Causes of the US Civil War and Southern Secession

[Smoke]

And if I am not mistaken, the Confederate Constitution outlawed the slave trade. A curious move if they wanted slavery continued indefinitely.

The Confederation Constitution continued the ban on importation of slaves. It didn't prohibit the buying or selling of slaves or end slavery as a hereditary status.

Lincoln's refusal to honor the peaceful wishes of the Confederacy is what started the war.

Yes, it's true that Lincoln refused to submit to the demands of an illegitimate and (at that time) unelected group posing as the government of the southern states.

Would you suggest that it's the duty of any President of the United States to submit to the demands of any such group? If, for example, a group of wealthy landowners in California declared themselves the government of California and demanded the surrender of Camp Pendleton, would you say it's the duty of the President to surrender Camp Pendleton to that group?

 

[Rakhel]

The Confederation Constitution continued the ban on importation of slaves. It didn't prohibit the buying or selling of slaves or end slavery as a hereditary status.

Then slavery would have died out

Yes, it's true that Lincoln refused to submit to the demands of an illegitimate and (at that time) unelected group posing as the government of the southern states.

Would you suggest that it's the duty of any President of the United States to submit to the demands of any such group? If, for example, a group of wealthy landowners in California declared themselves the government of California and demanded the surrender of Camp Pendleton, would you say it's the duty of the President to surrender Camp Pendleton to that group?

Sounds like the start of the Revolutionary War to me

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Smoke,

The Confederation Constitution continued the ban on importation of slaves. It didn't prohibit the buying or selling of slaves or end slavery as a hereditary status.

Yes, so new slaves could not come into the new country. And you know that manumission was quite common so the amount of slaves would eventually dry up.

Yes, it's true that Lincoln refused to submit to the demands of an illegitimate and (at that time) unelected group posing as the government of the southern states.

Are you suggesting that secession was unlawful? If the states knew this going into the Constitutional Convention there would have been no United States. The states freely joined together and they could freely leave the Union.

Would you suggest that it's the duty of any President of the United States to submit to the demands of any such group? If, for example, a group of wealthy landowners in California declared themselves the government of California and demanded the surrender of Camp Pendleton, would you say it's the duty of the President to surrender Camp Pendleton to that group?

LOL! We are not talking about some random group; this was the state governments that were doing this. Constitutional conventions were convened just like before the Revolutionary War. Unless you are suggesting that the colonists had no right to break away from the Crown, are you arguing that?

Would you suggest that it's the duty of any President of the United States to submit to the demands of any such group? If, for example, a group of wealthy landowners in California declared themselves the government of California and demanded the surrender of Camp Pendleton, would you say it's the duty of the President to surrender Camp Pendleton to that group?

Well, if the state legislature passed a resolution of secession that could not be vetoed by the governor, then yes (In fact, with California's sorry fiscal shape, that could be a blessing to the US federal government). Or if a constitutional convention was convened by California's state representatives and they voted to secede I would support the US federal government honoring such a peaceful transmission of power.

 

[Smoke]

Yes, so new slaves could not come into the new country. And you know that manumission was quite common so the amount of slaves would eventually dry up.

Not as long as slavery was hereditary. But you seem confused as to whether the leaders of the Confederacy did or did not want to gradually eliminate slavery. You're arguing both sides of the question.

Are you suggesting that secession was unlawful?

Yes.

Unless you are suggesting that the colonists had no right to break away from the Crown, are you arguing that?

That's a different set of circumstances, but as a matter of fact I don't think the minority who favored independence were right to start an armed rebellion against the king, nor do I think their armed bands of thugs had the right to seize my ancestors' property for their own purposes, to force my ancestors to serve in their armed rebellion against their will, or to lynch my 6th-great-grandfather's brothers for remaining loyal to the king. And while the framers of the new Constitution were remarkably forward-thinking for their day, the rebellion mainly benefited wealthy, male, white landowners. The new government disregarded the rights of Native Americans to a far greater extent than the royal government, launching an unabashed program of physical and cultural genocide that lasted well over a century, and maintained the institution of slavery until 1865, while the British Empire actively worked for many years to persuade other countries to abolish the slave trade, even paying Portugal and Spain to end the practice, and abolished slavery in 1833.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes, it's true that Lincoln refused to submit to the demands of an illegitimate and (at that time) unelected group posing as the government of the southern states.

