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.
The subject discussed here is the importation of slaves from Africa.
The third of the SC resolutions is the only one that deals with that issue.
I see that you have edited your message to remove completely all that you said before.
There is only one South Carolina resolution here, it is simply composed of four distinct "demands". It is true enough that the third point is the only one that deals directly with the "importation of slaves from Africa". Two of the others you omitted deal with the subject of slavery as well -- given your frequent assertions that the South was not seceding over slavery, perhaps you should open your eyes and reconsider why the South Carolina Secession Convention was so strident in all their talk of slavery being what they seceded over. The other point is a demand about the new Confederate Tariff on imported goods -- solid evidence the new Confederacy wasn't opposed to the concept of a Tariff on imports, but merely had a disagreement on rates. Perhaps you should put some thought into what type of attitude leads a group of secessionists to start their relationship with the new Confederacy they are forming by making adamant "demands" upon that government.
It is also worth noting that many of the men who formed that South Carolina Secession Convention had spent a large part of the 1850s publicly crusading to have the African slave trade re-opened. Now you are telling us they wanted it prohibited. Which time is it you think they were lying: all those years they wrote and made speeches about it? Or in this single instance when most people think they, and the Confederacy, were simply putting up a front for political advantage with European powers and/or the other states they wished to inveigle/pressure into seceding? If they spent most of the 1850s lying, what was their purpose in doing that? If they are lying in the Secession Convention, what is their purpose in doing that?
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'd posit that the powerful people in the South have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. They would have to know that reopening the trade would be an affront to the UK and in 1860 you don't do that.
At this time, only seven of the fifteen slave states had seceded from the US. The new Confederacy was trying to convince the remaining slave states (all eight, but most especially Virginia, Tennessee and North Carolina) to secede.
These states were generally opposed to re-opening the African slave trade. Some of that appears to have been on moral grounds, but many there had the additional private and practical reason that they were making a solid profit year after year by selling slaves into the expanding Deep South, particularly the Cotton Belt. Re-opening the African slave trade would introduce a new supply of slaves to the market, which would tend to reduce or hold down rising slave prices -- which the Deep South objected to and the Upper South made a profit on.
In this critical Winter of Secession, the new Confederacy was applying a carrot-and-stick approach in their efforts to convince the Upper South to secede and join them. By promising to ban the African slave trade and thus giving the Upper South almost exclusive control of the slave market, they were offering a carrot; by other measures that implied they might ban the import of slaves from parts of the US, they were showing the stick in the other hand. Subtle they were not, and they were big believers in applying pressure to get their own way.
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?
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.
It would take a vote of 2/3 of the Confederate States to amend the Constitution (at least nine of thirteen states).
Not likely.
ARTICLE V
Section I. (I) Upon the demand of any three States, legally assembled in their several conventions, the Congress shall summon a convention of all the States, to take into consideration such amendments to the Constitution as the said States shall concur in suggesting at the time when the said demand is made; and should any of the proposed amendments to the Constitution be agreed on by the said convention, voting by States, and the same be ratified by the Legislatures of two- thirds of the several States, or by conventions in two-thirds thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the general convention, they shall thenceforward form a part of this Constitution. But no State shall, without its consent, be deprived of its equal representation in the Senate.
Well, no. At the time you are talking of there were only seven states in the Confederacy, so 2/3rds of seven would be five states. VA, NC, AR and TN had not seceded yet. To anyone except died-in-the-wool Confederate propagandists, the idea that there were ever more than eleven Confederate states is just silly -- although no one can deny a pretty fair number of men from Missouri and Kentucky ended up fighting in the Confederate Army.
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.
1. 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.
2. Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.
~
South Carolina Resolution of April 5-
3. In lieu of the first and second clauses of the ninth Section of the first Article, to insert the following: "Congress shall have power to prohibit the importation or introduction of slaves from any region not a State or Territory of this Confederacy." http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/southcar/south.html
~
This amendment would not reopen the African slave trade.
Battalion, I really have to thank you for posting this. You see, the portion of the South Carolina resolution you posted is actually designed to remove the prohibition on the African slave trade from the Confederate Constitution. I realize that is not what you thought it was, but life doesn't always go the way you want it to go.
If this proposal had gone through, there would have been absolutely *NO* prohibition against the importation of African slaves into the Confederacy, from any location on Earth, in the Confederate Constitution. In that case, the African slave trade would have been completely legal in the Confederacy.
What the South Carolina resolution does is propose to allow Congress to decide the matter without Constitutional restriction of any kind. This is a deliberate and large change directly contrary to your assertions.
Now the Confederate Congress *might* then have voted to prohibit the African slave trade -- or they *might not* have. Until and unless they did so, the African slave trade would be legal. You just shot yourself in the foot again.
It is also worth noting that another part of this very same resolution is designed to change the Confederate Constitution to give South Carolina more voting power in Congress, where the matter would be decided. This is what the part you omitted about counting slaves completely instead of on a 3/5ths basis as in both the US and Confederate Constitutions does for South Carolina, since they have such a high percentage of slaves there.
Further, the reason for this resolution in the first place was that the ratification of the Confederate Constitution was a raucous and contentious issue in South Carolina; even the final vote was not unanimous (138-21). Take a look at the 21 names of the objectors and do some research on their stand on the slave trade issue if you want to get a grasp on what the hang-up on ratification was. Two days after ratification, the pro-slave-trade forces get this resolution through the South Carolina Secession Convention.
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.
Battalion, I really have to thank you for posting this. You see, the portion of the South Carolina resolution you posted is actually designed to remove the prohibition on the African slave trade from the Confederate Constitution. I realize that is not what you thought it was, but life doesn't always go the way you want it to go.
