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 would suggest you examine the State Constitution's of the Southern states within the borders of the Confederacy. They were NOT free to abolish slavery nor did they have any desire to. Also examine who had the power to vote on such an issue within those states, what constituted having the right to be a voter and what the requirements were.
You may be a bit surprised.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
No, I'm afraid you don't. Anyone who claims the fact that the EP didn't apply to Union territory shows that it wasn't about slavery doesn't understand the factors surrounding the EP.
I realize your knowledge on all sub-topics is vastly superior to any secesh's, but I beg to differ.
Quote:
..this was not a document whose purpose was to explain why they were seceding.
Regards,
Cash
It was a document explaining the South's discontent. Of course, the South's discontent obviously has nothing to do with them seceding.
It is a worthy goal, I will admit, trying to distract the patient from his life-threatening disease by talking about the weather, but it doesn't really affect the course of the disease or its cause.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
I understand you refuse to be distracted with the South's beefs, unless the statement in question contains the "s" word. That has been clear for a very long time.
I would suggest you examine the State Constitution's of the Southern states within the borders of the Confederacy. They were NOT free to abolish slavery nor did they have any desire to. Also examine who had the power to vote on such an issue within those states, what constituted having the right to be a voter and what the requirements were.
You may be a bit surprised.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
Neil, is this your admission that the CSA's constitution did not prohibit the states from making laws regarding slavery as they saw fit?
This is good! Maybe there is hope for you after all...
And perhaps you should specify which states had such prohibitions in their constitutions.
I would suggest you examine the State Constitution's of the Southern states within the borders of the Confederacy. They were NOT free to abolish slavery nor did they have any desire to. Also examine who had the power to vote on such an issue within those states, what constituted having the right to be a voter and what the requirements were.
You may be a bit surprised.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
I'm sorry, Neil. I don't understand what this has to do with the CSA Constitution. True, they use very plain and blunt language about the right to own slaves, but no one ever said the South was shy about their belief in the institution of slavery. But to get back on track, I still don't see what this has to do with the CSA Constitution.
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
That could not be further from the truth. Southern states were entirely free to abolish slavery within their respective states. They were not free to deny travellers with their slaves from crossing their land nor could they prevent slave owners from visiting (temporarily) inside their state, but the states themselves were not required to be slave states. And, if these conditions did not appeal to the states they had the right NOT to join the Confederacy. No state was being forced. And, I might add, the Confederate Government was straight forward and up front about this. There would be no surprises to the states once they joined the Confederacy.
Regards,
Rose
Well, i'll have to repeat this here:
As for the "It was for 'State Rights' not 'Slavery' thing, I offer this, regarding the formation of the Confederate Constitution, from William C. Davis' Look Away:
"Significantly, in a movement that all declared to be predicated on the sovereignty of the states, the one area in which now and again in the future they would deny the state sovereignty would be slavery. ... Of all the many testimonials to the fact that slavery, and not states rights, really lay at the heart of the movement, this was the most eloquent of all. ... And as if further evidence were needed, after much discussion they also decided not to include any specific provision recognizing explicitly the right of a state to secede. None of their number should have the right to do them what they had just done to the Union."
Look Away: - pg. 97-98
"On this issue alone, they knowingly violated all the arguements about states rights that their section had been making for generations, for they set slavery above state sovereighty: inviolate, untouchable."
Look Away - pg. 106
Read that constitution as written, not as you interprete it to your liking.
__________________ -
"It was a very peculiar time." - Franklin D. Cossitt
Ancestors in USA Army: 6th IA Inf, 11th IL Cav, 1st AL Cav; 122nd NY Inf; 6th MI Cav; 35th MA Inf; 100th IL Inf; 1st CO Inf/Cav; 22nd IN Inf
Disapointment is to be our watchword with one another.
No, I am not admitting that the CSA Constitution could be amended to give up slavery. What I was trying to point out to Wild Rose is that there was a double-whammy. The CSA would not allow slavery to be out-lawed or abolished and neither would the State constitutions.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
Article IV, Section 2 of the CSA Constitution did prohibit the states from making laws regarding slavery as they saw fit.
Cedarstripper
Article IV,Section 2. (1) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all
privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States [; and
shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this
Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of
property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired].
How do you figure this means a state may not abolish slavery within it's boundries? This only establishes the right for CSA citizens to pass through a state with slaves, unimpaired. It does not force a state to allow a slave owner to establish residence in their state. It simply prevented a citizen with slaves from having to go around a state in order to travel to the other side of it.
A trip from Pascagoula MS to Pensacola FL is about a hundred miles, yet if it were not possible to travel through Alabama to get there it would be several hundred miles straight up Mississippi, across Tennessee, down through Georgia and then halfway back across Florida to arrive at Pensacola.
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
I realize your knowledge on all sub-topics is vastly superior to any secesh's, but I beg to differ.
Well, it is when they don't understand the factors surrounding the EP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
It was a document explaining the South's discontent.
No, it wasn't. The document explaining their discontent was the Declaration of Causes. The Address of South Carolina to the Slaveholding States was not designed to explain the discontent. They all knew what their discontent was. This document was designed to provide further incentive by claiming they would benefit economically from secession in addition to being able to protect slavery. That is basic persuasion theory--show them how it benefits their wallets. They already knew why they wanted to secede. This was added incentive.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
