How Was South Carolina's Secession Supposed to Save Slavery?

James Lutzweiler

First Sergeant
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,320
#21
We all have the benefit of about 160 years of hindsight understanding and realizing that it was unlikely for slavery to be saved by secession.

They didn't.

An not sure that it mattered to them much. Secession ensured that the people who were in power in the Secessed States remained in power and/or gained power, which was likely more of their intend than the preservation of slavery.
Let me repeat for the record. I am pointedly not in search of hindsight. I am in search of then contemporary letters, speeches, essays. Slavery was a business. People who are in business often have business plans and think about the future. I am in search of what those ante-bellum planters and politicians thought about the future with respect to slavery. I have no interest in hindsight.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)

wbull1

Sergeant
Joined
Jul 26, 2018
Messages
659
#22
I think it would be safe to say that efforts to keep the status quo regarding slavery, i.e. secession and war, were absolutely guaranteed to change the status quo.
 

E_just_E

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Messages
6,031
Location
Center Valley, PA
#23
Let me say this back to you: do I hear you saying that the preservation of power by those in power was more of a concern to southerners than was the preservation of slavery? If the preservation of power by those in power was a single factor at all in the recipe for rebellion, would you say it is fair to say that the secession documents did not tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Based on your statement, do you think it reasonable to conclude that secession had a lot more to do with things other than the preservation of slavery?
That is what I am saying, isn't it?
Other than the "a lot" part.
It is more complicated than "the reason for secession was slavery alone".

IMHO, regarding the subject, politicians who were pro-secession for personal benefit, used the slave argument to align with and secure funding by the wealthiest who were slave holding planters. Politicians were very skillful in telling people who they want to influence what they want to hear for personal benefit. This should not come as a surprise. Part of their job description. I just do not take everything that was written by them as the absolute truth.

By no means this implies that pro-secession politicians were against slavery and/or non-racist. Each of them had their own beliefs and we are not privy to them.

And got to remember: the issue was not slavery in States that already supported it; it was in new States in the West. Their status quo was not immediately threatened.

What their individual inner motives (other than "more personal power" which is fairly obvious because it was the outcome) were, has not been recorded (for obvious reasons.)
 

James Lutzweiler

First Sergeant
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,320
#24
That is what I am saying, isn't it?
Other than the "a lot" part.
It is more complicated than "the reason for secession was slavery alone".

IMHO, regarding the subject, politicians who were pro-secession for personal benefit, used the slave argument to align with and secure funding by the wealthiest who were slave holding planters. Politicians were very skillful in telling people who they want to influence what they want to hear for personal benefit. This should not come as a surprise. Part of their job description. I just do not take everything that was written by them as the absolute truth.

By no means this implies that pro-secession politicians were against slavery and/or non-racist. Each of them had their own beliefs and we are not privy to them.

And got to remember: the issue was not slavery in States that already supported it; it was in new States in the West. Their status quo was not immediately threatened.

What their individual inner motives (other than "more personal power" which is fairly obvious because it was the outcome) were, has not been recorded (for obvious reasons.)
So, politicians used the bogeyman of slavery to accomplish their ends I shaking down the planters and also by recruiting soldiers with this war cry. Do you see a similarity in the chicken little story about the sky is falling?
 

James Lutzweiler

First Sergeant
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,320
#26
That is what I am saying, isn't it?
Other than the "a lot" part.
It is more complicated than "the reason for secession was slavery alone".

IMHO, regarding the subject, politicians who were pro-secession for personal benefit, used the slave argument to align with and secure funding by the wealthiest who were slave holding planters. Politicians were very skillful in telling people who they want to influence what they want to hear for personal benefit. This should not come as a surprise. Part of their job description. I just do not take everything that was written by them as the absolute truth.

By no means this implies that pro-secession politicians were against slavery and/or non-racist. Each of them had their own beliefs and we are not privy to them.

And got to remember: the issue was not slavery in States that already supported it; it was in new States in the West. Their status quo was not immediately threatened.

