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.
Had their been no war, the Lincoln administration would most certainly have worked on overturning that decision.
Hard to see how. The Virginian Justice had died (a strong pro-slavery man, moreso than Taney, even), but Lincoln was prepared to appoint another Virginian. He even kept the slot open for close to a year, IIRR, to offer as part of a settlement.
Lincoln himself could do nothing about the decision. Congress could not pass a law about it, because the Court had just ruled all such laws unconstitutional. Either a change in the makeup of the Court and a new case would be needed, or a Constitutional amendment -- which the slave states can block.
I don't think the South really wanted secession. They wanted fair treatment from the Gov.
Hard to believe, since the South took all the first violent actions, declared secession, seized property, etc. while the Government tried to find a peaceful resolution. Why would you think such a thing? What evidence do you have for it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas2nd
If slavery had been fazed out with some recompence than the ACW might never have happened.
Again, why would you think such a thing? NY-PA-NJ emancipated the slaves themselves, without Federal help. MD and DE rejected Federal aid in 1862. Southerners wanted MORE slavery, not less, as far as I can see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas2nd
I've read articles in the journal of Civil War History and in the Congressional Civil War Desk reference that the North, during reconstruction, paid Southern Unionists as much as $10,000 for damages and property lost during the ACW.
Yes, but not for slaves freed in the XIII Amendment, I think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas2nd
Southern Unionists were also granted property during Reconstruction, although there was no organized way of getting it.
The evidence that the South did not want secession is everywhere!
It's kinda funny you should say that the South was the aggressor as the Southern culture has always maintained that the North' aggressive political stance and what was perceived as a violation of constitutional rights (inequality among white men) over freedom to move property across states lines and into territories, helped seccesion along.
Property, unfortunately being slaves.
Why do I think slavery would have ended with recompence?
Slavery was economically perpetuated in the South as a result of a top-heavy(North) distribution of wealth in the U.S. If slavery was a problem of convention as opposed to a racial issue, than recompense would have gone a long way to solve the immediate difficulties. In fact, capitalism would have ensured the end anyway to slavery.
Southern Unionists were given money and land for losses. They were big plantation owners who garnered big money from the Federal Gov. Records support this.
What does this have to do with it? Remember that only a small percentage of ownership was plantation based and that most slaves belonged to small households.
What if the Feds had just given compensation to small households before the war? It would have been practical and slavery abolished.
Well thats it for my convoluted reasoning processes. There's no reason left...
The evidence that the South did not want secession is everywhere!
Where is that, exactly? Please be specific.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas2nd
It's kinda funny you should say that the South was the aggressor as the Southern culture has always maintained that the North' aggressive political stance and what was perceived as a violation of constitutional rights (inequality among white men) over freedom to move property across states lines and into territories, helped seccesion along.
Hmm, please explain what this means, exactly. You seem to be saying "Southern culture" claims the North was the aggressor because the North didn't agree with the South. I agree that this seems to be the attitude of the people who seceded -- but it seems like a condemnation of Southerners to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas2nd
Property, unfortunately being slaves.
So? What I see looking at history is that in the 1850s Southerners decided to try to undo 70 years of agreements with the rest of the nation that limited slavery. The Northwest Territory act of 1787, the Missouri Compromise of 1820, recognition by Southern courts of "once free, always free" concepts -- Southerners sudenly wanted it all wiped away. This consists not only of agitation and opinion. It includes the reversal of laws and legal decisions that have ben in effect for decades. Is this the "Southern culture" you are referring to?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas2nd
Why do I think slavery would have ended with recompence?
Slavery was economically perpetuated in the South as a result of a top-heavy(North) distribution of wealth in the U.S. If slavery was a problem of convention as opposed to a racial issue, than recompense would have gone a long way to solve the immediate difficulties. In fact, capitalism would have ensured the end anyway to slavery.
I think this is simply flat-out wrong. Slavery was perpetuated in the South because Southerners had a large capital investment in it, saw it as the preferred social order of things, and aggressively sought not only to perpetuate slavery but to expand it and inflict it upon other areas of the country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas2nd
Southern Unionists were given money and land for losses. They were big plantation owners who garnered big money from the Federal Gov. Records support this.
Do you have any specific evidence about what the damages were for? Any clear reason to think that the damages are payments for slaves, or none at all? Since KY support for the Confederate cause was heavily related to slavery, wouldn't that imply that most Unionists were not big slaveowners?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas2nd
What does this have to do with it? Remember that only a small percentage of ownership was plantation based and that most slaves belonged to small households.
