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.
Marc, where is it written by any slave state official, "We are seceding because of slavery?" Slavery was mentioned time and again, because that is the avenue the Northern protectionists chose to get the South in the exact position they wanted them in. They were very sucessful. If you carefully read the Georgia Secession doc you will see this worded far more eloquently than I can express it is a small space. "Slavery"...it's just too simplified.
"But when these reasons [for protection] ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.
All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon. Time and issues upon slavery were necessary to its completion and final triumph. The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity. This question was before us. We had acquired a large territory by successful war with Mexico; Congress had to govern it; how, in relation to slavery, was the question then demanding solution. This state of facts gave form and shape to the anti-slavery sentiment throughout the North and the conflict began. Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation and demanded the prompt and efficient exercise of this power to that end. This insulting and unconstitutional demand was met with great moderation and firmness by the South. We had shed our blood and paid our money for its acquisition; we demanded a division of it on the line of the Missouri restriction or an equal participation in the whole of it. These propositions were refused, the agitation became general, and the public danger was great. The case of the South was impregnable. The price of the acquisition was the blood and treasure of both sections-- of all, and, therefore, it belonged to all upon the principles of equity and justice." http://www.civilwarinteractive.com/DocsSecessionGA.htm
On the surface it may appear that Georgia is claiming to secede because of slavery. Look closer. She is claiming that because of the loss of protection (tariffs) among the industrialists the North drew slavery out to be the issue upon which the protectionists would regain control of congress.
Politically speaking, the North wasn't so interested in keeping slavery out of the West as she was in gaining a sectional majority in congress. Since the North had been fairly passive about slavery up until this time it does seem that Georgia had a valid point. There were other perks for the North in keeping slavery out of the West. They wouldn't have to compete with slave labor. They wouldn't have many blacks living among them which was obviously an issue considering some of the Northern state's laws that restricted the rights of blacks or even prohibiting blacks from moving in all together.
Rose
Rose,
Sorry, but I think that this is clearly saying that the issue is slavery. To be sure, this document is trying to make the, ridiculous, claim that there was some sort of nefarious and concerted political effort by "the north" to use the slavery issue for economic domination of the slave states. Some cabal settled on a "sectional party," in this oh so clever scheme. This is, frankly, paranoid rubbish. It is filled with nonsense, such as the claim that efforts to ban slavery from the territories were unconstititional, and "met with great moderation and firmness by the South." Right, LeCompton is an example of this moderation. There is absolutely no question but that the federal government had the authority to legislate slavery in the territories, and that U.S. citizens had the right to petition the government, and organize politically, to advocate for this. This is how democracy works.
best,
marc
__________________ "It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues." - Abraham Lincoln
Rose,
And should it have been left up to each state to decide whether or not to participate in catching and reenslaving humans beings who had exercised their natural and inalienable right of revolution and escaped the oppression and tyranny of slavery?
best,
marc
It should have been the duty of every American citizen and state to follow the laws we set forth for all people. If we didn't like the law, we should have taken steps to change it, not break it.
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
Rose,
That assumes that only slaveholding states might be interested in lower tariffs. Not only is that a very problematic assumption, but it is also a very poor basis on which to undo a democratically elected government. Sorry, but in a democracy, sometimes we lose.
best,
marc
With certainty, the slaveholding states weren't the only ones interested in low tariffs, but they were the major ones and without their support, others that wanted lower tariffs didn't have enough voting power to make it happen.
The South didn't seek to undo a democratically elected government. They sought to be free from it. There is a huge difference in wanting to get out and wanting to undo the government.
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
Rose,
Sorry, but I think that this is clearly saying that the issue is slavery. To be sure, this document is trying to make the, ridiculous, claim that there was some sort of nefarious and concerted political effort by "the north" to use the slavery issue for economic domination of the slave states. Some cabal settled on a "sectional party," in this oh so clever scheme. This is, frankly, paranoid rubbish. It is filled with nonsense, such as the claim that efforts to ban slavery from the territories were unconstititional, and "met with great moderation and firmness by the South." Right, LeCompton is an example of this moderation. There is absolutely no question but that the federal government had the authority to legislate slavery in the territories, and that U.S. citizens had the right to petition the government, and organize politically, to advocate for this. This is how democracy works.
best,
marc
I see no evidence that Georgia's secession document is "paranoid rubbish" and since you didn't offer any, I still accept Georgia's assessment of the situation.
