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.
Rob,
"The South realized it's loss of sectional rights/self-rule and petitioned peacefully to leave this Union."
If they had 'petitioned peacefully to leave' they would have submitted the question to the Supreme Court, which was never done. Even with a Southern biased Court, My understanding is, the south was afraid the Court could conceivably rule against them so prefered to just jump into secession, with SC leading the way.
"Slavery expansion West purely was a fight for economic dominance via political power."
Doesn't this contradict the previous statement concerning loss of sectional rights/self-rule?
But anyway:
From my present reading I find that the push for forcing Kansas to become a slave state was more for protection of slavery in Mo, than a concern for more farm land.
A big issue involved the loss of slaves in the border states. Approx. 1/2 of the slaves in Mo were in 6 of the counties located along the western border of the state. Allowing a free state along that border could, and probably would add to the numers of slaves escaping to freedom. Remember, few in the south thought the Fugitive Slave Law would actually force northerners to return the running slaves. (And in many cases, the cost of recovering slaves could be more than they were worth in the first place) And, as almost All, the approx 1000 slaves that fled north every year, were from border states, with very few escaping from the deep southern slave states.
So far I see more concern over of this issue than just numbers of representatives in Washington, although there was some.
Now, on another point on farm land....As to Not being able to raise cotton in Kansas or Nebraska, this is true. However, Farmers in border states were already using slaves on smaller farms, and finding them profitable. I don't think huge numbers of slaves were need to make a Slave state. However, having a large number of farms with several slaves each, would do the trick. And would also help increase the political clout, even though not as much as in the deep south states, except in The Senate, of course.
Anyway, the attempt to put large numbers of slave owners in the Territory was a bust as too many had recently moved to Ark, Mo, and Texas, and were not willing to start over again so quickly, considering the costs involved, and others were trying to open still virgin land in the deep south states.
Just a few thoughts and observations.
Chuck in IL.
The idea of states like Kansas being buffer states, for Missouri is an interesting idea. Did anyone in the 1850s, lay this out in so many words?
While it's hard to see large scale plantations operating in the Western territories, many slaveowners, especially in the border states where the settlers were persumably to be drawn, tended to have one or two slaves and have more diversified crops. However, I do remember reading in "Battle Cry of Freedom" and Lincoln and Douglas's speeches the downplaying the reality of large numbers of slaves moving into Western territories because of climate etc.
I think Hawlips in on to something. It wasn't that anyone thought Kansas was the next Mississippi, but rather the need to stake out as much territory for slavery to improve the South's political position nation wide.
Personally I think it was as much honor as economics for many Southerners. They were not going to accept that slavery should be restricted at all--because there was nothing wrong with slavery. The Fugitive Slave Law was demanded by fire eaters in the South, yet a less practical and more provoking law can be imagined. But honor demanded that the nation acknowledge that slavery was OK and slaveowners as honorable as anyone in the nation. Beford Forrest and Jefferson Davis were different men, but I can't see either of them being shamefaced about how their way of life, or letting anyone make them so.
If you read DeBow's Review, there is a sense that the South is losing ground economically to the North, in part because it wasn't developing industry at the rate the north was. But this anxiety didn't translate into shifting investment from slaves and cash crops to industry. I'm not sure that the economic possibilities of the West governed the effort the South made to bring Kansas in as a slave state.
Economic thinking did drive much of the North effort to make the territories free states, especially in the mid west. They wanted the West settled by free men, farmers, and didn't wish to compete with slave labor. The ordinances forbidding blacks from entering various western states or territories was aimed at slave labor, not free blacks.
In hindsight all these concerns and reactions may not make sense, but people in the time thought they did.
Actually, I'll correct myself. It's not that every Southern leader thought slavery was 100% wonderful, but they weren't interested in hearing criticism about it and them, from outsiders.
Also I wrote that the typical slave state settler into Kansas had one or two slaves. Actually on reading Mcpherson, the actual settler had no slaves and was motivated by wanting to personally get a good farm, etc. the traditonal motivations for western movement. I think a single slave laborer would have been handy in most places on the frontier, if the owner could keep him around.
Ole,
thank you for your kind words. Of course it just encourages me. I'm impressed by the thinking and research of you and the other posters, they are really making me think.
In view of some other posts about rudeness perhaps a guide to Dispatch Depot politeness would be helpful, that still allows the poster to get his point across.
"I'm puzzled by your response" translation: Are you crazy?
"Maybe you should rethink your conclusions" You don't know what your talking about!
"I'll consider what you wrote, and check my source" Watch out buster!
Put it all together:
"I'm puzzled by your conclusions and maybe you should rethink them. But I'll consider what you wrote and check my sources."
"I'm puzzled by your conclusions and maybe you should rethink them. But I'll consider what you wrote and check my sources."
Beats the heck out of "you're crazy and stupid. Give me a minute and I'll prove it."
So long as some will take, "I'm puzzled...." and read in "are you kidding me?" there's a very fine line to tread for those of us unaccustomed to drawing fine lines when writing. At least, "I'm puzzled ...," is an attempt to be gracious.
Is it deja vu or have we had this discussion before? Thanks to Hal, I have a new perspective on your post excerpt: "Now, on another point on farm land....As to Not being able to raise cotton in Kansas or Nebraska, this is true. However, Farmers in border states were already using slaves on smaller farms, and finding them profitable. I don't think huge numbers of slaves were need to make a Slave state. However, having a large number of farms with several slaves each, would do the trick. And would also help increase the political clout, even though not as much as in the deep south states, except in The Senate, of course.
"Anyway, the attempt to put large numbers of slave owners in the Territory was a bust as too many had recently moved to Ark, Mo, and Texas, and were not willing to start over again so quickly, considering the costs involved, and others were trying to open still virgin land in the deep south states."
Given that a slave or two on 160 acres would be helpful, I have trouble believing that gaining political plurality had anything to do with taking a slave or two into Kansas or Nebraska. Entire counties of slave-owning small farmers would be hard put to contribute to either state's political influence, and it's doubtful that they cared. Hence, economic or "betterment" motives. Those who wanted to move likely wanted a better farm than they had and they were not likely to move if they were well-enough off to own a slave.
Hal (at least I think it was him) brought up that the reviled fugitive slave laws were like the more modern equivalent of ordering people not to drink -- they were intentionally annoying. And the attempts of pushing to have state laws against slavery declared unconstitutional were the same -- intentionally annoying without any expectation of gaining anything.
Although loss of plurality was clearly on the horizon, there was no way to regain it. Therefore, the purpose of the agitations looks like the groundwork was being laid for secession.
All posts have been helpful in developing this change. Thanks to all.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