Would you suggest that it's the duty of any President of the United States to submit to the demands of any such group? If, for example, a group of wealthy landowners in California declared themselves the government of California and demanded the surrender of Camp Pendleton, would you say it's the duty of the President to surrender Camp Pendleton to that group?

The Southern states were fully within their rights to succeed. And since the Confederacy was no longer part of the Union, they were indeed the elected rulers. Fort Sumter belonged to the Confederacy, and the Union was trespassing. Now, at the same time I understand why Lincoln did not withdraw his troops, as an act of defiance to the former states of the Union.

 

[Smoke]

The Southern states were fully within their rights to succeed. And since the Confederacy was no longer part of the Union, they were indeed the elected rulers.

No, you're confused. At the time, the Confederate Congress -- actually, the Provisional Confederate Congress -- had no popularly elected members. For instance, Robert B. Rhett of South Carolina was a former United States senator who had resigned in 1852. John Gill Shorter of Alabama was a circuit judge. Alexandre Declouet of Louisiana was a sugar planter who had served briefly in the state legislature in 1837. Francis Bartow of Georgia was a lawyer and reserve captain. Even if the states had the right to secede -- nobody has a right to succeed -- it's doubtful whether the people who decided to secede had the authority to do so.

Fort Sumter belonged to the Confederacy, and the Union was trespassing.

Fort Sumter belonged to the United States government. Period.

Now, at the same time I understand why Lincoln did not withdraw his troops, as an act of defiance to the former states of the Union.

It was not "an act of defiance." It was the execution of his duty as President of the United States.

 

[Luminous]

The Biggoted and uneducated southern elitests wanted to fight for state's rights to take rights away from people, that being...they would not have questioned if congress had forced the northern states to help and or force slavery, against their state wishes; so clearly it was about feeling like they were superior, being as they were inferior.

 

[Luminous]

The Southern states were fully within their rights to succeed. And since the Confederacy was no longer part of the Union, they were indeed the elected rulers. Fort Sumter belonged to the Confederacy, and the Union was trespassing. Now, at the same time I understand why Lincoln did not withdraw his troops, as an act of defiance to the former states of the Union.

a state can only succeed from the Union if a HIgh Majority of Congress agrees. I though that had always been the case. the South made a mockery of the Constitution and the political system of the United States of America. They deserved nothing less than complete annihilation. The Merciful and educated North, however, forgave them and tryed to take them away from their ignorant way of life.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Smoke,

But you seem confused as to whether the leaders of the Confederacy did or did not want to gradually eliminate slavery. You're arguing both sides of the question.

Not at all. Leaders of the Confederacy such as Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee thought that slavery would die out naturally. The issue was a delicate one for sure, it wouldn't be prudent to wave a magic wand and have slavery abolished. The slaves had to be prepared to function in society. That is why many of the Confederates favored gradual abolition. The North (who treated free blacks worse than slaves in South in many instances) wanted to force this issue and thus in one aspect infringed on the state's sovereignty.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Stocks http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...vil-war-southern-secession-3.html#post2093306
Are you suggesting that secession was unlawful?

Yes.

Where are you getting this idea that it was unlawful to secede? Did the states know this at the Constitutional Convention? That their sovereignty was null and void once the federal government was created. This is a blatant misreading of history. The states jealously guarded their rights and thought of themselves as sovereign entities freely forming a union in which they could freely leave (such an act was contemplated at the Hartford Convention after the War of 1812).

And the concept of secession can be applied to the Glorious Revolution where King James II’s authority was removed and William and Mary ascended to power.

