Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I just selected those two points for discussion, although you make several points worthy of it.
We are supposed to learn from history, or so we say. Can you imagine the result if someone had had the courage to say, "The South wants to secede. Fine. Let's agree to part ways amicably, and remain trading partners. Further, let's agree to revisit the issue every 25 years in perpetuity, or until we are rejoined as one country"..... or something like that.
An escaped slave - and there were plenty of them - would then escape not just to The North, but to a foreign country, and The Confederate States would have no claim to them. That would have been a great improvement over what happened.
Slavery was dying. Our favorite European partners had abandoned it and it should have been evident that The Confederacy would sooner or later be forced out of the slave business.
It should indeed have been a lesson in what not to do.
Georges Santayana is likely best remembered for his
Quote:
"Those who do not remember history, are condemned to repeat it.”
Significantly, Mr. Santayana also noted,
Quote:
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes.”
History matters. Getting it right matters.
The period from Lincoln's election to secession (Secession Winter) is incredibly well-documented & is therefore incredibly 'ripe' for 'getting it right' & thereby provide an excellent opportunity to learn.
Our form of government, then & now, is very similar, & is Constitution-based. What was the leadership, i.e. the elected officials/representatives saying? Documentation includes newspaper accounts, State secession conventions/deliberations (Jan - March), testimony from the Washington Peace convention, letters of secessions from the commissioners of Slave States, list of grievances in State declarations of secession, & so on.
You asked, "Can you imagine the result if someone had had the courage to say, "The South wants to secede. Fine. Let's agree to part ways amicably, and remain trading partners"?
Folks back then were saying similar. There were 5 proposed amendments which discussed logical exit strategies for secession.
Additionally, the Congressional Record of the 36th Congress shows the proposals of the many other Constitutional Amendments (President Buchanon was the 1st to propose).
'US Constitution & Secession' is a recent book by Dwight Pitcaithley. His book focuses on analyzing these amendments. Basically he breaks down 350 different topics in the proposed 67 amendments. Slavery expanded in the territories is the largest topic cited. The Slave State position was that Government should protect slavery because slaves are property. 90% of the amendments proposed were about protecting slavery. 2 out of the 350 discussed tariffs. 5 were logical exit strategies for secession. One described having 4 Presidents, 1 each for North, South, East & West.
Other major issues:
Return of fugitives slaves
Protecting slavery in the District of Columbia
Slaves were taken from owners when they went to certain states (Virginia sues NY over this)
Dred Scott decision
Secession issues & reorganizing federal government
Jefferson Davis proposed nationalizing slavery (slaves as protected property)
The Corwin amendment was approved by Senate (& previously approved by the House); on Inauguration Day it was ratified by 5 states.
The Slave States seceded to protect slavery & the notion of white supremacy.
Southern states were railing against the Northern states, its people, abolitionists, & eventually Lincoln.
In his analysis of the proposed Amendments: the slave States were willing to trade State authority to protect slavery for Federal authority to protect slavery. (In other words, it was about property rights & NOT States' rights)
History matters. Getting it right matters.
The history of slave rebellions is also incredibly well-documented, there were many, both here & elsewhere.
Slave rebellions were more likely to succeed if those enslaved outnumbered the slavers, these conditions were not met in the US.
Slave rebellions were successful elsewhere, & these were likely the best way for slaves here in the US to free themselves.
[*]In his analysis of the proposed Amendments: the slave States were willing to trade State authority to protect slavery for Federal authority to protect slavery. (In other words, it was about property rights & NOT States' rights)[/list]
History matters. Getting it right matters.
The State’s rights argument isn’t really too far off base.
If state laws aren’t protected at the federal level, then the rationale to just seceed and make up a new federal authority that does protect those laws makes sense.
Self determination of what country a state should belong to is the ultimate excercise of a state’s rights. The excercising of that right was why the Union Army was mobilized.
Probably true. But I think the war effort was doomed from the beginning. An agrarian society simply cannot compete with an industrialized one..
I wouldnt say that’s true. The Revolutionary War was basically fought this way as well as Vietnam 100 years later.
By 1863 the war was turning into a quagmire for the North. Popularity was fading, political pressure was rising, and an election season was coming up, hence the war got a bit more brutal. Lincoln needed a Union victory at any cost and began to target civilian infrastructure as well.
At that point it didn’t make sense to destroy what one would hope to be within your own territory when the war is over and it wouldn’t make sense to create animosity among a population that would eventually be entitled to vote again against the party that was responsible for the destruction of the South. It definitely doesn’t make sense to free slaves and plan on them living among an even more hostile population. But I think Lincoln’s actions indicate just how desperate he had become.
The State’s rights argument isn’t really too far off base.
If state laws aren’t protected at the federal level, then the rationale to just seceed and make up a new federal authority that does protect those laws makes sense.
Self determination of what country a state should belong to is the ultimate excercise of a state’s rights. The excercising of that right was why the Union Army was mobilized.
Southern states were fine with the fugitive slave law, so it wasn't the principle of states rights they were concerned about. It was the right to maintain their own property (slaves) that led them to secede. As it turned out, that resulted in the loss of that right. Had they not seceded, they would have maintained the right to keep slaves until either they voted to end slavery themselves, or a constitutional amendment was passed, neither of which was on the horizon.
I wouldnt say that’s true. The Revolutionary War was basically fought this way as well as Vietnam 100 years later. By 1863 the war was turning into a quagmire for the North. Popularity was fading, political pressure was rising, and an election season was coming up, hence the war got a bit more brutal. Lincoln needed a Union victory at any cost and began to target civilian infrastructure as well.
