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.
On H-shear there is an interesting discussion on if the Constitution was a proslavery document.
One poster says yes, because slavery, unlike any other form of property was constitutionally recognized.
William Lee Miller argued that it was both: a. It recognized the reality of slaveholding in the US, b.but envisioned a slave free America
One guy quoted Patrick Henry during the debate on whether to ratify the Constitution in Virginia. Henry says the Constitution gives the federal government the power to destroy slavery by a simple majority in Congress. Henry argued that either Congress could tax slave property so severely to make slave holding economically impossible, or conscript slaves into the army, then free them as a condition of military service, as had been done in the Revolution.
If Henry's statements have any validity, or any currency in the 1850s? If so it could explain some of the urge to secede was due to Lincoln's election and a Republican majority in the Congress.
I will confess I have never heard of Henry's particular argument before or read about it being used in the 1850s or 60s. Anyone else have any thoughts?
The question you ask is an excellent one. I tend to think of it not as one question that has a definitive answer, but rather as a series of issues that can be examined from different standpoints, collectively yielding a richer understanding of the relationship between slavery and the Constitution.
I'm taking out a few minutes at work, so rather than address the issues in depth (or your precise sub-questions), let me propose a couple of thoughts.
The two authors I've read who have seriously considered the relationship between the Constitution and slavery are Don Fehrenbacher and Akhil Amar. Fehrenbacher, a historian, sees the Constitution as more slavery-neutral. He emphasizes, for example, the fact that the Constitution went out of its way not to endorse the concept of slaves as property. Rather, the Constitution uniformly refered to slaves as "Persons." Similarly, Fehrenbacher would emphasize that nothing in the Constitution required the States to maintain slavery (or required the Federal government to establish or permit slavery in the Territories), nor did the Constitution preclude blacks from being citizens, or even enjoying civil rights.
Amar, on the other hand, a law professor, sees the Constitution as a more pro-slavery document. He argues, for example, that the effect of the three-fifths clause was pervasive and that its effect was malignant because, structurally, it infected all three branches of the Federal government and gave the slave states a disproportionate advantage in all three branches: the Legislative Branch because the rule directly affected and increased the representation of the slave states in the House; the Executive Branch via the Electoral College (Article II, Section 1, Clause 2: "the Number of Electors [is] equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress"); and the Judicial Branch via the Executive Branch (which nominates judges).
The interesting thing is that Fehrenbacher and Amar do not necessarily disagree on particulars. It is, rather, that they approach the issue from different angles and focus on and emphasize different aspects. In a real sense, they may well both be correct; there is no one correct answer. Their differing views also suggest that there may be many other ways to approach the central question that will be illuminating.
I think they wanted to leave that issue to the future, so as to get the thing done, as that issue was holding things up. Tho the did address it somewhat by the 3/5ths stuff.
What do you think? Was this failure to reach a true concensus on this issue the ultimate cause of the later civil war? Had there been no "compromise" in which there was a tacit agreement to 'put it off', would there have ever been a Constitution established at all among the states (in other words, no United States, or perhaps 2 seperatate United States?
__________________ -
"It was a very peculiar time." - Franklin D. Cossitt
Ancestors in USA Army: 6th IA Inf, 11th IL Cav, 1st AL Cav; 122nd NY Inf; 6th MI Cav; 35th MA Inf; 100th IL Inf; 1st CO Inf/Cav; 22nd IN Inf
William Lee Miller has an interesting discussion about slavery at the time of the Constitutional Convention, arguing(I'm over simplifying) that slavery could not be attacked in the teeth of the major slaveholders, but the Constitution was ambigious enough to leave the possibility of abolition to later generations.
As far as the "ultimate" reason, I don't know. Does the CW represent a colossal failure of the American system, redeemed by an ocean of blood? Or was the war "irrepressible?" John Quincy Adams thirty years before the war thought that war was the only circumstance in which slavery could be ended.
On a current events blog(History News) one poster said that if the CW happened in another country it would be seen as a terrible failure. Lincoln in the 2nd inaugural address framed it as God's will, and a righteous judgement on slavery. The poster was arguing that an IRAQI civil war was "irrepressible" and a cruel but necessary stage in the development of Iraqi society. Well...
The war looks inevitable, but that's because it happened. If there had been no Harper's Ferry, no Fugitive Slave Law, or a hardliner like Z. Taylor or A. Jackson in the White House, instead of Pierce or Buchanan, the pot wouldn't have been brought to a boil in 1860.
Some random thoughts, but no light on Patrick Henry's concerns.
