I'll Take My Stand – Causes Of Southern Secession-The Cotton States

[Sic]

I'll Take My Stand – Causes Of Southern Secession The Cotton States

"Forced to take up arms to vindicate the political rights, the freedom, equality, and state sovereignty which were the heritage purchased by the blood of our revolutionary sires"
-Jefferson Davis 1863 quoted in Battle cry of freedom James McPherson Oxford U Press

The first states to leave the union were the original deep south “cotton states” leaving as individual states to later form a confederacy and a constitution. Those states were Alabama, Mississippi, Louisianan, Texas, Georgia, Florida and South Carolina. The deep south were similar in culture and politics yet within the deep south cotton states their were multiple causes that led to secession.

The Election of A Republican President

“The election of Lincoln personified the trend of national centralization, as a reaction, some of the southern states [deep south]...seceded.”
-Marhsall Derosa Redeeming American Democracy pelican Press 2007

“To nationalize as much as possible, even currency, so as to make men love country first before their states, all private interest, local interests, all banking interests, the interests of individuals everything should be subordinate now to the interests of the government”
-John Sherman Republican Senator of Ohio

“It [republican party] is, in fact, essentially a revolutionary party”
-New Orleans Delta 1860

“Lincoln was the founding father of big government”
-Thomas J Diolernzo Author of the real Lincoln and Lincoln unmasked

The election of the new “radical republican” party candidate Abraham Lincoln directly led to the secession of the deep south. This new political party was the first in American history based solely on sectional [northern] interests and boosted by recent immigration to the national stage. Many even in the north blamed the republicans voters for disunion. President Buchanan [who did not believe in legal secession] and other northern democrats and unionist blamed republicans and said the south would be justified in resisting if a republican was elected. This northern sectional party's interests were the antithesis to the southern interests. The south held to the Jeffersonian view of the union best described in the 1852 democrat platform and the Kentucky resolutions by Thomas Jefferson in 1798 and the Virginia resolutions by James Madison of 1800 that of a decentralized union of states the majority view before the civil war.

“My politics are short and sweet...I am in favor of a national bank...in favor of the internal improvements system and a high protective tariff”
-Abraham Lincoln

"Lincoln and the Republicans intended to enact a high protective tariff that mothered monopoly, to pass a homestead law that invited speculators to loot the public domain, and to subsidize a transcontinental railroad that afforded infinite opportunities for jobbery."
-David Donald Lincoln Reconsidered

“Those who elected Mr. Lincoln expect him to secure to free labor its just right to the territories . . . to protect by wise revenue laws, the labor of our people; to secure the public lands to actual settlers . . . to develop the internal resources of the country by opening new means of communications between the Atlantic and Pacific."
-John Sherman Republican Senator brother of William T Sherman

The republicans were for higher tariffs, protective tariffs, federal internal improvements, a national bank, in support of the homestead act, [ in 1858 the northern vote supported 114 of 115 the south rejected 64 of 65] a pacific railroad act, and grants to states for agricultural and mechanical collages among others. The republicans were openly big government nationalist who placed authority and sovereignty with the federal government and not with, as they south had maintained from the first, the peoples of the sovereign states. The south thought the republicans would disregard the constitution, states rights, and would rule the union by mob rule. All of these proved true.

“We quit the Union, but not the Constitution—this we have preserved. Secession from the old Union on the part of the Confederate States was founded upon the conviction that the time-honored Constitution of our fathers was about to be utterly undermined and destroyed. and that if the present administration at Washington had been permitted to rule over us, in less than four years, perhaps, this inestimable inheritance of liberty, regulated and protected by fundamental law, would have been forever lost....We have rescued the Constitution from utter annihilation. This is our conviction, and we believe history will so record the fact ”
-Hon. Alexander H. Stephens Speech to the Virginia Secession Convention, April 23, 1861

“The north sought to convert a union of brotherhood and mutual benefit into a “nation” which they would dominate in their own interests”
-Clyde Wilson University of South Carolina Professor

The republicans during the civil war and finishing with reconstruction, would radically transform the American union into their new centralized nation, their own version of America. So the south seceded.

“To save us from a revolution”
-Jeff Davis quoted in battle cry of freedom

“Lincoln waged war in order to create a consolidated, centralized state or empire. The south seceded for numerous reasons, but perhaps the most important one was that it wanted no part in such a system”
-Thomas j Dilorenzo The Real Lincoln

“Northern States of a political school which has persistently claimed that the government thus formed was not a compact between States, but was in effect a national government, set up above and over the States...The creature has been exalted above its creators; the principals have been made subordinate to the agent appointed by themselves.”
-Jefferson Davis Message to confederate Congress April 29, 1861

The Confederate Constitution

“It was clear from the actions of the Montgomery convention that the goal of the new converts to secessionist was not to establish a slaveholders reactionary utopia. What they really wanted was to create the union as it had been before the rise of the new Republican party”
-Robert Divine T.H Bren George Fredrickson and R Williams America Past and Present

“when the dogmas of a sectional party, substituted for the provisions of the constitutional compact, threatened to destroy the sovereign rights of the States, six of those States, withdrawing from the Union, confederated together to exercise the right and perform the duty of instituting a Government which would better secure the liberties for the preservation of which that Union was established.”
-Jefferson Davis Inaugural Address Richmond 1862

The original deep south cotton States that left the union first acted as sovereign republics, it was called “Calhouns states right running riot.” But would soon join in a confederacy with its capital in Montgomery, Alabama. They joined and formed the Confederate constitution on March 11 1861. The CSA constitution limits central [ federal] power. The south thought to keep government weak and poor so that states would do the majority of governing. The CSA saw it as the original America constitution properly interpreted and clarified heavily influenced by Jefferson, Calhoun, and the anti federalists. President Jeff Davis said “The constitution framed by our founders, is that of these confederate states.” It was formed after the original united states constitution with some alterations. By these alterations we can see some of the reasons that the south left the union.

“The confederate revolution of 1861 was a reactionary revolution aimed at the restoration of an american democracy as embodied in the Constitution of 1789.”
-Marshall L. Derosa Redeeming American Democracy Lessons from the Confederate Constitution Pelican Press 2007

CSA State Sovereignty

“We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity — invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God — do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.
-CSA Constitution preamble

Each state being sovereign had only one vote on the confederate constitution ratification regardless of population. A main change in the CSA constitution from the United states version of “we the people of the US in order to form a more perfect union.... CSA version reads “we the people of the confederate states, each state acting in its sovereign and independent character ...” The confederacy formed a decentralized government resting on the ultimate sovereignty of the state witch allowed nullification and secession.

“It was not necessary in the Constitution to affirm the right of secession, because it was on attributive of sovereignty, and the states had reserved all they had not delegated.”
-Jefferson Davis the rise and fall of the confederate government

They clarified the people of the states had sovereignty and not the the mass of people [“we the people”] as held by Lincoln and Webster. Further they were a federated [confederated] government, not a consolidated one. The CSA constitution removed the term “general welfare” from the US preamble as they felt it was misused by Lincoln and earlier whigs to say the federal government had powers for internal improvements.

“The CSA framers placed the government firmly under the heads of the states”
-Marshall L. Derosa Redeeming American Democracy Lessons from the Confederate Constitution

“The CSA congress can have no such power over states officers. The state governments are an essential part of the political system, upon the separate and independent sovereignty of the states the foundation of the confederacy”
-Judge Robertson 1864 Confederate Virginia supreme Court Case Burroughs v Peyton

The states had the right to recall powers delegated [not granted] to congress. In the CSA 10th amendment, In uncertainties in ruling between states and CSA government, the states would override the federal government. The confederacy never organized a supreme court since the final sovereignty lied with the states on the constitutionality of laws passed. When discussion arose of a confederate supreme court William Yancy of Alabama said “when we decide that the state courts are of inferior dignity to this court [csa supreme] we have sapped the main pillars of this confederacy.”

