Oops, big lump of your posts....

[Potomac Pride]

Let's see slavery was mentioned 1432 times coercion mentioned 230 times in the convention records I'll adjust it to 84% slavery 16% coercion. However, some of the coercion if not all was related to the protection of slavery so as I study the issue we may creep back to 95%

Like this one.

her honor and interest, to restore and maintain it—but that it is proper to declare through the Convention now assembled, her opposition to the coercion , under existing circumstances, of any slave State, and an unalterable determination not to submit to any Administration of the Government in​

Why was coercion even a topic? Secession. And why did the states claim they seceded? Right.

Or take this from the Virginia General Assembly, March 11th, 1861. Emphasis mine:

7. That the main causes of the trouble between the north and the south, are to be found in the offensive intermeddling of the former with our exclusive right to regulate our domestic institutions--in their arrogant and pharisaical ascription of sinfulness to them--and in the insulting claim to exclude us from territories of which we are part owners, except upon the condition of our parting with our slaves, and in the formation, and accession to power, of a party "founded on geographical discriminations:" All which acts we hold to be equally against the spirit and provisions of the constitution--a just equality of rights and social duty: that the first duty of the north, if it would win back the states that have gone out of the Union, or would keep in those which still remain, is to "do justice" to the south, by removing these causes of complaint. But if from prejudices they choose to indulge, or an incorrect appreciation of their obligations, they shall decide that they cannot or will not remove those causes, then they should at once concur in some proper mode of providing for the peaceable separation from another of such states as may choose to remain united on the original terms of constitutional and social equality, to be secured by proper additional guarantees, and those which refuse to continue in the Union on those terms--for continued Union on any other terms is simply impossible.

Thanks for your comments. I previously stated that slavery was an important topic of discussion at the Virginia Secession Convention. However, the delegates originally voted overwhelmingly in early April 1861 NOT to secede when slavery was the main issue of concern. Therefore, the evidence shows that slavery by itself was not the issue which caused the secession of Virginia. There had to be some other issue which caused them to change their mind and vote for secession. This particular issue was the threat of federal coercion as a result of Lincoln's request for troops to which Va. Governor Letcher's response was:
"Your object is to subjugate our Southern States, and a requisition made upon me for such object---an object, in my judgment, not within the purview of the Constitution, or the act of 1795---- will not be complied with. You have chosen to inaugurate civil war, and having done so, we will meet it, in a spirit as determined as the Administration has exhibited towards the South."

 

[Carronade]

I suggest "Readers" since, as @demiurge points out, one has only to read the words of the people who actually knew, the secessionists themselves.

 

[jgoodguy]

Thanks for your comments. I previously stated that slavery was an important topic of discussion at the Virginia Secession Convention. However, the delegates originally voted overwhelmingly in early April 1861 NOT to secede when slavery was the main issue of concern. Therefore, the evidence shows that slavery by itself was not the issue which caused the secession of Virginia. There had to be some other issue which caused them to change their mind and vote for secession. This particular issue was the threat of federal coercion as a result of Lincoln's request for troops to which Va. Governor Letcher's response was:
"Your object is to subjugate our Southern States, and a requisition made upon me for such object---an object, in my judgment, not within the purview of the Constitution, or the act of 1795---- will not be complied with. You have chosen to inaugurate civil war, and having done so, we will meet it, in a spirit as determined as the Administration has exhibited towards the South."

And I asked to what extent this coercion was related to slavery.
Certainly without slavery there no coercion.

 

[demiurge]

Thanks for your comments. I previously stated that slavery was an important topic of discussion at the Virginia Secession Convention. However, the delegates originally voted overwhelmingly in early April 1861 NOT to secede when slavery was the main issue of concern. Therefore, the evidence shows that slavery by itself was not the issue which caused the secession of Virginia. There had to be some other issue which caused them to change their mind and vote for secession. This particular issue was the threat of federal coercion as a result of Lincoln's request for troops to which Va. Governor Letcher's response was:
"Your object is to subjugate our Southern States, and a requisition made upon me for such object---an object, in my judgment, not within the purview of the Constitution, or the act of 1795---- will not be complied with. You have chosen to inaugurate civil war, and having done so, we will meet it, in a spirit as determined as the Administration has exhibited towards the South."

