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.
As you have already stated yourself, "The South could never, in good conscience, say no to any state or group of states who felt they could do better out of the Confederacy than in."
In those circumstances, why should it matter whether the C.S. Constitution made provision for secession? Surely this is mere legal pedantry?
But, provided it was clear that the majority of the population in the state[s] in question favoured a return to the Union, what should have happened is that the Confederate government allowed them to depart.
How can anyone who sees things from a Confederate point of view consistently say otherwise?
Having fought a bloody civil war to establish it's existence, it might have been politic to make it concrete.
After all the centralizing disposition of All governments (even a Confederate one)being what it is, it might be well if that right were spelled out in black and white, instead leaving it up to the interpretation of future (and some times, forgetful) generations.
First they should not have HAD to fight a war in the first place for their independence. That was blatantly un-American. Secondly since that was the whole point and to their minds a given point and therefore no need to spell it out in black and white.
Personally I think the Confederacy likely would have grown not diminished. In my personal opinion I think the former union would run the higher risk of losing states. And faster too. Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri, not to mention the territories.
Remember the citizens of the territories had no say in whether or not slavery would be allowed in their statehood. Even though other states already in the union had the right to have slaves, the federal government decided they did not have that equal right. The entire reason the Republicans resisted the idea of letting the citizens of the territories vote for themselves on the issue is they knew they'd vote contrary to their party's political and financial wishes.
To me the assumptions the Confederacy was the one to self destruct rather than the Republican controlled Union is just not realistic. At least not fair.
You mention the issue of allowing slavery in the territories. I too believe that there is a popular misconception about the motivation for opposing slavery in these areas, and a letter from an Illinois Republican to his Congressman sheds stark light on this:
Let [Southerners] keep their n---ers if they will, but they must not bring them in contact with us. No matter whether we are opposed to the extension of slavery from our humanity and love of right and justice, or from hatred of n---ers (of the latter class are many Illinois Republicans) we are terribly in earnest in our opposition to the extension of that institution.
[Stampp, The Imperiled Union, pp.109-110.]
Thus we are faced with the deliciously ironic possibility - and I would argue that it is a probability - that many of the opponents of slavery in the territories were more rabidly Negrophobic than the advocates.
Bill you are quite right about the less than pure motivation for opposing slavery in the territories. This was not lost on their politicians either, as ample documentation attests.
And I am very eager to hear a response from someone to your wonderfully presented encapsulation of the arguments developed by pro-Union apologists to justify denying Southerners what is universally considered to be a basic right.
There is another interesting paradox that has never been accounted for:
"The principles and position of the present administration of the United States -- the republican party -- present some puzzling questions. While it is a fixed principle with them never to allow the increase of a foot of slave territory, they seem to be equally determined not to part with an inch "of the accursed soil." Notwithstanding their clamor against the institution, they seemed to be equally opposed to getting more, or letting go what they have got. They were ready to fight on the accession of Texas, and are equally ready to fight now on her secession. Why is this? How can this strange paradox be accounted for?" -Alexander Stephens: Cornerstone Speech
Still, it is strange that from the experience of having to fight its way out of one Constitution, that did not mention a right of secession, the confederate gov't might have determined to save future generations a similar fate from another constitution that also did not mention that right.
There were many reasons opposition to slavery was growing, some more noble than others. But the point is, that by 1860 the Divisive effects of that institution (for whatever reasons) on American society had grown unbearable. The effects on a free society carrying within it a social anachronism was self destructive. The effort needed to project slavery into the twentieth century had grown intolerable to the government and the fabric of society.
Lincoln was quite specific about the Union and his duties as President, concerning it. He did not see it as his duty to preside over the dissolution of the nation handed down from President to President unbroken through the generations (in fact growing in size and power) In his estimation, The Union was inviolate. That for whatever the reasons the individual states accepted the Constitution, they had no right to leave of their own volition. That slavery was indeed an economic and social anachronism, existing long after it's time. That slavery must not be allowed to spread to the territories and that the institution of slavery was placed in such an attitude that it's existence would Gradually cease.
