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.
From the book, Lee Considered, by Alan T. Nolan, Chapter Two, Lee and the Peculiar Institution, pg. 26-27.
"As described by Fehrenbacher, the years prior to secession had witnessed "the development of the Southern conviction that slavery must be protected at all costs." In the interest of slavery protection, the Southern States had systematically struck down American constitutional assumptions: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, privacy of the mails. Virginia, which in 1860 led the slave states in its population of slaves, had participated in this infringement on constitutional rights. For example, its 1849 legal code made it a criminal offense to state "that owners have not the right of property in their slaves."
The Confederate Constitution also illuminates the question of slavery's centrality in the sectional conflict that precipitated the Civil War. As it is frequently stated, it was modeled in detail on the Constitution of the United States.As is less frequently stated, it contained pointed and significant differences. Thus, for example, in Section 9 of Article I, in which bills of attainder were stated as being beyond the power of Congress, the Confederate document also proscribed any "law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves." In Article IV, the United States Constitution provided for the privileges and immunities of the citizens of each state. The Southern constitution added the right of citizens to travel and sojourn in any state with their slaves without impairment of "the right of property in said slaves." Section 4 of the same article of the Confederate Constitution concerned the acquistion by the Confederacy of new territory and stated, "In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery...shall be recognized and protected by Congress and any territorial government." No such provision was, of course, contained in the United States Constitution.
...Allan Nevins has characterized the prewar status of slavery: "The South, as a whole, in 1846-61 was not moving toward emancipation, but away from it. It was not relaxing the laws which guarded the system, but reinforcing them. It was not ameliorating slavery, but making it harsher and more implacable. The South was further from a just solution of the slavery problem in 1830 than it had been in 1789. It was further from a tenable solution in 1860 than it had been in 1830."
...Bertram Wyatt-Brown's conclusion is convincing: "Over the course of a parallel and mutually sustaining existence, white man's honor and black man's slavery became in the public mind of the South practically indistinguishable."
More to follow,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
From the book, Lee Considered, by Alan T. Nolan, Chapter Two, Lee and the Peculiar Institution, pg. 28-29.
"Today's Southern students of the prewar South share this view that slavery occupied a central place in Southern thinking. Gaines M. Foster states that "the decision to secede, the will to fight for four long years, the willingness to sacrifice so many lives and so much treasure testified to the South's desire to preserve slavery in an independent nation." Robert F. Durden's opinion appears in the preface to his book, The Gray and the Black: "The South had spent forty or so years convincing itself that slavery was ordained by God as the best, indeed the only, solution ot the problem posed by the massive presence of the Negro. The debate in the winter of 1864-1865 demonstrated anew and with sad finality that many Southerners were unwilling or unable to consider voluntary alteration of the racial status quo, even as that status quo was crumbling about them." Referring to President Davis's efforts to encourage emancipation of individual slaves as a reward for serving in the Confederate armies, Durden also comments that "in truth, the Confederacy had in large part come into existence because of the larger theory...the majority's belief that Negroes should, as inferior beings, be permanently kept in slavery, where they were happy and subordinate to whites."
In short, recent scholarship argues persuasively that, as causes of the war, economic and cultural differences between the sections were not, in fact, significant. Thus, Stampp contends that "the notion of a distinct southern culture was largely a figment of the romantic imaginations."The sectional difference was the controversy over slavery. Characterizing secession, Stampp observes, "Fundamentally, this movement was not the product of genuine southern nationalism; indeed, except for the institution of slavery, the South had little to give it a clear national identity." Slavery was "the central institution of antebellum Southern life," according to Eric Foner. In order to defend it, Lee's best men of the South" led their states out of the Union in 1860 and 1861. In 1865 many of them voted against emancipating slaves in return for the slaves' soldiering for the South.
Referring to the Southerners, Brogan has stated it plainly: "They seceded over one thing and fought over one thing, slavery." It is accurate to identify slavery as "the cause of secession and four years of military conflict.""
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
In short, recent scholarship argues persuasively that, as causes of the war, economic and cultural differences between the sections were not, in fact, significant. Thus, Stampp contends that "the notion of a distinct southern culture was largely a figment of the romantic imaginations."The sectional difference was the controversy over slavery. Characterizing secession, Stampp observes, "Fundamentally, this movement was not the product of genuine southern nationalism; indeed, except for the institution of slavery, the South had little to give it a clear national identity." Slavery was "the central institution of antebellum Southern life," according to Eric Foner. In order to defend it, Lee's best men of the South" led their states out of the Union in 1860 and 1861. In 1865 many of them voted against emancipating slaves in return for the slaves' soldiering for the South.
Well you have inspired me to do some more reading on the issue of sectionalism in the context of the differences between North & South. You have read my postings and frankly I think the Ordinances of Secession speak for themselves, but considering that there is still a lingering regional divide between North & South I cannot help but hypothesize that massive immigration coupled with industrialization must've had a significant cultural impact. The Southerners refer to Northerners as 'pasty faced mechanics,' a derogatory expression referring to the amount of time spent in factories.
You can also see the early Confederate advantage in calvary tactics as part of living, at the very least, a different lifestyle.
In any event, while I concur that slavery is the ultimate motivating factor driving secession, I think sectionalism (cultural differences/tariffs) should be viewed as factors to have a complete understanding of what is motivating this massive split.
You can also see the early Confederate advantage in calvary tactics as part of living, at the very least, a different lifestyle.