What their individual inner motives (other than "more personal power" which is fairly obvious because it was the outcome) were, has not been recorded (for obvious reasons.)
And if it is not slavery alone that was the cause of secession and war, who is it who gets to decide what the percentages of the factors were?
 
Last edited:

MattL

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 20, 2015
Messages
3,006
Location
SF Bay Area
#27
Fellow Posters,

I am not among those who see slavery as the primary cause of Secession and the War of Southern Aggression for Western Territory that followed. However, for the sake of discussion, let me ask those of you who take that position this question: "If you were a planter or politician in 1860 and it was in your interest to preserve slavery as an institution, what would you have done?" A corollary to that question is a very similar one, if one of your answers is "Secession and the launching of a new country." Here is the question: "Just exactly how was it that Secession was going to preserve slavery?"

For the life of me, I cannot see Secession as salvific in any way. To me it is the mother lode of non sequiturs to bring about that result. What I am looking for by way of answers is a detailed (maybe 3-4 bullet points) of the exact choreography of order. OK, we have seceded. What next? Put yourself in the shoes of a planter in 1860 and ask yourself what you need to do in order to preserve your investment. We know in hindsight that Secession did not work. But what made them think it would work? That's what I am looking for.

James Lutzweiler
Why not ask the people themselves rather than putting yourself in their shoes.

https://civilwartalk.com/threads/timeline-of-slavery-and-secession.137718/

Here's an excerpt followed by the greater context

----
South Carolina has 300,000 whites, and 400,000 slaves. These 300,000 whites depend for their whole system of civilization on these 400,000 slaves. Twenty millions of people, with one of the strongest Governments on the face of the earth, decree the extermination of these 400,000 slaves, and then ask, is honor, is interest, is liberty, is right, is justice, is life, worth the struggle?
----


February 19th, 1861

South Carolina Commissioner to Virginia Secession Convention

http://secession.richmond.edu/docum...=1&order=date&direction=ascending&id=pb.1.104

----
This, gentlemen, brings me directly to the causes which I desire to lay before you. For fully thirty years or more, the people of the Northern States have assailed the institution of African slavery. They have assailed African slavery in every form in which, by our contiguity of territory and our political alliance with them, they have been permitted to approach it.

During that period of thirty years, large masses of their people have associated themselves together for the purpose of abolishing the institution of African slavery, and means, the most fearful were suggested to the subject race—rising and murdering their masters being the charities of those means. In pursuance of this idea, their representatives in the federal government have endeavored by all the means that they could bring to bear, so to shape the legislation as almost to limit, to restrict, to restrain the slaveholding States from any political interest in the accretion of the government. So that as my distinguished colleague [Judge Benning], stated to you on yesterday, the decree goes forth that there are to be no more slave States admitted into the Union.

Secondly, then, in pursuance of the same purpose that I have indicated, a large majority of the States of the Confederation have refused to carry out those provisions of the Constitution which are absolutely necessary to the existence of the slave States, and many of them have stringent laws to prevent the execution of those provisions ; and eight of these States have made it criminal, even in their citizens to execute these provisions of the Constitution of the United States, which, by the progress of the government, have become now necessary to the protection of an industry which furnishes to the commerce of the Republic $250,000,000 per annum, and on which the very existence of twelve millions of people depends. In not one of these seventeen States can a citizen of one of the fifteen States claim his main property, and in many of them the persons of the citizens of these States have been violated, and in numerous cases the violence has resulted in murder.

Third. The citizens of not less than five of our confederates of the North have invaded the territory of their confederates of the slave-holding States, and proclaimed the intention of abolishing slavery by the annihilation of the slaveholders; and two of these States have refused to surrender the convicted felons to the demand of the invaded States; and one of these—one of the most influential—one, perhaps, recognized as the representative of what is called American sentiment and civilization, has, in its highest solemn form, approved of that invasion ; and numbers of people, scattered throughout the whole extent of these seventeen States, have made votive offerings to the memory of the invaders.

