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 discussion will die when no one posts. I'd much rather something were settled on States' Rights or, at least, come to an agreement to disagree.
The claim of desertions directly caused by the EP was, at the outset, unsubstantiated, pointless and the expected off-topic diversion. It ended just there with the usual side-stepping inane diatribe.
(Gotta watch the blood pressure.)
ole
Ole,
I apologize for this thread getting off-track.
I will endeavor to restrict myself to the topic of the thread from this point on.
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
Well 'logically' Without slavery there would Not have been state's rights, without state's rights, there would have been No secession, without secession, there would have been No Ft. Sumter, without Ft Sumter there would have been No War, with no War there would have been No Invasion of the South, with no invasion, there would have been NO Union soldiers to bother southern sensibilities, in the first place.
You have a rawww-ther... strange way of looking at things, friend!
So, according to you, then, without slavery, there would have been no Revolution from England? (No states rights?)
So, this is the way abolitionists think?
Hey, I know one thing Al Gore did invent! And it was something Abraham Lincoln didn't invent!
__________________ 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
You have a rawww-ther... strange way of looking at things, friend!
Why is it strange that the theory that without slaves, there would have been no violation of the Southern States 'rights?' What other rights were threatened according to your view?
So, according to you, then, without slavery, there would have been no Revolution from England? (No states rights?)
Why is it you have to scurry back to the American Revolution to make a point about slavery when the reference was never made by the original author? Where did Opddownfall say anything concerning the American Revolution?
So, this is the way abolitionists think?
Please point out the modern-day abolitionist party or organization or stop the meaningless name-calling. Or are we going to transpose 19th century labels onto 21st board members and do the reverse (once again) and place modern 21st century labels on 19th century persons. There was an exercise in utter futility.
Hey, I know one thing Al Gore did invent! And it was something Abraham Lincoln didn't invent!
Is there any chance that you will remove your clown outfit and start actually discussing the issue? Cheap shots and comebacks should be reserved for the Comedy Channel or a nightclub act.
Global Warming!
Without the issue of chattel slavery, there would not have been one peep out of the Southern states concerning how their 'rights' had been violated.
Beowulf
Without the issue of slavery, no war, (Civil War, Beowulf, in case you get confused over which war we're talking about), no states rights issue, nothing else that would have a reason to kill men over. Not the tariff, not the federal government, nothing but the institution of slavery.
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
Without the issue of slavery, no war, (Civil War, Beowulf, in case you get confused over which war we're talking about), no states rights issue, nothing else that would have a reason to kill men over. Not the tariff, not the federal government, nothing but the institution of slavery.
Unionblue
...except for the North's cash flow problem.
You know the 7,000 business failures, 100s of thousands out of work, loss of Southern markets, ships rotting in the harbors, etc, etc...
__________________ 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."
One more time. This is a thread on states' rights. It is not a thread on desertions. Nor is it about business failures nor loss of traffic on the Mississippi. It is not about slaves, slavers, slaveocracy, selling down the river or banjoes strummed at sunset with all the darkies singing in contentment. It is not about Madison or Adams or Thomas Jefferson Davis.
It began with a question about state's rights. Can we at least stick to that question?
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
Without the issue of slavery, no war, (Civil War, Beowulf, in case you get confused over which war we're talking about), no states rights issue, nothing else that would have a reason to kill men over. Not the tariff, not the federal government, nothing but the institution of slavery.
Unionblue
I must answer this, Ole. Please bear with me while I answer this man's question.
This American experiment was set up for one reason; to give the states their freedom from England, an oppressive and dictatorial system, in the eyes of the original yankees (Northerners named after Yankee Doodle dandies by the Brits...).
1/3 of us were for it. 1/3 against it. 1/3 were neutral. What gave the Colonies their unity was the king 'putting us out of his protection', as Henry claimed. Jefferson lists a whole train of abuses that white male landowners should not have to share in suffering, and so the Revolt. Northerners and Southerners are literally forced to agree for the first and only time in history, to get rid of the English King.
So far? But all this you should already know.
