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.
In 1860, there were 33 states in the Union. Fifteen of those states allowed slavery. A sixteenth (NJ) was traditionally aligned with the slave-states on most issues (the northeastern part of NJ favoring a protectionist tariff because of industry there) and had only recently ended slavery itself by a very long and gradual emancipation.
They had lost the even split of slave-free states in the Senate when the 31st state, California, was added in 1850. This was followed by Minnesota (1858) and Oregon (1859). With NJ ending slavery and probably slowly moving away from alignment with the South on slavery issues, we can see why Southerners were so adamant about admitting Kansas as a slave state, leading to the "Bloody Kansas" struggle.
While the slave-states could no longer block all legislation in the Senate by themselves at this point, they are still extremely powerful. If an issue is important enough and they can get all 30 of their Senators to vote as a block, all they need is to get 4 Senators from other states to vote with them and they can block anything. Since NJ routinely voted with them on most non-tariff issues, this wasn't very hard to do in the 1850s. With a sympathetic Democrat in the Vice Presidency, they could veto all ties in the Senate if they wished.
It is really only the rise of the Republican Party that threatens this. When this arose as a unifying force for the splinters of the older parties, the specter arose of a confrontation between strongly united Southern-Democrat and Northern-Republican factions over slavery. In short order there were very few people in Congress not aligned with one of those groups. This made the swing votes the power-brokers, subject to intense pressure and arm-twisting (and probably suitable rewards). But the middle was shrinking as the two sides made this conflict more and more about sectionalism/slavery.
So it is easy to see why the slave-states were worried. The territory they had seen as producing new slave states after the war with Mexico wasn't moving too fast, Texas didn't seem to want to split up, and California had rejected slavery. Thus the 1850s see an emphasis on allowing slavery into the northern tier of territory, where earlier the South had been happy enough with the compromises.
In the Senate, what the slave-states were upset about was losing the ability to block any legislation they chose, a defensive motive. An even split in the Senate vote, with a Republican President/Vice President in office, would allow this. With Lincoln's election this is accomplished fact.
To illustrate: the Morrill Tariff failed in the Senate by one vote in 1858. It passed in the Senate in 1859, but President Buchanan vetoed it. In 1860, the Senate tabled the motion until after the election -- and it still didn't pass until March of 1861, after many Southern Senators had withdrawn. Even the admisson of Kansas was delayed until January 29, 1861 by Southern maneuvers in the Senate (when several Southern Senators withdrew).
So in early 1861, Southern power, slave-state power, in the Senate had taken a step back. But the real killer is the loss of the White House, the tie-breaking vote of the VP, and the veto-power of the Presidency. Yet this is what the Fire-Eaters had deliberately worked towards achieving in the 1860 election, by splitting the Democratic Party to ensure a Republican election as much as they were able to do.
Even then, the new President did not believe he had the power to interfere with slavery where it existed. The 15 slave-states were safe from action by Lincoln.
The Congress might have been able to pass legislation affecting slavery in the 15 slave states, but I doubt it. If they did, and Lincoln signed it, I think the Supreme Court would have killed it. Even the thought of such legislation seems impossible after the Dred Scott decision.
That only leaves a Constitutional Amendment, started in the Congress or the states. That requires a 2/3rds majority of the state legislatures, and with 15 slave states that means there is no threat until the Union has 45 states. This assumes no new slave states are added and that all slave states always vote against the Amendment.
The 45th state was Utah, admitted in 1896, but I doubt West Virginia would have ever been formed without the Civil War. Let's say then that Oklahoma, admitted in 1907, would have become the 45th, and that this is the point at which an anti-slavery Amendment could have been passed over a Southern opposition.
That ignores one thing: existing slave-states that change to free states. Delaware had few slaves and might have gone free easily, possibly in the 1870s. Maryland and Missouri would be the next-most-likely to change, I guess. That would get us down to 12 slave-states, meaning they lose the power to block an Amendment above 36 states. So -- pure guesswork -- there might have been a chance for an anti-slavery Amendment around about 1890.
That Amendment would probably not have been for immediate Emancipation, IMHO. Let's say it was a gradual one, working out to somewhere between 10 and 30 years. That gets us to the 1900-1920 period some other projections get to.
This was the future the South should have been seeing. The attempts to avoid it lead to the high level of sectional bitterness and conflict; eventually they lead to secession and the Civil War.
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.
The above scenario, is premised on the assumtion that the existence of slavery in the USA was finite, that sometime in the future (long or short) slavery was doomed.
The south seceded and foughjt a Civil War to the bitter end, because it would not accept that slavery would Not last forever.