Yes, and in context, this followed his address to the Virginia Assembly in Jan 7th, 1861, where he explicitly stated that the Southern states seceded due to slavery, and gave a 6 point plan for the resolution of their greivences, all of which concerned slavery.


"What, then, is necessary to be done? The northern states must strike from their statute books their personal liberty bills, and fulfill their constitutional obligations in regard to fugitive slaves and fugitives from justice. If our slaves escape into non-slaveholding states, they must be delivered up; if abandoned, depraved and desperately wicked men come into slave states to excite insurrections, or to commit other crimes against our laws, and escape into free states, they must be given up for trial and punishment, when lawfully demanded by the constituted authorities of those states whose laws have been violated.
Second--We must have proper and effective guarantees for the protection of slavery in the district of Columbia. We can never consent to the abolition of slavery in the district, until Maryland shall emancipate her slaves; and not then, unless it shall be demanded by the citizens of the district.
Third--Our equality in the states and territories must be fully recognized, and our rights of person and property adequately protected and secured. We must have guarantees that slavery shall not be interdicted in any territory now belonging to, or which may hereafter be acquired by the general government; either by the congress of the United States or a territorial legislature: that we shall be permitted to pass through the free states and territories without molestation; and if a slave shall be abducted, that the state in which he or she shall be lost, shall pay the full value of such slave to the owner.
Fourth--Like guarantees must be given, that the transmission of slaves between the slaveholding states, either by land or water, shall not be interfered with.
Fifth--The passage and enforcement of rigid laws for the punishment of such persons in the free states as shall organize, or aid and abet in organizing, either by the contribution of money, arms, munitions of war, or in any other mode whatsoever, companies of men, with a view to assail the slaveholding states, and to excite slaves to insurrection.
Sixth--That the general government shall be deprived of the power of appointing to local offices in the slaveholding states, persons who are hostile to their institutions, or inimical to their rights--the object being to prevent the appointing power from using patronage to sow the seeds of strife and dissension between the slaveholding and non-slaveholding classes in the southern states.

These guarantees can be given without prejudice to the honor or rights, and without a sacrifice of the interests, of either of the non-slaveholding states. We ask nothing, therefore, which is not clearly right, and necessary to our protection: And surely, when so much is at stake, it will be freely, cheerfully and promptly assented to. It is the interest of the north and the south to preserve the government from destruction; and they should omit the use of no proper or honorable means to avert so great a calamity. The public safety and welfare demand instant action."

 

[James Lutzweiler]

What was the Virginia governor's remedy to the potential problem of disunion? Oh, look, it was all about slavery.


"What, then, is necessary to be done? The northern states must strike from their statute books their personal liberty bills, and fulfill their constitutional obligations in regard to fugitive slaves and fugitives from justice. If our slaves escape into non-slaveholding states, they must be delivered up; if abandoned, depraved and desperately wicked men come into slave states to excite insurrections, or to commit other crimes against our laws, and escape into free states, they must be given up for trial and punishment, when lawfully demanded by the constituted authorities of those states whose laws have been violated.
Second--We must have proper and effective guarantees for the protection of slavery in the district of Columbia. We can never consent to the abolition of slavery in the district, until Maryland shall emancipate her slaves; and not then, unless it shall be demanded by the citizens of the district.
Third--Our equality in the states and territories must be fully recognized, and our rights of person and property adequately protected and secured. We must have guarantees that slavery shall not be interdicted in any territory now belonging to, or which may hereafter be acquired by the general government; either by the congress of the United States or a territorial legislature: that we shall be permitted to pass through the free states and territories without molestation; and if a slave shall be abducted, that the state in which he or she shall be lost, shall pay the full value of such slave to the owner.
Fourth--Like guarantees must be given, that the transmission of slaves between the slaveholding states, either by land or water, shall not be interfered with.
Fifth--The passage and enforcement of rigid laws for the punishment of such persons in the free states as shall organize, or aid and abet in organizing, either by the contribution of money, arms, munitions of war, or in any other mode whatsoever, companies of men, with a view to assail the slaveholding states, and to excite slaves to insurrection.
Sixth--That the general government shall be deprived of the power of appointing to local offices in the slaveholding states, persons who are hostile to their institutions, or inimical to their rights--the object being to prevent the appointing power from using patronage to sow the seeds of strife and dissension between the slaveholding and non-slaveholding classes in the southern states.
These guarantees can be given without prejudice to the honor or rights, and without a sacrifice of the interests, of either of the non-slaveholding states. We ask nothing, therefore, which is not clearly right, and necessary to our protection: And surely, when so much is at stake, it will be freely, cheerfully and promptly assented to. It is the interest of the north and the south to preserve the government from destruction; and they should omit the use of no proper or honorable means to avert so great a calamity. The public safety and welfare demand instant action."

