due to the low wages.
__________________ "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names".--J.F.K.
The War Between the States established... This principle that the Federal Government is, through its courts, this final judge of its own powers.
-- Woodrow Wilson
It would be interesting to see a definition of what the courts would classify a "mere sojourn" as. In the antebellum era it wasn't unusual for someone to extend a visit for months or even a year. Wasn't Scott's owner a military man subject to where the army sent him? Was his permenant residence in Missouri or did he claim a new residence everywhere he was sent?
Quote:
Originally Posted by elektratig
But, ironically, your argument that the Constitution prohibited Congress from barring slavery in the territories is an extremely "loose" construction of the document -- the opposite of "original understanding" jurisprudence.
If "original understanding" is to be your guidepost, you must be consistent, even when original understanding leads to a conclusion that is distasteful. Here, however, there is good news: conservative legal analysis leads to the morally desirable result.
I don't claim the constitution prohibits Congress from barring slavery in the territories, I only claim that once the territories became states they, under the Constitution of the U.S., should have the same right to claim free or slave status for their state. It seems completely illegal, to me, for a new state to be forced to claim free status in order to join the Union. That's a strong arm tactic and coersion. It is putting restrictions on a state that previous states didn't have to bear. That is not "equal footing".
The federal government could have worked harder with the Southern states to find a compromise. They claimed the Southern states wanted it their way or no way, but as I see it the Federal government didn't give an inch, either. The South had a lot of her economy tied up in slaves. Some way to prevent financial ruin for the owners should have been sought, either that or allow slavery to die a natural death without forcing the Southern states into a position in which they felt nothing but hostility in front of them and dishonor behind them.
Regards,
Rose
__________________ "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names".--J.F.K.
The War Between the States established... This principle that the Federal Government is, through its courts, this final judge of its own powers.
-- Woodrow Wilson
Gentlemen of the Union: I'm most grateful for the direction this and other threads have taken since Wild Rose joined CWT. She is most certainly more thoughtful than opinionated and expresses those thoughts clearly and eloquently. Am I alone in raising at least three Yankee huzzahs for her contributions? Ole
Aw, shucks, Ole. Yer makin' me blush.
__________________ "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names".--J.F.K.
The War Between the States established... This principle that the Federal Government is, through its courts, this final judge of its own powers.
-- Woodrow Wilson
I've just seen your post #1173. I'll try to address it shortly. In the meantime I offer the following.
Here are yet more quotes concerning Dred Scott, this time from Akhil Reed Amar of Yale Law. Professor Amar is more willing to look to the structure of the Constitution than the more literalist Heritage Foundation, but he, too, tends to start his analysis based on the text and the history and original understanding of the text. I’d characterize him as a moderate as far as constitutional interpretation goes:
On the power of the federal government to bar slavery in the territories under the Territories Clause (America’s Constitution: A Biography, pp. 264-65):
“[Taney] also claimed that the federal government had no power to exclude slavery from the federal territory.
“Yet the Constitution itself said no such thing. Article IV gave Congress sweeping authority to “make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory . . . belonging to the United States.” Structurally, this clause endowed Congress with the same plenary power that a state legislature had over state soil and that Congress itself enjoyed under Article I when enacting ‘exclusive Legislation in all Cases’ for the national capital city. If a state legislature could abolish slavery on its own soil, so could the federal legislature when regulating its soil.
“In July 1787 the Confederation Congress had barred slavery from the Northwest Territory, and this bar formed the backdrop against which the Philadelphia delegates drafted, and the American people ratified, the unqualified language of the Article IV territory clause. In Pennsylvania, Wilson assured ratification delegates that the new Congress would honor this aspect of the Northwest Ordinance . . . . He then added that ‘in the mean time, the new states which are to be formed will be under the control of Congress in this particular, and slaves will never be introduced amongst them.’ No prominent Southern Federalist during the ratification process contradicted Wilson’s early public statements on this issue or otherwise denied congressional power to exclude slavery from federal territory.
“When the First Congress convened, it quickly redeemed Wilson’s pledge, enacting a statute designed to give ‘full effect’ to the principles of the Northwest Ordinance . . . [that] left the ordinance’s free-soil rules untouched. In 1820, [in connection with] the Missouri Compromise . . . Virginian James Monroe polled his cabinet, which included . . . John C. Calhoun and several over leading slave-state politicians. The group unanimously affirmed the free-soil rule’s constitutionality.
“Taney’s argument that Congress lacked power to ban slavery from the territories thus did violence to the Constitution’s text, structure, enactment history, and early implementation.”
On Taney’s Due Process argument (America’s Constitution: A Biography, p. 265):
“This [argument] was nonsense. Free-soil statutes like the 1789 Northwest Ordinance Act and the 1820 Missouri Compromise Act were textbook examples of due process of law. After all, they had been duly enacted in a manner that gave fair notice to everyone . . . and that contemplated fair enforcement procedures, with judges and juries acting in the standard legal way. Exactly what due process was missing? The very phrase ‘due process’ derived from English jurisprudence, which famously deprived slave masters of various property rights over slaves whom the masters had chosen to bring onto English soil.”
