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.
So if the Upper South does not secede, what does the new Confederacy do? They have proclaimed for many years that the expansion of slavery is essential; they claim they need an ever growing slave population to maintain their economy. If they ban the African slave trade and then cut off the import of slaves from the Upper South, where do they get new slaves? Does anyone want to guess they would then remove this ban to get what they need -- or invade Cuba, or move into Central America to subjugate new peoples -- as so many of these outspoken and avid secessionists had advocated throughout the 1850s?
There is a difference between the Lower South acting alone and the Lower South lobbying for expansion while a part of the United States. If the Lower South opens the slave trade they're going to be up against the UK, if they invade Cuba, the Spanish Empire and any move into Central America will most likely go through Mexico (Is the Lower South, alone, strong enough to match Mexico? In 1860? With possible French intervention?)
What would actually be useful to this discussion is if somebody actually knows what Wade Hampton's stance on the issue was?
There is a difference between the Lower South acting alone and the Lower South lobbying for expansion while a part of the United States.
Yes, that's so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cw1865
If the Lower South opens the slave trade they're going to be up against the UK,
Hard to say. Great Britain had allowed US-flag ships to operate generally unimpeded in the slave trade in the 1850s (while pressuring and pounding others such as Portugal, Spain, and Brasil. It is unclear what the British might have done if the Confederacy had managed a peaceful secession. Maybe the "King Cotton" factor would have won them a decade or two of immunity.
Of course, that leaves aside the question of what the Confederate states do if the rump US starts using a strong slave patrol to harass Confederate-flag slave ships.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cw1865
if they invade Cuba, the Spanish Empire
Yes, but that doesn't seem to have discouraged the more ardent Fire-Eaters at all.
Spain was in bad shape, but probably strong enough to bash a new Confederacy around a bit. No Confederate navy at the start, something claiming to be a professional Navy for the Spanish. If the Confederates can get enough men ashore in Cuba, they can probably take the island.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cw1865
and any move into Central America will most likely go through Mexico (Is the Lower South, alone, strong enough to match Mexico? In 1860? With possible French intervention?)
In 1846-47, less than 2000 American soldiers died while defeating the entire nation of Mexico. Almost half that many men died at 1st Bull Run (both sides). If the Confederates wanted to pay the cost, they could probably tear off chunks of Mexico.
As to the French -- both the British and French co-operated to launch an invasion of Mexico during the Civil War over debts owed to their people. If the Confederates had been sharp enough, they probably could have made a deal and carved the place up with the British and French. Or posed as a protector while eating Mexico piece by piece.
Which also leaves aside the question of what the US is doing while this goes on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cw1865
What would actually be useful to this discussion is if somebody actually knows what Wade Hampton's stance on the issue was?
Seems to have been opposed to it, from what I can see. The Hamptons were generally regarded as moderates in South Carolina, with Wade III generally not in favor of secession before the war. In a rather undistinguished legislative career, Hampton made a notable speech defending the constitutionality of the Federal laws against the African slave trade in 1859 (an unpopular position in the state).
Of course, in South Carolina in the 1850s being "opposed to secession" generally meant a man didn't believe the state should secede right then and there. Hampton did believe firmly in a state's "right of secession", but was opposed to doing it in the conditions that existed in the early to mid 1850s.
Regards,
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Well, no. You understand that is just a hoax, and that neither the people nor the legislature of Kentucky, for example, ever voted for secession. Knowing it, why make this fraudulent claim about a puffed-up mirage?
Actually, there was much discussion and debate about such proposals -- as you know. None of them, however, were actually passed.
Let's look at what actually happened in Kentucky:
May 7, 1861: both houses of KY legislature pass resolutions of neutrality in the struggle.
May 20, 1861: Governor Magofin officially declares the policy of neutrality.
June 20, 1861: in special Congressional elections, 9 of 10 seats in Congress are won by Unionist candidates. Of 125,000 votes, Unionist candidates get almost 90,000. Turnout, however, is on the low side.
August 5, 1861: Unionist candidates dominate the state legislature elections. In the House, the Unionists win 76 of 100 seats. In the Senate, the Unionists win 27 of 38 seats.
September 3, 1861: Confederate forces invade Kentucky. In particular, General Polk had General Pillow occupy and fortify Columbus to blockade the Missisippi River. Earlier, Confederate forces had begun construction of Ft. Henry & Donelson just north of the Kentucky line on the Cumberland & Tennessee Rivers, and stationed troops in Tennessee within 50 yards of the Cumberland Gap in Kentucky.
September 6, 1861: Union forces under Grant move into Kentucky from Ohio, in response to the earlier Confederate invasion.
September 7, 1861: Governor Magoffin denounces both sides for the violations. However, the legislature returns a resolution denouncing only the Confederates, and demanding that the Confederates withdraw. Magoffin vetoes the resolution, and both houses over-ride his veto.
