Legislation passed during Civil War and other issues than slavery causing war


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

byron ed

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
2,095
Location
Midwest
Common sense tells us to cast a wide net, and look at the whole gamut of spoken and written thought, not to just rely on a few selections from the secession declarations.
Rather, common sense tells us that the secession declarations were the penultimate of secessionist South thoughts. It was their very document, after all. The discourses were quite long and could have included any number of longer deliberations on other reasons to secede, as there was no limit to the length of the document. They could have waxed poetic about tariffs or other Federal impositions but no, it was preservation and expansion of slavery that was of primary concern.

To look at the whole gamut of spoken and written thought in the South would be wise, but not for the reason you might think. Rather, it of course would include much Unionist and anti-slavery sentiment. At one point even South Carolina considered becoming a free state, until the engine of profit enabled by the cotton gin and upcountry cotton varieties, and the slaveocracy, slapped the state back into financial reality. Within the writings of none other than Jefferson Davis you will find his support for maintaining Union, nearly to the very point of secession when he conceded.
 
Last edited:

Potomac Pride

First Sergeant
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Messages
1,505
Location
Georgia
Really? Please list those unrelated to slavery.
Some of the other reasons for secession unrelated to slavery that were contained in the secession documents were:
1. States' rights issues - the sovereignty of the states was violated by the federal government
2. The federal tariff system - the tariff system was benefiting the North at the expense of the South
3. Inadequate federal military protection - the federal government was not protecting citizens on the frontier
4. Economic Exploitation - Unfair federal legislation that promoted protectionism and subsidies for northern
business interests

The issue of slavery was an important contributing factor that led to the secession of the southern states. However, there were additional factors contained in the secession documents other than slavery which are often overlooked. These other factors were significant enough for the southern states to include in their articles of secession.
 
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
8,620
Location
District of Columbia
Some of the other reasons for secession unrelated to slavery that were contained in the secession documents were:
1. States' rights issues - the sovereignty of the states was violated by the federal government
2. The federal tariff system - the tariff system was benefiting the North at the expense of the South
3. Inadequate federal military protection - the federal government was not protecting citizens on the frontier
4. Economic Exploitation - Unfair federal legislation that promoted protectionism and subsidies for northern
business interests

The issue of slavery was an important contributing factor that led to the secession of the southern states. However, there were additional factors contained in the secession documents other than slavery which are often overlooked. These other factors were significant enough for the southern states to include in their articles of secession.
This is the Texas secession declaration:

The people of Texas, by deputies in convention assembled, on the fourth day of July of the same year, assented to and accepted said proposals and formed a constitution for the proposed State, upon which on the 29th day of December in the same year, said State was formally admitted into the Confederated Union.​
Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated States to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility [sic] and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?
The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States (with slaves), unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions (peculiarly, slavery) of Texas and her sister slave-holding States.
By the disloyalty of the Northern States and their citizens and the imbecility of the Federal Government, infamous combinations of incendiaries and outlaws have been permitted in those States and the common territory of Kansas to trample upon the federal laws, to war upon the lives and property of Southern citizens in that territory, and finally, by violence and mob law, to usurp the possession of the same as exclusively the property of the Northern States.​
The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refused reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harrassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.​
These and other wrongs we have patiently borne in the vain hope that a returning sense of justice and humanity would induce a different course of administration.​
When we advert to the course of individual non-slave-holding States, and that [of] a majority of their citizens, our grievances assume far greater magnitude.​
The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article of the federal constitution (regarding retrieval of "persons held to service" - ie, slaves), and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holdings States in their domestic institutions--a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation. Some of those States have imposed high fines and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal laws enacted in accordance therewith.​
In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon the unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of the equality of all men, irrespective of race or color--a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of the Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and the negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.​
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. ("Higher Law" was a phrase used by abolitionists when critiquing legal slavery.)​
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 (John Brown's raid), 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 offences, 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.​
We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.
That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding States.
By the secession of six of the slave-holding States, and the certainty that others will speedily do likewise, Texas has no alternative but to remain in an isolated connection with the North, or unite her destinies with the South.​
For these and other reasons, solemnly asserting that the federal constitution has been violated and virtually abrogated by the several States named, seeing that the federal government is now passing under the control of our enemies to be diverted from the exalted objects of its creation to those of oppression and wrong, and realizing that our own State can no longer look for protection, but to God and her own sons--We the delegates of the people of Texas, in Convention assembled, have passed an ordinance dissolving all political connection with the government of the United States of America and the people thereof and confidently appeal to the intelligence and patriotism of the freemen of Texas to ratify the same at the ballot box, on the 23rd day of the present month.​

