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.
While Lincoln and the Republican party were perceived as radical threats by most Southerners,I thought that the expansion of slavery played a significant role in those feelings.We're all aware that Lincoln didn't plan on abolition of slavery where it existed.I feel however,that he expressed the views rather clearly that he was against slavery's expansion into the territories.That angered Southerners and particulary the quote slave power .First of all, the slave power who's power was already on the decline would become increasingly weakened.Secondly ,since slaves were considered property and legally protected property at that, it had to be upsetting to slaveowners who couldn't take their property West.It would be like today certain vehicles being disallowed to be transported into another state.Southerners considered this as an impeachmentof their rights as Americans ,and I conclude rightly so.After all was any other quote property illegal to transport into the territoreis.No horses or livestock could be transported unincumbered as per personal wish.Thirdly, slavery needed to expand as it exhausted land.However, in 1860 there was still plenty of untapped fertile soil in the South that it wasn't a critical issue just yet.I'll appreciate any responses.I personally consider the loss of political power and with it a safeguard to Southern rights was the most important issue realted to the territories.I've read over and over again of Southern fear that the North could simply oppose its will on the South democratically through superior numbers of population.
MobileBoy:
You've nailed some important issues, among them the fear that, eventually, the north would have the votes to pass an amendment outlawing slavery. Notice "fear."
Extension was possible so long as there was land to expand into. Unfortunately, that was expensive in that forests needed to be cleared and stumps grubbed out -- no crops for years.
Beyond that, the cash crops -- the crops requiring slaves -- were geographically limited. Sugar cane and rice were limited to Louisiana and the low lying coastal and river areas. Cotton required a growing season that began to fade at the Missouri and Tennessee lines. Can you see cotton growing in Kansas? Indiana? Iowa?
Those who raised grain were finding less need for slaves. Eventually -- 30 years? -- there would be little reason for the mass of slaves.
So why the need to expand into territories where slaves were less necessary? It would be an over-simplification to suppose that the "aristocracy" could see an end to their power and influence. And it would be equally simplistic to suppose that moving slaves into Kansas or New Mexico or Utah would by itself make those states slave states. How many of slaveowners moving to Utah would cause that state to enter the Union as a slave-state? How many slaveowners were willing to move to Utah where their slaves were all but useless to them?
It has been advanced that mining and manufacturing might employ slaves. Where were the mines? Arizona, Colorado, Montana, a few others. And, can you imagine the gentleman planter changing his agrarian tradition to become a miner or manufacturer? There were small-scale mines south of the Ohio, and there were small-scale manufacturers. Although manufacturing was always available to southern entrepreneurs, nothing significant happened until the war was no longer an if.
The Confederate government did a remarkable job in a few years of developing the wherewithall for conducting a war. I guess the point is that it was always possible, so why did it take so long?
As Neil is fond of saying, every answer comes up with a new batch of questions.
Ashley,
Great post! Some good thought from your mind, my friend.
Ole,
The west, such as many portions of the western terrain, would open immediate 'soil' utilization as there were not many trees and subsequent stumps, and thus, to wait the three year period to make a crop. Some old 'passed away' now farmer friends of mine told me of our Southern pioneers waiting "three years" after clearing new-ground, to plant a crop & utilize it's profit.
Also, Chinese and Irish labor forces, given the low wage-long workday & conditions, was slavery in disguise by U.S. private RailRoad magnates. There was certainly other opportunities, other than syrup, sugar cane & cotton to consider as cash crops. Railroad work, mining & the forementioned crops could be utilized with a slave force; and was, referencing the latter enterprises, 'technically'. Slaves, in my humbe opinion, would fit nicely into such a lucrative environment.
Perhaps this is why such tremendous counter-debate over slavery in "new territories' or states, was taken by the North. The Railroad system network combined with the "Mighty" Misissippi were really major focal points of interest with the Northern entrepreneur. I sense a jealousy of the North toward the South, re: western slavery expansion, and it wasn't a "majority home-rule" of the 'new' states, the morality factor or racism per se. Maybe perceived Southern prosperity and subsequent world-view of that section, can be examined?
Ashley, am I making a viable point here? ;-)
On slaves as property, I don't think your suggestion that slaves were identical, for constitutional purposes, to livestock is accurate.
Don Fehrenbacher, in his book "The Dred Scott Case", documents the South's increasing "constitutionalization" of the slavery issue throughout the first half of the Nineteenth Century. As of the late Eighteenth Century, there was a large body of case law that recognized that local law properly controlled. For example, if a slaveowner took a slave to a state that did not permit slavery, the slave could be deemed free depending on the nature of the residency the slaveowner took up in the "free" state. No one thought that this was unfair or unconstitutionally deprived the slaveowner of his "property" right.
Ironically, even into the early 1850's, even southern courts generally upheld this principle. Assume, for example, that a slaveowner from Missouri took his slave to Illinois on a permanent basis. Two years later, both owner and slave return to Missouri. The slave then sues for his freedom. Until the 1850's, Missouri courts would generally have ruled in favor of the slave, applying and enforcing Illinois law as a matter of comity between the states.