“The fear of centralizing tenancies, past experiences under the federal supreme court, and a desire to protect states rights led to the failure to establish a confederate supreme court.”
-J G Deroulhac Hamilton the State Courts and the Confederate Constitution

“The establishments of the [federal] supreme court, with appellate power over the supreme courts of the states would be utterly subversive to states rights and state sovereignty.”
-Henery S Foote of Tennessee dec 16 1863

All power to amend the Constitution was taken out of congress and given to the states. A state convention could be called to amend the Constitution by three states allowing a minority of states to stop all federal action until their grievances were herd and dealt with. Senators were elected by state officials.

“The confederacy was founded upon decentralization”
-Ken Burns The Civil War PBS documentary

Some USA federal court cases were moved to the states in the CSA version. Confederate officials working only in a state are subject to impeachment by that state. The Confederate states also gain the power to make river-related treaties with each other. In the US, the federal government regulates bodies of water that overlap multiple states. CSA had Fewer members of congress. The states of the CSA had the right to coin money. The confederates had the idea that the country capital would not be permanent [ Even Richmond the second capital was never suppose to be permanent] but float from state to state to avoid centralizing power. The CSA Presidents could not be reelected, not wanting politicians to say what was needed for reelection. There were no political parties within the csa. Later during the war President Jeff Davis complained that he did not have the control like Lincoln to fight the war, because of local and states rights.

“States rights dogma...produced secession and the confederacy”
-E Merton Coulter The Confederate States of America Louisiana State University press

For other examples of the CSA Constitution moving to decentralization see Redeeming American democracy lessons from the confederate Constitution by Professor Marshall Derosa.

CSA Weak Federal Government and Fiscal Responsibility

"the confederacy was founded on the preposition that the central government should stay out of its citizens pockets"
-Christine m Kreser Cash for combat Americas civil war magazine

“CS constitution emphasis on small government and states rights”
-Lochlainn Seabrook The Constitution Of The Confederate States Of America Explained A Clause By Clause Study Of The Souths Magna Carta

“If the Confederate States, ever had any doubt as to the necessity of a separation from the people of the North, that doubt would be removed by the recklessness with which they allow their own liberties to be trampled on. They appear to have no idea of free Government. Those necessary restraints on power — those nicely adjusted balances, by which justice and liberty are secured in a free government, are not understood.”
-Report on the confederate committee of foreign affairs 1861

The CSA allowed for fair trade, had uniform tax code and restricted ominous bills and no corporate bailouts, or government subsides. The post office must be self sufficient within two years of ratification. The CSA President had line item veto on spending, No cost overrun contracts were allowed. Congress could not foster any one branch of industry and greater consensus was needed to pass spending bills.

“Montgomery [confederate constitution]...One leading idea runs through the whole—the preservation of that time-honored Constitutional liberty which they inherited from their fathers....the rights of the States and the sovereign equality of each is fully recognized—more fully than under the old Constitution...But all the changes—every one of them—are upon what is called the conservative side..take the Constitution and read it, and you will find that every change in it from the old Constitution is conservative. ..in it are settled many of the vexed questions which disturbed us in the old Confederacy. A few of these may be mentioned—such as that no money shall be appropriated from the common treasury for internal improvement; leaving all such matters for the local and State authorities. The tariff question is also settled. The presidential term is extended, and no re-election allowed. This will relieve the country of those periodical agitations from which sprang so much mischief in the old government. If history shall record the truth in reference to our past system of government, it will be written of us that one of the greatest evils in the old government was the scramble for public offices—connected with the Presidential election. This evil is entirely obviated under the Constitution which we have adopted...
-Hon. Alexander H. Stephens Speech of the to the Virginia Secession Convention, April 23, 1861

"The question of building up class interests, or fostering one branch of industry to the prejudice of another, under the exercise of the revenue power, which gave us so much trouble under the old Constitution, is put at rest forever under the new. We allow the imposition of no duty with a view of giving advantage to one class of persons, in any trade or business, over those of another. All, under our system, stand upon the same broad principles of perfect equality. Honest labor and enterprise are left free and unrestricted in whatever pursuit they may be engaged in....the subject of internal improvements, under the power of Congress to regulate commerce, is put at rest under our system. The power, claimed by construction under the old constitution, was at least a doubtful one; it rested solely upon construction. We of the South, generally apart from considerations of constitutional principles, opposed its exercise upon grounds of its inexpediency and injustice.”
--Alexander Stephens "Cornerstone Address," March 21 1861

 

[Sic]

Tariffs

“And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue–to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures... The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected, three-fourths of them are expended at the North. ”
-Address of South Carolina to Slaveholding States Convention of South Carolina 1860

"The South has furnished near three-fourths of the entire exports of the country. Last year she furnished seventy-two percent of the whole"
-Daily Chicago Times, December 10, 1860

“The revenues of the General Government are almost entirely derived from duties on importations. It is time that the northern consumer pays his proportion of these duties, but the North as a section receiving back in the increased prices of the rival articles which it manufactures nearly or quite as much as the imposts which it pays thus in effect paying nothing or very little for the support of the government.”
-Florida causes of Secession

As so often is the case in wars, money, in this case tariffs, had long been a point of conflict between the two sides. In 1824 the government tariff doubled. The south voting against the tariff being raised and the north voted for it, dividing the country along the 1860 civil war lines in 1824 over tariffs. Tariffs supplied the government 90% of it income and even gave a surplus to what the government needed. The majority was paid by the south given its inport/export agrarian economy. Ye the money was used in the north to protect its manufacturing, industrialist, and federal internal improvement programs. This the south thought was unconstitutional for the government to aim at a section or industry of the economy specifically for a tax to benefit another.


"The instant the Government was organized, at the very first Congress, the Northern States evinced a general desire and purpose to use it for their own benefit, and to pervert its powers for sectional advantage...until they have saddled the agricultural classes with a large portion of the legitimate expenses of their own business. We pay a million of dollars per annum for the lights which guide them into and out of your ports. We built and kept up, at the cost of at least another million a year, hospitals for their sick and disabled seamen when they wear them out and cast them ashore. We pay half a million per annum to support and bring home those they cast away in foreign lands. They demand, and have received, millions of the public money to increase the safety of harbors, and lessen the danger of navigating our rivers. All of which expenses legitimately fall upon their business, and should come out of their own pockets, instead of a common treasury...The North, at the very first Congress, demanded and received bounties under the name of protection, for every trade, craft, and calling which they pursue, and there is not an artisan in brass, or iron, or wood, or weaver, or spinner in wool or cotton, or a calicomaker, or iron-master, or a coal-owner, in all of the Northern or Middle States, who has not received what he calls the protection of his government”
-Robert Toomb's Speech before the Georgia Legislature, November 13 1860

“In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency.”
-Georgia causes of secession

“The people of the Southern States, whose almost exclusive occupation was agriculture, early perceived a tendency in the Northern States to render the common government subservient to their own purposes by imposing burdens on commerce as a protection to their manufacturing and shipping interests. Long and angry controversies grew out of these attempts, often successful, to benefit one section of the country at the expense of the other....abuse of the powers they had delegated to the Congress, for the purpose of enriching the manufacturing and shipping classes of the North at the expense of the South.... ”
-Jefferson Davis Message to confederate Congress April 29, 1861 (Ratification of the Constitution

Tariffs would be Raised again in 1828. Congress passed what southerners called the tariff of abominations to help northern industry. Only 1 out of 105 southerners voted positive [the agrarian north west sided with the south], yet the north east voted for it [as they received free southern money that was used largely in the north] and it passed. This led South Carolina to first use a threat of secession. South Carolina Senator John Callhoun in the 1820's said of conflict between the north and south over tariffs “The great central interest , around which all others revolved” South Carolina argued they had states rights to reject unconstitutional federal ruling as a sovereign state, something Thomas Jefferson had recommended. Over the tariff Mary Chestnut said South Carolina "heated themselves into a fever that only bloodletting could ever cure." The tax had been 15% and the south had been complaining for decades.

