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.
How long could a slaveowner keep his slaves in a free state? One week? One month? One year? Is there a time limit on how long slaves can reside in a free state (once it joins the Confederacy, of course)?
There is nothing in the CSA Constitution that says a state is forced to allow a non-resident slave to establish residency within their boundries. Neither is there anything that claims a state of the Confederacy must accept slave labor from another state. As for how long a slave may remain as a visitor in a non-residential state, probably it would be left up to the state to decide that issue. Many of those things would have to be worked out in time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by unionblue
You miss the central point. State constitutions of the South no longer permitted the freeing of slaves starting in 1861. The CSA constitution would permit no change with the status of slaves. It was protected and then reinforced by the actions of state constitions within the Confederacy.
I suppose I did miss the point. I thought we were discussing the CSA Constitution vs. the U.S. Constitution. I fail to see what state constitutions have to do with it. Each state was responsible for their individual constitution and the CSA, placing emphasis on state sovereignty, had very little say in it.
If you are referring to this...:
3. No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs; or to whom such service or labor may be due.
...this doesn't prohibit the freeing of slaves by the owner. This protects the owner in the case of a slave escaping or being taken into a state other than his home state and having that state free him rather than returning him to the rightful owner.
If this isn't what you were referring to, I'm sorry. I must still be overlooking something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by unionblue
They really gave it their best shot to hold back time and remain fixed on keeping slavery as a cherished institution and a social constant.
Their national and state constitutions say this loud and clear.
Yes, it's true the South wasn't ready to abolish slavery. But then I suppose that could have been said of most countries in the world at some time or other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by unionblue
And Rose, it was true that the CSA was rigging the game with the idea of new states joining their nation had to accept the idea of slavery being protected, even if they didn't want it.
No doubt. The CSA was pro-slavery and that was apparent in their constitution. But, had it came to other states wanting to join, all they had to do was look at what was offered and either take it or leave it. The CSA didn't hide anything in order to "get states in" and then change the rules. They were up front about it from the beginning. I don't think that can be construed as "rigging the game". "Rigging" and "game" sounds like some thing dishonest and shady to me.
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
There is nothing in the CSA constition that says there is a restriction on how long a slaveowner may reside in a state without slavery either. I myself hold little confidence that the states or the CSA were going to be making changes anytime soon relating to emancipation or black sufferage.
As for state constitutions and the CSA constitution, you will agree that the one was formed from the states that effectively barred slaveowners from freeing their slaves, even if they wished to do so? And that the CSA one, as a creature created by the states, does have a bit to do with both, as they would try to reflect their desires into that document?
They, in effect, complimented one another, and not by accident, as they wanted to make sure that the institution of slavery could not be affected by either State or Federal design, so much did they desire the continued existence of that institution.
Have you read the State constitutions of the time?
Just curious,
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
Wild_Rose,
I myself hold little confidence that the states or the CSA were going to be making changes anytime soon relating to emancipation or black sufferage.
I don't disagree with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by unionblue
They, in effect, complimented one another, and not by accident, as they wanted to make sure that the institution of slavery could not be affected by either State or Federal design, so much did they desire the continued existence of that institution.
Have you read the State constitutions of the time?
Just curious,
Unionblue
I had only read the Texas state Constitution thoroughly prior to now. After reading your message I searched for the other former CSA state's constitutions. I found only two that disallowed the emancipation of slaves, Texas and Alabama.
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
As you see, posted here are a few more states listing their restrictions on the emancipation of slaves or in the making of laws freeing slaves.
I admit, I do not have all of the Southern states constitutions on the subject, but would appreciate any new ones that you find concerning the subject.
Again, it is my contention, that the Southern States that made up the Confederacy, who made that political entity, ensured that the national/federal government would make no laws to emancipate slaves or rid itself of that institution, because it's very member states made it plain in their own constitutions they had no intention of doing so, at a state or national level, thereby making the institution a permanet one.