Similarly, until relatively late in the game, no one thought awarding freedom to a slave because the slave had been taken into a free territory raised constitutional issues of deprivation of property. No one thought at the time of the passage of the Northwest Ordinance or the Missouri Compromise that the creation of "free" territories raised such constitutional issues. Only later did slavery advocates begin formulating such arguments.
In short, from an "original intent" standpoint, it seems pretty clear that, if the Founding Fathers considered slavery a "property right" at all, they regarded the issue as unique one that was not offended by the application of local law, including territorial law.
Gentlemen:
This is taking an interesting swing toward answering two questions I've had: (1) Why did the slave-owning powers so vehemently insist on their right to expand slavery into new territories when such expansion was arguably not practicable nor advantageous for their political aspirations? (2) Why did anti-slavery powers (here we'd have to separate abolitionists and those who wanted to see slavery die of natural causes after confinement) so vehemently insist on limiting expansion into new territories when such expansion ...... ?
Rob:
"The west, such as many portions of the western terrain, would open immediate 'soil' utilization as there were not many trees and subsequent stumps, and thus, to wait the three year period to make a crop. Some old 'passed away' now farmer friends of mine told me of our Southern pioneers waiting "three years" after clearing new-ground, to plant a crop & utilize it's profit."
Now I'm confused. Seems you directly contradict my supposition that the west did not offer significant agrarian opportunities. You claimed that there were many areas without trees offering an immediate crop. What crop? Where? Then you mention Southern pioneers waiting three years to plant a crop and utilize its profit.
Your ... " Also, Chinese and Irish labor forces, given the low wage-long workday & conditions, was slavery in disguise by U.S. private RailRoad magnates." ... statement presents no argument for or against expansion.
"There was certainly other opportunities, other than syrup, sugar cane & cotton to consider as cash crops. [Specifically, what?] Railroad work, mining & the forementioned crops could be utilized with a slave force; and was, referencing the latter enterprises, 'technically'. Slaves, in my humbe opinion, would fit nicely into such a lucrative environment."
Without getting into the "northern slaves" debate, the barely paid workers could be released when the railroad was done or the mine played out. Food and housing was a temporary expense. But the entire idea that such endeavers "would fit nicely into such a lucrative environment." gets into my doubts that slaveholders had any desire to leave the traditional for merchantile or manufacturing endeavors.
Rob,
Yea Id say you certainly made a viable point my friend.
Ole,
As for the expansion of slavery it is generally supposed that the Confederacy had designs on the Arizona territory and on the Northern states of Mexico.Different evidence during the war seems to back up this contention.If slaveowners coveted the territory I'd have to believe that they felt that they could profit from it.Having been to Northern Mexico, and New Mexico about 10 times each much of the terrain is identical to Western Texas.There are parts of New Mexico and Arizona where without modern technology I don't think that grass could grow.We would need some botanical expert to tell us exactly what could and couldn't have been grown.The weather was plenty warm enough in most of the areas of New Mexico and Arizona for cotton.Water supply would be the critical issue there.
Elektraig,
You pretty much hit the nail on the head with response to slavery in the Western territories.What slaveowner would move there where his slave may then be free?The Northwest Ordinance was a compromise from the get go designed to maintain a balance between slave and free states.Also those areas at the time due to their climates weren't considered to be good areas for the profitability of slavery.The slaves were regarded as property by the Constitution.Your points were however excellent ones.They weren't regarded the same as other property from early on in our Republic.Origianlly the Mason-Dixon line was to separate slave and free states which the New Mexico and Arizona clearly fell below as did California.Then again Missouri was above it.
Ashley
Re: New Mexico & it's growing conditions.
I visited New Mexico 3 times. Beautiful State! "The Land of Enchantment"
The climate has changed in N.M. in the recent past. Example: as related to crops & slavery, etc. The Town of Mountainair, Manzano, N.M. was "Pinto Bean Capitol' of the world; these beans would be an example of a good crop to raise. The dry, arid soil condition we see today in the Manzano Valley is in contrast to what is was just a very few decades ago. During the mid 20th century, this area's mean rainfall dropped drastically. Many places that seem undesirable for agriculture today, were excellent for ag during the slavery period.
Wheat, oats, corn & barley could have been raised also in some regions of the expanding west, Ole. In some places the climate changes have occured recently.
It is ironic that most of the debate over slavery devolved into a dispute over slavery in the territories.
David Potter has argued that the northern focus on the territories resulted from the fact that northern antislavery men -- and Lincoln is a prime example -- had to prioritize their values. On the one hand, they believed that slavery was wrong and that ideally it should disappear altogether. On the other hand, they believed even more strongly that the Union and the Constitution were positive goods. To the extent those values conflicted, they sublimated their dislike of slavery.
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 become free.
Alabaman,
Rob you're right New Mexico is a beautiful state.I've got close friends in Albequerque but unfortunately they don't go elk hunting.We've got sal****er and beaches close by,but man do I love mountains.That is very interesting about the climate change.That would change the situation a lot wouldn't it.It would also explain the stronginterest of the Confederate government in the area.
Have a great one,
Ashley
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Expansion of Slavery 
Linear Mode