“It does not require extraordinary sagacity to precive that trade is perhaps the controlling motive operating to prevent the return of the seceding states to the union”
-Boston Transcript March 18 1861

“High protective tariffs reduced the price of cotton and effective imposed a tax between 10-20% while they raised the income of northern labor and the profits of northern manufacturers”
-Robert William Fogel The Rise and fall of American Slavery

The Morrill Tariff Act passed the U.S. House of Representatives on May 10, 1860, on a sectional vote, with nearly all northern representatives in support and nearly all southern representatives in opposition.

“The last session of Congress they brought in and passed through the House the most atrocious tariff bill that ever was enacted, raising the present duties from twenty to two hundred and fifty per cent above the existing rates of duty. That bill now lies on the table of the Senate... The result of this coalition was the infamous Morrill bill - the robber and the incendiary struck hands, and united in joint raid against the South.”
-Robert Toomb's Speech before the Georgia Legislature, November 13 1860

“The passage of an obscure, ill-considered, ill-digested, and unstatesman like high protectionist tariff act, commonly known as the‘ Morrill Tariff. The result was as inevitable as the laws of trade are inexorable. Trade and commerce . . . began to look South . . . .Threatened thus with the loss of both political power and wealth, or the repeal of the tariff, and, at last, of both, New England –and Pennsylvania . . . demanded, now coercion and civil war, with all its horrors . . .”
-Clement L. Vallandigham Congressman Ohio 1863

With the election of Abraham Lincoln whose central campaign objective was to triple the tariff and the tariff issue was the “keystone” of the republican party “protection for home industry” was the campaign poster of the 1860 republican party. South Carolina did what it had done decades before, and seceded from the Union over the higher tariff rates soon to be imposed on the south by the north. It was not just the south, NYC mayor Fernando Wood wanted to make NYC a “free city” [free trade] and secede from the Union. As John Randolph of Roanoke said in a speech in congress in 1823 “ If the old [founders] congress had possessed the power of laying a duty of 10% as walorem on imports, this Constitution would never have been called into existence.” The debate over tariffs and internal improvements was not just a debate over those items, but a debate over the nature of the federal government. Free trade was a vital aspect of southern agrarian interests. The CSA Constitution allowed for free trade.

“An agricultural people, whose chief interest is the export of a commodity required in every manufacturing country, our true policy is peace, and the freest trade, which our necessities will permit. It is alike our interest, and that of all those to whom we would sell and from whom we would buy, that there should be the fewest practicable restrictions upon the interchange of commodities. There can be but little rivalry between ours and any manufacturing or navigating community, such as the Northeastern States of the American Union.”
-Jefferson Davis inaugural speech in Montgomery Alabama

“the agitation concerning African slavery in the South was commenced. This institution was purely sectional, belonging to the South. Antagonism to it in the North must also be sectional. The agitation would unite the South against the North, as much as it united the North against the South; but the North being the stronger section, would gain power by the agitation. Accordingly, after the overthrow of the tariff of 1828, by the resistance of South Carolina in 1833, the agitation concerning the institution of African slavery in the South was immediately commenced in the Congress of the United States. It was taken up by the Legislatures of the Northern States; and upon one pretext or another in and out of Congress, it has been pursued from that day to the fall of 1860, when it ended in the election of a President and Vice President of the United States, by a purely sectional support. The great end was at last obtained, of a united North to rule the South. The first fruit the sectional despotism thus elected produced, was the tariff lately passed by the Congress of the United States. By this tariff the protective policy is renewed in its most odious and oppressive forms, and the agricultural States are made tributaries to the manufacturing States. It has revived the system of specific duties, by which, the cheaper an article becomes, from the progress of art or the superior skill of foreign manufacturers — the higher is the relative tax it imposes. Specific duties, is the expedient of high taxation, to enforce its collection. This tariff illustrates the oppressive policy of the North towards the South, and abounds in high taxation by specific duties. It is a war on the foreign commerce of the country, in which the Southern people are chiefly interested. Exclusively an agricultural people, it is their policy, to purchase the manufactured commodities they need, in the cheapest markets. These are amongst the nations of Europe, who consume five-sixths of the agricultural productions of the South. The late tariff passed by the Congress of the United States, was designed to force the Southern people, by prohibitory duties to consume the dearer manufactured commodities of the North, instead of the cheaper commodities of European nations. What is this but robbery? Does it not take from one citizen or section and give to another? The foreign trade of the United States, has always been carried on, by our agricultural productions. Our exports, are the basis of the imports, of the United States. Upon what principle of justice or of the Constitution, have the people of the North intervened between us and our natural customers, and forced us by the use of the Federal Government — laying prohibitory duties on the production of foreign nations — to consume their productions?
-Report on the confederate committee of foreign affairs 1861

 

[Sic]

Loss of Political Power

“The majority, mean to plunder and wrong the minority. They mean to make the weaker section their tributaries. Between a representation incompetent to protect, and no representation, there is no difference, where there are conflicting interests in a legislative body. And in the election of a Chief Magistrate, of what use is the right of suffrage, when, if every man in the oppressed section should vote against the candidate of the stronger section, (as the Southern States did in the late Presidential election) they cannot prevent his election. …. By the forms of a free government therefore, a many-headed despotism may be established by a stronger section over a weaker section, far worse than the despotism of one man. One man may have a conscience; but men acting in masses, seldom exhibit conscientious scruples. Individuality and responsibility, are lost in numbers. That “a corporation has no soul,” is the proverbial aphorism of English law, indicating the unscrupulousness of men acting in masses. A single despot has no motive to oppress one portion of his people, more than another; but here, one half of a country rises up to plunder and oppress another half.”
-Report on the confederate committee of foreign affairs 1861

“The majority section may legislate imperiously and ruinously to the interests of the minority section not only without injury but to great benefit and advantage of their own section. In proof of this we need only refer to the fishing bounties, the monopoly of the coast navigation which is possessed almost exclusively by the Northern States and in one word the bounties to every employment of northern labor and capital such a government must in the nature of things and the universal principles of human nature and human conduct very soon lead as it has done to a grinding and degrading despotism.”
-Florida Declaration of Causes of Secession

“The Southern States, now stand exactly in the same position towards the Northern States, that the Colonies did towards Great Britain. The Northern States, having the majority in Congress, claim the same power of omnipotence in legislation as the British parliament. “The General Welfare,” is the only limit to the legislation of either; and the majority in Congress, as in the British parliament, are the sole judges of the expediency of the legislation, this “General Welfare” requires. Thus, the Government of the United States has become a consolidated Government; and the people of the Southern State, are compelled to meet the very despotism, their fathers threw off in the Revolution of 1776.”
-Address of South Carolina to Slaveholding States Convention of South Carolina 1860


Between 1800-1850 the House was controlled by the north but the south could block anything from the north in the senate. However with the edition of states like Minnesota 1858 Oregon 1859 and Kansas 1861 for the first time the north controlled the senate. Lincoln said he would not allow any more slave states into the union. Southerns saw as a excuse for northern political dominance for the republican political agenda. The south had seen their political power decline, and now saw the attack on slavery into new territories as a attack on the whole economic system of the south by the majority or mob of the north. The south saw the loss of political power, economic power, and rights granted by the constitution under threat from the majority north. In 1860 Pennsylvanian and New York alone had more seats in congress than the entire deep south of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina, Texas and even Arkansas and North Carolina added on to that. A Georgian sated “we are either slaves in the union or free men out of it” in time the north would control the south politically with no safeguards from the constitution or state sovereignty as they placed authority with the federal government.

