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.
They fear that with the beginning of the Lincoln admin, “The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist…”. And while the guarantee in question is slavery this time, I’m sure SC doesn’t see any reason to compromise on Constitutional issues at all, for any reason. Any state should be alarmed at the prospect of the Constitution being violated by the president of the country or by other states in the Union with the Federal government turning a blind eye to it. The next time it could be something other than slavery and so on until eventually the Constitution was no more than just another piece of paper.
Rose,
On what basis did they fear that Lincoln's administration would turn a "blind eye" to the Constitution? Was Lincoln famous for speaking out against the Constitution? Had he threatened to ignore the Constitution? No, of course not. In fact, he went to great lengths to reassure southerners that he believed that slavery was protected in the states where it existed, and that he would uphold the Constitution. He declared that he would enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. No, this wasn't about the Constitution, it was about slavery, Lincoln's clear stand that he opposed slavery, and that as President he would work to restrict the extension of slavery. There was no rational reason to believe that the Constitution would be ignore by the federal government. However, it is quite understandable that southerners felt that slavery might be threatened in the territories, and that antislavery ideas might become increasingly respectable.
best,
marc
__________________ "It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues." - Abraham Lincoln
So you are claiming that 43% of the 27 Yea votes were made by Northern Senators?
43% of the 28 yea votes, Rose.
Semple, Breese, Bright, Hannegan, Fairfield, Cass, Atchison, Benton, Atherton, Dix, Dickenson, Allen - all senators from outside what would be the confederacy.
The vote did fall closely along party lines, with only one Whig voting for the 1846 bill, and three Democrats voting against it.
I've never read anywhere that claimed the Confederates said, "We are seceding because of slavery." I have read where many people "interpret" the words of the seceding states to mean that, but it only comes down to personal opinion and conjecture.
Regards,
Rose
-----------------------
Yes, in fact you have read it because I posted a few of their statements last time you made that claim.
"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]
Whereas, the election of Abraham Lincoln, a Black Republican, to the Presidency of the United States by a purely sectional vote and by a party whose leading and publicly avowed object is the destruction of the institution of slavery as it exists in the slave-holding States; and whereas, the success of said party and the power which it now has and soon will acquire greatly endanger the peace, interests, security, and honor of the slave-holding States, and make it necessary that prompt and effective measures should be adopted to avoid the evils which must result from a Republican administration of the Federal Government, and as the interests and destiny of the slave-holding States are the same, they must naturally sympathize with each other, they therefore, so far as may be practicable, should consult and advise together as to what is best to be done to protect their mutual interests and honor:
1. Resolved, That the State of Alabama, fully concurring with the State of South Carolina in affirming the right of any State to secede from the confederacy whenever, in her own judgment, such a step is demanded by the honor, interests, and safety of her people, is not unmindful of the fact that the assaults upon the institution of slavery and upon the rights and equality of the Southern States, unceasingly continued with increasing violence and in new and more alarming forms, may constrain her to a reluctant but early exercise of that invaluable right.
2. Be it further resolved, That in the absence of any preparation for a systematic cooperation of the Southern States in resisting the aggressions of her enemies, Alabama, acting for herself, has solemnly declared that under no circumstances will she submit to the foul domination of a sectional Northern party; has provided for the call of a convention in the event of the triumph of such a faction in the approaching Presidential election, and, to maintain the position thus deliberately assumed, has appropriated the sum of $200,000 for the military contingencies which such a course may involve.
3. Be it further resolved, That the State of Alabama, having endeavored to prepare for the exigencies of the future, has not deemed it necessary to propose a meeting of deputies from the slave-holding States, but, anxiously desiring their co-operation in a struggle which perils all they hold most dear, hereby pledges herself to a cordial participation in any and every effort which, in her judgment, will protect the common safety, advance the common interest, and serve the common cause.
Rose, I was quoting Mosby and I agree w/ his views. A CS Genl who was certainly a man w/ troops who ought to know why the war started and they certainly knew why the CS politicos sent them fighting...
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
My question was : "So you are claiming that 43% of the 27 Yea votes were made by Northern Senators?"
There were not 28 "Yea" votes by senators. One was a tie breaker vote by the Vice President of the United States. I don't usually split hairs to such a degree, but since you did, I suppose I'm obligated to respond.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cedarstripper
Semple, Breese, Bright, Hannegan, Fairfield, Cass, Atchison, Benton, Atherton, Dix, Dickenson, Allen - all senators from outside what would be the confederacy.
The vote did fall closely along party lines, with only one Whig voting for the 1846 bill, and three Democrats voting against it.
Cedarstripper
This isn't a clear North-South issue since agriculture was of interest to some Northern states. Also, some Northern states had less interest in manufacturing than others. However, the Whig party was known as the "Protectionist Party" and the Southern Democrats were traditionally against high protection tariffs. As you say, the vote followed closely along party lines.