https://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/vadel61/vadel61.html

Thanks much for your post. Do you recall how long AFTER SC seceded that this threat became apparent to Virginia? Wasn't Virginia a little late coming to the table?

And "ALL" the non-slaveholding states were inspiring insurrection in the South? Any idea who up in Illinois was doing so?

 

[James Lutzweiler]

I suggest "Readers" since, as @demiurge points out, one has only to read the words of the people who actually knew, the secessionists themselves.

Thanks for your post. I assume you know many people had been reading secessionist provocateurs for the entire decade 1850-1860. Was it your intent to omit these debaters for independence?

 

[Waterloo50]

The operative word being 'established). The claim of independence was challenged from the very first moment of the formation of the confederacy, i.e., the 'fact' of independence had not and, never was, established.

True enough but for many newly established sovereign states it took a civil war to gain recognition, those new sovereign states were also told that they were rebellious and treasonous and that their actions were illegal. Nobody disputes their sovereignty now except those that lost the fight to keep them shackled to their particular unions/countries. Obviously I can’t breech forum rules by touching on modern politics but it’s fair to say that many comparisons can be found in more recent times.

 

[jgoodguy]

Fifth--The passage and enforcement of rigid laws for the punishment of such persons in the free states as shall organize, or aid and abet in organizing, either by the contribution of money, arms, munitions of war, or in any other mode whatsoever, companies of men, with a view to assail the slaveholding states, and to excite slaves to insurrection.

This could limit anti-slavery speech and publications in the Free States. It is very broad. Certainly, abolitionists' literature would fall under this and likely much more. The plain text would include punishment for things imagined and not done. The simple claim that slavery was evil would fall under this broad proposal.

 

[James Lutzweiler]

What was the Virginia governor's remedy to the potential problem of disunion? Oh, look, it was all about slavery.


"What, then, is necessary to be done? The northern states must strike from their statute books their personal liberty bills, and fulfill their constitutional obligations in regard to fugitive slaves and fugitives from justice. If our slaves escape into non-slaveholding states, they must be delivered up; if abandoned, depraved and desperately wicked men come into slave states to excite insurrections, or to commit other crimes against our laws, and escape into free states, they must be given up for trial and punishment, when lawfully demanded by the constituted authorities of those states whose laws have been violated.
Second--We must have proper and effective guarantees for the protection of slavery in the district of Columbia. We can never consent to the abolition of slavery in the district, until Maryland shall emancipate her slaves; and not then, unless it shall be demanded by the citizens of the district.
Third--Our equality in the states and territories must be fully recognized, and our rights of person and property adequately protected and secured. We must have guarantees that slavery shall not be interdicted in any territory now belonging to, or which may hereafter be acquired by the general government; either by the congress of the United States or a territorial legislature: that we shall be permitted to pass through the free states and territories without molestation; and if a slave shall be abducted, that the state in which he or she shall be lost, shall pay the full value of such slave to the owner.
Fourth--Like guarantees must be given, that the transmission of slaves between the slaveholding states, either by land or water, shall not be interfered with.
Fifth--The passage and enforcement of rigid laws for the punishment of such persons in the free states as shall organize, or aid and abet in organizing, either by the contribution of money, arms, munitions of war, or in any other mode whatsoever, companies of men, with a view to assail the slaveholding states, and to excite slaves to insurrection.
Sixth--That the general government shall be deprived of the power of appointing to local offices in the slaveholding states, persons who are hostile to their institutions, or inimical to their rights--the object being to prevent the appointing power from using patronage to sow the seeds of strife and dissension between the slaveholding and non-slaveholding classes in the southern states.
These guarantees can be given without prejudice to the honor or rights, and without a sacrifice of the interests, of either of the non-slaveholding states. We ask nothing, therefore, which is not clearly right, and necessary to our protection: And surely, when so much is at stake, it will be freely, cheerfully and promptly assented to. It is the interest of the north and the south to preserve the government from destruction; and they should omit the use of no proper or honorable means to avert so great a calamity. The public safety and welfare demand instant action."