”liberty is always destroyed by the multitude, in the name of liberty. Majorities within the limits of constitutional restraints are harmless, but the moment they lose sight of these restraints, the many-headed monster becomes more tyrannical, than the tyrant with a single head; numbers harden its conscience, and embolden it, in the perpetration of crime. And when this majority, in a free government, becomes a faction, or, in other words, represents certain classes and interests to the detriment of other classes, and interests, farewell to public liberty; the people must either become enslaved, or there must be a disruption of the government. ”
-Confederate Admiral Raphael Semmes 1868

“Equality and safety in the union are at an end”
-Howell Cobb of Georgia 1860

“The real issue involved in the relations between the North and the South of the American States, is the great principle of self-government. Shall a dominant party of the North rule the South, or shall the people of the South rule themselves. This is the great matter in controversy.”
-Robert Barnwell Rhett Montgomery, Alabama, 1860

“The contest on the part of the north was for supreme control, especially in relation to the fiscal action of the government.. on the other hand southern states, struggling for equality, and seeking to maintain equilibrium in government”
-Rose Oneal Greehow My Improvement and the first year of Abolition rule in Washington 1863

Northern Violations of the Constitution- Majority Rule or Constitutional Republic?

“The people of the North have endeavored to destroy its limitations. To make it sectional in its operations, and subservient to their sectional interests, and to make the government of the United States itself a consolidated government, has been the aim of their steady and unintermitted efforts. …..All encroachments by Congress on the Constitution of the United States, they have uniformly upheld; until at last the Constitution, by their interpretation, is virtually abolished, and now consists only in three words — “the general welfare,” of which they are the judges and dispensers....With the Constitution overthrown, and the government of the United States in the hands of a hostile section, not only liberty, but self-preservation, demanded their separation from it.....In seceding therefore, from the United States, the Confederate States have only exercised a right inherent in all Sovereignties. In their judgment, the agreement they had made with the Northern States had been grossly violated. Its whole purpose was overthrown. Instead of an agency of very limited power, having for its object the defence of the States against the aggressions of foreign nations, it has been converted into a government of unlimited internal powers. Unless the people of the Confederate States were prepared to surrender forever their liberties, there was but one course left for them to pursue — they must escape from the domination of such a government...“The people of the North have steadily upheld the policy of setting aside the Constitution, and of thus rendering the government of the United States omnipotent in its legislation. They have endeavored to drain the treasury, to carry on internal improvements, and at the same time by its exhaustion, to afford a pretext for higher tariff duties to replenish it! They pushed their oppressions, by the tariff, to such an extent in 1828, that the whole South protested against it; and when one of the Southern States resisted it, and a compromise was effected by which the taxes were to be reduced and limited, they overthrew the compromise, and renewed the oppressions..... With these various means of sectional aggrandizement — protective tariffs — appropriations from the treasury — the exclusive settlement of our territories — and anti-slavery agitations — they have at last succeeded in uniting the North against the South. To escape their ruthless mastery, the Southern States were compelled to secede from the Union with them”
-Report on the confederate committee of foreign affairs 1861

“Announce a revolution in the government and to substitute an aggregate popular majority for the written constitution without which no single state would have voted its adoption not forming in truth a federal union but a consolidated despotism that worst of despotisms that of an unrestricted sectional and hostile majority, we do not intend to be misunderstood, we do not controvert the right of a majority to govern within the grant of powers in the Constitution.
-Florida Declaration of causes of secession

“South Carolina has twice called her people together in solemn Convention, to take into consideration, the aggressions and unconstitutional wrongs, perpetrated by the people of the North on the people of the South.”
-Address of South Carolina to Slaveholding States Convention of South Carolina 1860

“We are fighting for the god given rights of liberty and independence as handed down to us in the constitution by our fathers”
-Confederate General John B Gordon to Pennsylvanian woman at York 1863

“I believe most solemley that it is for constitutional liberty”
-Confederate General Leonidas Polk June 22 1861 Reasons for Southern Secession

The south saw the north as violating the constitution in many ways. The south thought their liberties threatened by a growing northern majority and political influence. Had the constitution not been violated, and their rights maintained, there would have been no need to separate. The south saw the tariffs aimed at certain industry as a violation of the constitution. They saw the north's attempt to use that money to benefit the Norths wanted internal improvements as another violation of the constitution. The federal government under the control of Lincoln sought to violate the 10th amendment and states rights by not allowing the western states to decide on slavery, instead the federal government would overpower the states, and violate the constitution to the benefit of northern polices. Among others.

“Northern population was increasing, by immigration and other causes, in a greater ratio than the population of the South. By degrees, as the Northern States gained preponderance in the National Congress, self-interest taught their people to yield ready assent to any plausible advocacy of their right as a majority to govern the minority without control. They learned to listen with impatience to the suggestion of any constitutional impediment to the exercise of their will, and so utterly have the principles of the Constitution been corrupted in the Northern mind that, in the inaugural address delivered by President Lincoln in March last, he asserts as an axiom, which he plainly deems to be undeniable, of constitutional authority, that the theory of the Constitution requires that in all cases the majority shall govern; and in another memorable instance the same Chief Magistrate did not hesitate to liken the relations between a State and the United States to those which exist between a county and the State in which it is situated and by which it was created.”
-Jefferson Davis Message to Congress April 29, 1861 (Ratification of the Constitution)

“The experiment instituted by our revolutionary fathers, of a voluntary Union of sovereign States for purposes specified in a solemn compact, had been perverted by those who, feeling power and forgetting right, were determined to respect no law but their own will. The Government had ceased to answer the ends for which it was ordained and established. To save ourselves from a revolution which, in its silent but rapid progress, was about to place us under the despotism of numbers...The tyranny of an unbridled majority, the most odious and least responsible form of despotism, has denied us both the right and the remedy. Therefore we are in arms to renew such sacrifices as our fathers made to the holy cause of constitutional liberty ”
-Jefferson Davis Inaugural Richmond 1862


“Under the latitudinarian construction of the Constitution which prevails at the North, the general idea is maintained that the will of the majority is supreme; and as to Constitutional checks or restraints, they have no just conception of them..to keep the federal government within its proper sphere of delegated powers, that the Confederate States, each for itself, resumed those powers and looked out for new safeguards for their rights and domestic tranquility. These are found not in abandoning the Constitution, but in adhering only to those who will faithfully sustain it...They [the north] do not seem to understand the nature or workings of a federative system. They have but slender conceptions of limited powers. Their ideas run into consolidation...Whilst I was in Congress I knew of but few men there from the North who ever made a Constitutional argument on any question. They seemed to consider themselves as clothed with unlimited power...They looked upon it simply as a government of majoritiesThey did not seem to understand that it was a government that bound majorities by constitutional restraints. ”
-Speech of the Hon. Alexander H. Stephens to the Virginia Secession Convention, April 23, 1861

 

[Sic]

Two Separate Cultures and Politics “Yankees” and American


“If their was not a slave from Aroostock to the sabine, the north and the south could never permanent agree”
-Richmond Daily Whig April 23, 1862

“Slavery has nothing whatever to do with the tremendous issues now awaiting decision. It has disappeared almost entirely from the political discussions of the day. No one mentions it in connection with our present complications.“The question which we have to meet is precisely what it would be if there were not a negro slave on American soil.””
-New York Times quoted in the Richmond Whig April 9 1861

“The Southern people...maintained a species of separate interests, history, and prejudices. These latter became stronger and stronger, till they have led to a war which has developed the fruits of the bitterest kind.”
-General Sherman to Union Maj. R.M. Sawyer 1864


“The best definition ever given. It was a war of one form of society against another form of society”
- Shelby Fotte

The north and south started growing apart from each other socially, religiously, economically and politically. At times both would refer to each other as a separate race of people, usually northern Anglo-Saxon and southern scotch-Irish. These divides went back to early America. In some ways the war started politically with the federalist/anti-federalist and the nationalist vs the compact theorist of the Constitution . The south being largely Jeffersonian and anti-federalist/compact and the north federalist/nationalist.