Now, they have these very sovereign colonies, and try a number of peace treaties, none of which works very well, until the Constitution... purposely left blank in places...
so pro-secession Northerners will sign it, and not fear being overrun by four absolutely massive Southern colonies... (Virginia, I believe, went clear to Illinois).
Now, the issue has always been that we needed a federal government which supported everyone equally. We had that, sort of, under a Conservative Jeffersonian plan...
But, as the North became overrun with immigrants, and
undue representations, their benefactors became the South's malefactors.
The South feared a whole lot more than the demise of slavery, as we have noted. They feared for their safety, and their 'way of life'. They not only wanted the negro to know his place in a civilized society, they always wanted the yankee to know his place.
You have to read some of the Neo-Confederate sites in order to understand it, and you clearly don't understand it. Let me help you, here...
1). The South never wanted to see society rot into the South Park freak show it is today. It feared this, greatly, and rightly so...
2). The South never wanted to live among filthy cities and smog-infested ruins, like New York City is today. (Quote from Letitia's diary: "Virginia doesn't care about your water-pipes and elevators!").
3). The South never wanted to see its morals decline to where the felonies of the perverse were protected by politicians who created from freedom of speech this class of the protected (and taught as such) abnormal... It may be fine in the yankee North, for you, but not for us.
4), We Southerners have feared and loathed and despised your 'progress'. And we still hate it, because you replace our Calvinism with your forced Secular Humanism.
5). We believe we have the right to shoot people who attack us in our homes and on the streets. (You don't, because the people on your streets are not 'responsible' for their actions. Our's - are held to account). You invaded us and we shot back... Nothing about slavery in that, unless you count conquest as slavery!
The South saw this coming, and screamed slavery, tariffs, and anything else it could come up with to be free of you, and your 'ways'. You are not us, and that is the real reason they wanted this distance.
If you can pack all that inside of slavery, go ahead.
True, today, we have been overrun by so many of you for so long that we are in positive danger of losing our identities. But we keep our HISTORY alive for this reason.
(So now you know... why!). And our flags represent our views, then and now. It provides a pictorial image of our nation; one of strong sovereign states, a Confederate government which knew its place, and tried to keep the myth of the founding fathers alive. No federals demanding anything of any of us...
I was referring to the abolitionists of then...
We are sick to death of Al Gore and Abraham Lincoln and...
If you think for one minute that the few Southerners who did own slaves (many of whom were consolidationalist left-wing Unionists) were the real reason the South pulled away from you, and your kind, then you are not even in the same book as everyone else!
Slavery might be the only word you know, but we in the South, today, want nothing to do with slavery... we do, however, want our morality back, and our culture restored, and our name returned to us, and our flags...
and we would like you to give it a definite rest about the 'main' reason you came down here, and the 'entire' reason we pulled out, was over some desire to own human property which was FAST on its way to becoming obsolete, even as they spoke!!
You do us all a massive disservice, to say nothing of showing your grand ignorance for the Lost Cause, which was actually about being free of the NORTH and your intolerable attitudes towards us, then, and now!
Now if telling you that gets me punted off of here and exiled, then so be it, Blue! But try as you might and pretty these conversations up with certain lines and topics
and it still comes down to the same thing.
The argument still exists.
You think we are as shallow as your people with regard to money and slavery, but we are not! The yanks might have, in another situation, seceded over losing slavery, or gaining land unfavorable to their political demons, but not us! Not as the MAIN reason for anything...
We really wanted to be free of the coming Federal party, federal usurpations, and this constant bickering with people only interested in votes and money!
We lost. So congratulate yourself on this fine selection that is running for president this year!
THAT is why we wanted to secede from you! Read those ordinances of Secession completely, and closer.
Read what Davis said about it, in RISE AND FALL.
And if you want a Union with us now, then come off it!
I must answer this, Ole. Please bear with me while I answer this man's question.
This American experiment was set up for one reason; to give the states their freedom from England, an oppressive and dictatorial system, in the eyes of the original yankees (Northerners named after Yankee Doodle dandies by the Brits...).
1/3 of us were for it. 1/3 against it. 1/3 were neutral. What gave the Colonies their unity was the king 'putting us out of his protection', as Henry claimed. Jefferson lists a whole train of abuses that white male landowners should not have to share in suffering, and so the Revolt. Northerners and Southerners are literally forced to agree for the first and only time in history, to get rid of the English King.
