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.
I am going to open this new thread with the idea I got from my friend Rob (Alabaman) who said that when the South held control of the Federal government, they did not take advantage of it.
I also am going to explore the possibility that the reason a majority of citizens in the South did not own slaves, but their lack of ownship had little to do with anything the Southern Leadership desired when it came to the protection and expansion of slavery.
Was there a "Slave Power?" Powerful slaveowners who wished to project their own views and wants on an entire nation, not just the South? Did they exert control over the government for any length of time? Did they use that government control to override the wishes of millions of citizens to further their own cause at the expense of democracy, the law and the Constitution?
I start by providing numerous web sites so that we can kick this thread off with what I have found out.
THE SLAVE POWER, Henry Wilson of Massachusetts, US Senate, Jan. 25, 1860.
If you take the time to go to the sites, you will see there was a concern over the idea of a Slave Power for a long time, even before the Civil War.
I look forward to your comments.
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
Last edited by unionblue : 10-12-2005 at 04:12 AM.
Neil,
As usual you make some valid points but with slavery beating on the brain some of your other comments I don't know about.Yes their was a slavepower who certainly wished to push their agena and expand slavery.That is certainlt true.To even ask if the slaveowners overrode the wishes of millions in an undemocratic way is a silly question?First you would need to spell out your view of democratic.Considering you like Lincoln I doubt very seriously we would have the same definition of democratic.Did they break any Constitutional laws while they were supposedly ruling the government before 1861?No other than South Carolina's experiment they did not.They certainly didn't control the government and any claim that they did is ludicrous.If they controlled the government and overrode the wishes of millions then why wasn't slavery legal in all of the North as well.I don't recall this slave power controlling the government making slavery legal in New York,or Maine.If they ran the government they certainly wouldn't object to slavery being legal there now would they?Why wasn't slavery legal in Kansas,California, or the Western Territories?Obviously to suggest that they controlled the federal government has no basis in reality.Of course reality doesn't always factor in to these discussions.If Calhoun led the secession of his state based on slavery, then wouldn't the slave power mythically ruling the federal government and millions of mindless Americans have legalized that secession.I don't recall the slave power brainwashing millions of Americans to accept nullification.What about the tarrif of abominations?Oh I forgot the Southern slave power was responsible for that tarrif even though they voted against it.The idea that they had power and exerted it is common sense to any person on this board.Them ruling the federal government is ridiculous.That would be like asking if Northern Industrialist ruled the federal government and millions of other mindless Americans went blindly with their lead.Both were powerful forces within the government who exerted strong influence and both succeeded in getting some legislation passed to their benefit.
As for these books I won't claim their all total garbage ,but the title of most of them leave the author's agenda in little doubt.The Slave Power written by a man from Massachusetts in 1860.The Slave Power Conpiracy,The Slave Power by another author,Jefferson and the Slave Power,The Shattering of the Union in the 1850s,The Slave Power Conspiracy,The Conspiracy of the Slave Power to disrupt the Union.Neil my friend I would think those titles alone would give grave reason to consider those books as objective material.Lord and you guys jump all over Dilorenzo.
MobileBoy
To even ask if the slaveowners overrode the wishes of millions in an undemocratic way is a silly question?
No, it's a very good question. From the very beginning they dictated conditions to the nonslaveholders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
Did they break any Constitutional laws while they were supposedly ruling the government before 1861?
They didn't have to. They shaped the Constitution to conform with what they wanted from the start.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
They certainly didn't control the government and any claim that they did is ludicrous.
They certainly did control the government and any claim they didn't flies in the face of historical fact. Slave staters held the presidency, most congressional committee chairs, and key positions on the US Supreme Court for most of the nation's history up to the 1860s. They dominated the Democratic Party so much so that any Democratic politician was indebted to them for their support. Without that support they would never have been allowed to be nominated by the party. So even if a Democratic politician was not from a slave state, they were still beholden to the slave states for their position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
If they controlled the government and overrode the wishes of millions then why wasn't slavery legal in all of the North as well.I don't recall this slave power controlling the government making slavery legal in New York,or Maine.
In due time, they might very well have done so.
See the Dred Scott ruling:
- Blacks are not and cannot be citizens; therefore, blacks do not have and can never have any rights of US citizens.
- The United States has no right to legislate on slavery except to protect the property rights of slaveowners. [60 U.S. 393, 426]
- Taking a slave into a free state or territory does not make that slave free. This means that from the moment a slaveowner takes his slaves into a free state, no matter what that state's laws previously, slavery is now legal in that state from the standpoint that that slaveowner legally owns slaves in that state.