That's a different set of circumstances, but as a matter of fact I don't think the minority who favored independence were right to start an armed rebellion against the king, nor do I think their armed bands of thugs had the right to seize my ancestors' property for their own purposes, to force my ancestors to serve in their armed rebellion against their will, or to lynch my 6th-great-grandfather's brothers for remaining loyal to the king. And while the framers of the new Constitution were remarkably forward-thinking for their day, the rebellion mainly benefited wealthy, male, white landowners. The new government disregarded the rights of Native Americans to a far greater extent than the royal government, launching an unabashed program of physical and cultural genocide that lasted well over a century, and maintained the institution of slavery until 1865, while the British Empire actively worked for many years to persuade other countries to abolish the slave trade, even paying Portugal and Spain to end the practice, and abolished slavery in 1833.

At least your devotion to statism is consistent. But this raises some interesting philosophical questions. If the colonists didn't have the right to secede from the Crown, then under what circumstances could a people revolt and attempt to establish an independent political authority? For example, many eastern European countries broke away from the Soviet Union during the end of the 1980's. But this would be unlawful to you, wouldn't it? And if the eastern bloc could break away from the Soviet Union, why couldn't the colonists break away from the Crown? What about modern day Iran, is it unlawful for Iranians to revolt against their repressive regime?

In fact, your position seems to lead to deny any people the right to break away from an established political authority (no matter how repressive) to form an independent political authority.

You seem to be denying the concept of the consent of the governed in favor of statism by the gun (or tank).

While this does make you intellectually consistent (in that if you deny the South's secession you must deny the colonist's secession) it puts you at odds with third-world revolutionaries and in lockstep with their colonial masters.

 

[Smoke]

You seem to be denying the concept of the consent of the governed in favor of statism by the gun (or tank).

That ****'s getting pretty deep, Joe.

In the case of the Confederacy, a privileged class of white men named some of their friends, unelected by the people, to lead an armed rebellion against the Democratically-elected government of the United States, for the sole purpose of keeping 40% of the population of the southern states in a hereditary state of involuntary servitude. You support that, and you have the sheer effrontery to mouth pious slogans about the consent of the governed? Give me a ******* break.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Smoke,

In the case of the Confederacy, a privileged class of white men named some of their friends, unelected by the people, to lead an armed rebellion against the Democratically-elected government of the United States, for the sole purpose of keeping 40% of the population of the southern states in a hereditary state of involuntary servitude. You support that, and you have the sheer effrontery to mouth pious slogans about the consent of the governed? Give me a ******* break

So, you have answered virtually none of my questions.

Why was secession unlawful? You have given no reasons to support that it is unlawful or how this concept morphed into being after the states came together to create the federal government.

You have also shown no evidence behind the claim that the Confederacy was created for the sole purpose to protect slavery (this would have been news to Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee and the blacks that fought in the Confederate army).

You have shown the futility of your case, but you are a statist. Like Hobbes, you believe the Leviathan demands complete fealty; unfortunately the people in the South didn't think so.

 

[Smoke]

Why was secession unlawful?

The question is not whether secession as such is necessarily lawful, the question is whether the men who seceded had the authority to do so. They had no such authority from the people of their elected states, so where did they get their authority?

You have also shown no evidence behind the claim that the Confederacy was created for the sole purpose to protect slavery (this would have been news to Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee and the blacks that fought in the Confederate army).

The real Confederates, or the imaginary Confederates who live in your head?

You have shown the futility of your case, but you are a statist. Like Hobbes, you believe the Leviathan demands complete fealty; unfortunately the people in the South didn't think so.

Yeah, they were real champions of liberty, weren't they? When forty percent of the population are held in slavery, you know you're talking about a country that's a paragon of freedom.

If I'm a "statist," Joe, then so are you. Neither the Revolution nor the Confederate Congress overthrew the state for a stateless society. In both cases, it was a question of who was to control the state, and in neither case was it even dreamed that every citizen should have an equal voice.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Smoke,

The question is not whether secession as such is necessarily lawful, the question is whether the men who seceded had the authority to do so. They had no such authority from the people of their elected states, so where did they get their authority?

