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.
Cedarstripper, I sincerely doubt that you believe the only difference in Northerners and Southerners was slavery. But, since you are making the claim, I'll take you at your word. You are aware of the differences on the subject of tariffs. You understand that it was a really huge issue for the Southerners, Northerners too, for that matter. The basic ideals of what government should be were very different, also. The South believed in less government, while the North wanted larger, more centralized government. The interpretation of the Constitution by both sides also reflected these differences. The South may have helped to shape the country during the first hundred years, but I think it's true that the next hundred years after the war were definitely a product of the North's doings. Culturally, there may as well have been an ocean between the North and South so different as they were.
The "North" was not gaining new states. The West was. The industrial section of the country was not gaining new states. The agricultural/exporting section was. The swing of the political pendulum would not be pulled by the existing states in the North. It would be pulled by the new states of the prairies, the Rockies, and the Pacific. They would hold the political influence that would ally or alienate the agricultural interests or the industrialist interest in the nation, and had it not been for slavery, they would have had little to argue with the South about. Southern leaders never hoped for Massachusetts to someday join their confederacy, but they sure hoped the western states all would.
So when we talk about southern fears of permanently losing clout in Congress due to the territories becoming more and more free states, the Northeast and the southern hatred of Yankees seems rather irrelevant. More free states meant more anti-slavery, not more anti-agricultural.
Quote:
Well, lets examine "my logic". Congress made an amendment that cannot be supported, according to you, and if that is so, I claim it's worthless. If it cannot stand, what is it worth to anyone?
Cannot be supported? What exactly does that mean? Had the Corwin amendment been ratified, court challenges aside, it would have had the same protection that all other amendments and articles had. If you think an amendment that can later be repealed is worthless, then you have to think that a Constitution that can be amended is worthless. They are one and the same. A Constitution of 'worth' for you then would be one that would today still protect a state's 'right to own slaves, deny voting rights, suppress free speech, etc......a Constitution that had never been amended.
Here is a cite to an article I've found on the Corwin Amendment: Christopher Bryant, "Stopping Time: The Pro-Slavery and 'Irrevocable' Thirteenth Amendment", 26 Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 501 (2003). The article both describes the debates that accompanied the article and opines that "the Corwin Amendment would have failed in its stated purpose (because a subsequent Article V amendment would have been sufficient to repeal it and grant Congress power over slavery)."
Here's where I am on the various issues relating to the Amendment:
1. Even if the Amendment had been ratified and accepted by the South (aborting the War), I believe that, one way or another, Congress, a supermajority of the States, and the Courts would ultimately have found a way to repeal or at least get around the Amendment (via a Constitutional Convention if necessary). When this would have occurred is anyone's guess. The end of WWII? The late 1950s or early 1960's? (If you think the latter estimate is outlandish, reread Robert Caro's latest Lyndon Johnson volume describing the deception and acrobatics LBJ had to use to get the first modern, minimalist civil rights bill passed.) While the Amendment may well have proved ineffective in the long term, it would have preserved slavery for a long, long time.
2. Even assuming the Amendment ultimately proved unenforceable, it's not fair to conclude it was worthless. The Amendment would have been valid on its face and might have required extraordinary procedures, including a Constitutional Convention, to amend it. It would have had a deterrent effect to efforts to amend it, giving powerful political ammunition to those opposing deletion.
3. Although some Senators opposed or criticized the Amendment because they believed it might be subject to amendment itself, the legislative history described in the article provides every reason to believe that the proponents were sincere and acted in good faith. This was not some sort of "Black Republican" trick or trap.
4. The fact that the South effectively rejected the amendment does not demonstrate, or even suggest, that slavery was not the South's central concern. Other factors -- principally the late timing of the Amendment and the fact that it did not address the core issue of slavery in the territories -- were determinative here. In addition, southern politicians certainly heard of the doubts expressed about the Amendment's enforceability.
The "North" was not gaining new states. The West was. The industrial section of the country was not gaining new states. The agricultural/exporting section was.
More free states meant more anti-slavery, not more anti-agricultural.
The Republicans were gaining more states. Democrats were being rooted out of congress. That was the Southern concern. And of course slavery was a concern to Southerners, but since that seems to be all you know about Southerners I don't think you have enough information to be unbiased on this subject.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cedarstripper
Cannot be supported? What exactly does that mean?
