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,
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
Matt,
I think you misunderstood my statement. I meant that Rose's claim that it was southerners who pushed for the end of slavery and northerners who opposed it, and that the compromise of ending the slave trade in 1807 was engineered by anti-slavery southerners, was bizarre. The records of the debates over this in the Constitutional Convention clearly show that southerners fought to keep slavery and to have it recognized in the Constitution itself. There certainly were interests, once it was clear that the international slave trade would end, that supported this for economic reasons (i.e. increase the price and value of slaves). But the notion that this was a humanitarian gesture on the part of the south in opposition to those evil northerners who were the real supporters of slavery, is indeed bizarre, in my opinion.
happy new year,
marc
__________________ "It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues." - Abraham Lincoln
On that i agree, slavery as being humanitarian, would've been inconcievable, not only to those native born, who broke away from the crown, but also to those who still suffered under tyranny, such as the Irish.
respectfully, and happy new year,
Matt
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.
Rose
It is written in the "Declarations of Succession" of several states. Your assertion that " If you carefully read ...', I think should read "If you carefully interpret to your own 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
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
You'd best check your history before spreading misinformation. Madison's notes show that SC, NC and GA were the most ardent proponents of preserving the slave trade. They made it clear that they would not join the proposed union if the slave trade were abolished. For example:
"Mr. [Hugh] WILLIAMSON [of NC] stated the law of N. Carolina on the subject, to wit that it did not directly prohibit the importation of slaves. It imposed a duty of 5. on each slave imported from Africa. 10 on each from elsewhere, & 50 on each from a State licensing manumission. He thought the S. States could not be members of the Union if the clause shd. be rejected, and that it was wrong to force any thing down, not absolutely necessary, and which any State must disagree to."
"Mr. [John] RUTLIDGE [of SC]. If the Convention thinks that N. C. S. C. & Georgia will ever agree to the plan, unless their right to import slaves be untouched, the expectation is vain. The people of those States will never be such fools as to give up so important an interest. He was strenuous agst. striking out the Section, and seconded the motion of Genl. Pinkney for a commitment."
Some northern delegates were swayed by these threats. For example:
"Mr. [Roger] SHERMAN [of CT] said it was better to let the S. States import slaves than to part with them, if they made that a sine qua non. He was opposed to a tax on slaves imported as making the matter worse, because it implied they were property. He acknowledged that if the power of prohibiting the importation should be given to the Genl. Government that it would be exercised. He thought it would be its duty to exercise the power."
Although some delegates from VA and MD argued for prohibition, SC accused them of doing so out of self-interest:
"General [Charles Cotesworth] PINKNEY declared it to be his firm opinion that if himself & all his colleagues were to sign the Constitution & use their personal influence, it would be of no avail towards obtaining the assent of their Constituents. S. Carolina & Georgia cannot do without slaves. As to Virginia she will gain by stopping the importations. Her slaves will rise in value, & she has more than she wants. It would be unequal to require S. C. & Georgia to confederate on such unequal terms. He said the Royal assent before the Revolution had never been refused to S. Carolina as to Virginia. He contended that the importation of slaves would be for the interest of the whole Union. The more slaves, the more produce to employ the carrying trade; The more consumption also, and the more of this, the more of revenue for the common treasury. He admitted it to be reasonable that slaves should be dutied like other imports, but should consider a rejection of the clause as an exclusion of S. Carola. from the Union."
The record is likewise clear that it was SC that moved to extend the abolition date from 1800 to 1808:
"The Report of the Committee of eleven [see friday the 24th. instant] being taken up,
"Genl. PINKNEY moved to strike out the words 'the year eighteen hundred' as the year limiting the importation of slaves, and to insert the words 'the year eighteen hundred and eight'"
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
Marc, are you familiar with the West Point text book that was used up to the eve of secession, William Rawle's, A View of the Constitution of the United States? Here's a couple of excerpts:
"The Union is an association of the people of republics; its preservation is calculated to depend on the preservation of those republics. The people of each pledge themselves to preserve that form of government in all. Thus each becomes responsible to the rest, that no other form of government shall prevail in it, and all are bound to preserve it in every one.
