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.
"It is mere mockery for gentlemen to pretend that they think the southern people are desirous of reopening the African slave trade...
Those in the southern States in favor of reopening this traffic are a mere handful compared with the great mass of the people...."
"Gentlemen may make some political capital at home out of this question of the African slave trade, but it is humbug capital; it is a kind of capital which no statesman ought be proud of."
Once again, I think this is more "political correctness" by a Southern secessionist politician: declare your noble opposition to the African slave trade while acting in a contrary fashion. I have highlighted portions of the following about Jefferson Davis and Albert G. Brown so that you can see them easily:
=====
85. The Question in Congress. Early in December, 1856, the subject reached Congress; and although the agitation was then new, fifty-seven Southern Congressmen refused to declare a re-opening of the slave-trade "shocking to the moral sentiment of the enlightened portion of mankind," and eight refused to call the reopening even "unwise" and "inexpedient."19 Three years later, January 31, 1859, it was impossible, in a House of one hundred and ninety-nine members, to get a two-thirds vote in order even to consider Kilgore's resolutions, which declared "that no legislation can be too thorough in its measures, nor can any penalty known to the catalogue of modern punishment for crime be too severe against a traffic so inhuman and unchristian."20
Congressmen and other prominent men hastened with the rising tide.21 Dowdell of Alabama declared the repressive acts "highly offensive;" J.B. Clay of Kentucky was "opposed to all these laws;"22 Seward of Georgia declared them "wrong, and a violation of the Constitution;"23 Barksdale of Mississippi agreed with this sentiment; Crawford of Georgia threatened a reopening of the trade; Miles of South Carolina was for "sweeping away" all restrictions;24 Keitt of South Carolina wished to withdraw the African squadron, and to cease to brand slave-trading as piracy;25Brown of Mississippi "would repeal the law instantly;"26 Alexander Stephens, in his farewell address to his constituents, said: "Slave states cannot be made without Africans.... [My object is] to bring clearly to your mind the great truth that without an increase of African slaves from abroad, you may not expect or look for many more slave States."27Jefferson Davis strongly denied "any coincidence of opinion with those who prate of the inhumanity and sinfulness of the trade. The interest of Mississippi," said he, "not of the African, dictates my conclusion." He opposed the immediate reopening of the trade in Mississippi for fear of a paralyzing influx of Negroes, but carefully added: "This conclusion, in relation to Mississippi, is based upon my view of her present condition, not upon any general theory. It is not supposed to be applicable to Texas, to New Mexico, or to any future acquisitions to be made south of the Rio Grande."28 John Forsyth, who for seven years conducted the slave-trade diplomacy of the nation, declared, about 1860: "But one stronghold of its [i.e., slavery's] enemies remains to be carried, to complete its triumph and assure its welfare,—that is the existing prohibition of the African Slave-trade."29 Pollard, in his Black Diamonds, urged the importation of Africans as "laborers." "This I grant you," said he, "would be practically the re-opening of the African slave trade; but ... you will find that it very often becomes necessary to evade the letter of the law, in some of the greatest measures of social happiness and patriotism."30
These men, the leaders of the new Confederacy, all were on the record on this matter before the war started. It is not a record of opposition to the importation of new slaves.
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.
Sec. 9. (I) The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.
11 March 1861
Uh-huh. The Confederate Congress then passed a law which allowed the Confederate government to sell into slavery any illegally imported slaves they did confiscate. Nice touch. Jefferson Davis, of course, vetoed that bill and sent it back to Congress for revision -- but very clearly support for the re-opening of the slave trade was very strong in the new Confederacy.
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. The Confederate Congress then passed a law which allowed the Confederate government to sell into slavery any illegally imported slaves they did confiscate.
As a last resort-
"Sec. 6. Every negro illegally imported as aforesaid into the Confederate States shall be arrested by the marshal or his deputies, or any officer of the said States charged in any manner with the execution of this act, and shall be safely kept, subject to the disposition hereinafter provided. And the said officer shall immediately notify the President of the Confederacy of such arrest and confinement. The President shall, as soon as possible, communicate with the governor of the State whence the vessel in which such negroes were imported cleared, if the name be one of the United States of America, and shall offer to deliver such negroes to the said State on receiving a guaranty from such State that the said negroes shall enjoy the rights and privileges of freemen in such State or in any other State of the United States, or that such negroes will be transported to Africa and there placed at liberty free of expense to the Government. If such proposition be rejected, or if the contingency specified above shall not have occurred, the President shall receive any propositions which may be made by any responsible persons or society, who will furnish satisfactory guaranty to the President that such negroes will be transported to Africa and there placed at liberty free of expense to this Government. And if no such proposition shall be made within a reasonable time, the President shall cause the said negroes to be sold at public outcry to the highest bidder in any one of the States where such sale shall not be inconsistent with the laws thereof, under such regulations as he may prescribe, the proceeds of which sale, after paying all the expenses incurred by the Government in the capture, detention and sale of such negroes, and in the prosecution of the offenders, and the forfeiture of the property, shall be paid, one-half to the the informer (if he be bona fide such) and the other half into the Treasury of the Confederate States."