Meaning, according to your theory, that if an amendment could be amended, even though it was written to be non-amendable, it could not stand, was insupportable. In other words, not worth the paper it was written on nor the time it took to write it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cedarstripper
Had the Corwin amendment been ratified, court challenges aside, it would have had the same protection that all other amendments and articles had. If you think an amendment that can later be repealed is worthless, then you have to think that a Constitution that can be amended is worthless.
Cedarstripper
Nonsense. I don't think amendments are worthless, only the ones that provide nothing new other than the fact that they can't be amended yet, according to your theory, it could be amended. That would make for a worthless amendment, a waste of taxpayer money and a gross waste of Congress' time.
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
The fact that the South effectively rejected the amendment does not demonstrate, or even suggest, that slavery was not the South's central concern. Other factors -- principally the late timing of the Amendment and the fact that it did not address the core issue of slavery in the territories -- were determinative here. In addition, southern politicians certainly heard of the doubts expressed about the Amendment's enforceability.
IMO, the Southerners had little interest in settling the territories with slaves. They objected to being "cut-out" from having the option since they believed it belonged to the country and everyone in it equally.
Unless Southerners planned to go into the mid-West or West with slavery the territories were not very advantageous to agriculture or slavery. What would a slaveowner do with slaves in New Mexico, Arizona or Nevada? It wasn't so much about expanding slavery. It was mainly about political power, for both sides. Again, I stress, this is just my opinion.
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
The Republicans were gaining more states. Democrats were being rooted out of congress. That was the Southern concern. And of course slavery was a concern to Southerners, but since that seems to be all you know about Southerners I don't think you have enough information to be unbiased on this subject.
And what was the reason for the rise in the Republican party , in fact the reason for its existence? Had it not been for slavery, there would have been little reason to expect that the addition of new states into the Union equaled less clout for the types of agrarian interests that were the South's. Only slavery was endangered.
Quote:
Meaning, according to your theory, that if an amendment could be amended, even though it was written to be non-amendable, it could not stand, was insupportable. In other words, not worth the paper it was written on nor the time it took to write it.
I am curious as to precisely what parts of the Constitution you feel are worth the paper they are written on.
Quote:
Nonsense. I don't think amendments are worthless, only the ones that provide nothing new other than the fact that they can't be amended yet, according to your theory, it could be amended. That would make for a worthless amendment, a waste of taxpayer money and a gross waste of Congress' time.
I did not say the amendment could be amended. I said a subsequent amendment could repeal it. Otherwise, every alteration to the Constitution becomes permanent and untouchable. Under your idea of worthwhile, an amendment empowering the federal government to declare total prohibition on alcohol could be passed, but no amendment could ever be allowed to repeal it. Bad move. The amendment process is wisely meant to require super-majorities in special conventions to be successful, but it is not meant to be impossible.
Perhaps you'll be clear about which parts of the Constitution you think are unamendable and therefore not worthless.
IMO, the Southerners had little interest in settling the territories with slaves. They objected to being "cut-out" from having the option since they believed it belonged to the country and everyone in it equally.
Unless Southerners planned to go into the mid-West or West with slavery the territories were not very advantageous to agriculture or slavery. What would a slaveowner do with slaves in New Mexico, Arizona or Nevada? It wasn't so much about expanding slavery. It was mainly about political power, for both sides. Again, I stress, this is just my opinion.
To take your second point first, there seems to be a myth -- or wishful thinking -- that slaves were not economically viable for any purpose other than Southern cash crop agriculture, and therefore that the institution was not economically viable outside the Southeast. Neither world nor US history supports this assumption. The Greeks and Romans, for example, employed slaves for all manner of non-agricultural purposes, from mining to manufacturing.
Likewise, in his book The Peculiar Institution, Kenneth Stampp makes the point that in the decades before the War Southerners were increasingly experimenting, with success, with the use of slaves in factories, mills, railroad construction and the like. In short, there is every reason to believe that slavery could survive and indeed thrive in the western territories.
That said (and turning to your first point), the South fought very hard to expand slavery into certain territories, and less hard to expand it into other areas. William Freehling has noted that the South's focus was not on the territories per se, but on those territories that abutted slave states. The South fought much harder, for example, over Texas (adjoining slaveholding Louisiana and Arkansas) and Kansas (adjoining slaveholding Missouri) than it did over Oregon or California (which were not contiguous to any slave state), even though California in particular might have been ideally suited for agricultural slavery. He suggests that this focus reflected southern recognition of, and concern about, the fact that slave populations tended to decrease over time in those slave states that abutted free areas. In short, the South was trying to reverse, or at least delay, that trend. For example, the establishment of a slave Kansas would make it less likely that Missouri would eventually become free.
