The Slave States Seceded to Protect Slavery--The Rest is Baloney

Dead Parrott

Sergeant
Joined
Jul 30, 2019
Lincoln had no constitutional power to unilaterally end slavery. The emancipation proclamation was a war measure. He couldn't have freed slaves in loyal states.

The buyers of southern cotton would have bought it if it was produced with free labor just the same as with slave labor. It makes no sense to blame the buyers for the labor system that the south chose.

It is such a blatantly illogical argument\excuse - "slave states were part of the US economy, therefore free states liked slavery too".

The entire civilized world was turning or had turned against slavery. Given enough votes, the US would as well. And as those territories became free states, the votes would be there. And the slave states had already lost control of congress, with the demographics only getting worse for them.

Southern leadership saw the writing on the wall. They just chose poorly.
 

19thGeorgia

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Let's fully keep in mind that slavery around the world, especially in England, France, Europe, etc., was being, or had been, abolished and was seen as a great moral wrong.
...but it didn't prevent them from having good relations with Spain, Brazil and the Ottoman Empire - all of which had slavery.
India - part of the British Empire - still had slavery.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Perhaps you could tell us how the southern states planned to expand slavery into the western territories by seceding from the US?

I won't because you have the extraordinary capability to read about Southern expansion ideas and plans and the objections they made about prohibiting slavery in the Federal Territories and their constant desire to expand the institution into Mexico, Cuba, and South America.

Filibuster Expeditions anyone?
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
...but it didn't prevent them from having good relations with Spain, Brazil and the Ottoman Empire - all of which had slavery.
India - part of the British Empire - still had slavery.

While I appreciate the "Look! Something shiny over there!" defense, the historical, unescapable fact remains, the slaveholding South seceded to protect, preserve, and expand the institution of slavery.

The Southern United States was standing still while the rest of the world, no matter how slowly or imperfectly, was moving away from the idea that slavery was a "positive good." I also would suggest reading about how the South feared that the British would interfere with slavery in the United States (via Texas).
 

wausaubob

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
Lincoln had no constitutional power to unilaterally end slavery. The emancipation proclamation was a war measure. He couldn't have freed slaves in loyal states.

The buyers of southern cotton would have bought it if it was produced with free labor just the same as with slave labor. It makes no sense to blame the buyers for the labor system that the south chose.
1617911123637.png


Mr. Calhoun's Table 3. https://krex.k-state.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2097/14956/RickyDaleCalhoun2012.pdf?sequence=1 Page 406. Slavery was not necessary to grow cotton. It turned out, white farmers could grow it too.
 

wausaubob

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
I won't because you have the extraordinary capability to read about Southern expansion ideas and plans and the objections they made about prohibiting slavery in the Federal Territories and their constant desire to expand the institution into Mexico, Cuba, and South America.

Filibuster Expeditions anyone?
Maybe they would have fought a war to expand slavery into the western portion of the US? There seems to be some evidence that they were willing to fight to gain land from Mexico, and defend what they had gained from the US.
 

wausaubob

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
Slavery was not the issue the expansion of Slavery was.

In the end a democratic vote would have abolished Slavery as more free stats joined the Union that is something the South could not allow to happen.

The war itself was about preserving the Union first and foremost Lincoln never shifted from this stance , The emancipation was a calculated move to hurt the confederacy and to give the Union the moral high when it came to stopping major powers from recognizing the Confederacy.

Remember Lincoln was a moderate not an abolitionist.
After January 29, 1861 it was very unlikely that any other states permitting slavery were going to be admitted to the United States.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/36-2/h344
Admission of Kansas passed by a significant majority.
Eventually, some states that were not part of the cotton economy would disallow slavery. No state that abolished slavery ever re-introduced it. Therefore a constitutional ratio of 33 paid labor states to 11 coerced labor states was highly probable.
 
Last edited:

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
I won't because you have the extraordinary capability to read about Southern expansion ideas and plans and the objections they made about prohibiting slavery in the Federal Territories and their constant desire to expand the institution into Mexico, Cuba, and South America.

Filibuster Expeditions anyone?
Occurred when the Confederate States were part of the United States.
 

FedericoFCavada

Sergeant
Joined
Jan 27, 2015
Location
San Antonio, Texas
View attachment 397082

Mr. Calhoun's Table 3. https://krex.k-state.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2097/14956/RickyDaleCalhoun2012.pdf?sequence=1 Page 406. Slavery was not necessary to grow cotton. It turned out, white farmers could grow it too.
Turned out that semi-serfs in British India could cultivate and grow it. Turned out that impoverished, immiserated share croppers and tenant farmers, whites, blacks, Hispanics, etc. could cultivate and grow it...