Why do you think this? Owning a slave meant you had a capital asset. There were in 1860 some 18,000 slaveholders in KY with 4 or more slaves; there are almost 7,000 with 10 or more slaves; there are almost 500 with 30 or more. How do you describe these "small households" and what does that have to do with your point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas2nd
What if the Feds had just given compensation to small households before the war? It would have been practical and slavery abolished.
Once again, compensation was offered to Border states in 1862. KY, DE and MD -- all with substantially smaller slave populations and fewer slaveholders (DE 587, MD 13,783, KY 38,645) than most slave states -- turned compensated emancipation down during the war. In DE, the largest slaveholder in the state was pushing for accceptance and it still failed. Just why do you think the other slave states would have done something different? It seems extremely unlikely.
Implicity in most southern arguments (althought rarely stated explicitly) was the fact that most southerners could not concieve of a society in which whites and blacks could actually exist together without slavery to protect one from the other.
Long after the economic question had been settled there was still an indigestible lump to be excised.
I don't think the South really wanted secession. They wanted fair treatment from the Gov.
That's a view that can't be sustained by the historical record. They were getting preferential treatment from the government already, not just fair treatment. One of their worries was that Lincoln's election signaled the end of the preferential treatment.
If they didn't want secession, they had a funny way of expressing that, since they seceded. If they truly didn't want to secede, then they should not have attempted it.
As the historical record shows, they seceded because they perceived a threat to the institution of slavery and felt that secession was the best way to protect that institution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas2nd
If slavery had been fazed out with some recompence than the ACW might never have happened.
They didn't want slavery to be phased out, and they didn't want compensation. They wanted it retained forever. Lincoln tried for compensated emancipation more than once and was turned down each time. And, by the way, this would have been more preferential treatment for southerners, since none of the Northern states got federal money to compensate them for abolishing slavery. When Northerners abolished slavery, any compensation for the owners came from the state itself, not from the feds. If southerners wanted compensation, all they had to do was vote for their state to give them compensation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas2nd
I've read articles in the journal of Civil War History and in the Congressional Civil War Desk reference that the North, during reconstruction, paid Southern Unionists as much as $10,000 for damages and property lost during the ACW.
Yes. But not for slave property.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas2nd
Southern Unionists were also granted property during Reconstruction, although there was no organized way of getting it.
But not slave property.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas2nd
What amount would that be in today's dollars?
Texas2nd
It had nothing to do with slavery, so it doesn't matter regarding this thread.
The evidence that the South did not want secession is everywhere!
Put the crackpipe down and step away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas2nd
It's kinda funny you should say that the South was the aggressor as the Southern culture has always maintained that the North' aggressive political stance and what was perceived as a violation of constitutional rights (inequality among white men) over freedom to move property across states lines and into territories, helped seccesion along.
Property, unfortunately being slaves.
Petty, tin-plated despots often make up things like accusing the other side of "aggression" when in fact they were the ones who initiated violence. Hitler tried to claim Poland was an aggressor when it was he who started WWII. Saddam tried to claim Kuwait was the aggressor when he was the one who invaded. This is nothing new in history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas2nd
Why do I think slavery would have ended with recompence?
Slavery was economically perpetuated in the South as a result of a top-heavy(North) distribution of wealth in the U.S.
Incorrect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas2nd
If slavery was a problem of convention as opposed to a racial issue, than recompense would have gone a long way to solve the immediate difficulties. In fact, capitalism would have ensured the end anyway to slavery.
Incorrect again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas2nd
Southern Unionists were given money and land for losses. They were big plantation owners who garnered big money from the Federal Gov. Records support this.
But they were not compensated for the loss of their slaves. They were compensated for the loss of buildings and crops.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas2nd
What does this have to do with it? Remember that only a small percentage of ownership was plantation based and that most slaves belonged to small households.
What if the Feds had just given compensation to small households before the war? It would have been practical and slavery abolished.
Petty, tin-plated despots often make up things like accusing the other side of "aggression" when in fact they were the ones who initiated violence. Hitler tried to claim Poland was an aggressor when it was he who started WWII. Saddam tried to claim Kuwait was the aggressor when he was the one who invaded. This is nothing new in history.
Regards,
Cash
Are you comparing Lincoln to Hitler and Saddam?
Don't you think that's a bit extreme?
I know that Ben Butler, Sherman, and Grant were the foremost anti-Semites of the Civil War but I never heard this of Lincoln.
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