Fourth. The most populous, and by far, the most potent of our late confederates, has for years proclaimed, through the federal legislature and by her own sovereign act, that the conflict between slavery and non-slavery is a conflict for life and death. Now, there is the calm, oft-reiterated decree of a State containing three millions of people, conducting four-fifths of the commerce of the Republic, with additional millions diffused through the whole of these 17 States. And many of these States themselves have decreed that the institution of slavery is an offence to God, and, therefore, they are bound by the most sacred attributes which belong to human nature, to exterminate it. They have declared, in their most solemn form, that the institution of slavery, as it exists in the States of their political confederates, is an offence to their social institutions, and, therefore, that it should be exterminated. Finally, acting upon the impulse of their duties of self-protection and self-preservation, majorities, large majorities throughout the whole of these 17 States have placed the executive power of the Federal Government in the hands of those who are bound by the most sacred obligations, by their obligations to God, by their obligations to the social institutions of man, by their obligations of self-protection and self-preservation, to place the system of slavery as it exists in the Southern States upon a course of certain and final extinction. Twenty millions of people, having in their hands one of the strongest Governments on earth, and impelled by a perfect recognition of the most powerful obligations which fall upon man, have declared that the vital interests of eight millions of people shall be exterminated. In other words, the decree, the result of this cumulation which I have endeavored to show you, was inaugurated on the 6th of November last, so far as the institution of slavery is concerned, in the confederates of the Northern non-slaveholding States. That decree is annihilation, and you can make nothing shorter of it.

Now, gentlemen, the people of South Carolina, being a portion of these eight millions of people, have only to ask themselves, is existence worth the struggle? Their answer to this question, I have submitted to you in the form of their Ordinance of Secession.

Gentlemen, I see before me men who have observed all the records of human life, and many, perhaps, who have been chief actors in many of its gravest scenes, and I ask such men if in all their lore of human society they can offer an example like this? South Carolina has 300,000 whites, and 400,000 slaves. These 300,000 whites depend for their whole system of civilization on these 400,000 slaves. Twenty millions of people, with one of the strongest Governments on the face of the earth, decree the extermination of these 400,000 slaves, and then ask, is honor, is interest, is liberty, is right, is justice, is life, worth the struggle?

----
 

E_just_E

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Messages
6,031
Location
Center Valley, PA
#28
And if it is not slavery alone that was the cause of secession and war, who is it who gets to decide what the percentages of the factors were?
It is not an exact science and some very important data, e.g. what motivated each of the particular proponents of secession, is missing, thus it is impossible to calculate.
 

MattL

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 20, 2015
Messages
3,006
Location
SF Bay Area
#29
And if it is not slavery alone that was the cause of secession and war, who is it who gets to decide what the percentages of the factors were?
The people who were in power to cause secession and the war, they in fact did decide it 150+ years ago.

I think you might be mixing up very different concepts. What are all the issues and differences between the US and CSA, the North and the South, vs what caused secession and war. Secession was a specific action, a very strong and extreme one done in a very fast timeline responding to specific threats that warranted such action... every single issue was not the cause. Just like if I am sentenced to be executed it wasn't because I stole some money, but because I killed someone while stealing money.
 

James Lutzweiler

First Sergeant
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,320
#30
Why not ask the people themselves rather than putting yourself in their shoes.

https://civilwartalk.com/threads/timeline-of-slavery-and-secession.137718/

Here's an excerpt followed by the greater context

----
South Carolina has 300,000 whites, and 400,000 slaves. These 300,000 whites depend for their whole system of civilization on these 400,000 slaves. Twenty millions of people, with one of the strongest Governments on the face of the earth, decree the extermination of these 400,000 slaves, and then ask, is honor, is interest, is liberty, is right, is justice, is life, worth the struggle?
----


February 19th, 1861

South Carolina Commissioner to Virginia Secession Convention
http://secession.richmond.edu/docum...=1&order=date&direction=ascending&id=pb.1.104

----
This, gentlemen, brings me directly to the causes which I desire to lay before you. For fully thirty years or more, the people of the Northern States have assailed the institution of African slavery. They have assailed African slavery in every form in which, by our contiguity of territory and our political alliance with them, they have been permitted to approach it.