“Stripped of all its covering, the naked question is, whether ours is a federal or consolidated government; a constitutional or absolute one; a government resting solidly on the basis of the sovereignty of the States, or on the unrestrained will of a majority; a form of government, as in all other unlimited ones, in which injustice, violence, and force must ultimately prevail.”
-John Calhoun South Carolina Senator J 1831

“The confederate states of america was the consequence of a constitutional crises the origins of which could be traced back to the US Constitution of 1789.”
-Marshall L Derosa the Confederate Constitution of 1861 University of Missouri Press 1991

“Not over slavery but centralization and local sovereign government going back 70 years to federalist and anti federalist...they[ The south] quit the union to save the principles of the constitution"
-Alexander Stevens A Constitutional View of the late war Between the States 1870

In 1819 a future disunion was predicted over the fight over a national bank. Later these differences were predicted to lead to the civil war back in 1824. A Congressional committee on northern interference in the south stated

“The hour is coming or is rabidly approaching, when the states from Virginia to Georgia, from Missouri to Louisianan, must confederate, and as one man say to the union we will no longer submit our retained rights to the sniveling insinuations of bad men on the floor of congress. Our constitutional rights to the dark and strained contraction of design men upon judicial benches. That we detest the doctrine, and disclaim the principle, of unlimited submission to the general [Federal] government.... Let the North, then, form national roads for themselves. Let them guard with tariffs their own interests. Let them deepen their public debt until a high minded aristocracy shall rise out of it. We want none of all those blessings. But in the simplicity of the patriarchal government, we would still remain master and servant under our own vine and our own fig-tree, and confide for safety upon Him who of old time looked down upon this state of things without wrath.”

The cultures were separating as well. The south was generally conservative in cultural and religion compared to the north adding God to the Constitution and whos motto was “God will vindicate.” The north was being transformed by large number of European immigrants who often came from the failed socialist revolutions of 1848. The north was also increasingly influenced by New England. Before the 1850's new england was seen as out of the american mainstream and “southern” was the American mainstream. 9 of the first 11 presidents were southern plantation owners, 7 of the first 12 were Virginians [many two term] 9 were southern, and 1 from New York, at that time was “southern” in politics. Washington, Jefferson, Jackson were the norm in America. After the war of 1812 New England was often seen with disdain by the rest of America.

“There is at work in this land a Yankee spirit and an American spirit”
-James Thornwell 1859

New Englander's settled in western States and New York. Over time New York became half populated by decedents from New England and flooded with socialist European immigrants. Once new England could control half the north, the south was taken care of after the war, and new england was no longer outside mainstream, but know the south was out of the mainstream and the problem that needed to be fixed.

“The north changed radically after the founders of the united states, especially in the 1850's”
-Dr. Clyde Wilson Professor of History University of South Carolina

“Southern society has never generated any of the loathsome isms, which northern soil breeds...the north has its Mormons, her various sects of Communists, her free lovers, her spiritualists, and a multitude of corrupt visoniaries”
-R.L Dabney A defense of Virginia and the South 1867


“It was a profound conservative movement. It was in fact a counterrevolution against the excess of northern demagoguery, mob rule, and dangerous fanaticism imported from Europe”
-E. merton Coulter The confederate States of America Louisiana State University Press

“The union became a synonym for “modern” and a really counterpart to the south”
- David Goldfeild War is good for Business Americas civil war Magazine


Main References

-Secession Acts of the Thirteen Confederate States
Home
-Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union
Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union
Florida Causes of secession Florida Declaration
- Address of South Carolina to Slaveholding StatesConvention of South Carolina December 25, 1860 Address of South Carolina to Slaveholding States | Teaching American History
-Abraham Lincoln First Inaugural Address Monday, March 4, 1861
-Jefferson Davis' First Inaugural Address Alabama Capitol, Montgomery, February 18, 1861
-Jefferson Davis' Second Inaugural Address Virginia Capitol, Richmond, February 22, 1862
-Confederate States of America - Message to Congress April 29, 1861 (Ratification of the Constitution)
Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Message to Congress April 29, 1861 (Ratification of the Constitution)
-The confederate constitution American Civil War :: Hargrett Rare Book & Manuscript Library :: University of Georgia Libraries -The Confederate States of America, 1861--1865: A History of the South by E.Merton coulter 1950
-The Confederate Constitution of 1861: An Inquiry Into American Constitutionalism By Marshall L. DeRosa University of Missouri Press
-Redeeming American Democracy Lessons from the confederate constitution Marshall L. Derosa Pelican press 2007
-The Constitution Of The Confederate States Of America Explained A Clause By Clause Study Of The Souths Magna Carta Lochlainn Seabrook Sea Raven Press 2012
-Virginia/Kentucky resolutions 1798 http://billofrightsinstitute.org/fou...y-resolutions/
-James Madison, Report on the Virginia Resolutions 1800 http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/found.../v1ch8s42.html
-Calhoun Ft Hill Address http://teachingamericanhistory.org/l...-hill-address/
-ANEXPOSITION Of the Virginia Resolutions of 1798,
JudgeAbel P. Upshur
Judge Abel P. Upshur – DallyPost Tactical
-Alexander Stephens "Cornerstone Address," March 21 1861:
http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1861stephens.asp
-Robert Toomb's Speech before the Georgia Legislature, November 13 1860:
Robert Toombs's Speech to the Georgia Legislature
-From Union to Empire Clyde Wilson The Foundation for American Education Columbia SC 2003
-The Great Civil War Debate hosted by american vision c-span Peter Marshall Jr. vs Steve Wilkin s
-Nullification How to resits Federal tyranny in the 21st Century Thomas Woods Regnery Publishing inc Washington D.C 2010
-The Yankee Problem An American dilemma Clyde N Wilson Shotwell Publishing Columbia South Carolina 2016
-The fourteenth amendment -Thomas woods

-The Real Lincoln Thomas J Dilorenzo Three Rivers press NY NY 2002
- Lincoln Unmasked what your not suppose to know about Dishonest Abe Thomas J Dilorenzo Three rivers Press Crown Forum 2006
-Lincolns Marxists Al Benson Jr and Walter Kennedy Pelican Press 2011
-From Union to Empire essays in the Jeffersonian Tradition Clyde Wilson The Foundation for American Education Columbia South Carolina 2003
-The South was Right James Ronald Kennedy and Walter Donald Kennedy Pelican 2014
-Nullification Reclaiming consent of the Governed Clyde Wilson Shotwell Publishing Columbia South Carolina 2
-Lincolns Marxists Al Benson Jr and Walter Kennedy Pelican Press 2011
-Battle Hymns The Power And Popularity Of Music In The Civil War By Christian Mcwhirter The University Of North Carolina press 2012
-The states rights tradition nobody knows Thomas Woods

-Battle Cry of Freedom James McPherson Oxford university Press
-Virginia Iliad the death and destruction of the Mother of States and of Statemen H.V Traywick Jr Dementi Milestone Publishing Inc 2016
Gary Gallagher the American civil war great courses in modern history lecture series Teaching company 2000
-Without Consent or Contract The Rise and Fall of American Slavery Robert William Fogel W.W Norton and company NY London 1989
-America Civil war Magazine - http://www.historynet.com/americas-civil-war
-Robert E Lee letter to his wife 1856
-Robert E Lee correspondence with British Lord action
-Woodrow Wilson, A History of The American People 1902
-Jefferson Davis The rise and fall of the confederate government
-Alexis de tocqueville Democracy in America 1835-1840
-Jesse James last rebel of the civil war T.J Stiles Alfred A Knopf 2002
Interview with Historian Shelby foote http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/printmember/foo0int-1
-Shelby Foote on the confederate flag