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
"If we admit the right of the Government to impress and pay for slave to free them," Georgia governor Joseph E. Brown objected, "we concede its power to abolish slavery. No slave can ever be liberated by the Confederate Government without the consent of the States."
The Richmond Whig agreed, as did R.M.T. Hunter, who insisted that "the Government had no power under the Consitution to arm and Emancipate the slaves, and the Constitution granted no such great powers by implication."
The North Carolina House of Representatives "Denie[d] the constitutional power of the Confederate government to impress slaves for the purpose of arming them, or preparing them to be armed, in any contingency, without the consent of the States being freely given, and then only according to State law."
This attitude and stated reasoning the the Confederate Government could not abolish slavery when added to the States Constitutions that did not permit the emancipation of slaves pretty much says it all.
Slavery was intended to stay, for a long time.
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
To All,
This attitude and stated reasoning the the Confederate Government could not abolish slavery when added to the States Constitutions that did not permit the emancipation of slaves pretty much says it all.
Slavery was intended to stay, for a long time.
Unionblue
Neil, it is my opinion that the Confederate government was doing exactly what the people expected it to do and that was to stay out of state issues as much as possible. Similarly, the states were giving the people the right to their property for so long as they should will that slavery be allowed.
No way do I believe it was a conspiracy to keep slavery legally entwined within the Confederacy and her states. As opinions and sentiments changed so would the laws and constitutions would be amended.
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
My only concern is when those sentiments and opinions would change so that they would bring about the changes and amendments needed to eliminate slavery?
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
My only concern is when those sentiments and opinions would change so that they would bring about the changes and amendments needed to eliminate slavery?
Sincerely,
Unionblue
My apologies, Neil. I overlooked this message or I would have responded sooner.
Of course, I can't say exactly when slavery would have ended in the South on it's own. Public opinion was already turning against slavery and eventually a majority would have taken a stand against it. How long it would take probably depended a lot on the U.S. government and the people, whether or not they were willing to help emancipation along by compensating slave owners. In other words, would the Abolitionists be willing to put their money where their mouth was.
I admit it would be difficult to get a planter to rush head long into financial ruin over a principal that wasn't even one he shared. There would have to be solutions to a number of problems. One thing that needed to be addressed was how to get the former slave in a position to be self-sufficient. The Southern people would not (willingly) accept millions of blacks wandering around homeless and hungry. Protecting white citizens from desperate blacks was one reason the KKK was formed. Sudden emancipation was a disaster and many blacks would have been better off back with their masters. In fact some wanted to go back but the law said if the former owner couldn't pay them, they couldn't go back.
I believe a gradual, compensated emancipation would have been the eventual way to end slavery. As for when, I suppose that depends on how serious everyone was to see emancipation happen.
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
Public opinion was already turning against slavery and eventually a majority would have taken a stand against it.
Are you saying that "public opinion" IN THE SOUTH "was already turning against slavery"? If so, I can't agree. Slavery was declining in the border states because slaveholders there were gradually selling their slaves "down the river" (literally) to the slavehungry lower south and Texas. But this trend only exacerbated the demographic dilemma of the lower south. The demographics, in turn, contributed to the attitude in the lower south that slavery was a positive good that had to be preserved and rigorously enforced at all costs. I know of no evidence that public opinion there was turning against slavery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
How long it [emancipation] would take probably depended a lot on the U.S. government and the people, whether or not they were willing to help emancipation along by compensating slave owners. In other words, would the Abolitionists be willing to put their money where their mouth was.
Oh, those darned northern abolitionist cheapskates! If only they'd been willing to pay southerners to free their slaves, the whole problem would have been solved! The only problem with this theory is that the non-border south was firmly opposed to any program by which the federal government paid slaveowners to emancipate and/or colonize slaves. For example:
-- In 1827, the American Colonization Society proposed that the federal government pay for colonization, and Henry Clay endorsed the proposal. South Carolina immediately scuttled the proposal:
"United States Senator Robert Y. Hayne warned Congress to keep hands off slavery or else. Slaveholder safety, said Hayne, lies 'in the want of' federal power 'to touch the subject at all.' Let Congress not heed Hayne's warning, resolved the South Carolina legislature at the end of the year, and Carolinians would unite 'with a firm determination not to submit.'"