During that period of thirty years, large masses of their people have associated themselves together for the purpose of abolishing the institution of African slavery, and means, the most fearful were suggested to the subject race—rising and murdering their masters being the charities of those means. In pursuance of this idea, their representatives in the federal government have endeavored by all the means that they could bring to bear, so to shape the legislation as almost to limit, to restrict, to restrain the slaveholding States from any political interest in the accretion of the government. So that as my distinguished colleague [Judge Benning], stated to you on yesterday, the decree goes forth that there are to be no more slave States admitted into the Union.

Secondly, then, in pursuance of the same purpose that I have indicated, a large majority of the States of the Confederation have refused to carry out those provisions of the Constitution which are absolutely necessary to the existence of the slave States, and many of them have stringent laws to prevent the execution of those provisions ; and eight of these States have made it criminal, even in their citizens to execute these provisions of the Constitution of the United States, which, by the progress of the government, have become now necessary to the protection of an industry which furnishes to the commerce of the Republic $250,000,000 per annum, and on which the very existence of twelve millions of people depends. In not one of these seventeen States can a citizen of one of the fifteen States claim his main property, and in many of them the persons of the citizens of these States have been violated, and in numerous cases the violence has resulted in murder.

Third. The citizens of not less than five of our confederates of the North have invaded the territory of their confederates of the slave-holding States, and proclaimed the intention of abolishing slavery by the annihilation of the slaveholders; and two of these States have refused to surrender the convicted felons to the demand of the invaded States; and one of these—one of the most influential—one, perhaps, recognized as the representative of what is called American sentiment and civilization, has, in its highest solemn form, approved of that invasion ; and numbers of people, scattered throughout the whole extent of these seventeen States, have made votive offerings to the memory of the invaders.

Fourth. The most populous, and by far, the most potent of our late confederates, has for years proclaimed, through the federal legislature and by her own sovereign act, that the conflict between slavery and non-slavery is a conflict for life and death. Now, there is the calm, oft-reiterated decree of a State containing three millions of people, conducting four-fifths of the commerce of the Republic, with additional millions diffused through the whole of these 17 States. And many of these States themselves have decreed that the institution of slavery is an offence to God, and, therefore, they are bound by the most sacred attributes which belong to human nature, to exterminate it. They have declared, in their most solemn form, that the institution of slavery, as it exists in the States of their political confederates, is an offence to their social institutions, and, therefore, that it should be exterminated. Finally, acting upon the impulse of their duties of self-protection and self-preservation, majorities, large majorities throughout the whole of these 17 States have placed the executive power of the Federal Government in the hands of those who are bound by the most sacred obligations, by their obligations to God, by their obligations to the social institutions of man, by their obligations of self-protection and self-preservation, to place the system of slavery as it exists in the Southern States upon a course of certain and final extinction. Twenty millions of people, having in their hands one of the strongest Governments on earth, and impelled by a perfect recognition of the most powerful obligations which fall upon man, have declared that the vital interests of eight millions of people shall be exterminated. In other words, the decree, the result of this cumulation which I have endeavored to show you, was inaugurated on the 6th of November last, so far as the institution of slavery is concerned, in the confederates of the Northern non-slaveholding States. That decree is annihilation, and you can make nothing shorter of it.

Now, gentlemen, the people of South Carolina, being a portion of these eight millions of people, have only to ask themselves, is existence worth the struggle? Their answer to this question, I have submitted to you in the form of their Ordinance of Secession.

Gentlemen, I see before me men who have observed all the records of human life, and many, perhaps, who have been chief actors in many of its gravest scenes, and I ask such men if in all their lore of human society they can offer an example like this? South Carolina has 300,000 whites, and 400,000 slaves. These 300,000 whites depend for their whole system of civilization on these 400,000 slaves. Twenty millions of people, with one of the strongest Governments on the face of the earth, decree the extermination of these 400,000 slaves, and then ask, is honor, is interest, is liberty, is right, is justice, is life, worth the struggle?
----
Thanks, Matt; and thank you for these quotations. However, I think you missed my nuance.