So far? But all this you should already know.
I do.
Now, they have these very sovereign colonies, and try a number of peace treaties, none of which works very well, until the Constitution... purposely left blank in places...
Purposely left blank? Please point out the 'blank' spots in the Constitution or please state for everyone who happens across this board and this thread that this is merely your own, personal opinion, and nothing more.
so pro-secession Northerners will sign it, and not fear being overrun by four absolutely massive Southern colonies... (Virginia, I believe, went clear to Illinois).
Pro-secession Northerners? Please name an actual, historical attempt at secession in which the North or Northern states actually left the Union via secession.
Now, the issue has always been that we needed a federal government which supported everyone equally. We had that, sort of, under a Conservative Jeffersonian plan...
Washington, Adams and all those other presidents were what, chopped liver? Again, your theory derived from whatever source you have found comfortable and can justify to yourself.
But, as the North became overrun with immigrants, and
undue representations, their benefactors became the South's malefactors.
Undue representation? New people coming from across the ocean in hopes of opportunity and freedom don't DESERVE representation?
The South feared a whole lot more than the demise of slavery, as we have noted.
No, we have NOT noted that the South feared anything more desperately than the loss or restriction of slavery, you are again merely stating your opinion, not historical fact. Others of us have noted that the South STILL had representation in Congress, the Senate, the Supreme Court, and the White House until the election of Lincoln. So what States Rights had they lost? Representation in the federal government. NO. Slavery where it already existed? NO. Increases in the tariff? NO, not when the South had representation in the Senate that could block any increases it did not desire. The South shot itself in the foot on that one when they seceded. So what other concerns were there other than slavery being denied them in the federal territories? NONE.
They feared for their safety, and their 'way of life'. They not only wanted the negro to know his place in a civilized society, they always wanted the yankee to know his place.
And you do not see the arrogance in this statement? The idea that the yankee had to know his place for 'their way of life?' Freedom of speech denied, freedom of petition, gag rules, censorship of the mails and press? A demand for a federal slave code and expansion of federal power unheard of before this demand? The negro to know his 'place' in society? The entire country to 'know its place' at the expense of a disgruntled minority?
You have to read some of the Neo-Confederate sites in order to understand it, and you clearly don't understand it. Let me help you, here...
You can't and never will.
1). The South never wanted to see society rot into the South Park freak show it is today. It feared this, greatly, and rightly so...
I'm impressed that the South of the 19th century could see this far into the future and know about the cartoon South Park.
2). The South never wanted to live among filthy cities and smog-infested ruins, like New York City is today. (Quote from Letitia's diary: "Virginia doesn't care about your water-pipes and elevators!").
Yet DeBow and other Southerners dispaired that the South could not create its own industries and shipping lines to encourage trade and business and internal improvements. The Upper South feared its ongoing industrial developments would be dragged down by a 'Cotton' slave-driven, South.
3). The South never wanted to see its morals decline to where the felonies of the perverse were protected by politicians who created from freedom of speech this class of the protected (and taught as such) abnormal... It may be fine in the yankee North, for you, but not for us.
Again, your own view and your own statements twisting a national problem into a sectional one. No sex offenders or child molesters are born and raised in the South? No serial killers, no mass shootings, etc? 'yankee North', my aching ***. You're in it with the rest of us, Beowulf, so contribute to the solution or continue to whine from your confined, restricted sandbox of a world-view.
4), We Southerners have feared and loathed and despised your 'progress'. And we still hate it, because you replace our Calvinism with your forced Secular Humanism.
Please point out and name the last Secular Humanist who came to your home and forced you to do anything.
5). We believe we have the right to shoot people who attack us in our homes and on the streets. (You don't, because the people on your streets are not 'responsible' for their actions. Our's - are held to account). You invaded us and we shot back... Nothing about slavery in that, unless you count conquest as slavery!
I don't? Congratulations on completing your mind-reading course through the mail! And here's another hot tip for you, 'I' did not invade anybody or anyone. How do such emotional tirades count toward anything concerning the South seceding over the issue of slavery? Point-of-fact, it doesn't.