Without addressing the "inevitabililty" argument directly, I do think that the best chance to defuse the slavery issue before the War was at the Constitutional Convention.
Analogizing to the the willingness of SC and GA to agree to termination of the slave trade twenty years in the future, Amar floats the interesting idea that it might have been possible to fashion a compromise by varying the 3/5 formula: start the formula high and reduce it over time. For example, slaves would have been initially counted as 5/5, then reduced to 4/5, 3/5, etc., ultimately down to zero. Assuming ten years per fifth, 0/5 would have been reached in 1838 -- long after the Convention attendees would expect to be dead. Whatever the precise dates, such a decreasing formula would have placed pressure on the slave states to free their slaves or else face declining representation in the House, and decreasing influence in the Electoral College, and decreasing influence over the judiciary. It would also have reduced or eliminated the tendency of slavery to spread into new territories and states.
Would GA and SC have been willing to agree to such an arrangement? We'll never know, because it was never proposed.
One guy quoted Patrick Henry during the debate on whether to ratify the Constitution in Virginia. Henry says the Constitution gives the federal government the power to destroy slavery by a simple majority in Congress. Henry argued that either Congress could tax slave property so severely to make slave holding economically impossible, or conscript slaves into the army, then free them as a condition of military service, as had been done in the Revolution.
I don't have time to discuss it now, but I did want to confirm that Patrick Henry did indeed make arguments against ratification of the Constitution based on the insecurity of slavery. To set the stage for discussion later, here they are:
Henry on slavery and taxes:
"Mr. HENRY insisted that the insertion of these restrictions on Congress was a plain demonstration that Congress could exercise powers by implication. The gentleman had admitted that Congress could have interdicted the African trade, were it not for this restriction. If so, the power, not having been expressly delegated, must be obtained by implication. He demanded where, then, was their doctrine of reserved rights. He wished for negative clauses to prevent them from assuming any powers but those expressly given. He asked why it was omitted to secure us that property in slaves which we held now. He feared its omission was done with design. They might lay such heavy taxes on slaves as would amount to emancipation; and then: the Southern States would be the only sufferers. His opinion was confirmed by the mode of levying money. Congress, he observed, had power to lay and collect taxes, imposts, and excises. Imposts (or duties) and excises were to be uniform; but this uniformity did not extend to taxes. This might compel the Southern States to liberate their negroes. He wished this property, therefore, to be guarded. He considered the clause, which had been adduced by the gentleman as a security for this property, as no security at all. It was no more than this -- that a runaway negro could be taken up in Maryland or New York. This could not prevent Congress from interfering with that property by laying a grievous and enormous tax on it, so as to compel owners to emancipate their slaves rather than pay the tax. He apprehended it would be productive of much stock-jobbing, and that they would play into one another's hands in such a manner as that this property would be lost to the country."
"With respect to that part of the proposal which says that every power not granted remains with the people, it must be previous to adoption, or it will involve this country in inevitable destruction. To talk of it as a thing subsequent, not as one of your unalienable rights, is leaving it to the casual opinion of the Congress who shall take up the consideration of that matter. They will not reason with you about the effect of this Constitution. They will not take the opinion of this committee concerning its operation. They will construe it as they please. If you place it subsequently, let me ask the consequences. Among ten thousand implied powers which they may assume, they may, if we be engaged in war, liberate every one of your slaves if they please. And this must and will be done by men, a majority of whom have not a common interest with you. They will, therefore, have no feeling of your interests. It has been repeatedly said here, that the great object of a national government was national defence. That power which is said to be intended for security and safety may be rendered detestable and oppressive. If they give power to the general government to provide for the general defence, the means must be commensurate to the end. All the means in the possession of the people must be given to the government which is intrusted with the public defence. In this state there are two hundred and thirty-six thousand blacks, and there are many in several other states. But there are few or none in the Northern States; and yet, if the Northern States shall be of opinion that our slaves are numberless, they may call forth every national resource. May Congress not say, that every black man must fight? Did we not see a little of this last war? We were not so hard pushed as to make emancipation general; but acts of Assembly passed that every slave who would go to the army should be free. Another thing will contribute to bring this event about. Slavery is detested. We feel its fatal effects--we deplore it with all the pity of humanity. Let all these considerations, at some future period, press with full force on the minds of Congress. Let that urbanity, which I trust will distinguish America, and the necessity of national defence,--let all these things operate on their minds; they will search that paper, and see if they have power of manu-mission. And have they not, sir? Have they not power to provide for the general defence and welfare? May they not think that these call for the abolition of slavery? May they not pronounce all slaves free, and will they not be warranted by that power? This is no ambiguous implication or logical deduction. The paper speaks to the point: they have the power in clear, unequivocal terms, and will clearly and certainly exercise it. As much as I deplore slavery, I see that prudence forbids its abolition. I deny that the general government ought to set them free, because a decided majority of the states have not the ties of sympathy and fellow-feeling for those whose interest would be affected by their emancipation. The majority of Congress is to the north, and the slaves are to the south.
