Restricted Analyzing the Confederate Constitution

Patrick H

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Mar 7, 2014
The reason that the Civil War was all about slavery was that unlike other secessionist movements there was no serious effort to separate from the U.S. either through peaceful or violent means.
I'm not following this at all. It seems self evident to me that the Civil War was extremely violent. "No serious effort to separate either through peaceful or violent means"... Huh? Please explain.
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
I'm not following this at all. It seems self evident to me that the Civil War was extremely violent. "No serious effort to separate either through peaceful or violent means"... Huh? Please explain.
It is rather simple .If the cause of Secession was not slavery but another political,cultural,religious or ethnic issue then there would of been a strong and continuous political movent in the South since at least the 1870s for Secession from the United States. There has not been anything approaching a serious movement for Secession from the United States since 1865.
Many Western democracies have had long term Secession movements for many decades some well over one hundred years. These nations have well established political parties advocating for Secession and elected members to their nations Parliament's.
Nothing even close to that in the former Confederate States.
Why? Because the Confederacy fought to preserve and expand slavery. Once the slavery collapsed there was no reason for an independent Southern nation.
Leftyhunter
 

Patrick H

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Mar 7, 2014
Well, OF COURSE the Confederate states wanted to preserve and expand slavery. No argument about that. But I am still not getting your point about "No serious effort to separate either through peaceful or violent means." It seems to me the CSA chose extremely violent means when they started lobbing cannon rounds. ...Not to mention when they started rattling musket and rifle fire. I am obviously missing something which is evident to you, but don't bother explaining it further. It doesn't matter that I have missed it.
 

trice

Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
To those who claim the South ran the country most of the time until secession I would ask why there were no new slaves states after 1845?

In 1844, the Union had 26 states: 13 free and 13 slave. Arkansas (1836) and Michigan (1837) were the last two admitted.
In 1845, Florida, a slave state, was admitted, making 27 states: 13 free and 14 slave.
In 1845, Texas, a slave state, was admitted, making 28 states: 13 free and 15 slave.
In 1846, Iowa, a free state, was admitted, making 29 states: 14 free and 15 slave.
In 1848, Michigan, a free state, was admitted, making 30 states: 15 free and 15 slave.

Up until this point, I would say the logical question about Texas was why were they admitted in 1845? If balancing free and slave states is a requirement, it would seem that Texas should have had to wait a few years to keep the balance.

In 1850, California, having decided to be a free state, was admitted, making 31 states: 16 free and 15 slave.

This was done as part of the Compromise of 1850. This is just normal admission activity, agreed to in Congress by "the South". Quite possibly, some people at the time expected that next Utah or New Mexico might become a slave state, or that Texas might split off one or more of the four new states permitted them as a slave state.

Then, in 1854, "the South" breaks the Compromise of 1850 with the Kansas-Nebraska Act and Popular Sovereignty. This leads to Bleeding Kansas and exacerbates the issue of slavery, as well as helping to form the Republican Party.

In 1858, Minnesota, a free state, was admitted, making 32 states: 17 free and 15 slave.

This gets us to +2 free states -- the equivalent of the admission of Texas in 1845, when it was +2 slave states.

In 1859, Minnesota, a free state, was admitted, making 33 states: 18 free and 15 slave.

This gets us to +3 free states -- the first truly unusual situation we see.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
In 1844, the Union had 26 states: 13 free and 13 slave. Arkansas (1836) and Michigan (1837) were the last two admitted.
In 1845, Florida, a slave state, was admitted, making 27 states: 13 free and 14 slave.
In 1845, Texas, a slave state, was admitted, making 28 states: 13 free and 15 slave.
In 1846, Iowa, a free state, was admitted, making 29 states: 14 free and 15 slave.
In 1848, Michigan, a free state, was admitted, making 30 states: 15 free and 15 slave.

Up until this point, I would say the logical question about Texas was why were they admitted in 1845? If balancing free and slave states is a requirement, it would seem that Texas should have had to wait a few years to keep the balance.

In 1850, California, having decided to be a free state, was admitted, making 31 states: 16 free and 15 slave.

This was done as part of the Compromise of 1850. This is just normal admission activity, agreed to in Congress by "the South". Quite possibly, some people at the time expected that next Utah or New Mexico might become a slave state, or that Texas might split off one or more of the four new states permitted them as a slave state.

Then, in 1854, "the South" breaks the Compromise of 1850 with the Kansas-Nebraska Act and Popular Sovereignty. This leads to Bleeding Kansas and exacerbates the issue of slavery, as well as helping to form the Republican Party.

