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.
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
I agree that by 1812 slavery, as an institution, was firmly entrenched in the South. But, I think it's important to understand specifically where blame should lie and I do not believe it can all be lain at the feet of the South.
Patrick Henry opposed slavery on principal, yet he supported the slaves remaining in bondage because, emancipation couldn't happen, "without producing the most dreadful and ruinous consequences." . Slavery was never an easy question and it's not likely that two hundred plus years later we will find a simple answer.
The smug answer that the war was over slavery and that the North abhorred slavery and the South loved it is far too simplistic and ignores many facts.
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 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 ...".
Hmmmm...no. Actually, I meant if you read carefully and don't interpret the documents to your own liking you will find it doesn't say slavery is the reason for secession.
__________________ "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, it seems that my extremely unpopular views on this subject are taking up entirely too much space in this thread. I've tried to answer all posts that were directed to me, but I've missed a few. For that, I apologize. I wasn't trying to ignore anyone, but rather to give more room to others that would have their say. And some were so emphatically negative that I felt no response was needed or wanted.
Truly, I do value all your opinions. I can't agree with all of you, but I do respect all of you and your right to your opinions. Of course, I'm dissapointed that the Southern view point isn't better represented in this thread, but it's not my intention to be argumentative about it.
Best wishes for a Happy New Year,
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, it seems that my extremely unpopular views on this subject are taking up entirely too much space in this thread. I've tried to answer all posts that were directed to me, but I've missed a few. For that, I apologize. I wasn't trying to ignore anyone, but rather to give more room to others that would have their say. And some were so emphatically negative that I felt no response was needed or wanted.
Truly, I do value all your opinions. I can't agree with all of you, but I do respect all of you and your right to your opinions. Of course, I'm dissapointed that the Southern view point isn't better represented in this thread, but it's not my intention to be argumentative about it.
Best wishes for a Happy New Year,
Rose
Dear Rose,
Please count me among those who follow your posts with care! And your posts are not unpopular with me. I have appreciated your fine scholarship in each and every post you have written in this thread, and all others. I intentionally backed-off posting on this thread in order to give you more room to carry forth your fine presentations and well founded reasoning. (I'd only mess things up anyway. LOL!) You've had about a 5-1 disadvantage but I've never seen you falter once. On this forum, this is quite a feat. I have NEVER seen your posts as "argumentatve" but that of an intellectual gentlelady who knows her history extremely well. Anyone who states that you are argumentative are purely mistaken, IMO.
I totally agree with you that the South is not the only 'section' to blame in the history of US slavery. The North shares just as much blame, IMO. You have clearly convinced me of the North's share in America's institution of slavery and I've read AL the posts on this thread.
Please keep up the fine work in this thread (and any other threads) Rose. And please continue to be a vital and valued member of this forum. Your contributions are very appreciated by me!
Of course, I'm dissapointed that the Southern view point isn't better represented in this thread, but it's not my intention to be argumentative about.
Rose:
Now that the Holiday Season is almost over, I think you'll find that those of us with Southern leanings will be back in full force. I too follow your postings with great interest and you are a wonderful new addition to this Forum.
With the, IMO, illegal withholding the territories from the slaveowners, the South was about to experience a loss of power in Congress that would be so drastic that they would never again have enough political power to defend themselves on any issue, tariffs or anything else.
There was no withholding of territories from the poor, put-upon, harrassed, and abused humanitarian slaveowners. Congress did not exclude slavery from the territories until 1862, after secession and during the war.
I would agree with those who say secession was the actual primary cause of the war. Might proved right, in this case,
Actually, right proved to be mighty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fifth Iowa
and the true Constitutionality of the act was moot.
Of course, nothing about it was constitutional.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fifth Iowa
I also agree with those who argue that slavery was the fundamental, non-negotiable issue that precipitated the departure of the southern states. Sadly, it was an obstacle that was only able to be removed through bloodshed.
I, for one, resent the simplistic presentation of slavery as the sole cause of the war between the states when I was growing up and receiving my public education. It was far more complex, of course, than that.
where is it written by any slave state official, "We are seceding because of slavery?"
Surely you're joking, as many times as various statements to that affect have been provided.
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery." [Mississippi Declaration of Causes]
"Our people have come to this [secession] on the question of slavery." [Lawrence M. Keitt, South Carolina Secession Convention]
"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]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
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.
Protection of slavery was the reason Georgia seceded. The Georgia Declaration stated that clearly and that the tariff was not a reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
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.
Actually, what Georgia is saying is that the tariff issue was settled and the reason they were seceding was not because of tariffs but to protect slavery.
are you familiar with the West Point text book that was used up to the eve of secession, [size=4][color=black][size=2]William Rawle's, A View of the Constitution of the United States?
That's completely inaccurate. Rawle's book was used at West Point for one year only, 1826, and only to the First Classmen who were in the Constitutional Law class. There is no evidence secession was ever discussed in class.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
Those things were taught to Lee, Grant, Sherman, Jackson,...all the WBTS officers who graduated from West Point.
That's wrong, since the textbook was only used in 1826 and was replaced by Kent's Commentaries the following year. Col Edgar S. Dudley published a definitive article on this in The Century Magazine, Vol LXXVIII, Number 4 (August 1909), pp. 629-636
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