At that point it didn’t make sense to destroy what one would hope to be within your own territory when the war is over and it wouldn’t make sense to create animosity among a population that would eventually be entitled to vote again against the party that was responsible for the destruction of the South. It definitely doesn’t make sense to free slaves and plan on them living among an even more hostile population. But I think Lincoln’s actions indicate just how desperate he had become.
Very true, at least politically. Militarily, Union victory was likely inevitable after the fall of Vicksburg, but continuation of the war was reliant on Lincoln's re-election in 1864. Political infighting by the Democrats and the fall of Atlanta helped assure that. But Confederate refusal to exchange black POWs led to the cessation of all prisoner exchanges and really upped the brutality of the war, as did the movement of Sherman's army through the south.
As far as slaves, it also didn't make sense to allow them to remain in bondage and potentially aid the Confederate war effort. The system of slavery ensured that there would be no easy transition to a free black society.
Very true, at least politically. Militarily, Union victory was likely inevitable after the fall of Vicksburg, but continuation of the war was reliant on Lincoln's re-election in 1864. Political infighting by the Democrats and the fall of Atlanta helped assure that. But Confederate refusal to exchange black POWs led to the cessation of all prisoner exchanges and really upped the brutality of the war, as did the movement of Sherman's army through the south.
As far as slaves, it also didn't make sense to allow them to remain in bondage and potentially aid the Confederate war effort. The system of slavery ensured that there would be no easy transition to a free black society.
In order to guess how letting slavery end on its own would have turned out, we have to look no further than any other slave holding countries from that time. Freed slaves in Cuba and Brazil were much better and quickly integrated than their American counterparts. They were also spared a war killing 600k of their soldiers, and associated war damages and operating cost. There’s no doubt that of all the ways to formally end slavery, the US apparently chose the worst possible path.
Southern states were fine with the fugitive slave law, so it wasn't the principle of states rights they were concerned about. It was the right to maintain their own property (slaves) that led them to secede. As it turned out, that resulted in the loss of that right. Had they not seceded, they would have maintained the right to keep slaves until either they voted to end slavery themselves, or a constitutional amendment was passed, neither of which was on the horizon.
Its obviously a bit more complicated than that, otherwise the South wouldn’t have been so paranoid about losing slaves in the first place.
Of course they were paranoid, they saw fugitive slaves as their personal property, which trumped their concerns about the rights of free states to govern by their own laws.
The State’s rights argument isn’t really too far off base.
If state laws aren’t protected at the federal level, then the rationale to just seceed and make up a new federal authority that does protect those laws makes sense.
Self determination of what country a state should belong to is the ultimate excercise of a state’s rights. The excercising of that right was why the Union Army was mobilized.
The States' Right argument isn't really too far off base? I guess that's one of the reasons I think it makes sense to take a look at the proposed amendments to the US Constitution, all, many or most were designed to avert military conflict.
Those proposed changes, & in the end, & after none of these efforts proved successful, it makes sense to take a look at the Constitution of the CSA. This 'new' Constitution would then offer the clearest window of insight into how precisely the CSA intended to be different from the USA, & why.
If the idea is to learn from history so as not to repeat mistakes, it makes senses to get it right, &/or, to set the record straight.
The follow link has a side-by-side & line-by-line comparison of the US Constitution & the one proposed by the CSA, from the summary:
Quote:
Overall, the CSA constitution does not radically alter the federal system that was established by the United States constitution. It is therefore very debatable as to whether the CSA was a significantly more pro-"states' rights" country (as supporters claim) in any meaningful sense. At least three states rights are explicitly taken away — the freedom of states to grant voting rights to non-citizens, the freedom of states to trade freely with each other, and, of course, the freedom of states to outlaw slavery within their borders.
States only gain four minor rights under the Confederate system — the power to enter into treaties with other states to regulate waterways, the power to tax foreign and domestic ships that use their waterways, the power to impeach (some) federally-appointed officials, and the power to distribute "bills of credit."
As previously noted, the CSA constitution does not modify many of the most controversial (from a states' rights perspective) clauses of the American constitution, including the "Supremacy" clause (Art. VI, Sec. 1[3]), the "Commerce" clause (Art. I, Sec. 8[3]) and the "Necessary and Proper" clause (Art. I, Sec. 8[18]). Nor does the CSA take away the federal government's right to suspend habeus corpus or "suppress insurrections."
As far as slave-owning rights go, however, the document is much more effective. Four different clauses entrench the legality of slavery in a number of different ways, and together they virtually guarantee that any sort of anti-slave law or policy would be unconstitutional. People can claim the Civil War was "not about slavery" as much as they want, but the fact remains that anyone who fought for the Confederacy was fighting for a country in which a universal right to own slaves was one of the most entrenched laws of the land.
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA
In order to guess how letting slavery end on its own would have turned out, we have to look no further than any other slave holding countries from that time. Freed slaves in Cuba and Brazil were much better and quickly integrated than their American counterparts. They were also spared a war killing 600k of their soldiers, and associated war damages and operating cost. There’s no doubt that of all the ways to formally end slavery, the US apparently chose the worst possible path.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest
...
History matters. Getting it right matters.
The history of slave rebellions is also incredibly well-documented, there were many, both here & elsewhere.
Slave rebellions were more likely to succeed if those enslaved outnumbered the slavers, these conditions were not met in the US.
Slave rebellions were successful elsewhere, & these were likely the best way for slaves here in the US to free themselves.
Cuba & Brazil were successful in ending slavery because those enslaved outnumbered the slavers.
Underlying cause of the outnumbering is the simple fact the folks in Cuba & Brazil acknowledged their children.
Stating the obvious, this was not the case in the US Slave States. Nor was it to be in the proposed CSA based on their Constitution & supported by the Slave States 'ways of life', custom, culture, social mores, etc.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