You aren't still trying to make my position out to be strictly North against South, are you? I've already stated that the Mid-West state's interests lay more in keeping with the Southern states since agriculture was their common product.
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
Rose,
On what basis did they fear that Lincoln's administration would turn a "blind eye" to the Constitution? Was Lincoln famous for speaking out against the Constitution? Had he threatened to ignore the Constitution? No, of course not. In fact, he went to great lengths to reassure southerners that he believed that slavery was protected in the states where it existed, and that he would uphold the Constitution. He declared that he would enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. No, this wasn't about the Constitution, it was about slavery, Lincoln's clear stand that he opposed slavery, and that as President he would work to restrict the extension of slavery. There was no rational reason to believe that the Constitution would be ignore by the federal government.
It would almost seem to meld into one issue, this Constitition and slavery issue, since various slavery issues are among the Constitutional violations the states claim. The only thing that keeps it seperate is that the Constitution is supreme and some Northern states felt that when it came to slavery they could disregard that supremacy. Would it make any difference if the states were claiming Constitutional violations that involved some other issue? I say it would not.
I agree that the states didn't believe Lincoln had the right to abolish slavery in the states, but they didn't believe the Constitution was going to protect them considering that many in the North were saying they answered to a higher power than the Constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcferguson
However, it is quite understandable that southerners felt that slavery might be threatened in the territories, and that antislavery ideas might become increasingly respectable.
Southerners didn't only feel that slavery was threatened in the territories, they knew beyond a doubt that it was. They understood that the Northern vote denying access to the territories of their slaves that access was being denied to them. It was clear that the Northern people intended to prevent Southerners from gaining access to those territories as long as they owned slaves. The Southern states felt that this was illegal, unconstitutional, and an insult.
You can say it was over slavery and you would be partially right, but the fact remains that without Constutional violations the Northern states could never have accomplished their political agenda. They had no right without amending the Constitution, to keep slaves or slaveowners out.
I believe it came down to two choices for the South. They could sit down, shut up and abolish slavery like the North told them to and then await for the next orders from the Northern people or they could leave the Union and form a government that worked better for them.
__________________ "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
An interesting look at the reasoning about secession is "Apostles of Disunion" a study of the efforts to convince the upper South to join to secession movement. The protection of slavery was the main, and often only argument used.
Matthew, Abolition of slavery was the main weapon being used by the North to attack the South. The Southern states couldn't simply abolish slavery because the North said to. It was too huge an undertaking and there were no simple answers. One state has no right to rule over another state like that. Slavery was secondary to equality among states and Constitutional rights.
Respectfully,
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 were not 28 "Yea" votes by senators. One was a tie breaker vote by the Vice President of the United States. I don't usually split hairs to such a degree, but since you did, I suppose I'm obligated to respond.
The vote on passage of the bill was not a tie breaker, Rose. I included the text for you from the Senate Journal showing the 28 senators who voted yea- you can count their 28 names if you'd like. There were two ties that had to be broken before the vote on passage, one of which I included for you, which was a motion for the bill to be embossed and read a third time. The VP did not have to cast a vote on the final vote for "Shall the bill pass?", as Senator Jarnegan, a Whig from Tennessee, voted yea to pass the bill, whereas he had not voted earlier.
Quote:
This isn't a clear North-South issue since agriculture was of interest to some Northern states. Also, some Northern states had less interest in manufacturing than others.
That doesn't do much of a job explaining both New York State senators voting to lower the tax and both Lousiana senators voting against it.
Quote:
However, the Whig party was known as the "Protectionist Party" and the Southern Democrats were traditionally against high protection tariffs. As you say, the vote followed closely along party lines.
My point would be that political parties did not necessarily break along North/South lines or even slave-state/free-state lines.
Quote:
You aren't still trying to make my position out to be strictly North against South, are you? I've already stated that the Mid-West state's interests lay more in keeping with the Southern states since agriculture was their common product.
My apologies if I've misunderstood you. You have stated that tariffs in 1860 became a new crisis for Southerners, and that southern states had seceded because they foresaw that they could no longer maintain a majority in Congress and would be defenseless against the protectionist Republicans. Now, you are stating that the Midwest's economic (agricultural) and tariff interests were more in tune with the slave-states of the South. So... the logical question for you is "Why would Southerners fear becoming a minority on tariff issues in Congress?" considering a growing Midwest and West that had little potential anytime soon of becoming industrial. Its not hard to see why the South would fear becoming a minority on slavery issues with a growing free-labor Midwest.
Thanks for the link to the site you were referencing concerning 17th century laws in Virginia and slaves. I have some excellent information on the establishment of slavery in Virginia, a preference to make slaves Christian, and the prohibition of negroes owning whites. I'll post it as soon as I have time to do the subject justice.
Cedarstripper
Last edited by cedarstripper; 01-09-2006 at 04:32 PM.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