In 1858, Minnesota, a free state, was admitted, making 32 states: 17 free and 15 slave.



This gets us to +2 free states -- the equivalent of the admission of Texas in 1845, when it was +2 slave states.

In 1859, Minnesota, a free state, was admitted, making 33 states: 18 free and 15 slave.

This gets us to +3 free states -- the first truly unusual situation we see.

That was the big problem, by 1859 there were +3 free states, also there were +6 pro-Northern US senators, Kansas was ready to come in and to make matters worse when so-called “free soil” Republicans came to power the floodgates would be thrown open.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
So we should ignore the Ordinances of Secession? We should ignore what Confederate officials wrote about trying to seize Mexican Territory per the sources cited [email protected] in his thread about Confederate diplomacy towards Mexico?
Leftyhunter

No, I don't think you should ignore the Ordinances of Secession you should read them for your self and be less dependent upon what someone else is citing. As for Confederate diplomacy toward Mexico, the government was trying to win France over as an ally not start a war with them over Mexico.
 

trice

Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
That was the big problem, by 1859 there were +3 free states, also there were +6 pro-Northern US senators, Kansas was ready to come in and to make matters worse when so-called “free soil” Republicans came to power the floodgates would be thrown open.

As I pointed out, there were +3 free states in 1859. In 1845 there were +2 slave states and +4 pro-Southern, pro-slavery Senators. The situation is reversed and pretty much the same -- are you ready to say it was unfair to "the North" in 1845? Was this excess pro-slavery power in 1845 a major factor in starting the War with Mexico, for example?
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
No, I don't think you should ignore the Ordinances of Secession you should read them for your self and be less dependent upon what someone else is citing. As for Confederate diplomacy toward Mexico, the government was trying to win France over as an ally not start a war with them over Mexico.
I have read the Ordinances of Secession. I am also familiar with post Civil War history of the Southern States. Confederate officials made specific statements that they wanted to seize an annex Mexican Territory. @jgoodguy has the specific source's.
Leftyhunter
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Well, OF COURSE the Confederate states wanted to preserve and expand slavery. No argument about that. But I am still not getting your point about "No serious effort to separate either through peaceful or violent means." It seems to me the CSA chose extremely violent means when they started lobbing cannon rounds. ...Not to mention when they started rattling musket and rifle fire. I am obviously missing something which is evident to you, but don't bother explaining it further. It doesn't matter that I have missed it.
If slavery was not the main reason for Southern states to succeed then there would still be a significant political movement for Southern Independence from the United States from the 1870s to the present era.
Leftyhunter
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
As I pointed out, there were +3 free states in 1859. In 1845 there were +2 slave states and +4 pro-Southern, pro-slavery Senators. The situation is reversed and pretty much the same -- are you ready to say it was unfair to "the North" in 1845? Was this excess pro-slavery power in 1845 a major factor in starting the War with Mexico, for example?

Possibly, I don't like imperialistic aggression no matter who the perpetrator.
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Possibly, I don't like imperialistic aggression no matter who the perpetrator.
Well at least you and Abraham Lincoln have something in common since both of you are against the Mexican-American War. Almost all nations came into being due to imperialistic aggression. Certainly DNA gets around that way.
Leftyhunter
 

trice

Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Possibly, I don't like imperialistic aggression no matter who the perpetrator.

I was not talking about imperialist aggression. I was pointing you at the fact that it was no more of a problem to have more free states than slave than it was to have more slave states than free.

What is really happening here, I would say, is that "the South" wants to expand slavery when the world-wide trend of the time is to eliminate slavery. There are more free states being admitted because there are more people who don't want slavery in their states.
 

JonnyReb_In_MI

Corporal
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Location
Southeast Michigan
If slavery was not the main reason for Southern states to succeed then there would still be a significant political movement for Southern Independence from the United States from the 1870s to the present era.
Leftyhunter

Edited.

There are plenty of good reasons why there has never been another Southern secession movement, the best being the same reason that men like Jefferson Davis were opposed to Southern secession in the first place at that time - because they know that any attempt at secession would be met by the Union with opposition through the force of arms and they would not be able to succeed in such a contest. Davis, as he himself would later state, worked for years in the U.S. Congress to try and prevent secession. Why did he do this? Because he, as a past U.S. Secretary of War, knew what the military might of the United States was capable of and, on the other side of the coin, that the South was not prepared to meet it with equal or greater might in defense.