- Any restriction of slavery from any territory is unconstitutional.
The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 was shaped by the slave states who demanded repeal of the Missouri Compromise, thus allowing slavery into the territories of Kansas and Nebraska.
The Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 made every citizen of every free state, against his or her will, responsible for being a slave catcher and denied any due process of law to any black person accused of being a slave.
The Gag Rule was enacted in Congress in 1836 at the behest of the slave power, and denied the right of petition and the right of free speech in Congress to any who would petition for the abolition of slavery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
If they ran the government they certainly wouldn't object to slavery being legal there now would they?Why wasn't slavery legal in Kansas,California,
It was, at first. The state constitutions banned slavery, but given time the slave power would have probably overruled them. The Dred Scott decision was a key ingredient in that eventual overruling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
or the Western Territories?
If you read a history of this period, you'll see that slavery was legal in the Western Territories until 1862.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
Obviously to suggest that they controlled the federal government has no basis in reality.
Obviously to suggest they did not control the Federal government shows little knowledge of the actual history of the period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
Of course reality doesn't always factor in to these discussions.If Calhoun led the secession of his state based on slavery, then wouldn't the slave power mythically ruling the federal government and millions of mindless Americans have legalized that secession.
Those who have studied the history of this time period will know that Calhoun did not lead the secession of South Carolina. Calhoun was long dead when South Carolina seceded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
I don't recall the slave power brainwashing millions of Americans to accept nullification.
Then you have not studied the antebellum history of the United States. In the Nullification Controversy South Carolina stood alone and no other state agreed with her claim to be able to interpose state power or even secede. By 1860 nearly every southern state, millions of Americans, were brainwashed to accept not only nullification but also secession.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
What about the tarrif of abominations?Oh I forgot the Southern slave power was responsible for that tarrif even though they voted against it.
That is correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
The idea that they had power and exerted it is common sense to any person on this board.Them ruling the federal government is ridiculous.That would be like asking if Northern Industrialist ruled the federal government and millions of other mindless Americans went blindly with their lead.Both were powerful forces within the government who exerted strong influence and both succeeded in getting some legislation passed to their benefit.
Up until the election of Lincoln, what were the slave powers ever denied?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
As for these books I won't claim their all total garbage ,but the title of most of them leave the author's agenda in little doubt.The Slave Power written by a man from Massachusetts in 1860.
Are men from Massachusetts unable to write objectively?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
The Slave Power Conpiracy,The Slave Power by another author,Jefferson and the Slave Power,The Shattering of the Union in the 1850s,The Slave Power Conspiracy,The Conspiracy of the Slave Power to disrupt the Union.Neil my friend I would think those titles alone would give grave reason to consider those books as objective material.Lord and you guys jump all over Dilorenzo.
MobileBoy
DiLorenzo gets jumped over because of his content by those of us who have actually read what he writes. When you bother to read what you criticize, then maybe you'll be equipped to criticize them.
Neil- To answer your questions, in order- Yes. Yes. Yes. And that last is a debatable point. The Southern slaveholding planter aristocracy was a 'power elite', which like any power elite believed that things are best left in their hands and which is most interested in its own best interests. When this Southern power elite's interests were finally without overriding say in the Federal government, they pulled out to create their own government with themselves, of course, as the controlling interest. As to how much they bent or broke the laws and Constitution before secession, I couldn't say. I haven't gone over the links you posted; once I do, I might have a clearer idea.
__________________ 'It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag'
I think that sometimes Northern politicians became convinced that there was a conspiracy to:
a. protect and expand slavery
b. destroy true representative democracy.
If you read Lincoln's speeches he talks about a structure being built by Stephen Douglas and others to accomplish these very goals. At this distance, its hard to see it. But from the Declaration of Independence on, Southern leaders were quick to defend slavery and sensitive to criticism of the "perculiar institution". But the attitudes that led to secession were the product of a decades of tensions, a hardening of thinking that precluded compromise or even dialogue.
Legal principles and concepts were seized upon or discarded to serve the struggle. These were not constitutionalists talking about slavery, but slave owners talking about the Constitution.