They got their authority in the same way that the states that seceded from the Crown got theirs. They held Constitutional Conventions and their representatives formed an independent political authority completely distinct from the US federal government.

The real Confederates, or the imaginary Confederates who live in your head?

Cute non-reply, but you can't show where Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee argued that they were establishing the Confederacy solely the protect slavery (not to mention the black confederate soldiers). Snarky remarks instead of a reasoned answer.

Yeah, they were real champions of liberty, weren't they? When forty percent of the population are held in slavery, you know you're talking about a country that's a paragon of freedom.

Oh, please. Inheriting a world where slavery existed was their fault. Not to mention the Confederate Constitution outlawing the slave trade and the widespread practice of manumission, yeah they loved slavery. I guess the more enlightened approach to the end of slavery was the destruction of over 600,000 lives.

If I'm a "statist," Joe, then so are you. Neither the Revolution nor the Confederate Congress overthrew the state for a stateless society. In both cases, it was a question of who was to control the state, and in neither case was it even dreamed that every citizen should have an equal voice.

Nice straw man. I am not arguing for a stateless society, just that in extreme times it is morally and lawfully acceptable to break away from an established political order to form an independent political authority.

Since you oppose both the secession of the colonists and the South it paints you into an interesting box where you would have to oppose any secession (be it eastern bloc break from the Soviets or African moves to independence). But I am sure you have a snarky comment to refute this.

 

[Smoke]

They got their authority in the same way that the states that seceded from the Crown got theirs. They held Constitutional Conventions and their representatives formed an independent political authority completely distinct from the US federal government.

Whose representatives?

Cute non-reply, but you can't show where Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee argued that they were establishing the Confederacy solely the protect slavery (not to mention the black confederate soldiers). Snarky remarks instead of a reasoned answer.

Tell me, then, Joe: What event precipitated the secession of the southern states?

And by the way, yes, I know there were black Confederate soldiers. I know there are gay Mormons, too. You can always find people who are willing to feed the mouth that bites them.

Oh, please. Inheriting a world where slavery existed was their fault. Not to mention the Confederate Constitution outlawing the slave trade and the widespread practice of manumission, yeah they loved slavery. I guess the more enlightened approach to the end of slavery was the destruction of over 600,000 lives.

Spin it any way you want, and make all the excuses you want, the fact remains that 40% of the population of the southern states were held in a hereditary state of slavery, and in that circumstance it's absolute idiocy to maintain that the establishment of the Confederacy had anything at all to do with asserting the rights of the governed.

I am not arguing for a stateless society

Good. Then it won't be necessary for you keep yammering on about "statism."

Since you oppose both the secession of the colonists and the South it paints you into an interesting box where you would have to oppose any secession (be it eastern bloc break from the Soviets or African moves to independence). But I am sure you have a snarky comment to refute this.

It doesn't paint me into any such box. Thinking that two particular instances of armed rebellion lacked merit doesn't mean I have to oppose each and every instance of armed rebellion, and it doesn't mean I always have to support each and every government. Where would you get such a stupid idea? And for the record, I don't "oppose" events that happened long in the past, even if I think they were unwise and unjustified.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Smoke,

Whose representatives?

The representatives of the states much the same way the representatives of the various states voiced their opposition to the Crown and then seceded from it.

Tell me, then, Joe: What event precipitated the secession of the southern states?

Well, I would say the biggest event was the election of Lincoln which was perceived to mean that the federal government was going to overstep its bounds and interfere with how states would govern themselves. Simply read the Confederate Constitution which included stricter rules on how taxpayer money would be spent. And obviously the issue of slavery was a factor as well, not to protect it but to end it with as little bloodshed and loss of life as possible.

And by the way, yes, I know there were black Confederate soldiers. I know there are gay Mormons, too. You can always find people who are willing to feed the mouth that bites them.