The South saw this coming, and screamed slavery, tariffs, and anything else it could come up with to be free of you, and your 'ways'. You are not us, and that is the real reason they wanted this distance.
So, in order to arouse the poor, ignorant whites of the South about the dangers of the North, those who did 'see' lied about the tariff, slavery, etc. As for the classic statement, 'You are not of us,' try that one on the next terrorist you encounter. Scream, "I'm a Southerner, not a Yankee!" and then write and let me know how it comes out.
If you can pack all that inside of slavery, go ahead.
I can and have.
True, today, we have been overrun by so many of you for so long that we are in positive danger of losing our identities. But we keep our HISTORY alive for this reason.
(So now you know... why!). And our flags represent our views, then and now. It provides a pictorial image of our nation; one of strong sovereign states, a Confederate government which knew its place, and tried to keep the myth of the founding fathers alive. No federals demanding anything of any of us...
I was referring to the abolitionists of then...
We are sick to death of Al Gore and Abraham Lincoln and...
If you think for one minute that the few Southerners who did own slaves (many of whom were consolidationalist left-wing Unionists) were the real reason the South pulled away from you, and your kind, then you are not even in the same book as everyone else!
This from a reader of AMERICAN CEASER.
Slavery might be the only word you know, but we in the South, today, want nothing to do with slavery... we do, however, want our morality back, and our culture restored, and our name returned to us, and our flags...
and we would like you to give it a definite rest about the 'main' reason you came down here, and the 'entire' reason we pulled out, was over some desire to own human property which was FAST on its way to becoming obsolete, even as they spoke!!
NOT a chance, Beowulf, not a chance, and that is from the words and deeds of the South at the time. It was going NOWHERE fast. It was being clung to so tight that even when freeing the slaves to serve to fight for the South, the South could not bring itself to do so, even when it could have saved them.
You do us all a massive disservice, to say nothing of showing your grand ignorance for the Lost Cause, which was actually about being free of the NORTH and your intolerable attitudes towards us, then, and now!
No one does anyone a 'massive disservice' when trying to present historical fact over emotional clap trap and revisionist attempts at false history, then or now.
Now if telling you that gets me punted off of here and exiled, then so be it, Blue! But try as you might and pretty these conversations up with certain lines and topics
and it still comes down to the same thing.
The argument still exists.
You think we are as shallow as your people with regard to money and slavery, but we are not! The yanks might have, in another situation, seceded over losing slavery, or gaining land unfavorable to their political demons, but not us! Not as the MAIN reason for anything...
We really wanted to be free of the coming Federal party, federal usurpations, and this constant bickering with people only interested in votes and money!
We lost. So congratulate yourself on this fine selection that is running for president this year!
THAT is why we wanted to secede from you! Read those ordinances of Secession completely, and closer.
Read what Davis said about it, in RISE AND FALL.
And if you want a Union with us now, then come off it!
Beowulf, we ARE in a Union with 'us' and there is no way we can 'come off it' as it is a reality we all live with every day. If you don't believe me, run down to your local courthouse, post office, etc., and check what flag is flying from the flag pole. Hint: It ain't the Confederate Battle Flag.
Beowulf
Rant over,
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
1. The Perpetual part of the Articles. We went from being perpetually Sovereign states to... something else. What, is up for debate... (a big mistake between our two peoples, but if both sides think they got what they wanted, and sign, how cool was that?).
And the needs of the North change from being a SLAVE TRADING NATION to an industrialized FEDERALLY underwritten monopoly. So, yeah, they will decide who needs SLAVERY based on that!
So, we have a peace treaty, of sorts.
At least we won't be shooting at each other, North and South, as we were apparently doing all during the Revolutionary War, as well!
2. Washington was a military man; and a beloved figure.
He was also a Southerner who would NOT be king. We both liked him. But he did not really establish any tone for the office, and so Adams comes in and wants to be KING.
Thus, JEFFERSON, who came next, was here to remind everyone of what this was... NOT NEW ENGLAND but the Union of former colonies BENT on not letting that happen again.