====

Now let's remove the paragraphs who arguments are built around references to slavery, abolition, or slave-holding/non-slaveholding states:

The government of the United States, by certain joint resolutions, bearing date the 1st day of March, in the year A.D. 1845, proposed to the Republic of Texas, then a free, sovereign and independent nation, the annexation of the latter to the former as one of the co-equal States thereof,​
The people of Texas, by deputies in convention assembled, on the fourth day of July of the same year, assented to and accepted said proposals and formed a constitution for the proposed State, upon which on the 29th day of December in the same year, said State was formally admitted into the Confederated Union.​
Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated States to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility [sic] and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings.​
By the disloyalty of the Northern States and their citizens and the imbecility of the Federal Government, infamous combinations of incendiaries and outlaws have been permitted in those States and the common territory of Kansas to trample upon the federal laws, to war upon the lives and property of Southern citizens in that territory, and finally, by violence and mob law, to usurp the possession of the same as exclusively the property of the Northern States.​
The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refused reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harrassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.​
These and other wrongs we have patiently borne in the vain hope that a returning sense of justice and humanity would induce a different course of administration.​
In view of these and many other facts, it is meet that our own views should be distinctly proclaimed.​
For these and other reasons, solemnly asserting that the federal constitution has been violated and virtually abrogated by the several States named, seeing that the federal government is now passing under the control of our enemies to be diverted from the exalted objects of its creation to those of oppression and wrong, and realizing that our own State can no longer look for protection, but to God and her own sons--We the delegates of the people of Texas, in Convention assembled, have passed an ordinance dissolving all political connection with the government of the United States of America and the people thereof and confidently appeal to the intelligence and patriotism of the freemen of Texas to ratify the same at the ballot box, on the 23rd day of the present month.​

If you remove slavery from the equation, does Texas really have a case for secession? Different people will have different opinions. But it seems obvious to me that without the essential conflict of slave-holding states and non-slave-holding states - over the issues of slavery and abolition - Texas' remaining grievances do not rise to such a level that secession is the only solution for redress of those grievances.
===

I add that it's notable that in its Sec Dec, Texas says: "The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refused reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harrassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas."

But then it adds this: "They have refused to vote appropriations for protecting Texas against ruthless savages, for the sole reason that she is a slave-holding State." That is, their main non-slavery argument ~ lack of protection from "savages" ~ is put in the context of the slave-holding state and non-save-holding state conflict. It seems that to Texas, everything was about slavery one way or the other.

I think one or more historians have said that every conflict between the slave-holding and non-save-holding states became a proxy for the conflict about slavery by 1860. This is an example.

- Alan
 
Last edited:

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,405
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
1. States' rights issues - the sovereignty of the states was violated by the federal government
Which State Sovereignty was violated? There were none other than enforcement of the Federal Fugitive Slave Acts/Laws which violated the State Sovereignty of the Northern States.
2. The federal tariff system - the tariff system was benefiting the North at the expense of the South
Tarriffs were related to slavery because the tariffs benefited all States with factories. Many Southern States did not industrialize because slaveowners did not want to.
3. Inadequate federal military protection - the federal government was not protecting citizens on the frontier
Remember those tariffs the Southern Slaveowners did not want-those tariffs paid for military protection. Minimum tariffs means no money for military protection.
4. Economic Exploitation - Unfair federal legislation that promoted protectionism and subsidies for northern business interests
Federal legislation gave the same benefits to all States. However if the local slaveowners did not want public works like canals or harbor improvements, then there were no benefits.
 

ebg12

Corporal
Joined
Feb 28, 2019
Messages
347
Slavery in The United States was never a social experiment. Black people did not volunteer to be slaves,
and white people did not volunteer to be owners. Because of the greed of men to make money by selling cotton,
black people were brutalized into slavery.

"Cotton was King" for making money in the south, and you can't separate that lucrative economic activity from slavery.
The South supplied 75% of the world's demand for cotton by 1860, and all that cotton had to picked by hand.

