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.
Governor Moore mentions not only slavery, but peace, interests, security, and honor. I don't consider that as a statement declaring slavery as the cause of secession.
The peace, interests, security and honor that were at stake were directly due to a potential loss of $4 billion dollars worth of private property and the overturning of a philosophy which celebrated enslaving an inferior race. He was not fearing a runaway tariff, as you contend. He is clear to name the danger they must escape - Lincoln and the Black Republicans, whose leading and pubicly avowed object is the destruction of their institution of slavery.
Leading and pubicly avowed object. Moore makes no mistake what he believes northern elected Black Republicans will mean to his state.
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...
Johan, I supposed you were quoting, but I still am struck by how people can get such different meanings out of the same words. I was never familiar with Colonel Mosby's quote that you provided. It makes him rather unique among his fellow officers since I don't believe any of them ever said a similar thing.
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 seems to have tacitly backed off the assertion that prompted Marc's response, but it's worth noting that Marc is absolutely correct. The uniform, overwhelming evidence demonstrates that the federal government had the right under the Constitution to ban slavery in the territories. Don Fehrenbacher's book on the Dred Scott case documents in excruciating (although fascinating) detail the South's drive to "constitutionalize" the slavery-in-the-territories issue and the incoherence and intellectual dishonesty of Taney's Dred Scott opinion.
It's not my intention to back off from my assertions. I believe I got around to answering Marc tonight. I've been a little surprised and I confess, a little overwhelmed, at the number of messages that seem to require a response from 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
It's not my intention to back off from my assertions. I believe I got around to answering Marc tonight. I've been a little surprised and I confess, a little overwhelmed, at the number of messages that seem to require a response from me.
Regards,
Rose
Don't be, a fresh perspective, concise & intelligent argument brings the thread alive again.
__________________ 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
Johan, I supposed you were quoting, but I still am struck by how people can get such different meanings out of the same words. I was never familiar with Colonel Mosby's quote that you provided. It makes him rather unique among his fellow officers since I don't believe any of them ever said a similar thing.
Regards,
Rose
I see how you are, make me go hunting through my quote lists... Mosby was not alone as several general officers (Longstreet, Johnston, Pickett & Gordon IIRC) made simlilar contentions as did the VP Stephens.
__________________ 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
From the book The Peculiar Institution, Chapter One, 'The Setting', pages 19 - 21, by Kenneth M. Stampp:
"Outside the South reformers everywhere made the destruction of legal servitude one of their major goals. By 1860, economic liberals, who linked social progress with the concept of free labor in a competitive society, had won a series of decisive victories. In the northern states slavery did not long survive the social upheaval which was part of the American Revolution. Not because slave labor was unprofitable, but because they were given no choice, northern slaveholders accepted a domestic application of the principles which had justified resistance to British authority. During the 1780's, these states put slavery "in the course of ultimate extinction," usually through a system of gradual emancipation which took a generation to complete.
The new spirit was contagious. In Haiti, when the French seemed inclined to restrict the benefits of their own revolution to the white race, the Negro slave helped themselves to freedom by a rebellion which all but destroyed the old master class. In 1833, the British government made provision for the abolition of slavery in its possessions. Slavery entered a period of decline in the new Spainish-American republics, until the last of them abolished it during the 1850's.
But in spite of these cataclysmic events, most Southerners clung to slavery. It survived the ordeal of the Revolution and the assaults of the South's own revolutionary radicals. It survived the French Revolution, through Southerners shuddered at the price Toussaint L'Ouverture and his Negro followers exacted from Haitian masters. Slavery survived the liberalism of Jeffersonian Democracy and the egalitarianism of Jacksonian Democracy. It survived the persistent criticism and emancipation schemes of native Southerners, especially in the Upper South, and a month of antislavery debate carried on during January, 1832, in the Virginia legislature. It survived a thirty-year crusade against it conducted by northern abolitionists. Southern slavery more than survived: the slaveholders ENLARGED their domain, tightened the slave's shackles, and defiantly told outsiders to mind their own affairs. The South of 1860, big and prosperous, still boldly defended its peculiar institution.
Its trouble, however, was manifest in the term itself. For by 1860 chattel slavery had become in literal truth a peculiar institution, and Southerners knew it. The fact that they had inherited slavery and not invented it was now quite beside the point, and many Southerners knew this too. The one supremely relevant fact was that Southerners were among slavery's last apologists--that theirs was a "Lost Cause" even before they took up arms to defend it. Being culturally isolated, living in an unfriendly world, was a frightening experience which made many of them angry and aggressive. Outside of Africa itself, they now could look only to Brazil, Cuba, Porto Rico, and Dutch Guiana for societies which, like their own, contained masters and slaves. The rest of the world was inhabited by strangers."