It sounds to me like you believe slavery and slavery alone was the cause. Others have indicated that Secession and war was NOT monocausational. My question once again for the record was this: Who is it who gets to decide which cause was the primary cause among more than one cause? Do the Secessionists themselves get that privilege? Do contemporary historians get the privilege? Who gets it? Who decides what was PRIMARY? I will start another thread with that specific question to avoid your nevertheless welcome citations of what the Seceshers thought. I do not grant them quote the neutrality and objectivity you kindly bestow on them.

Think about this, as I will mention it in a new thread: What would an orals committee for a PhD do with these Secession documents, if they were turned in as dissertations --and not based on hindsight, as someone is needlessly sure to object that I am doing. I see nothing in these Secesh documents complaining about the 1853 $10 million subsidy to the slave states for the Gadsden Purchase. Could this have been an oversight by the South so pregnant with injured innocence? Can you picture the Southern uproar, if Congress had awarded $10 million for the route through Kansas/Nebraska in 1854? Can you paint that picture for me?

James
 

James Lutzweiler

First Sergeant
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,320
#31
The people who were in power to cause secession and the war, they in fact did decide it 150+ years ago.

I think you might be mixing up very different concepts. What are all the issues and differences between the US and CSA, the North and the South, vs what caused secession and war. Secession was a specific action, a very strong and extreme one done in a very fast timeline responding to specific threats that warranted such action... every single issue was not the cause. Just like if I am sentenced to be executed it wasn't because I stole some money, but because I killed someone while stealing money.
I don't think I am mixing up anything. All I did was ask a question. I repeat: Who gets to decide what was primary? And I prefer answers that relate solely to South Carolina, though admittedly I did not state that in my original post.

I take your answer to be that the Seceshers themselves get to decide what was PRIMARY. While I don't agree with that, it is not my objective to argue with you. You answered my question with that, and that is what I asked for. Thank you.
 

James Lutzweiler

First Sergeant
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,320
#32
It is not an exact science and some very important data, e.g. what motivated each of the particular proponents of secession, is missing, thus it is impossible to calculate.
I agree that distributing percentages is a highly subjective process; however, I don't think assigning PRIMARY to a cause or two or three is impossible at all. So, to you I say, who gets to decide what was the PRIMARY cause? Several posters have claimed that slavery was that PRIMARY cause. Are these posters the end-all referees? Who is? I am not asserting an answer, I am simply asking a question: Who gets to decide what was PRIMARY? And while I am at it, if SC's Seceshers submitted their declarations to the JOURNAL OF AMERICAN HISTORY or any other reputable periodical for peer review (in 1860, NOT TODAY WITH HIND SIGHT BUT ONLY WITH ANTEBELLUM DATA), would it be published as a scholarly and accurate piece of literature. Once again, please spare me the charge of presentism. My question has absolutely NOTHING to do with that. For my part, I don't think they would get an A grade. If they turned it in to me as a simple term paper for my class in American history, I would flunk it based on nothing other than 1850-1860 data, to say nothing of 1830-1850 data.
 

wbull1

Sergeant
Joined
Jul 26, 2018
Messages
659
#35
Well, it didn’t happen in a vacuum. Cutting the South off from the North West, which was of no value to a Cotton Planter was not much of a threat to Slavery. The argument about ruining souls and running out of Soils n the South is a Yankee Myth. The South had more that enough land to support Slavery endlessly. Slave growth was from natural births, even tho the Yankee Slave Traders were a source and the Federal Government had no resources to stop it. Coolies were replacing Africans in Cuba. Yankee Merchants could of brought them to SC as easily as they did to Cuba and Peru. The South was unlike other Slave Societies in that Slaves Survived. The Upper South produces more Slaves than they needed. South Carolina wasn’t running out of Land. It was being replaced by areas that were simply more productive. That wasn’t going to change. The Gulf Coast and Mississippi Valley was Geographically Superior to South Carolina as far as Cotton Production was concerned.