https://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/vadel61/vadel61.html

Pop quiz: Another U.S. President plead "democracy" as the cause of a war. True or false: Was it?

I prefer a one word answer beginning with T or F.

 

[CSA Today]

The Confederate States signed treaties with a number of Indian nations. The Creeks, the Choctaw, The Seminoles, the Cherokee and others. But perhaps they don't really count as nations, despite being referred to as such.

http://treatiesportal.unl.edu/csaindiantreaties/csa_treaties.html

TREATY WITH THE CREEK NATION.​

JULY 10TH, 1861.​

A TREATY OF FRIENDSHIP AND ALLIANCE,​

​

July 10, 1861.​

​

Made and concluded at the North Fork Village, on the North Fork of the Canadian river, in the Creek Nation, west of Arkansas, on the tenth day of July, in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, between the Confederate States of America, by Albert Pike, Commissioner, with plenary powers, of the Confederate States, of the one part, and the Creek Nation of Indians, by its Chiefs, Head Men and Warriors in General Council assembled, of the other part.​

​

The Congress of the Confederate States of America, having, by "An act for the protection of certain Indian tribes," approved the twenty-first day of May, in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, offered to assume and accept the protectorate of the several nations and tribes of Indians occupying the country west of Arkansas and Missouri, and to recognize them as their wards, subject to all the rights, privileges and immunities, titles and guarantees with each of said nations and tribes under treaties made with them by the United States of America; and the Creek Nation of Indians having assented thereto upon certain terms and conditions:​

​

Now, therefore, the said Confederate States, by Albert Pike, their Commissioner, constituted by the President under authority of the act of Congress in their behalf, with plenary powers for these purposes, and the Creek Nation, in General Council assembled, have agreed to the following articles, that is to say:​

​

ARTICLE I. There shall be perpetual peace and friendship, and an alliance offensive and defensive, between the Confederate States of America, and all of their States and people, and the Creek Nation of Indians, and all its towns and individuals.​

Perhaps because if the US government says something doesn't exist it doesn't exist.

 

[Copperhead-mi]

Let me throw a monkey wrench into everything as I get ready to leave for work. I believe that some of the Indian nations at the time of the Civil War had signed treaties of peace with the United States yet were not under any Federal jurisdiction. They sure weren't allowed to vote nor were they taxed. Would not the Constitution's supremacy clause in Article VI acknowledge at that time those Indian nations as sovereigns? I'm out of here and got to go to work.

 

[wilber6150]

Let's not forget that Virginia was planning on presenting a list of changes they wanted to see from the Union or they were going to leave to form their own Confederation of border states

 

[demiurge]

Thanks much for your post. Do you recall how long AFTER SC seceded that this threat became apparent to Virginia? Wasn't Virginia a little late coming to the table?

And "ALL" the non-slaveholding states were inspiring insurrection in the South? Any idea who up in Illinois was doing so?

Why yes James. LOL.

SC seceded Dec 20th. The speech is explicitly shown to be January 7th. So 18 days.

And he is talking about why SC seceded, this after visits from the commissioners of secession.


He was also quite irked that they attempted to coerce Virginia by declaring that no Virginia slaves would be allowed to be sold into their proposed confederacy.

But then, that confederacy was still a month away, at the Montgomery Convention of Feb 4th.

And of course I didn't state all the non-slaveholding states, it's disingenuous to suggest so when I'm quoting someone else. You'll have to do a lot better than that to discredit the words of the governor of Virginia on the topic of why secession occurred and why all of his proposed remedies explicitly concerned slavery.

You can find overwhelming evidence of similar thought in the various secession conventions, the commissioner's speeches, and the newspapers at the time.