So what you are saying is- that the Northern states and the abolitionist societies were such hypocrites and greedy, miserly skinflints that they neither would have welcomed the Africans into their states nor pay their passage back to Africa?
Yes, is this what you are saying?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Jefferson Davis, of course, vetoed that bill and sent it back to Congress for revision
The attempt to override the veto fell far short of the 2/3 vote needed (receiving only 15 of 39 votes).
The existing United States law on the slave trade became the law of the Confederate States.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
-- but very clearly support for the re-opening of the slave trade was very strong in the new Confederacy.
Tim
Baloney.....
__________________ 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."
Once again, I think this is more "political correctness" by a Southern secessionist politician: declare your noble opposition to the African slave trade while acting in a contrary fashion. I have highlighted portions of the following about Jefferson Davis and Albert G. Brown so that you can see them easily:
=====
85. The Question in Congress. Early in December, 1856, the subject reached Congress; and although the agitation was then new, fifty-seven Southern Congressmen refused to declare a re-opening of the slave-trade "shocking to the moral sentiment of the enlightened portion of mankind," and eight refused to call the reopening even "unwise" and "inexpedient."19 Three years later, January 31, 1859, it was impossible, in a House of one hundred and ninety-nine members, to get a two-thirds vote in order even to consider Kilgore's resolutions, which declared "that no legislation can be too thorough in its measures, nor can any penalty known to the catalogue of modern punishment for crime be too severe against a traffic so inhuman and unchristian."20
Congressmen and other prominent men hastened with the rising tide.21 Dowdell of Alabama declared the repressive acts "highly offensive;" J.B. Clay of Kentucky was "opposed to all these laws;"22 Seward of Georgia declared them "wrong, and a violation of the Constitution;"23 Barksdale of Mississippi agreed with this sentiment; Crawford of Georgia threatened a reopening of the trade; Miles of South Carolina was for "sweeping away" all restrictions;24 Keitt of South Carolina wished to withdraw the African squadron, and to cease to brand slave-trading as piracy;25Brown of Mississippi "would repeal the law instantly;"26 Alexander Stephens, in his farewell address to his constituents, said: "Slave states cannot be made without Africans.... [My object is] to bring clearly to your mind the great truth that without an increase of African slaves from abroad, you may not expect or look for many more slave States."27Jefferson Davis strongly denied "any coincidence of opinion with those who prate of the inhumanity and sinfulness of the trade. The interest of Mississippi," said he, "not of the African, dictates my conclusion." He opposed the immediate reopening of the trade in Mississippi for fear of a paralyzing influx of Negroes, but carefully added: "This conclusion, in relation to Mississippi, is based upon my view of her present condition, not upon any general theory. It is not supposed to be applicable to Texas, to New Mexico, or to any future acquisitions to be made south of the Rio Grande."28 John Forsyth, who for seven years conducted the slave-trade diplomacy of the nation, declared, about 1860: "But one stronghold of its [i.e., slavery's] enemies remains to be carried, to complete its triumph and assure its welfare,—that is the existing prohibition of the African Slave-trade."29 Pollard, in his Black Diamonds, urged the importation of Africans as "laborers." "This I grant you," said he, "would be practically the re-opening of the African slave trade; but ... you will find that it very often becomes necessary to evade the letter of the law, in some of the greatest measures of social happiness and patriotism."30
These men, the leaders of the new Confederacy, all were on the record on this matter before the war started. It is not a record of opposition to the importation of new slaves.
Tim
I would not consider Du Bois (nor his sources) as an even-handed review of the subject.
Would you?
__________________ 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'm not sure what you're objecting to, other than a straw man. I don't think anyone is asserting that resumption of the international slave trade was advocated by the majority, or even a substantial plurality, of white southerners in the years immediately before the War. It has been amply demonstrated by Freehling and others, however, as well as posters here, that it represented a well-developed strain of thinking among certain potentially influential southern leaders and advocates.
The most interesting thing, to me, are the sorts of arguments, back and forth, advanced among southerners themselves as to why resumption was or was not desirable. In one of the quotes immediately above, for example, it is pretty obvious that Jefferson Davis is tiptoeing around the subject, qualifying his position with caveats lest he offend the radicals. What does that say about the state of southern opinion -- or at least potential southern opinion as Davis then perceived it?
As a last resort- ... So what you are saying is- that the Northern states and the abolitionist societies were such hypocrites and greedy, miserly skinflints that they neither would have welcomed the Africans into their states nor pay their passage back to Africa?
Yes, is this what you are saying?
You know, of course, that I said no such thing and that you are being deliberately deceptive and misleading here. Jefferson Davis and many other members of the Confederate power elite had screamed to high heavens at the very idea of paying for the transport, colonization and support of those captured on slave ships -- in 1859 and 1860 when they were part of the US Congress. Their votes and public statements are all on the record. Jefferson Davis in particular was against taxing Americans for that purpose, and said so very clearly. They themselves put the lie to what you want to believe of them.