They were not prepared to even contemplate a time when a slave would not, always, be a slave.
The above scenario, is premised on the assumtion that the existence of slavery in the USA was finite, that sometime in the future (long or short) slavery was doomed.
The south seceded and foughjt a Civil War to the bitter end, because it would not accept that slavery would Not last forever.
They were not prepared to even contemplate a time when a slave would not, always, be a slave.
Hmm, I know what you mean, but I don't think that is what I was trying to express.
I think the problem is that the South was contemplating "a time a slave would not, always, be a slave". They saw that slavery in the USA might be finite and they didn't like it. Indeed, many of them viewed such a condition with alarm. But they could see a lot of people up North who were talking about slavery going away; they'd seen slavery ended in NJ, NY, PA and the New England states; they had considered it themselves in a state like VA in the 1830s.
So they look around and they can no longer block any anti-slavery legislation in the Senate because the free/slave balance is now 18 states to 15. They have long lost the edge in the House. They see that there is opposition to expanding slavery, and they see that, sooner or later, a day will come when the nation can force an end to slavery upon them if they can't expand slavery. That day would be far off, but they could see it coming.
Now I think your point is that they were opposed to letting that happen, and I agree with that. We'd probably find that the people in the Deep South were more opposed to it than those in the Upper South or the Border States (on average).
There are not a lot of ways to do that.
They could add slave states to the mix. That's why we see talk of splitting Texas up, or acquiring Cuba, or expansion into the Gulf of Mexico/Central America. That's why they wanted the Arizona/New Mexico area in the Compromise of 1850. That's why they wanted California to go slave state (turned out the miners didn't want slaves as competitors). This is what "Bleeding Kansas" was about. Every new slave state makes them stronger in Congress, makes it harder to pass an anti-slavery Amendment, gives them greater weight in a Prsidential election. By 1860, it seemed obvious to the most extreme of them that this had failed, IMHO.
They could have fought for some form of compromise that protected slavery where it was while limiting the territory it could be in, blocking expansion. This probably would have meant accepting an eventual end to it, and I believe they found (or at least their leadership found) this unacceptable.
They could accept and move towards emancipation themselves. That was rarely mentioned, so I suppose it is unrealistic.
If they aren't going to manage one of those three, only separation remains. Separation, however, could mean many things.
It might mean, for example, negotiating an agreement and proceeding to the separation peacefully. This would probably take place in Congress, in a special convention, etc. It might take months or years to reach the agreement, and it might take months or years more to gradually implement. For example, South Carolina might have sent a commission to Washington to ask what the details and process of secession would be if they exercised their supposed "right of secession" and seen what the answer was. This is what Massachusetts did in 1815 after the Hartford Convention. I've never seen any evidence that anyone tried.
It might mean legal action through the courts on some variant of the "right of secession". Again, I cannot say I've ever heard that this was tried by the South.
It might mean a direct declaration of secession with an ensuing fight in the Courts and the Congress and between the state government over terms. Again, doesn't seem to have happened.
It might mean sudden insurrection and rebellion at the start. Didn't happen exactly, but what did happen is not too far away from it.
What we do see is states declaring secession and then moving rapidly to seizures and the use of armed force. Often this proceded by illegal means, illegal even under state law. Often enough the aggressive acts occurred before the secession.Eventually this moved on to a war with the attack on Ft. Sumter.
My feeling is that the slave-states did contemplate this end of slavery looming in their future -- and rejected it. At the very least, their leadership did, in the first seven states to secede. The rest balanced on the edge, not real happy with their options, not sure secession was such a good idea, not wanting to lose slavery, not wanting to leave the Union. Ft. Sumter is the spark that blows this powder keg apart.
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.
So we see Southern concerns for slavery in the future in the Senate and White House by your scenario.
How does that stack up against the idea often expressed that slavery was dying out anyway? That it was not profitable and because of that, it was slowly dying out and would have gone away peaceably?
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
How does that stack up against the idea often expressed that slavery was dying out anyway? That it was not profitable and because of that, it was slowly dying out and would have gone away peaceably?
Will be waiting for Tim's usually brilliant analysis with you, Neil, but will take the opportunity to stick my oar in the water.
I'm one who believes slavery contained would lead to its extinction. Eventually. My guess has been and remains, 40 years.