 

[Blessmag]

Who can help?



Take the address of John Letcher to the Virginia General Assembly on Jan 7th, 1861.


Later in the same address:


The slave owner is painted as the great criminal of the age, deserving death. Money is raised and has been expended in hiring desperate and depraved men, in arming and supporting them, in order that they may make raids into southern states, and excite the slaves to insurrection and murder. Arms peculiarly suited to the use of the slave, have been fabricated, and sent into the slave states, to be placed in the hands of this class of our population, after they have been stimulated to such a degree of madness as will qualify them for the commission of murder, arson, and every species of cruelty. The results of these teachings were seen in the Harpers Ferry raid.

Do you have any more of the "arms...have been fabricated, and sent into the slave states" Area of ignorance of mine. Harper's Ferry yes, but more???? Unaware of this.

 

[demiurge]

Pop quiz: Another U.S. President plead "democracy" as the cause of a war. True or false: Was it?

I prefer a one word answer beginning with T or F.

LOL. Why would you possibly think I'd limit my responses to you based on your construction of limiting my free speech? How abstruse.

And we were talking about a governor, not a President. Therefore your segue is inappropriate.

Feel free to put forward a point. No one owes you a response here, and the Socratic method is always of dubious providence when you have yet to prove your bonafides.

 

[jgoodguy]

Because the English word for nation and even country is very broad, I hold the CSA was nation or country. The only thing it was not was an international person with recognition.

Look forward to a discussion on this.

 

[RobertP]

"I really miss the guy."
He was always good for a few laughs.

Wasn’t he though. I hear his hands are too busy now with other business.

 

[byron ed]

It is difficult to calculate percentages in such cases as this but you could be wrong. The Secession Convention originally voted by almost two-thirds against secession but then reversed their decision and voted by a clear majority to secede due to the threat of federal coercion. Maybe you should go back and recalculate your percentages and come up with a substantially higher figure in regards to coercion.

Federal Coercion in the Antebellum (Oh, the Humanity!): "General financial ruin in the South, a devasted urban populace roiling about in gutters searching for scraps of food that had fallen from the wagons of greedy Northern investors come to call in abusive mortgages and other contracts. The very Flowers of the South forced into amalgamation. Abolition armies streaming over the countryside inciting loyal slaves to turn and murder their beneficent masters. White dirt farmers, most without slaves, at the mercy of abusive Northern tariffs, forced to choose between virtual serfdom or starvation. Northern shippers garnering obcenely high shipping rates, affected farmers and small businessmen consequently losing their weasel, left to compete for the few factory jobs in the South with hoards of European low-country immigrants streaming in from the Yankee North, their bare-footed children wasting away from worms and Tuberculosis."

NOT. The South was just fine under Federal venue. Though we are to think of "Federal Coercion" as some sort of conspiracy against the South, it was also being contested by every Northern state as well.

Bottom line is that Virginia, and not all of Virginia, chose to throw in with those wanting to maintain and expand slavery. Slave selling to the lower South had become very profitable in it's own right. In that respect, as claimed by seceders, it was about "property rights."

 

[Gene Green]

Please advise how this addresses the OP.

Please discuss this with General Green.

Were they differences, that to a visitor from Europe, would easily identify one as North and the other South?

In other words, the defining characteristic(s) between North and South was Slavery and its effects on southern society ?

You asked the question , or blew your own horn.
Read about deTocqueville if you want to know his thoughts

Slavery affected both Northern and Southern societies/civilizations in vastly different ways.

yes they did. And slavery, which both sections had in common at one time and which both profited from, also produced differences.
@OpnCoronet DeTocqueville pointed out differences in the white populations. How they became different , whether because of slavery, geography, or what ever is irrelevant to your question on whether a European would notice.
He noticed that southerners were more prone to hedonistic pleasures, leaving the work to lower classes.
@OpnCoronet Your rudeness is noted but I do not understand it.

 

[byron ed]

If the majority prevailed in support of WV branching off from Va, did all of Va get a voice in such a measure?

?? only those of the Western sector, the voting majority there, voted out of the Confederacy to became a U.S. State. Why are we going over this really basic stuff?