It would be interesting to see a definition of what the courts would classify a "mere sojourn" as. In the antebellum era it wasn't unusual for someone to extend a visit for months or even a year. Wasn't Scott's owner a military man subject to where the army sent him? Was his permenant residence in Missouri or did he claim a new residence everywhere he was sent?
Whether a visit to another state was a "mere sojourn" or something more was a question of fact to be determined by the trial judge or jury. You are correct that Scott's owner was a military man (a doctor, I believe -- it's been a while) subject to where the army sent him. The problem was that he was assigned to Wisconsin Territory indefinitely and wound up remaining there, I believe, for about two years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WILD_ROSE
I don't claim the constitution prohibits Congress from barring slavery in the territories, I only claim that once the territories became states they, under the Constitution of the U.S., should have the same right to claim free or slave status for their state. It seems completely illegal, to me, for a new state to be forced to claim free status in order to join the Union. That's a strong arm tactic and coersion. It is putting restrictions on a state that previous states didn't have to bear. That is not "equal footing".
Once the territories became States, the federal government did not have the power to, and in fact did not, force them to remain free soil. In theory, states newly-formed from slave-free territory were free to permit slavery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WILD_ROSE
The federal government could have worked harder with the Southern states to find a compromise. They claimed the Southern states wanted it their way or no way, but as I see it the Federal government didn't give an inch, either. The South had a lot of her economy tied up in slaves. Some way to prevent financial ruin for the owners should have been sought, either that or allow slavery to die a natural death without forcing the Southern states into a position in which they felt nothing but hostility in front of them and dishonor behind them.
Ah, now we're getting into an area where I fear I'll never convince you. From my perspective, the Founders contemplated that the fate of slavery would be decided in the political sphere. It's worth remembering that at the time of the Founding, many slaveowners hoped and expected that slavery would ultimately end. In the Constitution, slave states received substantial advantages that increased their power via the 3/5 rule, which gave them an overrepresentation in the House and the Electoral College (and therefore in the Presidency and on the Supreme Court). Although the slave states successfully used these advantages for some seventy years, in the late 1850's demographics finally began to take their toll. When Lincoln was elected, they feared that he would use patronage and other means to increase the non-slave states' advantage. They panicked and resorted to extra-constitutional means. They paid the price.
I didn't. I questioned that the two men you listed had the authority or right to speak for the state.
They were rather highly placed political leaders of their states.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
Your quote from the Mississippi Declaration of Causes, "Our position is thoroughly identified with slavery." I suggested that it doesn't specifically state that slavery is the cause for secession.
I can't see how one can think it says anything else other than slavery is the cause for secession, especially when they end that very paragraph with "There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin."
Either submit to abolition of slavery or dissolve the Union. Slavery is most definitely the cause for secession.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
The Mississippi Declaration of Causes lists their grievances leading up to secession.
And here is how they begin their list of grievances:
"That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove."
They specifically state that these are dangers to the institution of slavery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
My contention is that the state seceded because of the animosity that had built up over Northern hostility toward slavery.
They specifically state they seceded because of the danger to slavery and that they saw the choice as either abolition of slavery or disunion, and they chose disunion in order to avoid abolition of slavery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
Georgia's Declaration of Causes doesn't reflect Benning's words.
In fact, it does. "The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
Among grievances arising from slavery there are numerous other causes listed. Georgia, like Mississippi knew the Northern states couldn't accomplish abolition of slavery in their state.
Everything they list as a reason for secession is due to slavery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
Had their personal liberty laws not been passed for the express purpose of thwarting the fugitive slave law, I'd have more sympathy for them. Actually their black residents, if they were being kidnapped, most likely happened because of the difficulty Southern slave owners had in retrieving their property in the North.
I personally have sympathy for the black residents being kidnapped off the streets and denied the right to defend themselves in court. The purpose of the Personal Liberty Laws was to protect free blacks who had no legal recourse. Had the southerners not been holding human beings in bondage I'd have sympathy for them. But then again, had they not been holding human beings in bondage there would have been no secession and no civil war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
I believe that is a matter of opinion. By denying the right of slave owners to retrieve their property, Northern states were depriving Southerners of their rights.
The Federal Government enforced the Fugitive Slave Law, since it was a Federal law. They even invaded the state of Massachusetts with Federal Troops to ensure the rendition of one fugitive slave, Anthony Burns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
If any other brand of criminal was hiding in a Northern state, a bank robber for instance, don't you think the state which the fugitive fled to should turn him over to the state he committed a crime against? This is more proof that the North was trying to eliminate slavery in the South and that was illegal.
A bank robber is one who takes that which cannot rightfully be his. A fugitive slave is someone who is claiming his natural right to liberty. I see no comparison between the two.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
No misconception. I don't believe the Northern states were dictating. I believe they were attempting to dictate through their words and actions against slavery.