It takes on an almost willful suspension of belief to think that the South did not leave the Union in open rebellion over any other cause than slavery. The men and leaders of the time made it very clear, over and over again, that they felt that the only way they could be sure that the institution of slavery would be secure would only be by leaving the Union.
They declared it the reason, in their speeches, their papers and their declarations. It cannot be mistaken for anything else.
Unionblue
Unionblue, you may be surprised to know that I agree with most of the above...note, I said "most".
I'm going to attempt to make my point one more time and then I believe anything I say would most likely be redundant. Slavery was firmly planted in the South. Southerners, most of them, did not intend to abolish slavery in 1860. They were protective of it, but the thing is...slavery was secure in the South. There was no need to secede to keep slavery, no need for war. Why fight for what you already have?
It was more than slavery, more than tariffs, more than being angry about the Republican president who was openly hostile to Southern society. It was about renewing the Jeffersonian type of government and interpretation of the Constitution. It was about honor and not yielding to a manipulative North. It was about living under the rule of people that were insulting to Southern integrity and hostile to their institutions. It was a very bad marriage between people who had no love or respect for one another. The marriage could not be counciled nor reconciled. Divorce was the only answer for the South to keep her pride intact. What do you suppose General Lee had in mind when he said, "We could have pursued no other course without dishonor. And sad as the results have been, if it had all to be done again, we should be compelled to act in precisely the same manner." --- General Robert E. Lee
I'm sure slavery was the last thing on his mind when he said that.
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
In your post #1137, you appear to contradict yourself. In one place you concede that Congress had the right to "legislate slavery in the Territories":
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
The Federal Government had, as you say, every right to legislate slavery in the territories. However, as those territories became states the Federal Government no longer had that right. If all states in the Union are here on equal footing the new states had the same sovereignty as the old states and that included the right to decide slavery at a state level.
Slavery needed to be abolished but, the Northern states were going about it in the wrong way. It was unconstitutional and unfair to the slaveholding states.
Assuming, as I do, that by "legislate" you mean "forbid", you are correct. Congress had plenary jurisdiction over the territories, just as it had (and has) plenary jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, and was free to permit or forbid slavery in the territories, as the Founders recognized, witness the Northwest Territories ordinance.
But later you go on to say:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
How could Taney have ruled any differently and still been acting within the law? As much as I believe Scott should have been freed, I can see that it wasn't within the legal limits of Taney to grant such a thing. Taney's decision was legally right and morally wrong. I'm glad I'm not in a position to have to make such decisions.
One of the key holdings of the Dred Scott case was that Congress did NOT have the power, under the Constitution, to bar slavery in the territories. This contradicts your earlier assertion. More importantly, it was dead wrong. Even under -- or rather particularly under -- a "strict construction" of the Constitution, it is plain that Congress had the power to bar slavery in the territories. Professor Fehrenbacher's book, to which I referred in my earlier post, demonstrates precisely that. Taney reached his decision on this question only by wilfully distorting both the text and the historical original understanding of the Constitutional provisions involved.
In short, Taney was was both legally wrong and morally wrong.
That statement suggests that 'the South' and 'slavery' are synonymous. Are we to believe that Southerners were incapable of occupying the lands in the territories without slave labor, like everyone else?
Of course not. Most Southern people didn't even own slaves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cedarstripper
Why is it assumed that if the territories were to become a nursery for slavery, that only southern farmers would benefit from starting up farms with slave labor. Is it not as reasonable to believe that a farmer from Illinois would be as equally capable of operating an enterprise in a territory with slave labor as a farmer from Missouri?
I don't believe that is assumed. I contend that it is less about owning slaves in the territories than it is about the RIGHT to own slaves in the territories. But, I concede that I believe the Federal Government had the right to legislate over the territories, I just don't believe they had the right to legislate discriminately against slave owners. The real problems arise once a state is formed in the territories. That state is starting out as less than an equal peer to the pre-existing states to her East. Her rights as a state have already been limited. Therefore, once an area in the territories have become a state she should no longer be bound by territorial laws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cedarstripper
I maintain that keeping slavery from the territories was not possibly a violation of any state's rights.
It's more a matter of individual rights and eventually the right's of the new state. Those individuals happened to be citizens of slave states. I don't deny that something should have been done in an attempt to check the growth of slavery, but not by compromising the rights of the states and the people that the country was built on.