Yeah. JEFFERSON. (I personally don't trust Adams as far as I could pick him up and throw him!)
3. Now, no one knows his place. NO ONE. There is no code of chivalry, nor anything else. We have a John Q. Publick we cannot trust, any longer, (DAVIS: They have put their hand to the ballot box and said it is not safe to trust the people to vote, after the example of the Roman emperors).
The North was not, nor has it ever been, stable. Your immigrants at the time threatened to change the whole Northern way to a European one, and many at the North fought this. (The Republicans evidently lied about immigration reforms and restrictions, however, as Lincoln's war raged on...). Your ideas are revolutionary, and bound to cause trouble,
because you do not see that stability is not an absolute value; it is a breather between wars caused by ignorant people who are 'progressively' trying to challenge the settled order of nature! PEOPLE HAVE A NATURAL AVERSION TO BEING TOLD WHAT TO DO!
Now, I shall try and show you the reasons for the Secession. You will hear the word SLAVERY mentioned, no doubt. But listen to how it is used herein. Not the fact that they want slavery above all else, but that it is a part of them, and they have to deal with it. They do not want to lose representation out West to a hostile bunch
of YANKEE ABOLITIONISTS at the North who have decided that THEY are the country, and what THEY want, when THEY want it, is reasonable... and if they get this unconstitutional denial of Southern state representations passed, then the South is doomed, politically, to serve your people.
They decided to risk having to fight you for it, instead.
First, the Money:
James Spence of London explained the effects of such a high tariff on the Southern economy:
"This system of protecting Northern manufactures, has an injurious influence, beyond the effect immediately apparent. It is doubly injurious to the Southern States, in raising what they have to buy, and lowering what they have to sell. They are the exporters of the Union, and require that other countries shall take their productions. But other countries will have difficulty in taking them, unless permitted to pay for them in the commodities which are their only means of payment. They are willing to receive cotton, and to pay for it in iron, earthenware, woollens. But if by extravagant duties, these be prohibited from entering the Union, or greatly restricted, the effect must needs be, to restrict the power to buy the products of the South. Our imports of Southern productions, have nearly reached thirty millions sterling a year. Suppose the North to succeed in the object of its desire, and to exclude our manufactures altogether, with what are we to pay? It is plainly impossible for any country to export largely, unless it be willing also, to import largely. Should the Union be restored, and its commerce be conducted under the present tariff, the balance of trade against us must become so great, as either to derange our monetary system, or compel us to restrict our purchases from those, who practically exclude other payment than gold. With the rate of exchange constantly depressed, the South would receive an actual money payment, much below the current value of its products. We should be driven to other markets for our supplies, and thus the exclusion of our manufactures by the North, would result in a compulsory exclusion, on our part, of the products of the South.
This is a consideration of no importance to the Northern manufacturer, whose only thought is the immediate profit he may obtain, by shutting out competition. It may be, however, of very extreme importance to others — to those who have products they are anxious to sell to us, who are desirous to receive in payment, the very goods we wish to dispose of, and yet are debarred from this. Is there not something of the nature of commercial slavery, in the fetters of a system that prevents it? If we consider the terms of the compact, and the gigantic magnitude of Southern trade, it becomes amazing, that even the attempt should be made, to deal with it in such a manner as this.(21)
George McDuffie of South Carolina stated in the House of Representatives, "If the union of these states shall ever be severed, and their liberties subverted, historians who record these disasters will have to ascribe them to measures of this description. I do sincerely believe that neither this government, nor any free government, can exist for a quarter of a century under such a system of legislation."(22) While the Northern manufacturer enjoyed free trade with the South, the Southern planter was not allowed to enjoy free trade with those countries to which he could market his goods at the most benefit to himself. Furthermore, while the six cotton States — South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arkansas — had less than one-eighth of the representation in Congress, they furnished two-thirds of the exports of the country, much of which was exchanged for imported necessities.(23) Thus, McDuffie noted that because the import tariff effectively hindered Southern commerce, the relation which the Cotton States bore to the protected manufacturing States of the North was now the same as that which the colonies had once borne to Great Britain; under the current system, they had merely changed masters".(24)
Now, the states and their representations:
Texas
A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union
For years past this abolition organization has been actively sowing the seeds of discord through the Union, and has rendered the federal congress the arena for spreading firebrands and hatred between the slave-holding and non-slave-holding States.
