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.
RebProf,
I started making some notes last night, but need to collect some more to fully answer your reply, and right now I'm out of time this morning, so I'll have to take care of it later. But, just a couple of things for right now:
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
The county with the largest number of slaves in Tennessee in 1860 was Williamson, yet there was a significant anti-secession vote in Williamson (47%).
There were eleven counties in Tennesee which had more slaves than Williamson.
Quote:
Franklin County held far fewer slaves but voted 100% for secession.
Franklin County is probably not representative of a typical situation, as they had previously resolved to secede from Tennessee and be absorbed into Alabama.
Quote:
The statement that 15% of Tennessee families owned slaves is not open to challenge since it is documented by the 1860 census.
The 1860 Census shows 149,335 families in Tennessee and 36,844 slaveholders. That's 24.67%. Do you have information from the Census to determine this other than number of families and number of slaveholders?
Quote:
The burden of proof, that slavery caused the othe 85% to fight, is on the other side of the argument, not on me. The facts are the facts.
I'm not sure how a claim of correlation of slaveholders with an acceptance of secession morphed into what inspired non-slaveholders to fight. But I do disagree that nonslaveowners had no vested interest in the institution or the society in general that it brought them. But that's a different page.
In western Tennessee, men voted to secede 29,127 to 6,117; in the middle of the state, the vote was affirmative 58,265 to 8,198; while in the eastern end of the state, the vote for Union won with 32,393 to 14,780 for separation. The apparent commonality of middle and western sections of the state is the dependence of the economy on slavery, even for the nonslaveholders whose prosperity was tied to it, while the lack of secession fervor in the eastern section and the far smaller incidence of slavery appear blatantly related.
If there are other major issues which account for the overall correlation of slavery and secession, I hope you will share them.
Cedarstripper,
Williamson and Maury had about the same number of slaves and were the two leading slaveholding counties in the state. Can you list the counties which you think had more? My info has been checked this last Friday. There were only six plantations in Tennessee on which 100 plus slaves were held, four of them were in Middle Tennessee, an area which voted against secession in February, 1861.
Franklin County is not "representative" but it does prove that number of slaves did not correlate with support for secession. Why was Franklin so anxious to secede? The answer cannot be "the large number of slaves and slaveholders" since these were in a minority (small minority)of these in Franklin County. This undercuts the assertion that slavery explains secession .
As to 25% of Tennessee families owning slaves, I contend that you have gotten the wrong figures from some source. I find no correlation between your 149,000 families and the number of slave holders. Tennessee had a population of about one million in 1860 so you have too few families.
Your figures on the vote on secession is confused. To which referrendum do you refer? You seem to have confused the Feb vote and the June vote with one section reporting one date and another section the other date.
If Tennessee had been motivated by slavery the referrendum on secession wouild have taken the state out of the Union in February. The state rejected secession at that time only to vote for withdrawal in June. What had changed? Not the issue of slavery, which had been rejected as a motive for secession. The change was Lincoln's call for troops. The beginning of a war against the South was the motive which pushed Tennessee into secession. In short, the assumption that slavery and secession can be "correlated overall" "is a flawed assumption. There are too many other factors involved to make slavery the only factor; one, yes; only, no.
You have convinced me, RebProf, at least temporarily,
that secession was, in at least 4 of the 11 seceding states, caused by the beginning of the war.
That said, 7 of 11 might be correlated overall. We can add Texas to the 4, because Texas was something else entirely. That leaves 6. If we add Florida to the now-5, then we have 6 states -- now a majority, that may be counted as states seceeding for reasons other than slavery.
If we factor in that the most powerful voices in the south (perhaps in the nation) were slave owners. Ignoring or minimizing their influence is missing a goodly part of the picture.
Sounds like the reviews approve of the book. I've seen much the same thing and that is one of the reasons I do not agree with the irrepressible conflict. With such men as you've described, there was plenty of reason to avoid conflict.
RebProf,
Yes wonderful job proving your point.I would add that that we don't necessarily know the other states wouldn't have joined the Confederacy if Lincoln hadn't called for troops at a later date.But judging by facts instead of theories you definitely have won the benefit of the doubt based on the available evidence.I agree that slavery wasn't the only factor but for most Southern politicians it was the most important one in my opinion.As for the average Southener they were racist definitely but many had a lot of resentment to the planter class.Their issues for secession didn't have necessarily be the same as the slaveowners in my opinion and I don't think they were.
Ashley
Ashley
As to your point about Presidential terms being filled by the quote slave power.The last five Presidential terms have been filled by Southerners.If you do the math on the states the chances of that happening our far less now than they were when our country was smaller.These Presidents have nothing to do with slavery since it's been outlawed for more than 140 years now.Did the slave power play a role in our last five Presidential elections.My friend I thinketh not.