"In this situation, I see a great deal of the property of the people of Virginia in jeopardy, and their peace and tranquility gone. I repeat it again, that it would rejoice my very soul that every one of my fellow-beings was emancipated. As we ought with gratitude to admire that decree of Heaven which has numbered us among the free, we ought to lament and deplore the necessity of holding our fellowmen in bondage. But is it practicable, by any human means, to liberate them without producing the most dreadful and ruinous consequences? We ought to possess them in the manner we inherited them from our ancestors, as their manumission is incompatible with the felicity of our country. But we ought to soften, as much as possible, the rigor of their unhappy fate. I know that, in a variety of particular instances, the legislature, listening to complaints, have admitted their emancipation. Let me not dwell on this subject. I will only add that this, as well as every other property of the people of Virginia, is in jeopardy, and put in the hands of those who have no similarity of situation with us. This is a local matter, and I can see no propriety in subjecting it to Congress."
Did any abolitionist propose the course of action that Henry suggests?
Did any secessionist in 1860(or earlier) consider this a possibility? If it was a concern, then the mere election of a president hostile to slavery, with the majority of Congress hostile to slavery, becomes a potential threat to bondage. I can't discover anyone who mentioned this particular possibility. Was it a realistic, or Constitutional one?
The Con. Convention may have been the best time: slavery was at an economic ebb, while the ideals of the Revolution burned brightly.
Did any abolitionist propose the course of action that Henry suggests?
To the best of my knowledge, no. As to taxes, virtually all Federal revenue was raised by one of two methods: tariffs on goods imported from overseas, and the sale of public lands. I'm not aware of any suggestions to tax slaves. I'm not even sure I understand how the federal government could have done so.
As to liberating slaves in war, there seem to be two problems. First, I'm not aware of anyone who proposed it. Second, you need a war. I'm not aware of anyone who proposed launching a preemptive war on the South in order to liberate its slaves (or for any other reason).
Quote:
Originally Posted by matthew mckeon
Did any secessionist in 1860(or earlier) consider this a possibility?
Again, to the best of my knowledge, the answer is "no". Some Southern radicals expressed concern that Republicans would use patronage or similar means to establish the Republican party in the South. But I am not aware of any Southerners who argued that secession was necessary because otherwise the federal government would tax slavery out of existence (again, I'm not sure how the federal government even could have done so given the tax clause in the Constitution).
Likewise, I am not aware that any southerners argued that Lincoln was about to launch an uprovoked preemptive attack on the South in order to free the slaves. Some radicals seem to have fantasized that Lincoln's election would lead to a generalized slave uprising and race war in the South, following which the North would intervene on the side of its "allies", the blacks. Does that sound realistic to you?
If there is evidence to the contrary, I'm sure that others will be happy to set me straight.
Those are good questions Matthew.I have to agree with Elektraig on her responses.Maybe Neil will chime in with some information about just how important the issue was to the founding fathers. I don't know.Sure the Southern slaveowners would never have ratified the Constitution were slavery not protected,but what I don't know is how important slavery was to Northern politicians.Did most really not care or was it truly just a compromise to ratify the Constitution.I always assumed the latter,but I'm certainly no expert on the matter.I don't think the South as a whole really feared slavery being abolished.Clearly the slaveholding politicians were worried about its expansion, but I don't think poeple really thought Lincoln would free them.I think the rare examples of Northern abolitionist going too far and the rare examples of those poeple being harbored led to the war.Imagine if Alabama refused to hand over terrorist and well you get the point.Morally we can all sympathize with the abolitionist today,but Harpers Ferry was seen in the South like 911 was seen throughout America in our lifetime.T
__________________ "The sword is mighty, but principles laugh at swords. Overwhelming force may crush truth to earth but, crushed or not the truth is still the truth." Regards, Ashley
I hate to break it to you, but "elektratig" is a HE! The name may sound feminine, I guess, but the origin is sentimental: a conflation of the names of my first two cats, Elektra and Antigone (a/k/a "Tig").
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Was the Constitution Proslavery? 
Linear Mode