Well, black Confederate soldiers aren’t all you have to explain. You also have to explain:

1. Jefferson Davis, who believed that slavery was evil and should end gradually. Apparently it didn't occur to him that he was leading a nation simply to protect slavery.

2. Generals Robert E. Lee, Joseph Johnston, A.P. Hill, Fitzhugh Lee and J.E.B. Stuart of the Confederate army were not slave owners. Apparently it didn't occur to these military leaders that they were fighting to defend the institution of slavery.

3. Over 70% of Confederate soldiers weren't slave owners. Apparently it didn't occur to these soldiers that they were fighting to defend slavery.

In fact, James M. McPherson in his book For Cause and Comrades studies the diaries of 429 Confederate soldiers. In this sample, much to McPherson's surprise only 20% of the soldiers had pro-slavery convictions.

Now, you are really smart yet you can't explain black Confederate soldiers, Jefferson Davis, non-slave owning generals of the Confederate army, over 70% non-slave owning Confederate soldiers and the sample that McPherson uses showing very little pro-slavery convictions of Confederate soldiers.

Spin it any way you want, and make all the excuses you want, the fact remains that 40% of the population of the southern states were held in a hereditary state of slavery, and in that circumstance it's absolute idiocy to maintain that the establishment of the Confederacy had anything at all to do with asserting the rights of the governed.

This logically does not follow. The existence of slavery doesn't negate the democratic institutions that did exist in the South and that were defended when infringed upon from the North. You seem to be arguing that since the South had slavery therefore their democratic institutions could not be compromised. This is obviously false.

And you also seem to show a fair amount of ignorance about slavery in the South. Put down your copy of Uncle Tom's Cabin and read a little Alexis de Tocqueville where he observes that race relations in the South were much better than in the North.

It doesn't paint me into any such box. Thinking that two particular instances of armed rebellion lacked merit doesn't mean I have to oppose each and every instance of armed rebellion, and it doesn't mean I always have to support each and every government. Where would you get such a stupid idea? And for the record, I don't "oppose" events that happened long in the past, even if I think they were unwise and unjustified.

Well, under what conditions do you support secession? Do you have any historical examples? And how would these examples differ from the secession of the colonists and the South because your opposition to secession in these cases seems based on pretty politics and absurd caricatures instead of being based on reason, logic and evidence.

 

[YamiB.]

Well, I would say the biggest event was the election of Lincoln which was perceived to mean that the federal government was going to overstep its bounds and interfere with how states would govern themselves. Simply read the Confederate Constitution which included stricter rules on how taxpayer money would be spent. And obviously the issue of slavery was a factor as well, not to protect it but to end it with as little bloodshed and loss of life as possible.

This seems to contradict what you are saying with the Confederates that they apparently hoped to let slavery slowly die out since that was Lincoln's plan.

1. Jefferson Davis, who believed that slavery was evil and should end gradually. Apparently it didn't occur to him that he was leading a nation simply to protect slavery.

Do you want to provide support for this? In my first post I have a statement from Jefferson Davis where he personally connects the Confederate government with the institution of slavery and talks about that institution in a pretty positive manner.

2. Generals Robert E. Lee, Joseph Johnston, A.P. Hill, Fitzhugh Lee and J.E.B. Stuart of the Confederate army were not slave owners. Apparently it didn't occur to these military leaders that they were fighting to defend the institution of slavery.

There are a couple of problems with this point of argument. Not owning slaves does not mean that a person is against slavery. Generals may have been motivated by things like loyalty to the region they were from, but that does not in any way change what the government they fought stood for.

3. Over 70% of Confederate soldiers weren't slave owners. Apparently it didn't occur to these soldiers that they were fighting to defend slavery.

In fact, James M. McPherson in his book For Cause and Comrades studies the diaries of 429 Confederate soldiers. In this sample, much to McPherson's surprise only 20% of the soldiers had pro-slavery convictions.