The North did a Heck Of a good job, Protecting Slavery. SC leaving the Union would be loosing their little Slave Catchers!

I am puzzled by the last sentence. After the slave trade was made illegal, as you say the population in the United States was more than self-sustaining. Some smuggling continued but according to Eric Foner, Columbia University historian, importation of slaves "basically stopped." Both US and British ships searched for slavers. Increasing the risks and the costs of slavers. Can you demonstrate that the small amount of smuggling that went on was by northerners? The internal slave trade increased from upper slave states to lower slave states.

Slaves in 1860 Census

According to the 1860 Census in the northern states there were 2 slaves in Kansas and 18 in New Jersey. The census also shows 451, 001 slaves in the Border States, which initially did not commit to either side (Missouri, Delaware, Maryland and Kentucky.) In current or future Confederate states there were nearly 3.5 million slaves. So internal slave trading was a southern enterprise.

Do you have any reference showing the "Yankee merchants"actually did bring coolies or slaves to the US? The great majority of slave-hunters I have read about were southerners. Do you have any references showing slave-hunting was a primarily Northern activity? How much did it add to the northern economy? How much did smuggling?

I see nothing cited that shows the North was protecting slavery or had a big economic interest in it past the early 1800s. Please show the supporting citations or documents.
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,100
#36
Fellow Posters,
I am not among those who see slavery as the primary cause of Secession and the War of Southern Aggression for Western Territory that followed. However, for the sake of discussion, let me ask those of you who take that position this question: "If you were a planter or politician in 1860 and it was in your interest to preserve slavery as an institution, what would you have done?" A corollary to that question is a very similar one, if one of your answers is "Secession and the launching of a new country." Here is the question: "Just exactly how was it that Secession was going to preserve slavery?"
For the life of me, I cannot see Secession as salvific in any way. To me it is the mother lode of non sequiturs to bring about that result. What I am looking for by way of answers is a detailed (maybe 3-4 bullet points) of the exact choreography of order. OK, we have seceded. What next? Put yourself in the shoes of a planter in 1860 and ask yourself what you need to do in order to preserve your investment. We know in hindsight that Secession did not work. But what made them think it would work? That's what I am looking for.

James Lutzweiler





Like many posters on this board, you cannot grasp the reasoning of the slave owners from the vantage point of what I refer to as historical foresight. Looking back it is easy to see the fallacy of ante bellum thought processes.

To a slave owner an independent slave nation(and possibly empire) with no internal divisions over slavery to disrupt local politics(All politics, are, ultimately, about Local politics). You would have a safe and serene country completely unified on the guiding principle of Slavery being the cornerstone of its Politics, Economy and Society.

I can agree that is lunacy, but that was the main thoughts for independence by the ruling oligarchy of the slave states, and to me, bears out the old adage, 'Whom the Gods would destroy, they first make mad'
 

James Lutzweiler

First Sergeant
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,320
#37
Like many posters on this board, you cannot grasp the reasoning of the slave owners from the vantage point of what I refer to as historical foresight. Looking back it is easy to see the fallacy of ante bellum thought processes.

To a slave owner an independent slave nation(and possibly empire) with no internal divisions over slavery to disrupt local politics(All politics, are, ultimately, about Local politics). You would have a safe and serene country completely unified on the guiding principle of Slavery being the cornerstone of its Politics, Economy and Society.

I can agree that is lunacy, but that was the main thoughts for independence by the ruling oligarchy of the slave states, and to me, bears out the old adage, 'Whom the Gods would destroy, they first make mad'
I think I can grasp the reasoning of the slaveowners. In point of fact, that is exactly what I am trying to do. And so far I have not read any reports on how secession was going to preserve slavery. perhaps you can grasp that and pass along your findings to me.
 