I came across a statement once that said the early difference was easy to explain: where in the South men routinely rode a horse, in the North they tended to drive a wagon or buggy. This was true even in farm country, but obviously much more so in cities -- and the North had more of its' population in cities.
As a result, Northern cavalry had to be trained in simply how to stay on a horse. This was bad enough when moving along roads. Simply moving across open country could cause a large portion of a Union cavalry unit to end up dismounted in 1861 and early 1862. Attempting to actually maneuver in combat conditions and fight during those days would have been comical if it wasn't so dangerous and frustrating to the unit.
The above is one of the reasons I have seen given for Union units developing dismounted combat tactics earlier and more fervently than their Southern counterparts.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
It cannot be repeated often enough, The Only Significant Economic and Cultural Differences between the two section were directly related to the institution of Chattle Slavery in one of those sections.
It cannot be repeated often enough, The Only Significant Economic and Cultural Differences between the two section were directly related to the institution of Chattle Slavery in one of those sections.
Yes, I'd agree with that. If anything, the South had more similarities to the old Northwest region than the New England and Eastern seaboard North did. The significant dividing line was slavery according to the Southerners; and also according to Northerners. That's what all the compromises and agitation were about.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
The following is from the book, Half Slave and Half Free; The Roots Of Civil War, by Bruce Levine, Introduction, pg. 14-16:
"1. The Civil War was the second act of America's democratic revolution. The first, in the late eighteenth century, had freed the North American colonies from British domination and united them within a single border under a single national government.
2. That revolution was led by an alliance, a coalition, between predominantly slave-labor and predominantly free-labor communities. Tensions existed between them, but their common interests initially prevailed. The constitution of 1788 was a product of that same coalition, and the many compromises that went into it reflected a determined and successful effort to reconcile their differences.
3. The distinctive ways in which the North and South organized their labor systems left their marks on all aspects of regional life--including family, gender, and leisure patterns and both religious and secular ideologies. Such cultural changes, in turn, deeply influenced political life.
4. Similarly influential were forces both substantial and ideological that were not only domestic but international in scope.
5. Neither the North nor the South was economically, culturally, or politically monolithic. Important divisions existed within each section, and these helped determine the tempo and manner in which the national drama unfolded.
6. Over the seven decades following the ratification of the Constitution, the growth of both social systems progresively aggravated tensions between North and South, undermining their political cooperation. Looking back over that history, the immigrant politician Carl Schurz observed that the "slavery question" was "not a mere occasional quarrel between two sections of the country, divided by a geographic line" but a "great struggle between two antagonistic systems of social organization..." In a famous speech of October 1858, Senator William Seward of New York amplified on that theme, observing:
"Our country is a theater which exhibits in full operation two radically different political systems: the one resting on the basis of servile labor, the other on the basis of voluntary labor of free men...Increase of population, which is filling the States out of their borders, together with a new and extended network of railroads and other avenues, and an internal commerce which daily becomes more intimate, is rapidly bringing the States into a higher and more perfect social unity or consolidation. Thus, these antagonistic systems are continually coming into closer contact, and collision results."
"Shall I tell you what this collision means?" Seward continued.
"They who think it is accidental, unnecessary, the work of interested or fanatical agitators, and therefore ephemeral, mistake the case altogether. It is an irrepressible conflict between opposing and enduring forces, and it means that the United States must and will sooner or later become either entirely a slave-holding or entirely a free-labor nation."
7. The accumulating force of this central conflict finally reorganized political life; on both sides, individuals once deemed isolated fanatics (abolitionists, secessionists) became prophets and leaders.
8. At last, with the sharpening clash of outlooks and interests, the original project of the Founding Fathers--to hold together a society half slave and half free--became untenable. The result was secession, civil war, and ultimately, the irrevocable destruction of chattel slavery."
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
"You have read my postings and frankly I think the Ordinances of Secession speak for themselves, but considering that there is still a lingering regional divide between North & South I cannot help but hypothesize that massive immigration coupled with industrialization must've had a significant cultural impact."
CW,
I'm inclined to agree with you here. I'm currently reading The Road to Disunion: Secessionists at Bay, and while not discounting the the impact of slavery, it does acknowlege that there were other significant cultural differences between the north and south and indeed within the south itself.
How many Catholics were there in the south ca. 1860? How many Jews? Italians? Factories? Newspapers? How many miles of railroads compared with the north? How many Magnolia trees are there in Massachussets? It seems to me disingenuous to suggest that slavery was the ONLY cultural and economic difference between north and south.
__________________ David
"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person" diddyriddick
It cannot be repeated often enough, The Only Significant Economic and Cultural Differences between the two section were directly related to the institution of Chattle Slavery in one of those sections.
There were in fact two differences. One was SLAVERY, as you say, as an economic and cultural concern, as I have posited. Betimes.
The other was our politics. We wanted represented government. The North wanted complete, unchecked control of that government, to benefit themselves at every one else's expense.
Slavery, historically, did not get in the way of that. When it benefitted the North, in the minority, they indulged, and with a will, in the trade.
When its cessation benefitted the North, in their majority, they sided with Abolition.
But POLITICAL AGGRANDIZEMENT AND USURPATION
was the only real difference, and as Davis says, "AFRICAN SERVITUDE AN INCIDENT; NOT THE CAUSE OF SECESSION" as a sub chapter heading in RISE AND FALL.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