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
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose Dallas rationalized that he had studied the distribution of Senate support and concluded that backing for the measure came from all regions of the country. Additionally, the measure had overwhelmingly passed the House of Representatives, a body closer to public sentiment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cedarstripper
Dear Rose,
In light of your claim that the tariff reduction was "hard won" in a cotton grower vs industrialist fight, what do you make of the above passage you pasted from the US Senate site?
One battle does not describe an entire war. The 1846 tariff doesn't describe the Nullification Crisis or the discontent of the Southern states while struggling for decades to get lower tariffs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cedarstripper
None of the above seems to support the "hard won cotton grower vs industrialist" struggle either.
You are right. The 1846 act doesn't tell about the heated Congressional debates on tariff rates or how one state nearly seceded because of the "tariff of abomination".
Quote:
Originally posted by Rose: And don't forget, Lincoln promised to leave slavery alone, but he promised invasion if the South didn't collect tariffs.
Cedarstripper: I don't think there's much mileage to be had with a selective reference to a pre-Ft Sumter address. Everyone here knows what the message of the inaugural address was and what the pledge to uphold the authority of the federal government was all about.
Although everyone here is aware of Lincoln's position regarding his threat to invade the South if she refused to collect duties, I find it interesting that you would object to my reminder of it. I'm afraid I don't understand your point about it being "selective" and "pre-Ft. Sumter". After all, those things were the continuation of the tariff issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cedarstripper
Whenever slavery was denied, it is usually stated that the South was denied. Were the South and slavery somehow inextricably connected at the hip?
I don't understand the purpose of that question since I know you fully understand that it was the South that was involved in slavery, not the North, at least not to any large degree.
Quote:
Originally posted by Rose:The South was very concerned about the territory issue. It effectively cut them off into a small section that would have little political power to protect their interests in government.
Cedarstripper: That would be odd, considering 75% of southern families owned no slaves. Can you explain how political interests in the territories (or newly admitted states) would differ depending on whether they were slave of free, aside from slavery issues, or course? As you have already stated that their economic interests were pretty much in tune with the southern states, I can't imagine what the South was worried about with new states being admitted free (except for the slavery thing).
Sectionalism. Loyalty to political parties resulting in an imbalance of political power in Washington. What I stated about the similarities in economic issues were in regard to the agricultural mid-West. The South West would have a different economic basis.
Quote:
Originally posted byRose: Finally, to prove the Southern states were right about the future of tariffs if they should lose voting power in congress, once they seceded and tariffs went to an all time high, it was nearly into the middle of the next century before they began to recede.
Cedarstripper: What happened in consequence of the war I think can hardly be assumed to have been the same as had there been no war. Taussig wrote that the tariff act of 1862 and 1864 could never have been passed without the circumstances of the war needs to bear.
That was a very convenient opportunity, wasn't it? So, after the war why didn't the "moderate Republicans" bring the tariff back down to pre-war rates? Why did the rates continue to increase for decades well into the twentieth century? Why wasn't the personal income tax eliminated after the war effort was ended? The answer to these questions is that the Republicans had worked hard to gain the upper hand in setting tariff rates to an exorbitant high and they were absolutely power happy with it.
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
It has been argued since the beginning of the Constitution as to how it should be interpreted. I have always believed it should be interpreted in the strictest sense. The tenth amendment says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
I see nothing to argue there. It is plainly stated and it says nothing about "implied" powers.
Article I, Section 8:
Clause 1: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."
Clause 18: "[Congress shall have Power] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
Slavery needed to be abolished but, the Northern states were going about it in the wrong way. It was unconstitutional and unfair to the slaveholding states.
I'm afraid you are laboring under a misconception. The "Northern states" were not abolishing slavery in southern states.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
How could Taney have ruled any differently and still been acting within the law? As much as I believe Scott should have been freed, I can see that it wasn't within the legal limits of Taney to grant such a thing. Taney's decision was legally right and morally wrong. I'm glad I'm not in a position to have to make such decisions.
Taney said blacks, even free blacks, cannot be citizens of the United States, even if a state should grant them state citizenship, meaning that the US Constitution would not apply to them at all, and that the Bill of Rights would not apply to them at all. How can that be legally right? Taney said that Congress had no right to restrict slavery from any territory, yet the Founding Fathers themselves believed Congress had that right and you yourself agreed that Congress had that right. So how can Taney be legally right there?
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