What you are looking at here is a propaganda move, something they felt they needed to do to look good while they wanted support from the European powers after they formed the Confederacy, IMHO. Many Southern states had found ways around the anti-slave trade laws while part of the US (such as declaring that importing someone who was a slave before leaving Africa was not a violation of the laws against the African slave trade, which one Southern court did). They would have found ways to do as Confederates what they had done as US citizens: criminals rarely change their ways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Uh-huh. The Confederate Congress then passed a law which allowed the Confederate government to sell into slavery any illegally imported slaves they did confiscate. Nice touch. Jefferson Davis, of course, vetoed that bill and sent it back to Congress for revision -- but very clearly support for the re-opening of the slave trade was very strong in the new Confederacy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by battalion
The attempt to override the veto fell far short of the 2/3 vote needed (receiving only 15 of 39 votes).
Quote:
Originally Posted by battalion
The existing United States law on the slave trade became the law of the Confederate States. Baloney.....
So the law that had been passed when the South had strong, virtually veto power in the US became the law in the South -- with some attempts to weaken it and/or overturn it. And the vote to overturn the Presidential veto of Jefferson Davis got almost 40% of the vote -- but you don't think that is strong support. There's some "Baloney" being posted here, for sure; it isn't me posting it, though.
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.
I would not consider Du Bois (nor his sources) as an even-handed review of the subject.
Would you?
What's your point? Do you think his information is incorrect? Or are you just trying to cast aspersions to avoid admitting the truth? That seems to be youir normal tactic: never admit what you don't want to know, sling mud instead.
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.
"The advocates of the African slave trade also bitterly attacked the Webster-Ashburton Treaty. In the Georgia and South Carolina legislatures, they introduced resolutions demanding that the federal government abrogate this treaty, especially the articles providing for the maintenance of an American squadron for the suppression of the slave trade along the African coast. They felt they were being forced to participate in an act which condemned the South and themselves. They indignantly charged that "slavery itself must be wrong, when the ships and seamen of our country are kept upon the seas to preclude the means to its formation." And they pointed out that since Southerners were paying taxes to finance the squadron, they were vindicating the principle that made slaves plunder and slaveholders pirates."
Here's an interesting segment concerning attempts to make the reopening of the African slave trade legal under the Confederate Constitution:
"Ten days before the bombardment of Fort Sumter, a delegate to the South Carolina secession convention told his wife: "The debates are going upon the ratification of the Confederate constitution...The ratification will be nearly unamimous, and without amendments." (John L. Manning to wife, April 2, 1861, Chesnut-Manning Papers, University of South Carolina Library.) The following day the South Carolina convention ratified the Constitution by a vote of 138 to 21. Among the delegates voting against ratification were African slave-trade advocates like James H. Adams, Maxcy Gregg, Gabriel Manigault, Alexander Mazyck, John I. Middleton, and Leonidas W. Spratt. Later that day James Hammond observed: "I see the Constitution has been adopted by an overwhelming majority against Rhett & Co., Slave traders...fire eaters, and extremists, and I suppose this is an end of them. It is certain that these men brought on this great movement."
But the South Carolina African slave-trade extremists refused to surrender. They had brought on the "great movement" for Southern secession in order to proclaim the rightness of the African slave trade and slavery. Thus they agitated for amendments to strike out the African slave-trade prohibition even after the South Carolina convention had ratified the Confederate Constitution. Finally, on April 5, they won a limited victory. The convention resolved that as soon as the Confederacy was securely established and in peaceful operation, South Carolina should call for the meeting of a national convention to consider repeal of the Confederate Constitutional prohibition of the African slave trade."
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
Here's an interesting segment concerning attempts to make the reopening of the African slave trade legal under the Confederate Constitution:
"Ten days before the bombardment of Fort Sumter, a delegate to the South Carolina secession convention told his wife: "The debates are going upon the ratification of the Confederate constitution...The ratification will be nearly unamimous, and without amendments." (John L. Manning to wife, April 2, 1861, Chesnut-Manning Papers, University of South Carolina Library.) The following day the South Carolina convention ratified the Constitution by a vote of 138 to 21. Among the delegates voting against ratification were African slave-trade advocates like James H. Adams, Maxcy Gregg, Gabriel Manigault, Alexander Mazyck, John I. Middleton, and Leonidas W. Spratt. Later that day James Hammond observed: "I see the Constitution has been adopted by an overwhelming majority against Rhett & Co., Slave traders...fire eaters, and extremists, and I suppose this is an end of them. It is certain that these men brought on this great movement."
Unionblue
So the supposed hotbed to re-open the slave trade (South Carolina) can muster only 21 votes out of 159 (13%) and that's assuming that all 21 voted for the same reason (not likely).
~
How many proposals were there at the Confederate Constitutional Convention to re-open the slave trade?
Zero.
__________________ 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."
Rhett and others at the Confederate Constitutional Convention did NOT want any restrictions placed on the African slave trade nor did they want language that prohibited that trade.
They made their objections known, but were outvoted. But they managed enough political clout to get the South Carolina convention to approve the idea of coming back to this issue when things were more 'stable.'
You don't have to believe it, but it's what happened.
Sincerely,
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
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