Joined
Nov 27, 2018
Messages
820
Location
Chattanooga, Tennessee
#38
Fellow Posters,

I am not among those who see slavery as the primary cause of Secession and the War of Southern Aggression for Western Territory that followed. However, for the sake of discussion, let me ask those of you who take that position this question: "If you were a planter or politician in 1860 and it was in your interest to preserve slavery as an institution, what would you have done?" A corollary to that question is a very similar one, if one of your answers is "Secession and the launching of a new country." Here is the question: "Just exactly how was it that Secession was going to preserve slavery?"

For the life of me, I cannot see Secession as salvific in any way. To me it is the mother lode of non sequiturs to bring about that result. What I am looking for by way of answers is a detailed (maybe 3-4 bullet points) of the exact choreography of order. OK, we have seceded. What next? Put yourself in the shoes of a planter in 1860 and ask yourself what you need to do in order to preserve your investment. We know in hindsight that Secession did not work. But what made them think it would work? That's what I am looking for.

James Lutzweiler
Good question. Are we supposed to read other posters before we answer, as initial involvement here? As put in a complimentary tone for your instructions are excellent, so far, add first and then read, or read first and then add?
The planting aristocracy of the south did not have the mental capacity to understand human rights. An old adage of blindness due to gold, burning the senses and making one inconsiderate, can be proven in the sands Egypt and the crypts of mighty kings. I cannot blame the men involved in a dilemma of having 'gotten hold of a tiger by the tail'. Maybe they were hoping for the Passover being done in reverse.
They were in a plight. What rich man will give away all his wealth so he may enter into peace?
Lubliner.
 

James Lutzweiler

First Sergeant
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,320
#39
Good question. Are we supposed to read other posters before we answer, as initial involvement here? As put in a complimentary tone for your instructions are excellent, so far, add first and then read, or read first and then add?
The planting aristocracy of the south did not have the mental capacity to understand human rights. An old adage of blindness due to gold, burning the senses and making one inconsiderate, can be proven in the sands Egypt and the crypts of mighty kings. I cannot blame the men involved in a dilemma of having 'gotten hold of a tiger by the tail'. Maybe they were hoping for the Passover being done in reverse.
They were in a plight. What rich man will give away all his wealth so he may enter into peace?
Lubliner.
Answer from whatever perspective you like. Thanks for jumping in.
 

James Lutzweiler

First Sergeant
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
1,320
#40
Why not ask the people themselves rather than putting yourself in their shoes.

https://civilwartalk.com/threads/timeline-of-slavery-and-secession.137718/

Here's an excerpt followed by the greater context

----
South Carolina has 300,000 whites, and 400,000 slaves. These 300,000 whites depend for their whole system of civilization on these 400,000 slaves. Twenty millions of people, with one of the strongest Governments on the face of the earth, decree the extermination of these 400,000 slaves, and then ask, is honor, is interest, is liberty, is right, is justice, is life, worth the struggle?
----


February 19th, 1861

South Carolina Commissioner to Virginia Secession Convention
http://secession.richmond.edu/docum...=1&order=date&direction=ascending&id=pb.1.104

----
This, gentlemen, brings me directly to the causes which I desire to lay before you. For fully thirty years or more, the people of the Northern States have assailed the institution of African slavery. They have assailed African slavery in every form in which, by our contiguity of territory and our political alliance with them, they have been permitted to approach it.

During that period of thirty years, large masses of their people have associated themselves together for the purpose of abolishing the institution of African slavery, and means, the most fearful were suggested to the subject race—rising and murdering their masters being the charities of those means. In pursuance of this idea, their representatives in the federal government have endeavored by all the means that they could bring to bear, so to shape the legislation as almost to limit, to restrict, to restrain the slaveholding States from any political interest in the accretion of the government. So that as my distinguished colleague [Judge Benning], stated to you on yesterday, the decree goes forth that there are to be no more slave States admitted into the Union.