The greatest concentration of slavery was in the "cotton belt" of Alabama along the Mississippi River.
Travelers at that time referred to that area as the "black belt."

In the decade of 1850-1860, cotton prices rose 50% to 11.5 cent per pound ($.12 in 1860 = $3.49 in 2019),
and production in that decade doubled from approx. 2 million bales to approx, 4.5 million bales.
(a bale weighs approx 500 pounds in 1860).

by 1850, nearly every once of credit offered by southern banks dealt directly with the investment of cotton.

Men don't argue issues in Congress unless its about money, and with the importance
of money from Southern Cotton, goes hand and hand the importance of slavery at that time.

The South even wrote songs about cotton like Dixie "Oh I wish I was in the land of cotton"
 
Last edited:

ebg12

Corporal
Joined
Feb 28, 2019
Messages
347
They didn't sing about slavery either. They sang about a bonnie blue flag, dixie and goober peas. :smile:
And the opening line of Dixie is " Oh I wish I was in the Land of Cotton." How do you separate the lucrative industry of cotton in 1860 from the institution of slavery (75% of the world's demand for cotton in 1860 was supplied by the South)?
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Messages
7,524
Location
South Carolina
And the opening line of Dixie is " Oh I wish I was in the Land of Cotton." How do you separate the lucrative industry of cotton in 1860 from the institution of slavery (75% of the world's demand for cotton in 1860 was supplied by the South)?
Dixie may mention "the land of cotton", but at its heart, as adopted by southerners, it's about a love of our home. It's not about slavery at all. Really, if you read the lyrics, they're a lot of silliness, meant to make people laugh or smile. :smile:

But if you want to drive 'way sorrow
Come and hear this song tomorrow
Look away! Look away! Look away!
Dixie Land
 
Last edited:
Slavery in The United States was never a social experiment. Black people did not volunteer to be slaves,
and white people did not volunteer to be owners. Because of the greed of men to make money by selling cotton,
black people were brutalized into slavery.

"Cotton was King" for making money in the south, and you can't separate that lucrative economic activity from slavery.
The South supplied 75% of the world's demand for cotton by 1860, and all that cotton had to picked by hand.

The greatest concentration of slavery was in the "cotton belt" of Alabama along the Mississippi River.
Travelers at that time referred to that area as the "black belt."

In the decade of 1850-1860, cotton prices rose 50% to 11.5 cent per pound ($.12 in 1860 = $3.49 in 2019),
and production in that decade doubled from approx. 2 million bales to approx, 4.5 million bales.
(a bale weighs approx 500 pounds in 1860).

by 1850, nearly every once of credit offered by southern banks dealt directly with the investment of cotton.

Men don't argue issues in Congress unless its about money, and with the importance
of money from Southern Cotton, goes hand and hand the importance of slavery at that time.

The South even wrote songs about cotton like Dixie "Oh I wish I was in the land of cotton"
A slight quibble with your post. Dixie was written by a Northerner.
 

ebg12

Corporal
Joined
Feb 28, 2019
Messages
347
Dixie may mention "the land of cotton", but at its heart, as adopted by southerners, it's about a love of our home. It's not about slavery at all. Really, if you read the lyrics, they're a lot of silliness, meant to make people laugh or smile. :smile:

But if you want to drive 'way sorrow
Come and hear this song tomorrow
Look away! Look away! Look away!
Dixie Land
But why couldn't Southerns love their home in 1861 without secession...especially in South Carolina which seceded first? What about the great population of slaves...did they love their homes too? If so, what was the underground railroad about?
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,405
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Dixie may mention "the land of cotton", but at its heart, as adopted by southerners, it's about a love of our home. It's not about slavery at all. Really, if you read the lyrics, they're a lot of silliness, meant to make people laugh or smile. :smile:

But if you want to drive 'way sorrow
Come and hear this song tomorrow
Look away! Look away! Look away!
Dixie Land
Certain Southerners.
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Messages
7,524
Location
South Carolina
But why couldn't Southerns love their home in 1861 without secession...especially in South Carolina which seceded first? What about the great population of slaves...did they love their homes too? If so, what was the underground railroad about?
We're wandering far afield from the topic of the thread here. It's a long and complicated answer to your questions, which we discuss from many angles in many different threads.
 



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