But the mere compact, without the power to enforce it, would be of little value. Now this power can be no where so properly lodged, as in the Union itself. Hence, the term guarantee, indicates that the United States are authorized to oppose, and if possible, prevent every state in the Union from relinquishing the republican form of government, and as auxiliary means, they are expressly authorized and required to employ their force on the application of the constituted authorities of each state, "to repress domestic violence." If a faction should attempt to subvert the government of a state for the purpose of destroying its republican form, the paternal power of the Union could thus be called forth to subdue it.
Yet it is not to be understood, that its interposition would be justifiable, if the people of a state should determine to retire from the Union, whether they adopted another or retained the same form of government, or if they should, with the express intention of seceding, expunge the representative system from their code, and thereby incapacitate themselves from concurring according to the mode now prescribed, in the choice of certain public officers of the United States."
"The states, then, may wholly withdraw from the Union, but while they continue, they must retain the character of representative republics."
"If the majority of the people of a state deliberately and peaceably resolve to relinquish the republican form of government, they cease to be members of the Union."
Those things were taught to Lee, Grant, Sherman, Jackson,...all the WBTS officers who graduated from West Point.
__________________ "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,
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
Marc, are you familiar with the West Point text book that was used up to the eve of secession, William Rawle's, A View of the Constitution of the United States? Here's a couple of excerpts:
"The Union is an association of the people of republics; its preservation is calculated to depend on the preservation of those republics. The people of each pledge themselves to preserve that form of government in all. Thus each becomes responsible to the rest, that no other form of government shall prevail in it, and all are bound to preserve it in every one.
But the mere compact, without the power to enforce it, would be of little value. Now this power can be no where so properly lodged, as in the Union itself. Hence, the term guarantee, indicates that the United States are authorized to oppose, and if possible, prevent every state in the Union from relinquishing the republican form of government, and as auxiliary means, they are expressly authorized and required to employ their force on the application of the constituted authorities of each state, "to repress domestic violence." If a faction should attempt to subvert the government of a state for the purpose of destroying its republican form, the paternal power of the Union could thus be called forth to subdue it.
Yet it is not to be understood, that its interposition would be justifiable, if the people of a state should determine to retire from the Union, whether they adopted another or retained the same form of government, or if they should, with the express intention of seceding, expunge the representative system from their code, and thereby incapacitate themselves from concurring according to the mode now prescribed, in the choice of certain public officers of the United States."
"The states, then, may wholly withdraw from the Union, but while they continue, they must retain the character of representative republics."
"If the majority of the people of a state deliberately and peaceably resolve to relinquish the republican form of government, they cease to be members of the Union."
Those things were taught to Lee, Grant, Sherman, Jackson,...all the WBTS officers who graduated from West Point.
__________________ "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's exactly what was happening, and the secessionists did not like it one little bit!!!!!
best,
marc
The Southern people didn't share your view point in 1860.
__________________ "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, are you familiar with the West Point text book that was used up to the eve of secession, William Rawle's, A View of the Constitution of the United States? Here's a couple of excerpts:
Rose,
It was used for one year, then replaced. Rawle, while he had a distinguished career, is not a particularly significant figure in American legal scholarship. The standard text on the Constitution during this period, and still one of the standards, is Joseph Storey's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. Storey made a strong argument against any right of unilateral secession.
best,
marc
__________________ "It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues." - Abraham Lincoln
It was bizarre, but there it is. I'm not claiming the South was against the importation of slaves for any moral reason. But many did oppose the import trade, Maryland and Virginia, emphatically. New England wasn't prepared to give up the lucrative trade of importing slaves.
__________________ "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