November 20, 1861: a group of secessionists with no legal authority meeting in Russelville form a "provisional government" for Kentucky and send commissioners to Richmond to apply for admission to the Confederacy.
November 25, 1861: Jefferson Davis, despite doubts about the legality of all this, recommends "Kentucky" for admission as a state in the Confederate States of America
November 26, 1861: Governor Magoffin denounces the Russelville Convention.
December 10, 1861: the Confederate Congress admits "Kentucky" as a new state.
January 22, 1862: the "provisional" Confederate government of Kentucky holds an "election" for representation in the Confederate Congress. Most voters are soldiers in the Confederate Army already. With 12 seats for Representatives and 2 for Senators available, only 4 seats in the House and one in the Senate are filled.
August 16, 1862: Acknowledging defeat, Governor Magoffin works out a deal for Unionist James F. Robinson to become Governor, then Magoffin resigns.
The Confederate "state" of Kentucky was always a legal fiction. It was never a real government representing the people of that state, accomplished nothing, and was haunted by constant charges that money was disappearing (all the funds came from the Confederacy or a few private individuals, anyway). It was puppet government, a hoax, worthless and meaningless. But I am sure you already know that, and would merely like to perpetuate this myth to make it look like the Confederacy had more support than it did.
Tim
None of this matters.
The Confederacy was as it defined itself- 13 states.
Confederacy according to Lincoln- 0 states.
__________________ 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."
The South Carolina resolution replaces that Constitutional prohibition by allowing Congress to pass any law it wants on the matter -- or NONE at all. This is a deliberate maneuver to remove barriers to the African slave trade, couched in high-sounding phraseology. In short, you are pointing us at political chicanery by a group seeking to enhance their own interest when they don't have the strength to force it through.
They tried the weaker language previously in the Constitutional Convention...but failed-
8 February 1861
"The first paragraph of the seventh section [Provisional Constitution] was read, as follows:
The importation of African negroes from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States of the United States, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.
Mr. Rhett moved to amend the same by striking out all after the words 'of African' and insert the words 'negroes and slaves from Africa may be prohibited by Congress.'
Mr. Chesnut moved to amend the section by substituting for the whole paragraph the following words:
Congress shall have power to prohibit the importation of African negroes and slaves from any foreign country.
Mr. Bartow called for the question; which, being seconded by a majority of the States present, the motion of Mr. Rhett was put and, the vote being taken by States, resulted as follows:
Yea: South Carolina. [1]
Nay: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi. [5]
Even if this had passed it wouldn't have re-opened the slave trade.
Next day-
"AN ACT to continue in force certain laws of the United States of America.
Be it enacted by the Confederate States of America in Congress assembled, That all the laws of the United States of America in force and in use in the Confederate States of America on the 1st day of November last, and not inconsistent with the Constitution of the Confederate States, be, and the same are hereby, continued in force until altered or repealed by the Congress. Adopted February 9, 1861."
Existing United States laws against the slave trade became the Confederate law...at least until the Confederates had established their own laws.
__________________ 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."
They tried the weaker language previously in the Constitutional Convention...but failed-
...
Uh-huh. And as your own posts showed us, they are still trying in April of 1861, after they have ratified the Confederate Constitution. Now they immediately (only 2 days after ratification) want to demand amendments to make it what they tried back in February. They get points for persistence, but not smarts.
Note also that you have said many times that there were no attempts to allow the reopening of the African slave trade. Now you yourself are providing us with evidence of the attempts while denying they occured. I urge you to stop destroying your own credibility like this.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Uh-huh. And as your own posts showed us, they are still trying in April of 1861, after they have ratified the Confederate Constitution. Now they immediately (only 2 days after ratification) want to demand amendments to make it what they tried back in February. They get points for persistence, but not smarts.
Note also that you have said many times that there were no attempts to allow the reopening of the African slave trade. Now you yourself are providing us with evidence of the attempts while denying they occured. I urge you to stop destroying your own credibility like this.
Tim
No.
I have consistently stated that there were no proposals to re-open the slave trade.
That statement is correct.
__________________ 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."
I have consistently stated that there were no proposals to re-open the slave trade.
That statement is correct.
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
Note also that you have said many times that there were no attempts to allow the reopening of the African slave trade. Now you yourself are providing us with evidence of the attempts while denying they occured. I urge you to stop destroying your own credibility like this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
No.
I have consistently stated that there were no proposals to re-open the slave trade.
That statement is correct.
I see. Not only are you playing silly little word games to avoid acknowledging the strong interest Southerners had in re-opening the slave trade, you understand and acknowledge that you are doing so to be deliberately deceptive. Now we know clearly where you stand, from your own post. Good. That said, I still urge you to stop destroying your own credibility in this manner.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
In addition, the Southern Commercial Convention (the biggest annual meeting in the South) had become a major political meeting by the 1850s.
Tim
Fraud......
__________________ 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. 
Alone 
Linear Mode