-A Defense Of Virginia And The South R.L Dabney 1867 Sprinkle publications
-Raphael Semmes, Memoirs of Service Afloat During the War Between the States Baltimore, MD. Kelly Piet & Co. 1868 -
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:2001.05.0133:chapter=6age=66
-Major General John B. Gordon Causes of the Civil War. 1903
-A Constitutional view of the late war between the states: its causes By Alexander Hamilton Stephens 1870
-The Private Mary Chesnut The Unpublished Diaries C Vann Woodward Elisabeth Muhlenfeld NY Oxford Press 1984
-The politically incorrect guide to the south Clint Johnson 2007 Regnery publications inc
-Report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/review/report-of-the-committee-on-foreign-affairs/
-The politically incorrect guide to the civil war H.W Crocker third 2008 Regnery publications inc
-The politically incorrect guide to American history Thomas e woods 2004 Regnery publications inc
-The south was Right James Ronald Kennedy and Walter Donald Kennedy Pelican 2014 reprint
-General Stand waties confederate Indians 1959 by Frank Cunnigham University of Oklahoma press
-The US constitution
-33 questions about American history you're not suppose to ask Thomas Woods Crown forum NY 2007
-I'll Take my stand the south and the agrarian tradition by twelve southerners 1930 Louisianan state university press
-Rutland Free Library Rutland, Vermont
-Southern Secession and Reconstruction David Livingston Emory University professor
-Why the war was not About Slavery Clyde Wilson Professor of History at the University of South Carolina
-Myths of American slavery Walter D Kennedy 2003 Pelican publishing company
-Myths and Realities of American Slavery John C Perry Burd Street Press 2002
-Everything You Were Taught About American Slavery Is Wrong Ask A Southerner Lochlainn Seabrook Sea raven press 2014
-The Civil war PBS series by Ken Burns
-The American heritage series By Historian David Barton at wallbuilders.com
-Building on the American heritage series by David Barton 2011
-Warriors of honor- The faith and legacies of Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson 2004
-Still Standing The stonewall Jackson Story 2007
-The life of Stonewall Jackson
-Tenting Tonight the Solders life Time Life Books James Robertson

 

[Occams Barber]

Do you seriously expect anyone to sit here and read the small book you just posted?
OB

 

[Sic]

well if they are interested. Maybe just a section than? is their any section you see disagree with or agree with? would you read the first section tell me what you think?

 

[Occams Barber]

well if they are interested. Maybe just a section than? is their any section you see disagree with or agree with? would you read the first section tell me what you think?

I live at the bottom of the world on the other side Sic - as far from the US as it's possible to be without getting wet feet. I have no expertise on the US Civil War.

I was trying to point out that if you expect others to easily contribute to your post you need to keep your post down to a manageable length and, preferably, a few key points.
OB

 

[Sic]

I live at the bottom of the world on the other side Sic - as far from the US as it's possible to be without getting wet feet. I have no expertise on the US Civil War.

I was trying to point out that if you expect others to easily contribute to your post you need to keep your post down to a manageable length and, preferably, a few key points.
OB

Thanks for the advice. I thought doing it by topic might do the trick , maybe not. Complex topic needs allot of space.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Do you seriously expect anyone to sit here and read the small book you just posted?
OB

Lol I read it, I find history fascinating.

Given the current narrative of the left...I think more people should read it. Whenever we talk about Confederate flags or monuments, there's a tendency of the left to paint it in the simplest terms possible. The Confederate south was a bunch of racist white supremacists who wanted to save slavery.

Obviously, slavery was a big part of the issue....and while there is a lot of talk about state's rights, I think the economics of the situation were the biggest factor. In slavery, a lot of southerners' wealth was in the form of slaves. They might have 2,000$ in liquid assets....10,000$ in land....and 5,000$ in property (including slaves). To paint them as solely motivated by racism or white supremacy is false...if the government was about to remove 1/3rd of your wealth, you might fight back too.

 

[Sic]

Lol I read it, I find history fascinating.

Given the current narrative of the left...I think more people should read it. Whenever we talk about Confederate flags or monuments, there's a tendency of the left to paint it in the simplest terms possible. The Confederate south was a bunch of racist white supremacists who wanted to save slavery.

Obviously, slavery was a big part of the issue....and while there is a lot of talk about state's rights, I think the economics of the situation were the biggest factor. In slavery, a lot of southerners' wealth was in the form of slaves. They might have 2,000$ in liquid assets....10,000$ in land....and 5,000$ in property (including slaves). To paint them as solely motivated by racism or white supremacy is false...if the government was about to remove 1/3rd of your wealth, you might fight back too.

First off thanks for reading my book lol. To me the political differences were largest especially if you get around to my upper south post. The government was heading away from its original intent to a centralized nation. The biggest finical i think was over tariffs and the use of those to support the north.

 

[Occams Barber]

Lol I read it, I find history fascinating.

Oops - I should have allowed for the masochists and history nerds.
OB

 

[Ana the Ist]

First off thanks for reading my book lol. To me the political differences were largest especially if you get around to my upper south post. The government was heading away from its original intent to a centralized nation. The biggest finical i think was over tariffs and the use of those to support the north.

It wasn't just tariffs...I can promise you that...the entire southern economy was threatened. I'm not a Civil war historian or anything, but I tend to look into all sorts of things.

One of the most interesting facts is the percentage of state's wealth that was slaves. Slaves were property....and like cattle to a herdsman, they were an investment to the plantation owner. Some of the southern states had 25% of their wealth in slaves (not in the product that slaves produced....but in the market value of the slaves themselves)....but a few had anywhere from 50%-66% of all the wealth of the state in slaves.

Slavery had lost a lot of popularity by the time the Civil war rolled around. So while southerners might not have spoken about it much...you can bet it was on their mind. Imagine that you were a senator from South Carolina and you were facing the prospect of 40% of the wealth in your state literally walking away. That's going to be a big deal, right?

Economics brought slaves to the US and it's really no doubt that economics set them free. The loss of slavery would've devastated the southern economy...and there was no way to replace it. It was either secede from the north....or the wealthiest people in your state would lose a vast amount of wealth.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Oops - I should have allowed for the masochists and history nerds.
OB

I studied sociology and history in college before settling on a major. I realized that sociology tries (and typically fails) to do what history does accidentally....explain the behavior of lots of people.

While I've continued to read history after college....I only read sociology studies if I want a laugh. Human behavior is a complex and nuanced thing....and the motivations of people should be examined through the lens of the circumstances of their time.

 

[Sic]

It wasn't just tariffs...I can promise you that...the entire southern economy was threatened. I'm not a Civil war historian or anything, but I tend to look into all sorts of things.

One of the most interesting facts is the percentage of state's wealth that was slaves. Slaves were property....and like cattle to a herdsman, they were an investment to the plantation owner. Some of the southern states had 25% of their wealth in slaves (not in the product that slaves produced....but in the market value of the slaves themselves)....but a few had anywhere from 50%-66% of all the wealth of the state in slaves.

Slavery had lost a lot of popularity by the time the Civil war rolled around. So while southerners might not have spoken about it much...you can bet it was on their mind. Imagine that you were a senator from South Carolina and you were facing the prospect of 40% of the wealth in your state literally walking away. That's going to be a big deal, right?

Economics brought slaves to the US and it's really no doubt that economics set them free. The loss of slavery would've devastated the southern economy...and there was no way to replace it. It was either secede from the north....or the wealthiest people in your state would lose a vast amount of wealth.

Agreed it wasen't just tariffs. I was just saying of the economical issues i thought it the strongest since it was the longest lasting division between north and south going back to early america and the republican agenda brought it to a whole new level. But yes slavery of course was a massive financial issue After the war the north profit went up 45% the south down 15%.

“Military defeat moved the scepter of wealth from the agrarian south to the industrial north”
-Robert William Fogel The Rise and Fall of American Slavery


best example Mississippi



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....and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.
-Mississippi declaration causes of secession



But here is a question. Was slavery within the south under any threat? how much of a role did preserving slavery [outside its connection to maintain states rights union of the founders] play in secession. I would argue minimal even given the financial impact, mostly because it was not under threat within the states that had slavery.