(Freehling, Road to Disunion at p. 160.)
-- During the debates leading to the Compromise of 1850, Maryland Senator Thomas Pratt moved an amendment that would require the federal government to reimburse slave owners for their financial loss if northern hostility prevented return of fugitive slaves pursuant to the Fugitive Slave Act. The non-border South promptly declared its opposition because the amendment would, in its view, amount to an authorization to the federal government to pay border south slaveowners to emancipate their slaves. The non-border South also displayed an interesting distrust of their border-state slaveowning brethren:
"Too many senators from the Deep and Middle Souths distrusted the Border South too much. The Pratt Amendment, charged Senator Hopkins L. Turney of Tennessee, was intended 'to emancipate the slaves of the Border South, and to have them paid for out of the Treasury of the United States.' The Tennessee senator believed that Marylanders and Kentuckians 'would gladly emancipate their slaves, especially if they could be compensated for them.' Pratt's scheme, according to Turney, invited border state residents to tell slaves to flee. Apologists would thereby free their blacks, whiten their region, and enrich themselves!"
(Freehling, Road to Disunion at pp. 504-05.)
In short, there is no evidence of which I am aware that suggests that the middle and lower south -- the States that formed the CSA -- would have responded to a northern proposal along the lines you suggest with anything other than scorn and anger. If you have such evidence, I'd love to see it.
I admit it would be difficult to get a planter to rush head long into financial ruin over a principal that wasn't even one he shared. There would have to be solutions to a number of problems. One thing that needed to be addressed was how to get the former slave in a position to be self-sufficient. The Southern people would not (willingly) accept millions of blacks wandering around homeless and hungry. Protecting white citizens from desperate blacks was one reason the KKK was formed.
Continuing on . . . the suggestion that southern whites would have supported emancipation but for their concern that the former slaves would be "homeless and hungry" leaves me almost speechless. Reconstruction history and the Black Codes in particular demonstrate that, if blacks couldn't be enslaved, the South wanted them enserfed, not empowered or "self sufficient". Nor is it hard to understand why southerners dreaded black freedom, and southerners, at least before the War, were quite frank about it. With images of San Domingo, Denmark Vesey and Nat Turner dancing in their heads, they were terrified that, unless blacks were kept under tight control, they would rise up and wipe out their white tormentors in an orgy of bloodlust and rape:
"My third [proposition] is that abolition would be to the South one of the direst evils of which the mind can conceive. . .. The cotton States will, at that time [when abolition comes by decree of the North], have a large population of slaves, perhaps a larger population of slaves than of whites; but the population of whites will be respectable. The decree will excite an intense hatred between the whites on one side, and the slaves and the North on the other. Very soon a war between the whites and the blacks will spontaneously break out everywhere. It will be in every town, in every village, in every neighborhood, in every road. It will be a war of man with man -- a war of extermination. Quickly the North will intervene, and of course take sides with the party friendly towards them -- the blacks. The coalition will exterminate the white race, or expel them from the land, to wander as vagabonds over the face of the earth. That will be the fate of the cotton States, so far as the men are concerned; as for the women, they will call upon the mountains to fall upon them. That will be the end of the white race in the cotton States, and the black race will take possession of our goodly land, and convert it into another Jamaica, or St. Domingo."
(Secession Speech of Henry L. Benning, November 19, 1860, reprinted in Secession Debated, at pp. 119-20. See also, Charles Dew, Apostles of Disunion, at pp. 66-67, describing Benning's similar speech to the Virginia Convention on February 18, 1861 ["We will be completely exterminated"].)
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