By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress, and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments.
They have proclaimed, and at the ballot box sustained, the revolutionary doctrine that there is a "higher law" than the Constitution and laws of our Federal Union, and virtually that they will disregard their oaths and trample upon our rights.
They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture, and have repeatedly murdered Southern citizens while lawfully seeking their rendition.
They have invaded Southern soil and murdered unoffending citizens, and through the press their leading men and a fanatical pulpit have bestowed praise upon the actors and assassins in these crimes, while the governors of several of their States have refused to deliver parties implicated and indicted for participation in such offenses, upon the legal demands of the States aggrieved.
They have, through the mails and hired emissaries, sent seditious pamphlets and papers among us to stir up servile insurrection and bring blood and carnage to our firesides.
They have sent hired emissaries among us to burn our towns and distribute arms and poison to our slaves for the same purpose.
They have impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance.
They have refused to vote appropriations for protecting Texas against ruthless savages, for the sole reason that she is a slave-holding State.
And, finally, by the combined sectional vote of the seventeen non-slave-holding States, they have elected as president and vice-president of the whole confederacy two men whose chief claims to such high positions are their approval of these long continued wrongs, and their pledges to continue them to the final consummation of these schemes for the ruin of the slave-holding States.
In view of these and many other facts, it is meet that our own views should be distinctly proclaimed.
Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and other states:
.... In several of our confederate States a citizen cannot travel the highway with his servant who may voluntarily accompany him, without being declared by law a felon and being subjected to infamous punishments. It is difficult to perceive how we could suffer more by the hostility than by the fraternity of such brethren.
The public law of civilized nations requires every State to restrain its citizens or subjects from committing acts injurious to the peace and security of any other State and from attempting to excite insurrection, or to lessen the security, or to disturb the tranquillity of their neighbors, and our Constitution wisely gives Congress the power to punish all offenses against the laws of nations.
These are sound and just principles which have received the approbation of just men in all countries and all centuries; but they are wholly disregarded by the people of the Northern States, and the Federal Government is impotent to maintain them. For twenty years past the abolitionists and their allies in the Northern States have been engaged in constant efforts to subvert our institutions and to excite insurrection and servile war among us. They have sent emissaries among us for the accomplishment of these purposes. Some of these efforts have received the public sanction of a majority of the leading men of the Republican party in the national councils, the same men who are now proposed as our rulers. These efforts have in one instance led to the actual invasion of one of the slave-holding States, and those of the murderers and incendiaries who escaped public justice by flight have found fraternal protection among our Northern confederates.
These are the same men who say the Union shall be preserved.
They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.
For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
This sectional combination for the subversion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.
On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.
The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.
Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.
Adopted 24 December 1860
[Committee signatures]
.... It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.
It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.
It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.
It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.
It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.
It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.
It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.
It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.
Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.
1. The Articles were "perpetual." Why wasn't the Constitution any different?
2. It is not accurate to refer to the North before 1808 was a "slave trading nation" For one, it is not a nation. Two, while some northerners engaged in the trans Atlantic slave trade, southerners were also engaged in the same slave trade. Does that make the south a slave trading nation? Of course not. The south wasn't a nation either.
It is not accurate to describe the North as a monopoly since Northern industry was diverse and diffuse, without any central control or ownership. Defining North as the free states, the majority of the population still worked in farms, rather than factories. You could more accurately state that the South was a federally supported monopoly of slaveowners, considering the special privileges, and extra political power slaveowners had granted themselves.
3. Washington did not "establish any tone." What a unique opinion. Washington is considered as one of our most influential presidents.
In war, Washington commanded an army made up of all the colonies/states. A national army. In peace, he created a national Constitution, then presided over a national government.
Your last paragraph, disparaging democracy and the American people("John Q. Publick") seems an restatement of the writings of George Fitzhugh and others, who wrote of an ordered society led by a slaveholding oligarchy and with the mass of others held in varying degrees of bondage.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