Matthew,
I like the points you brought up in your post.For point A I would say that the slave power definitely had a conspiracy to protect and expand slavery.They didn't control the government.I contend that's ridiculous ,but they certainly had some clout.So I would side with the Northern gentlemen on that.As for as their goal to destroy true representative democracy it depends on how you want to spin it.They certainly wanted out of the Union where they couldn't dominate Congress.But the Southern citizens at the time wern't ignorant zombies.There was plenty of sectionalism around nad they liked the idea of an independent Confederacy.The fireworks displays and parades show that the populace was glad to be rid of what they considered outsiders running there affairs.Their patriotism was bubbling over and genuine.It reminded me about how an Israeli friend of mine feels about his country.But after 911 I must confess certain songs made my eyes water and I was ready to go to war for New York.
Ashley
I see in your above post, that you contend that it was rediculous that the South controled the government.
From the book, The Slave Power, The Free North and Southern Domination 1780-1860, by Leonard L. Richards:
"William H. Seward had predicted that the long domination of the Slave Power was coming to an end. The North, he told the Senate during the heated Lecompton debate, would "take the Government" and end the rule of the South (Congressional Globe, 35th Congress, 1st session, 1857-58, p. 943).
Hotspurs in the lower South, longing for secession, now said that Seward's prediction had come to pass. To counter them, Alexander H. Stephens and other Unionists called on the South to consider its domination of the federal government since the founding of the Republic, to play democratic politics and try to regain power in the next election. There was no reason to panic, they said. Lincoln would have a rough time governing. He had come far short of winning a majority of the nation's vote. His party controlled neither Congress nor the Supreme Court, and it lacked the organizational means to distribute patronage and carry out routine services in the slave states.
Oddly enough, James Henry Hammond, the South Carolina firebrand, fully agreed with this position. He had carried the battle against Seward in 1858. In words that were repeated as far west as San Francisco, he had told northerners that they dared not make war on cotton, that no power on earth dared make war on cotton, that cotton was king, that every society had a "mud-sill" class to do the menial work, and that the South had found a people ideally suited to such work in its black slaves. But on one point he had agreed with his northern nemesis. He had agreed with Seward's claim that slaveholders ruled the Republic. He was proud of it. He regarded it as "the brightest page of human history."
Privately, however, Hammond dismissed as wishful thinking Seward's prediction that the North would take the government and end the rule of the South. He also dismissed the notion that Lincoln's election meant the end of southern dominance. Lincoln's election was just a setback. The North, as Hammond saw it, lacked staying power, and thus the South, if united, would continue to dictate national policy. The notion that the South had only two choices--either to secede or accept an inferior position in the national government--was nonsense. Secession was not only foolish but self-destructive. Indeed, it reminded him of "the Japanese who when insulted rip open their own bowels."
The book continues:
"In the sixty-two years between Washington's election and the Compromise of 1850, for example, slaveholders controlled the presidency for fifty years, the Speaker's chair for forty-one years, and the chairmanship of House Ways and Means for forty-two years. The only men to be reelected president--Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and Jackson--were all slaveholders. The men who sat in the Speaker's chair the longest--Henry Clay, Andrew Stevenson, and Nathaniel Macon--were slaveholders. Eighteen out of thirty-one Supreme Court justices were slaveholders."
(Modern studies of the executive branch as a whole generally confirm the view held by Sweard and his colleagues. In an analysis of the men appointed to some three hundred high government posts, Sidney H. Aronson found that 51 percent of John Adam's appointees were from the South, 56 percent of Jefferson's, and 57 percent of Jackson's. Similarly, in a study of every major cabinet and diplomatic appointment between 1789 and 1861, Philip H. Burch, Jr., found that exactly half went to men from the slave states. At the same time, the free population of the North was nearly twice that of the South. See Aronson, Status and Kinship in the Higher Civil Service [Cambridge, Mass., 1964], 115; and Burch, Elites in American History: The Federalist Years to the Civil War [New York, 1981}, 236-7.)
I submit, Ashley, you need to take a closer look at your statement.
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
I hereby submit another site that should give you an idea of how much power the Southern leaders had in the government and the Supreme Court.
There was a concentrated effort not only to get slavery into the Federal territories, but also into the FREE STATES via the Supreme Court. After the Dred Scott case, many in the North feared that the Supreme Court would have a Dred Scott II case, something that would strike down their free state constitutions and permit slavery there.
There was a case coming up through the court system, Lemmon v. People, 20 N.Y. 562 (1860). You can read about it at this site:
I'm sorry, Ashley & Rob, but the South did use its power when it was in control of the Federal government to advance it agenda of slavery.
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. 
The Slave Power 
Linear Mode
