American History
Related: About this forumCivil War Sesquicentennial
I'll start:
Secession: slavery or states' rights?
Staph
(6,341 posts)And anyone who says otherwise is ignorant of history.
Many years ago, I had to defend myself against a group of fellow Civil War re-enactors who swore up and down that slavery was not one of the causes of the war. So I did a simple search of the documents of succession from the various Confederate states. In 15 minutes of googling, I found four of the official documents stating the reasons for succession.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
from Confederate States of America Mississippi Secession, A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union. (1861)
from A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union.
Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the
Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union
The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.
...
We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.
In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.
The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.
The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.
The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.
from Confederate States of America Georgia Secession, Approved, Tuesday, January 29, 1861
Adsos Letter
(19,459 posts)If I've read Freehling's Road to Disunion correctly (no guarantees on that one) then it was certainly over slavery, as Staph above noted in her examples.
I guess I could also go for the "states' rights" argument if I made the issue the states' right to determine the time and manner of the dissolution of the institution of slavery, rather than a state's right to freely leave a confederation voluntarily entered into.
My understanding is that the southern states had been experiencing a slave-drain for several decades prior to secession, exacerbated by the waning of tobacco production and the opening of the cotton kingdom in the deep south. Freehling suggests that many southerners fully expected eventual dissolution of the institution of slavery (at least within the continental U.S.) but demanded that it should be on their terms, not those of the federal government.
I think even many non-secessionist southerners believed this; one of the differences being that many of the non-secessionist southerners wanted to wait and see what actions Lincoln actually took after assuming office (after all, secession would screw up real commercial advantages to be had while remaining within the union) rather than jump the gun. The state governors of the Lower South had to contend with anti-secessionist feeling in their plans for bringing a strong enough cabal of southern states to the secessionist ranks before the slated conventions which would open the matter up for open debate and, most importantly, a vote. Freehling thinks it unlikely that secession would have gone forward had the conventions been allowed to meet.
...guess I kinda' wandered off topic...
zipplewrath
(16,690 posts)Slavery was an expression that had a different meaing altoghether I suspect. There was a fair amount of distrust between the colonial northern states, and the southern states (southern being further north than we think of today. Anything south of Philadelphia basically). It was probably more of a "agrarian vs. merchant" conflict at its roots. Slavery was the "litmus test" for a whole host of issues. Think "conservative vs. liberal" today. It will have touchstone issues of abortion, global warming, pacifism, monetary policy, labor unions, etc. In the 1960s the dominant single issue was the war in Vietnam and just about everything broke down between those two lines. But ones position on the war might have as much to do with their postion on civil rights, or the cultural revolution, or military policy in general.
The strange confederation of states, and individuals, in the Southern Confederacy seems to point to this sort of collection of isssues driven supporters, who found in slavery, a common cause, if not necessarily the dominant interest.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Indianademocrat91
(390 posts)Alexander Stephens: Confederate VP from Georgia
On March 21, 1861, Stephens gave his famous Cornerstone Speech in Savannah, Georgia. In it he declared that slavery was the natural condition of blacks and the foundation of the Confederacy. He declared, "Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition."[4]
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_H._Stephens
Paladin
(28,739 posts)Read Tony Horwitz' excellent new "Midnight Rising," an account of John Brown's historic raid in Virginia, for a vivid description the the events and political statements leading up to the Civil War. It was slavery, not states' rights.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I come from a long line of ardent abolitionists, but by a quirk of fate, went to high school in the South. I heard all the arguments about the economics of the matter. But when you get right down to it, the economics of the matter was about slavery and the grandiose lifestyle that slavery could provide to certain white southerners. The lifestyle of the plantation and the broad avenues in the southern cities is the "economics" that is meant when southerners claim that secession was about economics. Southerners wanted the right to exploit slaves for profit and to maintain a relatively luxurious culture.
Compare the life of a southern plantation owner with that a midwestern farmer around the same time. Quite a difference in the comfort level, in the kinds and quantities of work done.
It was about slavery.
ellisonz
(27,737 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)starspunch78
(9 posts)It was about slavery, but I don't know if Civil War re-enactors are even actually deliberately thinking about this argument. I think its more about playing a part because of nostalgic sentiments that are misplaced and fabricated.