People can argue over his View, but it should not be a puzzle how he and the Republican Party could favor the continued growth of the Union and resist it's dissolution.
The divisiveness of slavery had pushed the gov't into either dissolving the Union or eliminating the cause of that divisiveness. The Republican Party came into existence as an opposition to slavery, the reasons why ending slavery rather than accepting secession was chosen, was neither surprising nor puzzling, especially not to Alexander Stephens or the confederate gov't.
"The effects on a free society carrying within it a social anachronism was self destructive."
Ok, this is patently untrue in all realms but the one of fantasy. By definition, there are no Utopias. Slavery has existed Constantly, without exception, since before history was recorded. It exists today-in fact right now, this very minute, there are more slaves than there were in the entire 300 year African-US slave trade. These nations do not self destruct.
" The Republican Party came into existence as an opposition to slavery"
They were ex-Whigs, No Know Nothings etc. Their only interest was financial. They were predominantly protectionists, whose only concern with slavery was as a means to further their own financial agendas: Higher tariffs, Income Tax, National Bank, Railroads, and, to make all those things even more profitable for themselves (not the entire nation) they had the Homestead Act. In fact, they claimed many times that they would never touch existing slavery.
They really only picked the anti-slavery issue after they saw it could be used to divide the nation and create a situation in which they could bring about their schemes. Hence the refusal of such logical Bills as Toombs presented regarding Kansas.
‘‘The effort needed to project slavery into the twentieth century had grown intolerable to the government and the fabric of society’’
Hilarious but untrue. Sadly, slavery has grown effortlessly, not only into the 20th century but into the 21st as well. And is clearly tolerated today. In fact the US does pretty much all it can to ensure those countries have profitted from slavery. Because that way we do to.
"That slavery was indeed an economic and social anachronism, existing long after it's time"
Once again, it’’s hilarious that someone could actually say this with a straight face but it's just not true....indeed, our cheap chocolate, shoes, clothing, oil, electronics, rugs, sugar, toys, are all produced using slave labor, which is what allows us to buy it so cheap. We are even MORE culpable today than they were back then. Since we are far less self-reliant today, we are "tied" to it just as strongly economically as ever before, perhaps even more so.
"Slaves in Pakistan may have made the shoes you are wearing and the carpet you stand on. Slaves in the Caribbean may have put sugar in your kitchen and toys in the hands of your children. In India they may have sewn the shirt on your back and polished the ring on your finger. . . . In Brazil slaves made the charcoal that tempered the steel that made the springs in your car and the blade on your lawn mower. Slaves grew the rice that fed the woman that wove the lovely cloth you've put up as curtains. Your investment portfolio and your mutual-fund pension own stock in companies using slave labor in the developing world. Slaves keep your costs low and returns on your investments high."
Disposable People: New Slavery in the Global Economy (University of California Press), Kevin Bales
This does not even address the countless thousands of US prisoners working as slave labor right now. Estimates run from 80,000 to 250,000 and rising. I’’m not talking about working on State funded projects but for private companies who use this enforced labor for their own profit. The very Amendment that supposedly abolished slavery insured that it would be instead, merely a State controlled industry.
Amendment XIII
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Honda, Toys ’’r’’ Us, AT&T, Boeing, MicroJet, American Express, General Electric, Goldman Sachs & Co., Merrill Lynch, and Smith & Barney are just a very few of the many well-known companies using prison labor that is, in actuality, legal slavery. The Prison Industrial Complex produces cheap clothing, eyewear, furniture, electronic cable assemblies, aircraft parts, computer circuit boards, mattresses, printing, data entry, vehicle parts, "shrink-wrap" Microsoft software, meatpacking, telemarketing, and the list goes on and on. The need for more and more cheap labor ensures that, though crime has actually decreased, more prisoners as well as longer prison sentences have increased dramatically. So much so that the new privatized prison are almost all used to exploit the cheap labor.
“As prisoners have become tremendous sources of profit for the State, we can guarantee only one thing: there will be more of them.”
Unknown
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