In the history of the United States there are many twists and turns in regard to slavery. The South opposed slavery in the beginning. It was the North, New England more specifically, that pushed slavery. They made fortunes in the slave trade. When the Constitution was framed, it was the South that insisted that slave trade should stop. In a compromise, the South agreed to allow it to continue with restrictions until the year 1800. At the persistance of New England the trade was extended until the year 1808.
Slave ownership was practiced both North and South. Once the Northern fortunes were made and the Constitution forbade any further importation of slaves, the North was finished with the business, ironically condeming the South for slavery. The North found slavery less useful to their purposes than the South did. But now the slaves were here. And it was like Thomas Jefferson said, "We have the wolf by the ears, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other."
Once slavery was no longer profitable or useful to the North the war against Southern slavery was initiated. Many Northerners were compensated for the emancipation of their slaves. This was not offered to the Southern slave owner. While none of this vindicates the Southern slave owner from his part of the guilt, it does somewhat explain his outrage over the Northern stand against slavery and their display of self-righteousness, moral indignation.
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
It should have been the duty of every American citizen and state to follow the laws we set forth for all people. If we didn't like the law, we should have taken steps to change it, not break it.
Rose
Rose,
That's exactly what was happening, and the secessionists did not like it one little bit!!!!!
best,
marc
__________________ "It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues." - Abraham Lincoln
With certainty, the slaveholding states weren't the only ones interested in low tariffs, but they were the major ones and without their support, others that wanted lower tariffs didn't have enough voting power to make it happen.
The South didn't seek to undo a democratically elected government. They sought to be free from it. There is a huge difference in wanting to get out and wanting to undo the government.
Rose
Rose,
I'm sorry, but this distinction, in my opinion, is completely wrong. Any southerner, or northerner, who wanted out could leave. They did not have the right, or the legal authority, to tear part of the nation away with it. Their other options were to go through the constitutionally legal process of amending the Constitution, or to continue to pursue their poltical objectives within the legal political system. This is how democracy works. They chose rebellion, attempted to justify it, took up arms, an lost.
best,
marc
__________________ "It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues." - Abraham Lincoln
In the history of the United States there are many twists and turns in regard to slavery. The South opposed slavery in the beginning. It was the North, New England more specifically, that pushed slavery. They made fortunes in the slave trade. When the Constitution was framed, it was the South that insisted that slave trade should stop. In a compromise, the South agreed to allow it to continue with restrictions until the year 1800. At the persistance of New England the trade was extended until the year 1808.
Rose
Rose,
This verges on the bizarre as a claim.
best,
marc
__________________ "It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues." - Abraham Lincoln
Yes, some southerners did oppose slavery, as did many northerners. Two of the more vocal and prominent members being Jefferson and Hamilton. The former's record is sketchy, but there is no doubt about hamilton's stance. Ron Chernow's bio of hamiliton clearly states this, as have sources i have cited elsewhere. The 1808 act, banned the importation of slaves not slavery itself. Rose, southerners may have individually opposed it in the very begining, but by the war of 1812, that situation was reversed. It was the South and the West clamoring for the war, in order expand slavery westward into indian lands, not New England's merchant and industrial interests. Marc, history is full of hypocrites, those who stand out are those who do not bend with the wind, ie Lincoln, Washington and Winfield Scott. It is the hypocrites such as Stephen Douglas, inflaming passions that would lead to the shattering of the union, for votes.
Respectfully,
Matt
Last edited by milhistbuff1; 12-31-2005 at 04:44 PM.
Mark, history is full of hypocrites, those who stand out are those who do not bend with the wind, ie Lincoln, Washington and Winfield Scott. It is the hypocrites such as Stephen Douglas, inflaming passions that would lead to the shattering of the union, for votes.
Respectfully,
Matt
Matt,
I'm not sure what you are saying here, or what you are responding to; could you say a little more?
best,
marc
__________________ "It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues." - Abraham Lincoln
Marc,
It is a refutation of your claim that the actions taken regarding slavery were to use your word " bizarre". I ascribe much of strange doings to the intricacies of politics of that era. The only thing that is bizarre about all of this, is that such a tremendous conflict did not come sooner.
Respectfully,
Matt
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
