The Failure Of The South To Convince Delaware To Secede


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

matthew mckeon

Colonel
Retired Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
13,413
#44
Part preceding the "flogging slavery, slavery, slavery" part-
"In the succession of party triumphs and defeats which have marked the political history of the country, the power and patronage of the Executive Department of the Federal Government will on the 4th of March next pass for the first time under the control of a purely sectional party, which has succeeded by a purely sectional vote. The principles and purposes of this party, as defined in its platforms and by its leaders and presses, are too well understood to render it necessary for me to recall them in detail to the notice of Your Excellency. The fact that it is a sectional party includes the additional fact that its aim will be, by all the means of legislation and of the administration of the Government, to promote and foster the interests and internal prosperity of one section, and to debase the institutions, weaken the power, and impair the interests of the other section."
"debase the institutions" In other words, weaken the institution of slavery. "Impair the interests:" weakening slavery, "weaken the power" no more slave states in the West.

Mr. Clopton singing the same tune, but Delaware didn't have enough slaves to appreciate his taste in music.
 

O' Be Joyful

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 6, 2015
Messages
2,873
Location
Use-ta be: Zinn-zä-nätti o-HI-o The BIG city.
#46
Actually, I believe Delaware supported the federal tariff policy that was advocated by the Republicans in the 1860 Presidential election. Therefore, tariffs would not have been an issue for the Blue Hen state.
And, what difference would this have made in the overall question at hand?

In your opinion, of course, but sources are always helpful.
 
Joined
Jan 20, 2017
Messages
37
#47
Delaware was a manufacturing state, so it supported tariffs. 2% of the population were slaves and 17% of the population was free black. It was originally part of Pennsylvania, and much less culturally southern even than Maryland. The Delaware General Assembly voted unanimously not to secede. I don't think there was any question that Delaware would secede. If Maryland somehow seceded than it might be different.

Delaware did vote Southern Democratic in the election of 1860. There was southern sympathy in Delaware and support for agreeing to Confederate independence, as in the southern parts of OH, IN, and IL.
 

Eric Calistri

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
May 31, 2012
Messages
3,011
Location
Austin Texas
#48
The three counties of Delaware broke down similar to the way the US broke down. The northernmost county, New Castle, centered around Wilmington, and was mostly pro Union like many other Northern cities. The middle county Kent, was "border statish" and Sussex, the southernmost, was more similar to Tidewater VA. New Castle had about half the population, so the state as whole had a pre-dominantly Union bent.

One thing that often gets lost in the sauce when discussing DE, is that the state legislature, in the 1790's, placed very severe restrictions on the slave trade. These restrictions are what made slavery so much weaker in DE compared to MD or VA. The DE legislators started down the same road as NY or PA, but managed only to weaken legal slavery.
 

Old_Glory

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Sep 26, 2010
Messages
2,892
Location
NC
#49
While you are correct on the decline of slavery in maryland you referring to the baltimore riots as a "thing" implying little importance shows that you have little to no understanding of the political and cultural climate in maryland in the antebellum period if you would ever like to know of a few good books where facts can found let me know through PM
Very well said. I agree 100%.

I just cannot see Delaware leaving unless Maryland left as well. I think that is why the Union North turned the guns on Maryland and made sure they stayed loyal by force.
 

Old_Glory

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Sep 26, 2010
Messages
2,892
Location
NC
#50
This quote from the article is one of the most important:

“To maintain the value of property and realize its fullest advantages there must be guaranteed permanence, security, and protection. “Republicanism” proposes to place the right to property in slaves under the ban of a consolidated, centralized General Government, and threatens to employ all its powers and resources to the consummation of the single purpose of destroying this single species of property. When this shall be done, the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” must be involved in common ruin, for the admission of sovereignty in a government admits the universal claim of governmental sovereignty to despotic power over all these, whether it is in form a monarchy, a democracy, or a republic. "

http://www.thiscruelwar.com/the-failure-of-the-south-to-convince-delaware-to-secede/

It clear he feels the Republicans are violating the Constitution which is a far greater issue than slavery itself. That idea is echoed in the vast majority of the writing in the time period. Especially the Southern senators and congressmen. He is appealing with more than just slavery to convince them.
 

Old_Glory

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Sep 26, 2010
Messages
2,892
Location
NC
#51
promote and foster the interests and internal prosperity of one section, and to debase the institutions, weaken the power, and impair the interests of the other section."
Great point, see my post with an additional quote talking about violating Constitutional rights.

Clearly there is more than slavery when one removes rose colored, slavery shaded, spectacles.
 

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
10,731
#55
Had the State Leg. and Gov. agreed to secede, Lincoln would have sent the Union Army in to arrest the elected officials and then appointed loyal replacements. I'm sure there is a constitutional amendment somewhere that authorizes the President to replace elected State officials at his pleasure.
Interesting speculation. Might make an interesting "What if?" thread.
No, the action you describe would have been unconstitutional, but- like some other actions taken to save the Union- might very well have been accepted by the public. After all, when the ship is sinking, it's no time to argue whether etiquette requires one to wear a necktie....
 
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
15,945
Location
los angeles ca
#56
Mr. Clopton seems uninterested in railroads and tariffs.
@James Lutzweiler has assured us that the secessionists were just pulling the wool over our eyes but @James Lutzweiler has the wisdom to know that the true goal of the Secessionists was to have a Southern TRR to connect the South to California and build a port to service trade with China which is of course has everybody knows is the major theme of American history.
Leftyhunter
 
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
15,945
Location
los angeles ca
#57
Part preceding the "flogging slavery, slavery, slavery" part-
"In the succession of party triumphs and defeats which have marked the political history of the country, the power and patronage of the Executive Department of the Federal Government will on the 4th of March next pass for the first time under the control of a purely sectional party, which has succeeded by a purely sectional vote. The principles and purposes of this party, as defined in its platforms and by its leaders and presses, are too well understood to render it necessary for me to recall them in detail to the notice of Your Excellency. The fact that it is a sectional party includes the additional fact that its aim will be, by all the means of legislation and of the administration of the Government, to promote and foster the interests and internal prosperity of one section, and to debase the institutions, weaken the power, and impair the interests of the other section."
What exact " institutions " was the author referring to?
Leftyhunter
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,407
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#58
Had the State Leg. and Gov. agreed to secede, Lincoln would have sent the Union Army in to arrest the elected officials and then appointed loyal replacements. I'm sure there is a constitutional amendment somewhere that authorizes the President to replace elected State officials at his pleasure.
No amendment is needed. In Luther v Borden, the political arms of the US government get to chose what State government is recognized as valid under the Consitution. Those arms are Congress and the President. Since by law, the President gets to determine when a rebellion is in progress, he also gets to determine who are rebels and take appropriate action.

In addition, all State officials swore an oath to uphold the US Consitution or they are no longer State official, but outlaw rebels. As secession is not protected under the Consitution, secessionists are outlaws and no one is obliged to recognize any rights they had under the Constitution they violated.
 



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