The 70% percent statistic is not surprising. Many of the soldiers probably belonged to poorer families that could not afford slaves. Again the personal convictions of the soldiers makes no difference to what they government they were supporting stood for. It's funny that you use McPherson because of the incident relatively recently where he wanted Obama to avoid bringing a wreath to the Confederate Monument because of its denial of slavery being the cause of secession.

James M. McPherson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since you are denying that the Confederacy was founded upon the ideal of a preservation of slavery do you have a counterpoint to the sources I provided in the opening post of this topic?

As for the point about Fort Sumter that some have been bringing up I agree with the point that I think Smoke was trying to make. Fort Sumter was built for use by the United States government, they could choose to trade for it or give it to the Confederacy. But just because the Confederacy wants it that does not absolve them from starting the war by deciding to take it by force. Fort Sumter really makes the whole argument about secession pointless, though I do personally think that unilateral secession is an idea that could not exist in a properly functioning government.

 

[Smoke]

Yami's covered most of it already, but let me go back for a few things.

The representatives of the states much the same way the representatives of the various states voiced their opposition to the Crown and then seceded from it.

That doesn't answer the question. How were those men selected to represent the states? The red clay of Georgia didn't cry out the name of Howell Cobb. The people of Georgia didn't elect him to the Provisional Confederate Congress -- not even if you define "the people of Georgia" as "the white men of Georgia." So whence did the delegates to the Provisional Confederate Congress derive their authority?

Well, I would say the biggest event was the election of Lincoln which was perceived to mean that the federal government was going to overstep its bounds and interfere with how states would govern themselves.

You're damned right it was. They were afraid he was going to abolish slavery.

And obviously the issue of slavery was a factor as well, not to protect it but to end it with as little bloodshed and loss of life as possible.

Horse****. I don't even believe you believe that. Who was going to end it with bloodshed if they didn't secede? The end of slavery was not imminent. Nobody was threatening to invade the South to free the slaves. The war, which the South started, precipitated the end of slavery and led to the greatest loss of American life in history. If they were trying to end slavery gradually or avoid loss of life, they did about the dumbest thing they could possibly have done.

This logically does not follow. The existence of slavery doesn't negate the democratic institutions that did exist in the South and that were defended when infringed upon from the North. You seem to be arguing that since the South had slavery therefore their democratic institutions could not be compromised. This is obviously false.

Come on, Joe. Do you really expect me to take your pious sentiments about "the consent of the governed" seriously when you're using them to defend a system under which 40% of the governed had no rights at all?

Even such white-only, male-only democratic institutions as the South had were not a factor in the attempt to establish breakaway government. The white male citizens didn't vote to secede. They didn't vote to elect representatives to the secession conventions. They didn't vote to elect representatives to the Provisional Confederate Congress. The whole thing, from start to finish, was an assertion of power by the slaveholding oligarchy for the sole purpose of protecting the prerogatives of the slaveholding oligarchy, and in particular their prerogative to hold 40% of the population of South in a hereditary state of involuntary servitude in which they had no more rights than cattle.

When you talk about "states' rights," all you're really talking about is the "right" of a privileged elite within the state to run it as a collection of personal fiefdoms. It doesn't have a damned thing to do with the consent of the governed.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Considering just how bad slavery is for an economy, I really don't think it would have lasted much longer, unless the Confederacy would have allowed for their economy to be ruined. The south's economy was already suffering until the cotton gin was invented, which then turned things around for awhile.

 

[Smoke]

Considering just how bad slavery is for an economy, I really don't think it would have lasted much longer

Maybe not. That makes it all the more pointless to spill blood to preserve it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Maybe not. That makes it all the more pointless to spill blood to preserve it.

It does. But it can't be said with 100% certainty that succession and the Civil War was all about Slavery. Slavery is an economic wrecking ball, and since everyone from the poor to the rich suffer because of it, it's doubtful that preserving slavery was the top goal for all the high ranking Confederate officials. Some did want to preserve it no doubt, but it's also very likely that many people within the Confederacy knew slavery would eventually die out or the Confederacy would be destroyed from their own practices.