By the end of the war & and immediately after, like a spouse who had tried & failed to escape an abusive husband, the South was battered, beaten, bloody, and psychologically traumatized beyond the point of trying again. "Reconstruction" further reinforced this trauma. Add that with the urging of men like Robert E. Lee to set all the divisions of war aside and work together to reunite & rebuild the country, and it makes total sense why there was not another effort.

Since then the country has undergone/shared many changes/experiences that have brought the people of the various regions closer... wars, migration of Southerners to the North & Northerners to the South, the advanced ability to more quickly and easily travel from one region to another, increases in interstate commerce & business interests, etc... For better and/or worse, state/regional identities have almost completely given way to national unity in all but a few aspects of life.

These are far more logical explanations as to why there was or has not been another serious attempt at secession by the Southern states, or any other state(s) for that matter.
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Edited.
There are plenty of good reasons why there has never been another Southern secession movement, the best being the same reason that men like Jefferson Davis were opposed to Southern secession in the first place at that time - because they know that any attempt at secession would be met by the Union with opposition through the force of arms and they would not be able to succeed in such a contest. Davis, as he himself would later state, worked for years in the U.S. Congress to try and prevent secession. Why did he do this? Because he, as a past U.S. Secretary of War, knew what the military might of the United States was capable of and, on the other side of the coin, that the South was not prepared to meet it with equal or greater might in defense.

By the end of the war & and immediately after, like a spouse who had tried & failed to escape an abusive husband, the South was battered, beaten, bloody, and psychologically traumatized beyond the point of trying again. "Reconstruction" further reinforced this trauma. Add that with the urging of men like Robert E. Lee to set all the divisions of war aside and work together to reunite & rebuild the country, and it makes total sense why there was not another effort.

Since then the country has undergone/shared many changes/experiences that have brought the people of the various regions closer... wars, migration of Southerners to the North & Northerners to the South, the advanced ability to more quickly and easily travel from one region to another, increases in interstate commerce & business interests, etc... For better and/or worse, state/regional identities have almost completely given way to national unity in all but a few aspects of life.

These are far more logical explanations as to why there was or has not been another serious attempt at secession by the Southern states, or any other state(s) for that matter.
No your counter argument is missing the point. If slavery was not the real or main reason for Secession then what was?
Secession can be achieved by non violent means Edited.

Leftyhunter
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
CSA Presidents had 6 year terms and a line item veto
Everything I have read indicates the CSA Constitution was States Rights centric, even slavery was not nationalized in the normal sense of the word. In the CSA constitutional debates, States Rights won out over forcing States to be slave States. OTOH Abe Lincoln kept us from seeing how that would have worked out.


But, at the very end of all this, is the Right to Own. Slaves in any state or territory of the confederacy, a States or Confederate Right?

It is fairly obvious, that the framers of the csa Constitution, were trying to meld the institution of slavery into the very fabric of the political body of the confederacy. They did this by enacting many separate strands of legal obfuscation, that attempting to eliminate slavery in any one or more states, would require, IMO, a major reframing of the Constitution itself.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
I was not talking about imperialist aggression. I was pointing you at the fact that it was no more of a problem to have more free states than slave than it was to have more slave states than free.

What is really happening here, I would say, is that "the South" wants to expand slavery when the world-wide trend of the time is to eliminate slavery. There are more free states being admitted because there are more people who don't want slavery in their states.

What I was pointing out to you that it was only when the incoming Republican Party and it so called free-soil policy threatened to so drastically upset the balance of power between North and South that the South felt threatened by Northern political domination.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
Well at least you and Abraham Lincoln have something in common since both of you are against the Mexican-American War. Almost all nations came into being due to imperialistic aggression. Certainly DNA gets around that way.
Leftyhunter

So why do Northerners and the wannabees single out the CSA for selective criticism when their own country was up to their eyeballs in imperialistic expansion?
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
But, at the very end of all this, is the Right to Own. Slaves in any state or territory of the confederacy, a States or Confederate Right?

It is fairly obvious, that the framers of the csa Constitution, were trying to meld the institution of slavery into the very fabric of the political body of the confederacy. They did this by enacting many separate strands of legal obfuscation, that attempting to eliminate slavery in any one or more states, would require, IMO, a major reframing of the Constitution itself.
IMHO the intention was keep the national government from interfering with slavery. That was their experience and fear. Where state's rights and slavery collided, state's rights won. OTOH slavery as a goodness was so embedded in their lives that they figured it was the natural was and any free State joining would convert to slavery and no CSA State would become a free State. IMHO it is this mental attitude needed to view the CSA Constitution, it does not force slavery as much as confirm and support an existing institution.
 
Top