Apples and oranges.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
I have read The Road to Disunion.I think we differ on our definition of controlling.I'm not going to debate whether the first vote of the Kansans was legit or not(I don't trust those extremist on either side),but it was approved in some form by Kansans as a slave state.However it wasn't admitted as a slave state, despite Southern wishes to the contrary.The debate about Kansas and the effort to admit it as a slave state occurred before secession as Cash conveniently left out .
Those who have actually studied the history of this period will recognize that statement as being completely inaccurate. Kansas was not admitted until AFTER the first wave of secession, except for Texas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
Therefore since their efforts were denied they didn't rule the government.Cash conveniently left out the all of the facts on Kansas that didn't suit his fanatical left wing rubbish.
More insults? Actually I gave the facts of the case. Anything left out was simply mythology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
He says Cuba was too expensive.Well the slave power coveted Cuba for years and there is plenty of evidence which noone disputes that they wanted to purchase Cuba.Yet again this omnipotent slave power had their aims denied.
Nobody said they were omnipotent, merely that they controlled the country. If you wish to make your points, fine. Just don't mischaracterize what others have said. If one's position is so weak one is forced to mischaracterize the other side's position, then it should give one pause.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
California was a free state.Noone possessing even average mental faculties suggest that the slave power wanted California admitted as a free state.Everyone knows that they didn't.
You seem to delight in denigrating the mental abilities of those who disagree with you. Sad.
California was admitted as a free state as part of the Compromise of 1850, wherein the slave power gained more than they gave up. The People of California didn't want their state to be a slave state, so by allowing its admission as a free state the slaveholders really weren't giving up anything. In return, they got New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and Utah being organized as territories without mention of slavery, meaning the People of those territories would decide if they would be slave states or free states on admission to the Union, and they got a new and more sinister fugitive slave law. In return for that they gave up the slave trade in the District of Columbia, but kept slavery intact in the Nation's Capital.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
How did the tarrif of abominations pass when Southerners voted against it if they controlled the legislative branch of government.Don't you hate it when reality contradicts your opinions ?
Those who have actually studied the history of this rather than taken a superficial glance at it will know the answer.
The southerners were the ones who designed the tariff and brought it out of committee. It was their mistake to bring it to a vote. They had the power to keep it bottled up forever if they wanted to do so. They wanted a vote on it in order to gain political power, but it backfired on them. We've already gone into this on another thread.
I would have to say that what the author did in his life would certainly for me have a huge impact on whether I considered him a credible historian.As a supporter of communism his viewpoints deviate from that of the majority of Americans.If you support communism than yea stand by the guy.I wouldn't trust him by that fact.His Marxism would seem to indicate in my opinion that his thinking is faulty.If he just stated facts then his opinion wouldn't matter.Question when is the last time you read a book which contained no opinion?So yea friend this guy supporting communism which make his opinion highly suspect to me.
Secesh nice one my friend.
Neil that is funny.You're trying to use a Commie on us unsuspecting Southerners and pass him off as a credible historian.Sorry friend but this revelation has brought a big smile to my face.I hope you pardon my enjoyment at your expense.
Regards,
Ashley
Ad hominem fallacy. You can't attack the man's arguments so you attack the man. Prof. Foner is a highly respected historian whose work is well regarded in the field. Instead of denigrating the man, why don't you show us where you think he went wrong in his historical presentation?
I didn't realize that we had entered the past and I was a German soldier and you were Hitler.I didn't realize I had to think like you and take your opinions as my own.Excuse for me for thinking that I lived in America.If I think a witch or Communist author causes me to question the validity of his opinion I can and will do so.I don't rule out or didn't that the author may contribute something positive.I'm also not wrong because I don't buy all of the bull you spew on these boards.I'm not wrong because I don't think like exactly as you do.Excuse me for thinking that I had the right to to use my brain and question what you say.Sig Heil Neil.Or perhaps you prefer Emporer UnionBlue.
Would it be possible to make posts without insults?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
The Western Territories gained from the Mexican War were wanted by the slave power for expanding slavery.Again this ruling power was shown by facts to not rule the government.Not one territory from the Mexican War ever admitted slavery.
Wrong. Utah had slavery as a territory. New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, and Nevada were all organized without reference to slavery, which allowed slavery to be established in them if the territorial residents wanted to bring slaves. The Wilmot Proviso, which would have kept slavery out of those territories, was defeated in Congress because the Slave Power didn't want it passed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
Yet in your mind you fooled yourself into maintaining without doubt the slavepower ruled the government.You even responded indignantly that the slave power wanted to make Kansas a slave state.Yes they did and it wasn't admitted as a slave state.