And what was the reason for the rise in the Republican party , in fact the reason for its existence?
The collapse of the Whig Party, mainly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cedarstripper
Had it not been for slavery, there would have been little reason to expect that the addition of new states into the Union equaled less clout for the types of agrarian interests that were the South's.
Not necessarily. The Western states sometimes voted with the industrial states for high tariffs. Other new states could have issues that conflicted with the cotton states just as the West did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cedarstripper
Only slavery was endangered.
Slavery. Apparently you believe that was the South's only concern. You seem to believe they had no room for any other thoughts. You are completely dismissing 75% of Southern families that had no interest in slavery. Anything I say is going to sound like the same broken record that you are beginning to sound like. So, I decline to argue that point with you anymore. We will simply have to agree to disagree on that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cedarstripper
I am curious as to precisely what parts of the Constitution you feel are worth the paper they are written on.
I don't know why you should be curious about that. I never said I believe the constitution has any part in it that wasn't worth the paper it was written on. You know very well what I did say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cedarstripper
I did not say the amendment could be amended. I said a subsequent amendment could repeal it. Otherwise, every alteration to the Constitution becomes permanent and untouchable. Under your idea of worthwhile, an amendment empowering the federal government to declare total prohibition on alcohol could be passed, but no amendment could ever be allowed to repeal it. Bad move. The amendment process is wisely meant to require super-majorities in special conventions to be successful, but it is not meant to be impossible.
Ok, word it how you like. The result would be the same, the amendment could be rendered null. At any rate, it seems the Southern states smelled a rat and chose not to buy into this "gracious offer". BTW, I never agreed that the amendment couldn't be amended.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cedarstripper
Perhaps you'll be clear about which parts of the Constitution you think are unamendable and therefore not worthless.
Perhaps I would if I entertained any such notions.
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
I've been looking for a good thread in which to post this excellent quotation I found, but have had trouble.
I thought a Thread titled "RECONSTRUCTION!!!" might be Ideal, but have found this thread, as so many have, had drifted into the 'cause of the war' thing.
OK.
So to redeem this thread, I offer the following:
Zebulon York (Confederate Brigadier, lost an arm)
Before the war, he was one of the richest plantation owners in Louisiana.
Journalist Whitelaw Reid met York aboard a riverboat during Reid's his travels through the South within a year after the end of the war and quotes him as follows in the book, "After the War: A Southern Tour", pp. 476-478:
"'You don't know what you're talking about,' he [York] exclaimed impetuously to some one who was haranguing against the tyranny and cruelty of the [US] government; 'I tell you, sir, you have got and I have got the most merciful government in the world. What's the use of our trying to disguise the facts? We attempted to destroy the government and failed; any other [government] would have hung me for my share in the matter; and would have had a perfect right to do it. I consider myself a standing proof of the mercy of my government. It confiscated my property while I was gone fighting against it. I don't complain; it did perfectly right. Since then I've got my property back; a thing I had no right to expect; and I am very grateful for it. I only want a chance to prove my gratitude. If we get into a war about this Mexican business, I'll try to show the government how I appreciate its generosity to me.'" . . .
"Someone said the war wasn't over yet. 'Isn't it?' said the general. 'Well, maybe you haven't had enough of it. But I tell you, the men that did the fighting have. What's more, they are satisfied to quit and to take things as they can get them. More still, I don't know of anybody that isn't satisfied to quit, except the stay-at-home sneaks that have never yet made a beginning. You're full of fight now all of a sudden, when it isn't needed. Why didn't you show some of it when we wanted you in the trenches at Richmond?'
"Yet the general was as firm a believer in the right of secession as ever: 'I have my own views as to the constitutionality and rightfulness of our course; I thought our cause just, and I did all I could to make it successful. But we were beaten, badly beaten. Some of those fellows that have been hanging around Natchez or making money out of army contracts may not be subjugated, but I am. And now, having submitted, I do it in good faith. What difference does it make now about our beliefs and our arguments in favor of secession? All that has been settled in the court [war] to which we appealed; we have submitted to the verdict; and, as honorable men, we have no right to revive the controversy.'"
__________________ -
"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
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Where did you find this at? I would like to read the source myself, if I can.
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
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