Did Northerners have the right of freedom of speech? You appear to favor denying them the right to speak out against slavery. Did they have the right to protect their free citizens from being kidnapped? You appear to favor denying them that right. It is self-evident that all men have the inalienable right to liberty, and governments are instituted to secure that inalienable right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
I'm sure all factories weren't unsafe, but many were notoriously dangerous and unhealthy for the workers that were mainly women and children due to the low wages.
The vast majority of workers did not live under the conditions you presented. A free worker had to not only make enough money to keep themself alive, but also to keep their family alive. Any employer who didn't pay enough to do that found his workers leaving to work for someone else. And he couldn't send hounds and men with guns after them to bring them back to his factory, he couldn't whip them to punish them for running away from him, and he couldn't sell their children away.
The reasons for secession are far too varied and complex for a simple single word answer. “ Slavery” can only just barely begin to explain secession. If you get hung up on that single word, you miss the full picture.
Imagine this scenario: The Northern states tell the Southern states, “We give up pushing for abolition. Keep your slaves. We can find other means to annoy and insult you. We have a majority in the Senate now and we have our handpicked president. You don’t stand a chance. We are determined, somehow, to keep at least 25% of Southern families out of the territories and have no doubt we will accomplish it. You don’t like high tariffs? Too bad. How about federal money for infrastructure? Forget about it, it will mainly go to the North and perhaps the West. We have all the banks and shipping and we will keep it that way. We still maintain that we hold superiority over you both moral and religious and we will miss few opportunities in telling you so. There is simply too much water under the bridge for us to ever have a friendship, therefore, we will continue to show malice at all given opportunities and you can try to enjoy living under the same government that we now have a majority in. And, anytime you have a disastrous event happen in your section of the Country, we will applaud and cheer and hold the person responsible in the highest esteem.”
In this scenario, slavery has been completely eliminated as a source of contention. Do you think the South would still seek independence under the above circumstances? Of course she would. But, the North would never do those things, you say? Yes, she would. She was doing all of those things and more. It wasn't just about slavery.
Regards, Rose
__________________ "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names".--J.F.K.
The War Between the States established... This principle that the Federal Government is, through its courts, this final judge of its own powers.
-- Woodrow Wilson
Marc, can you give an example of what you mean? What victories are you speaking of and in what instance did the Southern people want the Northern people to stop exercising their freedom of speech? And what Constitutional rights were the Southerners wanting to deprive the North of?
Rose,
Sorry to take so long to respond. What I mean is that, while southern pro-slavery interests were victorious in several instances, such as pushing through the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and the Dred Scott decision, these "victories" did not really further their cause and ultimately worked against them as they were seen as impinging on the rights of northerners, as in the Fugitive Slave Act, or undemocratic. As for freedom of speech, antislavery speech was made illegal throughout the south, the federal mail was tampered with, and the general outrage with which pro-slavery southerners reacted to any free speech or political activity favoring antislavery positions was clearly meant to intimidate.
best,
marc
__________________ "It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues." - Abraham Lincoln
Whether a visit to another state was a "mere sojourn" or something more was a question of fact to be determined by the trial judge or jury. You are correct that Scott's owner was a military man (a doctor, I believe -- it's been a while) subject to where the army sent him. The problem was that he was assigned to Wisconsin Territory indefinitely and wound up remaining there, I believe, for about two years.
But...did Scott's owner maintain a permanent home in Missouri, a place to return to? It could be argued that where the army sent him was temporary because there was a forseeable end to his duty there. I'm just speculating.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elektratig
Once the territories became States, the federal government did not have the power to, and in fact did not, force them to remain free soil. In theory, states newly-formed from slave-free territory were free to permit slavery.
I was of the impression that the new state was required to claim free state status in her constitution in order to gain statehood. I don't know why I thought this and I could be mistaken. I'll have to look into it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elektratig
When Lincoln was elected, they feared that he would use patronage and other means to increase the non-slave states' advantage. They panicked and resorted to extra-constitutional means. They paid the price.
I'm not sure what you mean by "extra-constitutional" means. Do you mean secession was beyond the scope of their constitutional rights? If so, you are right, you will not convince me of that. After the Revolution, the colonies were free and independent small countries. A Union was formed for the protection and convenience of the colonies, but they never intended to give up their sovereignty. If this Union had specified to the colonies that "once in, always in", the union would have had no takers. There would never have been a United States, because no colony would have agree to give up thier independence. Three of our colonies hesitated because this was a concern to them. Eventually they wrote into their state constitutions that they reserved the right to resume self-government at what ever time they chose and their constitutions were accepted, without question, by the Union. Those states were Virginia, New York and Rhode Island. The other colonies saw no reason for this stipulation since it was assumed that because they only gave limited power to the Union, they could naturally resume self-government at any time.
Regards,
Rose
__________________ "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names".--J.F.K.
The War Between the States established... This principle that the Federal Government is, through its courts, this final judge of its own powers.
-- Woodrow Wilson
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