Not until after the slave states had diluted this power by the secession of six of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
However you continue to hold this position that the slave power ruled the government.
Because it's accurate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
Lets talk about the war.Through your research you've concluded that the war was all about slavery.Again if you're searching for truth I would pay more attention to what happened than opinions.There was no intent by Lincoln to abolish slavery yet the war was all about slavery to you.Funny the US President nor the United States government are at odds with your views developed over years of hard research.
Those who study the actual history of this time period will recognize the historical inaccuracy in the above. President Lincoln and the United States government were not the ones who fired on Fort Sumter to start the war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
Lets look at the fact that 70 percent of Southerners by all everyone's estimation owned no slaves.This fact you threw in the trashcan on your search for truth because of what reason?
It's irrelevent, since the people who owned no slaves were not the ones with the political power. It was the slaveholders who were the ones who ran things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
I wish you would tell me.There are letters out there where Confederate soldiers mentioned fighting for states rights.Yet on your search for truth you decided you would reach a more accurate position by making the conclusion that you or some other Northern author have a better idea of what the Confederate soldier was fighting for than he did.
The only state right that was in jeopardy was the right to own slaves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
I believe you also agree with the lazy assumption that those who didn't own slaves must have wanted to own them.What evidence is there to support this?
The previously poor people, such as Andrew Johnson, Joe Brown, and Bedford Forrest who, when they were able to improve their position in life sufficiently, purchased slaves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
You have also concluded that the tarrif wasn't an issue at all only slavery mattered.So why did Southern newspapers decry the tarrif issue?
Two reasons--1. Calculating the value of the Union; and 2. Threatening the rest of the country economically. That those newspapers were generally lying about the amount of tariff paid by southerners seems to escape your view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
Why did the Southerners always complain about federal money being used for internal improvements,such as railroads,canals,roads, etch...was it just to get attention?
They didn't like the "general welfare" clause being used as justification, since if it was constitutional to do that the argument could be extended that it was then constitutional to abolish slavery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
They hiked it up just like Southerners said that they would.So much so that the tarrif went from 15 to 47 %,and the increase lasted for decades after the war was over.
Disingenuous comment. You're talking about its peak, which was reached during the war years to pay for the war caused by the slaveholders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
I absolutely vehemently dislike Braxton Bragg.How does criticizing A Southern commander make the South look good.
Poor Bragg is a scapegoat. "If only he weren't so horrible, 'we' might have won."
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
You are against secession of the Confederate states, but you support the secession of West Virginia.That is a nice example of consistent thinking.
Those who understand the history behind the partition of Virginia will know there is a vast difference between the two.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
You hold up the Constitution in an argument against secession.No problem there but you have no problem with Lincoln disregarding the Constitution as he did over and over again.
Cedarstripper,
Williamson and Maury had about the same number of slaves and were the two leading slaveholding counties in the state. Can you list the counties which you think had more?
I would have thought that maybe I was looking at the wrong column (number of slaveholders, perhaps?) but today I don't see any category that has eleven more than Williamson County, so I suspect i was counting some twice while scrolling down my table. However, just the same, according to the 1860 Census data at Geostat Center at University of Virginia, Williamson County had 12,367 slaves, while Davidson, Maury, Rutherford, and Shelby counties had more, with Shelby being the heaviest at 16,953. All of these counties also led Williamson in number of slaveholders, but Williamson did sport the heaviest ratio of slaveholders to families.
Quote:
There were only six plantations in Tennessee on which 100 plus slaves were held, four of them were in Middle Tennessee, an area which voted against secession in February, 1861.
I fail to see the relevance of the size of the plantation. I would think that someone who owned 10 slaves would be as interested in maintaining that as someone who owned over 100. They each got one vote at the ballot.
Quote:
Franklin County is not "representative" but it does prove that number of slaves did not correlate with support for secession. Why was Franklin so anxious to secede? The answer cannot be "the large number of slaves and slaveholders" since these were in a minority (small minority)of these in Franklin County. This undercuts the assertion that slavery explains secession.
I disagree. You equate a majority of families owning slaves must equal a majority supporting secession in order to show causality. Under this argument, South Carolina having only about 47% of families owning slaves does not support the preservation of slavery as a causal link to secession, yet they in fact tell us outright over and over that this was indeed the primary cause. I contend that in the case of Franklin County, about a third of families owning slaves (roughly) establishes quite well that slavery was intertwined with local economy, as well as they fear that the emancipation of 34% of the local population would turn white society on its head.
Eastern Tennessee however, with its ratio of slaveowners to families often in or around the single digits seems to establish that the local economy was not dependant on slaves, and negroes making up less than 10% of the overall population was not as unsettling.