My take has always been that containment was the death knell for slavery. It would seem that the leaders of the slaveocracy believed the same. It was profitable (Cash whaled me good over that one). But it was profitable only for labor-intensive enterprise. Cotton planters were looking for expansion because of ruinous planting practices (and they called themselves an agrarian society). Sugar planters were a small minority. Tobacco was becoming a profitable practice only for those who learned sustainable agriculture. Don't know a thing about rice, but that may have been the last bastion of the slaveholder. And hemp was all but gone.
And there was a growing, moral realization that something was inherently wrong about owning people. I'm convinced that, without expansion, slavery would rather quickly turn from a profitable enterprise to a financial burden. (I can't concieve of more than a couple of slaveowners turning their property out to fend for itself.)
Slavery's profitability was not the only reason emancipation was impractical. Here we play the race card. The entire south lived in fear of the slaves that comprised a large part of its population. Kinduva can't live without 'em; can't live with 'em. Most harbored fears of slave rebellions--perhaps with some foundation. So now we have a situation wherein the owner who wants to do the right thing, doesn't dare.
Very complex interplay. Even the abolitionists would have backed off if there were a chance of spreading the population of freedmen in their communities. So long as the slaves were free and remained in the south, they were were cool with it.
Slaveowners who wanted to do away with it had more than a financial investment at stake. What to do afterwards was a big black (nonintended pun) fog. Thing is, they were in a hole and kept digging.
And then there were the fire-eaters who, I'm convinced, didn't much care about anything except their own ascendency. And that, as they say, is the rest of story.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Losing control of Congress was the first step to slavery's extinction.
The fire-eaters were correct, slavery had no future in the United States of America.
IF slavery were the end-all, be-all of southern abitions, then their perception that their best interests lay outside the Union was correct. Their decision as to How they might leave the Union was less perceptive.
Losing control of Congress was the first step to slavery's extinction.
Deep down, I don't quite buy this argument. I might be more than a bit shallow, but I don't think retaining control of Congress would have satisfied the fire-eaters.
They were given many distasteful concessions. There was a strong movement to give them a bunch more. They didn't seem to notice; ergo, they wanted their own little domain and engineered its approach.
Unfortunately, their brilliance ended there. While they were wallowing in the mire of their success, they forgot to incorporate a couple-three factors; i.e., what do we do now? A really good lesson in, "Be careful what you wish for."
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
So we see Southern concerns for slavery in the future in the Senate and White House by your scenario.
Yes, I think so. It was realistic for them to see them coming, although I don't agree with their reaction to the perceived threat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by unionblue
How does that stack up against the idea often expressed that slavery was dying out anyway? That it was not profitable and because of that, it was slowly dying out and would have gone away peaceably?
In 1860, slavery was a profitable business in the Deep South and the Upper South. Not particularly so in DE, and fading in MD. Questionable overall in KY and MO, but profitable in certain locales. How profitable it was, and whether or not a free-labor system would have been more or less profitable is something I don't recall seeing studied. It may have been too tied to the social ideal to be looked at heavily.
The Arizona Territory expansion did not look workable in 1860, and the Californians had rejected it (largely because miners didn't want to compete with slave labor.) But if you look at South African Apartheid as a form of slavery, you could say that slavery in the mining industry had a chance out there. (The peon system in the Arizona/New Mexico territory hadn't been ended yet, either.) Overall, slavery prospects in these areas did not look good, no matter what secessionists said.
Now the question of whether or not it was a good idea for all the white citizens to have slavery in a state is another matter. helper's book raised a ruckus in North Carolina when it tried to analyze that question, and he said it benefitted only the wealthy/upper class while it repressed the poor whites.
World pressure was against slavery, largely due to the British. IMHO, peer pressure would have eventually made it very difficult to continue slavery in the US, and it would have ended "sometime". Defining what that would be can be fun, but tricky.
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.
Deep down, I don't quite buy this argument. I might be more than a bit shallow, but I don't think retaining control of Congress would have satisfied the fire-eaters.
They were given many distasteful concessions. There was a strong movement to give them a bunch more. They didn't seem to notice; ergo, they wanted their own little domain and engineered its approach.
Unfortunately, their brilliance ended there. While they were wallowing in the mire of their success, they forgot to incorporate a couple-three factors; i.e., what do we do now? A really good lesson in, "Be careful what you wish for."
I think it was reasonable to believe slavery was ending in the US. I don't think the fear in the South that it would be imposed on them very quickly and/or by force was realistic. Late in the 19th Century is about the earliest they could expect a law to pass for Emancipation against their will, and that would probably have at least a 10-20 year fade-in period. Add that up and we'd be looking at a 30-50 year period after the 1860 election. Most voters in that election would not have expected to live that long.
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.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Slave State power in Senate/Amendments 
Linear Mode