 

[Occams Barber]

I studied sociology and history in college before settling on a major. I realized that sociology tries (and typically fails) to do what history does accidentally....explain the behavior of lots of people.

I studied sociology (so I tend to agree with you), human bio and linguistics as part of a psych major. I was trying to build a package around major elements of human behaviour. At the time history never occurred to me. If I had had enough time I might have included anthropology.

While I've continued to read history after college....I only read sociology studies if I want a laugh. Human behavior is a complex and nuanced thing....and the motivations of people should be examined through the lens of the circumstances of their time.

For the past 30 years or so I've had a focus on the history of peoples, places and things in general - basically for behavioural understanding. I've also had a linguistic re-awakening where I now combine it with history to look at the history (and prehistory) of the English language.

I will confess to being a history nerd.
OB

 

[Ana the Ist]

I studied sociology (so I tend to agree with you), human bio and linguistics as part of a psych major. I was trying to build a package around major elements of human behaviour. At the time history never occurred to me. If I had had enough time I might have included anthropology.

Sadly, it seems like the history classes of my youth focused entirely upon wars and documents. What was the Magna Carta? Who fought the war of 1812?

I get that it can be hard to make history interesting....but it really does seem like the more you know about it, the more your understanding of today falls into place.

Instead of teaching about who the Romans fought....teachers should talk about who they were, why they were so effective, and the central lessons of ancient Rome.

For the past 30 years or so I've had a focus on the history of peoples, places and things in general - basically for behavioural understanding. I've also had a linguistic re-awakening where I now combine it with history to look at the history (and prehistory) of the English language.

I will confess to being a history nerd.
OB

I found linguistics interesting later in life....as it tends to be something that we take for granted. I remember when I started reading about it, it was just because I found it interesting that some languages had words for concepts that my language didn't have...and how those developed over time.

 

[Ana the Ist]

But here is a question. Was slavery within the south under any threat?

Yes absolutely. Even in the 1700s...colonies were passing laws and restrictions on slavery. By the early 1800s, the general sentiment was that slavery would be gone forever at some near time.

how much of a role did preserving slavery [outside its connection to maintain states rights union of the founders] play in secession. I would argue minimal even given the financial impact, mostly because it was not under threat within the states that had slavery.

But it was "under threat"...abolitionists were gaining support in even Southern states and began holding conventions on ending slavery in the US. This got so bad that Southern states actually asked northern states to crack down on abolitionist speech. Slavery was becoming more unpopular as more people recognized blacks as fully human.

Unfortunately, the tide turned in the south with the invention of the cotton gin. With that, plantation owners were making more money than ever and needed more slaves.

It became a central issue in politics....and was the cause of the whole state's rights issue to be frank. The south felt the north had no right to impose restrictions on slavery....which basically had only become more regulated since it began. They started passing laws restricting citizenship on freed blacks...as they began to fear all the talk of abolition would lead to bloody uprisings amongst the slaves.

Lincoln wasn't the biggest enemy of slavery....but he wasn't really a supporter either. When he was elected at a time when the south felt it needed someone who would support them....they gambled on splitting with the north and lost.

http://www.historynet.com/abolitionist-movement

It's important to distinguish between popular sentiment and political speech.

 

[Occams Barber]

Instead of teaching about who the Romans fought....teachers should talk about who they were, why they were so effective, and the central lessons of ancient Rome.

I've always wanted to know how people thought in the Way Back When times. I suspect that their view of life, morals, values etc. was very different to ours.

I found linguistics interesting later in life....as it tends to be something that we take for granted. I remember when I started reading about it, it was just because I found it interesting that some languages had words for concepts that my language didn't have...and how those developed over time.

I got sucked in when I discovered that Sanskrit and Polish and Hittite and English and Persian and Italian and…. were all children of the same linguistic (grand) mother.

It even turns out that American is in the same linguistic family as English. Srsly - I actually have a book called 'American English' - (whodathunkit? )
OB

 

[Ana the Ist]

I've always wanted to know how people thought in the Way Back When times. I suspect that their view of life, morals, values etc. was very different to ours.

I've found that "thinking" like just about anything else...is influenced by the circumstances of the time. The real curiosities are those who are so rarely heard of....because they don't think like any of their contemporaries, but persist in their unique views anyway.

I got sucked in when I discovered that Sanskrit and Polish and Hittite and English and Persian and Italian and…. were all children of the same linguistic (grand) mother.

It even turns out that American is in the same linguistic family as English. Srsly - I actually have a book called 'American English' - (whodathunkit? )
OB

Lol American English....never a bestseller in the UK.

 

[Sic]

Yes absolutely. Even in the 1700s...colonies were passing laws and restrictions on slavery. By the early 1800s, the general sentiment was that slavery would be gone forever at some near time.

I meant slavery within the states where it already existed and was it under threat politically? slavery and its value only increased the last few decades before the war with the cotton gin. Perhaps this would better fit on the thread on the impact slavery played on the cotton states secession. I argued on one of these threads [ i could find and copy paste] it was in no danger within the southern states. I would like your opinion on that if you have time.

But it was "under threat"...abolitionists were gaining support in even Southern states and began holding conventions on ending slavery in the US. This got so bad that Southern states actually asked northern states to crack down on abolitionist speech. Slavery was becoming more unpopular as more people recognized blacks as fully human.

I would like to clarify a common misconception about the PC version. The old south never viewed blacks as inferior races or lesser evolved animals. Evolution did not yet have a hold on higher education. They were viewed from the biblical viewpoint of all men being descended from Adam and eve. You will not be able to find anywhere the view of blacks as lesser evolved [lesser civilized yes] animals or sub human. That comes later with evolution.


But I agree northern abolition was increasing hostile to the south. But there was also increasing hostility towards abolitionism in the north, viewing them as union breakers and trouble. But even said i do see your point and think you are correct. Northern industrialist/capitalist were at war with the agrarian free trade south. But I will anyways post a section from my upper south post.


Slavery was Safer in the Union Than the Confederacy

“Howard county [MO] is true to the union” “our slaveholders think it is the sure bulwark of our slave property”
-Abeil Lenord Whig party leader at the onset of the war

For the upper south slavery in fact was safer in the union than the confederacy. Slavery was constitutionally protected in both the northern and southerner states for the entire civil war. Lincoln and the north supported the Corwin amendment that would have protected slavery forever in the the U.S constitution and used it to try and stop secession.

“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof[ slavery], including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”
-Corwin Amendment

The united states supreme court had ruled in favor of the fugitive slave laws and the use of federal agents to return runaway slaves to their masters. A confederacy would have no protection for runaways north. Lincoln and the north did not invade the south to end slavery. Lincoln had no problem with the upper south slave states in the union as he called for volunteers to attack the deep south to repress the rebellion [not slavery]. The 1860 republican platform plank 4 said slavery was a state issue and they would not interfere with slavery. Lincoln also said the states had the right to chose on slavery and he would not interfere with slavery.

“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere Untitled with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so”
-Abraham Lincoln Inaugural address

After the deep south left the union the federal government decided it would not end slavery in the house on Feb 1861 and senate march 2 1861. On July 22 1861 congress declared “This war is not waged , nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions [slavery] of those states.” October 8th 1861 the newspaper Washington D.C National Intelligence said “The existing war had no direct relation to slavery.”

“Seven-tenths of our people owned no slaves at all, and to say the least of it, felt no great and enduring enthusiasm for its [slavery’s] preservation, especially when it seemed to them that it was in no danger.’ ”-John G. Barrett, The Civil War in North Carolina


Fight to Maintain Slavery? Or put Down Arms to Maintain Slavery?