If this proposal had gone through, there would have been absolutely *NO* prohibition against the importation of African slaves into the Confederacy, from any location on Earth, in the Confederate Constitution. In that case, the African slave trade would have been completely legal in the Confederacy.
What the South Carolina resolution does is propose to allow Congress to decide the matter without Constitutional restriction of any kind. This is a deliberate and large change directly contrary to your assertions.
Now the Confederate Congress *might* then have voted to prohibit the African slave trade -- or they *might not* have. Until and unless they did so, the African slave trade would be legal. You just shot yourself in the foot again.
My foot's fine.
"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."
Neither the provision concerning the slave trade that was actually adopted...nor the proposed South Carolina amendment would be inconsistent with the existing United States laws (as of 1 Nov. 1860) in regard to the slave trade.
__________________ 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 see that you have edited your message to remove completely all that you said before.
There is only one South Carolina resolution here, it is simply composed of four distinct "demands". It is true enough that the third point is the only one that deals directly with the "importation of slaves from Africa". Two of the others you omitted deal with the subject of slavery as well -- given your frequent assertions that the South was not seceding over slavery
When did I do this?
__________________ 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."
Well, no. At the time you are talking of there were only seven states in the Confederacy, so 2/3rds of seven would be five states.
True. But within a few weeks/months there would be 11. Within a year there would be 13. Even with the original seven-... ....in the Constitutional Convention, the Provisional Congress, and the several state conventions, there were no proposals to reopen the African slave trade.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
VA, NC, AR and TN had not seceded yet. To anyone except died-in-the-wool Confederate propagandists, the idea that there were ever more than eleven Confederate states is just silly -- although no one can deny a pretty fair number of men from Missouri and Kentucky ended up fighting in the Confederate Army.
Tim
You forget that the Confederacy was as it defined itself -13 States- with Representatives and Senators from those States seated in the Confederate Congress. Kentucky and Missouri would vote on any amendment to the Constitution. The question is would they (or any other state under Federal occupation- Tennessee, Arkansas, etc) be able to vote on proposed amendments to the Constitution. Whatever the case the vote of nine states would be necessary for any amendment.
__________________ 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."
Oh, too bad. Numbness has set in and you can't feel your extremities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
"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."
Neither the provision concerning the slave trade that was actually adopted...nor the proposed South Carolina amendment would be inconsistent with the existing United States laws (as of 1 Nov. 1860) in regard to the slave trade.
Come now, you know better than this. The Confederate Provisional Congress met in Montgomery on February 4th through March 16th of 1861. They met the crushing task ahead of them by adopting US law wholesale, then began changing it immediately. This was done the same day they decided Jefferson Davis would be their first President and sent him the telegram to let him know about it.
In the weeks that followed, they made many changes, and they wrote a new Constitution for their new country -- which automatically changes how all the laws are interpreted when it is adopted on March 26th after Mississippi ratified it, the US law on the slave trade was superceded by new Confederate law - and this act no longer applies to the issue at hand.
You will note that -- following this timeline -- if the South Carolina clause were adopted there would indeed have been a point at which there would have been no law in effect on the African slave trade unless the Confederate Congress passed one. You will also remember that when Congress first did pass a law on the matter, Jefferson Davis found it necessary to veto the law as being, in his view, unconstitutional -- so there was very clearly a strong and sizable element in the Confederate Congress chafing at the restrictions against the African slave trade and searching to create loopholes to get around it.
The section of the South Carolina resolution you point to has only one purpose: to remove the Constitutional prohibition against the African slave trade. There is not the slightest doubt about that, so if you continue to say anything else, we must accept that you are being deliberately deceptive in any protest on the matter. I urge you not to do this to yourself.
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.
No one has said that this group was dominant -- but that is what you want to argue against so that you can deny it. Instead, it has been said they were strong and determined and persistent -- and you have been shown solid proof of their existence and efforts, which you seem to want to avoid accepting.
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.
There is only one South Carolina resolution here, it is simply composed of four distinct "demands". It is true enough that the third point is the only one that deals directly with the "importation of slaves from Africa". Two of the others you omitted deal with the subject of slavery as well -- given your frequent assertions that the South was not seceding over slavery, perhaps you should open your eyes and reconsider why the South Carolina Secession Convention was so strident in all their talk of slavery being what they seceded over. The other point is a demand about the new Confederate Tariff on imported goods -- solid evidence the new Confederacy wasn't opposed to the concept of a Tariff on imports, but merely had a disagreement on rates. Perhaps you should put some thought into what type of attitude leads a group of secessionists to start their relationship with the new Confederacy they are forming by making adamant "demands" upon that government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
When did I do this?
You must be kidding. Aren't you the one with all that "Power and Money" nonsense we see in hundreds of posts? Are you an imposter posing as poor "Battalion"? Do you have him tied up somewhere?
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.
True. But within a few weeks/months there would be 11. Within a year there would be 13.
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
Even with the original seven-...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
....in the Constitutional Convention, the Provisional Congress, and the several state conventions, there were no proposals to reopen the African slave trade.
Actually, there was much discussion and debate about such proposals -- as you know. None of them, however, were actually passed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
You forget that the Confederacy was as it defined itself -13 States- with Representatives and Senators from those States seated in the Confederate Congress. Kentucky and Missouri would vote on any amendment to the Constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
The question is would they (or any other state under Federal occupation- Tennessee, Arkansas, etc) be able to vote on proposed amendments to the Constitution. Whatever the case the vote of nine states would be necessary for any amendment.
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
__________________ "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.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