Secondly, then, in pursuance of the same purpose that I have indicated, a large majority of the States of the Confederation have refused to carry out those provisions of the Constitution which are absolutely necessary to the existence of the slave States, and many of them have stringent laws to prevent the execution of those provisions ; and eight of these States have made it criminal, even in their citizens to execute these provisions of the Constitution of the United States, which, by the progress of the government, have become now necessary to the protection of an industry which furnishes to the commerce of the Republic $250,000,000 per annum, and on which the very existence of twelve millions of people depends. In not one of these seventeen States can a citizen of one of the fifteen States claim his main property, and in many of them the persons of the citizens of these States have been violated, and in numerous cases the violence has resulted in murder.

Third. The citizens of not less than five of our confederates of the North have invaded the territory of their confederates of the slave-holding States, and proclaimed the intention of abolishing slavery by the annihilation of the slaveholders; and two of these States have refused to surrender the convicted felons to the demand of the invaded States; and one of these—one of the most influential—one, perhaps, recognized as the representative of what is called American sentiment and civilization, has, in its highest solemn form, approved of that invasion ; and numbers of people, scattered throughout the whole extent of these seventeen States, have made votive offerings to the memory of the invaders.

Fourth. The most populous, and by far, the most potent of our late confederates, has for years proclaimed, through the federal legislature and by her own sovereign act, that the conflict between slavery and non-slavery is a conflict for life and death. Now, there is the calm, oft-reiterated decree of a State containing three millions of people, conducting four-fifths of the commerce of the Republic, with additional millions diffused through the whole of these 17 States. And many of these States themselves have decreed that the institution of slavery is an offence to God, and, therefore, they are bound by the most sacred attributes which belong to human nature, to exterminate it. They have declared, in their most solemn form, that the institution of slavery, as it exists in the States of their political confederates, is an offence to their social institutions, and, therefore, that it should be exterminated. Finally, acting upon the impulse of their duties of self-protection and self-preservation, majorities, large majorities throughout the whole of these 17 States have placed the executive power of the Federal Government in the hands of those who are bound by the most sacred obligations, by their obligations to God, by their obligations to the social institutions of man, by their obligations of self-protection and self-preservation, to place the system of slavery as it exists in the Southern States upon a course of certain and final extinction. Twenty millions of people, having in their hands one of the strongest Governments on earth, and impelled by a perfect recognition of the most powerful obligations which fall upon man, have declared that the vital interests of eight millions of people shall be exterminated. In other words, the decree, the result of this cumulation which I have endeavored to show you, was inaugurated on the 6th of November last, so far as the institution of slavery is concerned, in the confederates of the Northern non-slaveholding States. That decree is annihilation, and you can make nothing shorter of it.

Now, gentlemen, the people of South Carolina, being a portion of these eight millions of people, have only to ask themselves, is existence worth the struggle? Their answer to this question, I have submitted to you in the form of their Ordinance of Secession.

Gentlemen, I see before me men who have observed all the records of human life, and many, perhaps, who have been chief actors in many of its gravest scenes, and I ask such men if in all their lore of human society they can offer an example like this? South Carolina has 300,000 whites, and 400,000 slaves. These 300,000 whites depend for their whole system of civilization on these 400,000 slaves. Twenty millions of people, with one of the strongest Governments on the face of the earth, decree the extermination of these 400,000 slaves, and then ask, is honor, is interest, is liberty, is right, is justice, is life, worth the struggle?
----
The First flaw in this appeal to Virginia that any peer reviewer would have caught --and that any person worth his scholarly salt should have caught-- is the scrawny scarecrow encapsulated in this phony phrase: "the people of the North." At best, that could only be "some" people of the North, and it was also certainly true of "some" people in the South!! One problem the South had was not just slavery but straw men. They have done nothing other than confirm the old adage, "The first casualty of war is truth." Had these ostensibly spiritual antebellum Bible-banging bloviators simply read what John the Baptist told the soldiers who inquired of him their duty, they would have read, "Don't lie about your enemies."

Edited.
Sincerely,

Jimmy Edited.
 



(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top