“As for the South, it is enough to say that perhaps eighty per cent. of her armies were neither slave-holders, nor had the remotest interest in the institution. No other proof, however, is needed than the undeniable fact that at any period of the war from its beginning to near its close the South could have saved slavery by simply laying down its arms and returning to the Union.”
-Confederate Major General John B. Gordon Causes of the Civil War

If the south fought only for slavery, it only had to not fight the war. Slavery was protected and not under attack by Lincoln in the states it already existed. At any time as Lincoln promised, the south just had to lay down arms and come back into the union with slavery intact, yet they chose to fight for another cause.

“The emancipation proclamation was actually an offer permitting the south to stop fighting and return to the union by January 1st and still keep its slaves”
-John Canaan The Peninsula campaign

“Peace now would save slavery, while a continued war would obliterate the last vestiges of it”
- Raleigh North Carolina newspaper July 1863 quoted in Americas Civil war Magazine

Virginia alone freed more slaves prior to civil war than NY, NJ, Pennsylvania,and New England put together. South Carolinian Mary Chestnut said slavery was a curse, yet she supported secession. She and others hoped the war would end with a “Great independent country with no slavery.” On June 1861 Mary Chestnut said “Slavery has got to go of course.”

“We were not fighting for the perpetuation of slavery, but for the principle of States Rights and Free Trade, and in defense of our homes which were being ruthlessly invaded.”
-Moses Jacob Ezekiel

Unfortunately, the tide turned in the south with the invention of the cotton gin. With that, plantation owners were making more money than ever and needed more slaves.

It became a central issue in politics....and was the cause of the whole state's rights issue to be frank. The south felt the north had no right to impose restrictions on slavery....which basically had only become more regulated since it began.

They started passing laws restricting citizenship on freed blacks...as they began to fear all the talk of abolition would lead to bloody uprisings amongst the slaves.

Lincoln wasn't the biggest enemy of slavery....but he wasn't really a supporter either. When he was elected at a time when the south felt it needed someone who would support them....they gambled on splitting with the north and lost.

http://www.historynet.com/abolitionist-movement

It's important to distinguish between popular sentiment and political speech.

I am unsure if i understood correct so i am going to reply to what I think you might be saying here. That is that "states rights" really only started as a response to the federal governments intrusion on the rights of the states over the issue of slavery. Know this is often what we are told. But I have found, that is because we are taught american history from our modern post civil war nationalist outlook on the "union" rather than the antebellum american compact union view. When we are taught how states vs federal operated and our original union , it becomes very clear it was a vital aspect of our country/Constitution and political system. Slavery was just the issue of its day in a long line of states rights that we are not taught about. This link should do it.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?511837-From-Union-to-Empire-The-Political-Effects-of-the-Civil-war


But specifically see here as well

States Rights Were just to Protect Slavery


“If their was not a slave from Aroostock to the sabine, the north and the south could never permanent agree”
-Richmond Daily Whig April 23, 1862


“It is evident that the three ruling branches of [the federal government] are in combination to stop their colleagues, the states authorities, of the powers reserved by them”
-Thomas Jefferson letter to William Giles 1825

“Sever ourselves from the union we so much value, rather than give up the rights of self government which we have reserved, and in which alone we see liberty, safety and happiness”
-Thomas Jefferson to James Madison 1799

The CSA federal government could not end slavery in the confederacy constitutionally. Yet the confederacy still made a very strong states rights Constitution. If it was just to protect slavery than there would have been no need for stronger states rights than the American Constitution. During the confederacy when the federal overreached against the states, states nullified and fought back on non slave related issues and states like Georgia, threatened to secede.

http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/govbrown/brown.html
http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/civil-war/

After Reconstruction and slavery, the south was still the strong states rights section of the country. The first states right advocates in the U.S were men like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George mason, St George Tucker, John Randolph many of whom spoke out against slavery, yet were strong states rights proponents. States rights was used more by northern states before the civil war than southern. States rights were used against slavery and federal ruling like the fugitive slave laws. There were strong states rights men in the north [democrats] that were anti slavery. For example over national banking during the war, northern democrats objected because

“It utterly to destroy all the rights of the states. It is asserting a power which if carried out to its logical result would enable the national congress to destroy every institution of the states and cause all power to be consolidated and concentrated here” [D.C ]
-Kentucky democrat Lazarous Powell

States had pushed back against federal overreach no matter what the issue, the issue in 1860 was over tariffs and slavery. The first federal vs state issue arose over the alien and sedition acts later internal improvements, national banking, conscription, protective tariffs, land disputes, freedom of speech, free trade, state control of militia, fugitive slave laws etc. No matter what the issue states held firm to the union and fought against federal expansions.

In the upper south slavery was better protected within their state than in the new confederacy. However states rights were better protected in the confederacy under its constitution. Many in the south such as Mary Chestnut wished slavery to be abolished in the confederacy as did others.

“Let not slavery prove a barrier to our independence...although slavery is one of the principles that we started to fight for... if it proves an insurmountable obstacle to the achievement of our liberty and separate nationality, away with it”
-The Jackson Mississippian 1864 quoted in McPherson's Battle cry of Freedom p 833

General Patrick Claburne [and other generals] wanted to free all the slaves. Jeff Davis sent diplomats near the end of the war offering to end slavery if France/Britain would recognize them. Northern generals like general George Thomas of the union, were rich slave owners who fought for the north and said during the war “I am wholly sick of states rights.”

“As for the South, it is enough to say that perhaps eighty per cent. of her armies were neither slave-holders, nor had the remotest interest in the institution. No other proof, however, is needed than the undeniable fact that at any period of the war from its beginning to near its close the South could have saved slavery by simply laying down its arms and returning to the Union.”
-Confederate Major General John B. Gordon Causes of the Civil War

If the south fought only for slavery,it only had to not fight the war. Slavery was protected and not under attack by Lincoln in the states it already existed. At any time as Lincoln promised, the south just had to lay down arms and come back into the union with slavery intact, yet they chose to fight for another cause.

"The emancipation proclamation was actually an offer permitting the south to stop fighting and return to the union by January 1st and still keep its slaves”
-John Canaan The Peninsula campaign

“We were not fighting for the perpetuation of slavery, but for the principle of States Rights and Free Trade, and in defense of our homes which were being ruthlessly invaded.”
-Moses Jacob Ezekiel

Virginia alone freed more slaves prior to civil war than NY, NJ, Pennsylvania,and New England put together. South Carolinian Mary Chestnut said slavery was a curse, yet she supported secession. She and others hoped the war would end with a “Great independent country with no slavery.” On June 1861 Mary Chestnut said “Slavery has got to go of course.”


“If their was not a slave from Aroostock to the sabine, the north and the south could never permanent agree”
-Richmond Daily Whig April 23, 1862

“The hour is coming or is rabidly approaching, when the states from Virginia to Georgia, from Missouri to Louisianan, must confederate, and as one man say to the union we will no longer submit our retained rights to the sniveling insinuations of bad men on the floor of congress. Our constitutional rights to the dark and strained contraction of design men upon judicial benches. That we detest the doctrine, and disclaim the principle, of unlimited submission to the general [Federal] government....Let the North, then, form national roads for themselves. Let them guard with tariffs their own interests. Let them deepen their public debt until a high minded aristocracy shall rise out of it. We want none of all those blessings. But in the simplicity of the patriarchal government, we would still remain master and servant under our own vine and our own fig-tree, and confide for safety upon Him who of old time looked down upon this state of things without wrath.”
-1824 A Congressional committee


“It is not slavery that [Thomas] Jefferson fears as “the death kneel of the union” it is antislavery, the notion that has been raised for the first time that congress could tamper with the institutions of new states as a condition for admission”
-Clyde Wilson from Union to Empire

“Stripped of all its covering, the naked question is, whether ours is a federal or consolidated government; a constitutional or absolute one; a government resting solidly on the basis of the sovereignty of the States, or on the unrestrained will of a majority; a form of government, as in all other unlimited ones, in which injustice, violence, and force must ultimately prevail.”
-South Carolina Senator John Calhoun 1831