My point merely is that I would gladly argue that it does not require +51% of slaveownership to make a locality pro-slavery (I doubt over 50% of Toronto regularly skates, but its still a hockey town). And while I continue to submit that a causal relationship between the saturation of slavery and the support of secession seems undeniable, I would at the same time contend that heavy slave ownership does not necesarily disqualify a county from being pro-Union. As you pointed out in your post, it is entirely possible that many a slaveowner elite were more content with staying in the Union, and I think it is likely that they may have had a more realistic vision of the destruction of wealth and lives that war would surely bring.
Quote:
As to 25% of Tennessee families owning slaves, I contend that you have gotten the wrong figures from some source. I find no correlation between your 149,000 families and the number of slave holders. Tennessee had a population of about one million in 1860 so you have too few families.
Tennessee had a free population of 834,082 in 1860. Divide the 149,335 families into that and you have about 5.5 people/family - right in line with populations for the time. The Census shows 36,844 slaveholders in Tennessee. I agree with Bill that some slaveowners may have been counted several times, but I doubt it could throw the stats off very much. I still get about 25% of families owning slaves - about average for the South.
About 15% of all white families in Tennessee owned slaves.
About 25%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
Tennessee refused to secede in February 1861 when a state-wide referrendum was taken on the issue. It was not until Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to "supress a domestic insurrection" that Tennessee left the Union. For Tennessee, the issue of slavery was not decisive.
That's a superficial view of the question. The counties in West Tennessee and Middle Tennessee generally favored a secession convention in February, although not by a large margin--2/3 of the counties in West Tennessee favored a secession convention and 60% of the counties in Middle Tennessee favored a secession convention. The counties in East Tennessee, where there was relatively little slavery, overwhelmingly opposed a secession convention. Just under 90% of those counties voted against a convention. So the relative absence of slavery in East Tennessee was decisive in avoiding secession in February.
The issue of slavery was decisive with Gov. Isham Harris:
"The systematic, wanton, and long continued agitation of the slavery question, with the actual and threatened aggressions of the Northern States and a portion of their people, upon the well-defined constitutional rights of the Southern citizen; the rapid growth and increase, in all the elements of power, of a purely sectional party, whose bond of union is uncompromising hostility to the rights and institutions of the fifteen Southern States, have produced a crisis in the affairs of the country, unparalleled in the history of the past, resulting already in the withdrawal from the Confederacy of one of the sovereignties which composed it, while others are rapidly preparing to move in the same direction." [First Message of Gov. Isham Harris to Tennessee Legislature, 7 Jan 1861]
Tennessee seceded through action of its legislature, not through a convention. In the vote on the secession ordinance, only 9 of the 29 county delegations from East Tennessee voted to secede, whereas 16 of the 18 county delegations from West Tennessee and 26 of the 35 county delegations from Middle Tennesee voted to secede.
In the June referendum, the West Tennesee and Middle Tennessee counties, where slavery was more prevalent, voted overwhelmingly for secession--77.8% in favor in West Tennessee and 85.7% in Middle Tennessee--while East Tennessee, with fewer concentrations of slaves, again overwhelmingly voted against secession--79.3% of the counties in East Tennesee voting against it.
These figures all come from Ralph A. Wooster, The Secession Conventions of the South, pp. 173-189.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
Please keep in mind that slavery was protected by the U. S. Constitution and that the Supreme Court had ruled that "neither congress nor the president has the authority to end the practice. Only the individual states can end slavery."
This clearly says that the Republican position of not allowing the expansion of slavery was illegal and unconstitutional.
It does not such thing. Territories are not states, and the Republican position spoke only to expansion into territories. The Constitution clearly gives the Congress the power to legislate for the territories. See Article IV, Section 3: "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States."
Apparently it's necessary to point out the First Congress, containing many of the Founding Fathers, passed the Northwest Ordinance, banning slavery from the Northwest Territory, and it was signed into law by George Washington.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
The passage of the 13th Amendment was necessary to change the Constitution so as to make the Republican position legal, post facto.
That is a misconstruction of the Republican position. The 13th Amendment banned involuntary servitude everywhere, including the States. Congress already had the power to ban it in the territories.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
Also keep in mind that there were still slaves in New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware as well as "border states." In the North slavery had been ended by gradual emancipation which did not cover all persons at once. This
means the issue is not as clear as some wish to think.
There were not still slaves in New York or Pennsylvania at this time. There were 18 elderly slaves in New Jersey, and there were slaves in Delaware, Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland. There had not been slavery in many states in the North, particularly those admitted from the Northwest Territory. Vermont abolished slavery completely without gradual emancipation prior to admission. Maine was admitted in 1820 as a free state without slavery. The slaves in Massachusetts were all freed by judicial interpretation of the state's constitution without any gradual emancipation enacted.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Your book: 
Linear Mode