Coffee is emblematic of a prosperous rural middle-class farmer in Costa Rica and much of Colombia... It is equally emblematic of the most revolting exploitation of poor, landless people by literal barons in El Salvador, Guatemala, parts of Mexico, parts of Indonesia, etc. etc. ...

One of the disturbing features of modernity is that extreme, brutal inequality and injustice is rooted in any of a number of commodity chains.
 

FedericoFCavada

Sergeant
Joined
Jan 27, 2015
Location
San Antonio, Texas
After January 29, 1861 it was very unlikely that any other states permitting slavery were admitted to the United States.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/36-2/h344
Admission of Kansas passed by a significant majority.
Eventually, some states that were not part of the cotton economy would disallow slavery. No state that abolished slavery ever re-introduced it. Therefore a constitutional ratio of 33 paid labor states to 11 coerced labor states was highly probable.
Although Illinois was mighty close there in the antebellum...
 

Cycom

Private
Joined
Feb 19, 2021
Location
Los Angeles, California
While I appreciate the "Look! Something shiny over there!" defense, the historical, unescapable fact remains, the slaveholding South seceded to protect, preserve, and expand the institution of slavery.

The Southern United States was standing still while the rest of the world, no matter how slowly or imperfectly, was moving away from the idea that slavery was a "positive good." I also would suggest reading about how the South feared that the British would interfere with slavery in the United States (via Texas).
Being that the South wholly depended on slavery, was it considered a valid reason for secession at that time? My understanding of this is very limited. What was/is the criteria for a “legal secession,” if there ever was any?
 

Viper21

Brigadier General
Moderator
Silver Patron
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
Lincoln had no constitutional power to unilaterally end slavery. The emancipation proclamation was a war measure. He couldn't have freed slaves in loyal states.

The buyers of southern cotton would have bought it if it was produced with free labor just the same as with slave labor. It makes no sense to blame the buyers for the labor system that the south chose.
Lincoln didn't mind violating the Constitution when it suited him. There's multiple examples to draw from. I'll refrain from diving deep into that, as there are other threads for that.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Being that the South wholly depended on slavery, was it considered a valid reason for secession at that time? My understanding of this is very limited. What was/is the criteria for a “legal secession,” if there ever was any?

History appears to disagree with the idea that slavery was a valid reason for unilateral secession.

There are some topics/threads here on the forum that considers criteria for a "legal secession." But since no such attempt was made by the leadership of the failed rebellion, we will never know.
 

DanSBHawk

1st Lieutenant
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Lincoln didn't mind violating the Constitution when it suited him. There's multiple examples to draw from. I'll refrain from diving deep into that, as there are other threads for that.
How Lincoln interpreted his war powers under the Constitution, and how others would interpret them, is a valid question. But it still remains that he acted within his interpretation of his Constitutional powers and responsibilities.

I wouldn't agree that he "violated" the Constitution. And those who claimed to have left the Union didn't have any standing to cite Constitutional violations.
 
Last edited:

Stone in the wall

Sergeant Major
Joined
Sep 19, 2017
Location
Blue Ridge Mountains, Jefferson County WV
Let's fully keep in mind that slavery around the world, especially in England, France, Europe, etc., was being, or had been, abolished and was seen as a great moral wrong.

Yes, the North used products of slavery, but again, as recorded in history, it was the slaveholding South that went to war to keep it, expand it, protect it, and never abolish it.
The 13th (should have been 15th) amendment was not a clean sweep in this country. Many states rejected it. Ratification finally made here are a few: Oregon 1959, California 1962, Maryland 1973, Kentucky 1976, Tennessee 1997
 
Last edited:

Scott1967

Sergeant
Joined
Jul 11, 2016
Location
England
Would you compare them to the imperialism goals to the US and other major nations during the 19th century?
That's a good point https://civilwartalk.com/members/csa-today.5903/

Slavery is Slavery Imperialism normally consists of using a country for its resources and benefitting financially it could be debated if the native peoples were enslaved to the will of the said country taking over their lands but no the populace were governed but never enslaved in the forms of Slavery seen in the South in my view.

A good example of this was Great Britain in India and South Africa.

Quote:

Imperialism is a policy or ideology of extending the rule over peoples and other countries, for extending political and economic access, power and control, often through employing hard power, especially military force, but also soft power.

End Quote:
 
Top