The Civil War Narrative?

[Albany Rifles]

The North created laws so Negroes could not live there. The Union did not want Negroes to migrate to the western states, wanted them contained in the South. The Union did not want them to own land, or vote, nor work as a slave.

Julie, just curious....you say The North I didn't realize there was a "Northern" Government. There were individual state governments which made individual state laws.

And as for the term Union...that implied the Federal government forces during the ACW. The Union forces may not have treated the African American troops in the best manner but they still treated them better than the Confederate government treated any African Americans prior to and during the ACW.

In some areas of the North there were plenty of areas where blacks were welcomed. Massachusetts desegregated its public schools in the 1850s.

Did African Americans receive the full benefit of citizenship in 1860 in the Northern staes....no they did not. Much to their shame. However, the certainly received a greater degree of freedom and human rights there than they did in the antebellum South.

And I would be interested to see how the Senators from the 11 states that seceeded in 1860-61 would have voted on the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments.

And if you insist so strongly on the superiority of the 10th Amendment then you have to also acknowledge that the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments are co-equal in the declaration of those rights.

And finally, I join with Shek in agreeing that the bloodshed of the Civil War was justified in the release of the 3.5 million AMERICANS from chatel bondage. In all of our history you can not get more moral than that.

[Blue]

Emancipation was what I was taught attending gradeschool, early 70s, in SE Kansas. Same as all schools in the Ozarks. I learned in high school (early eighties) and beyond, the case was economical imbalances, as I believe today. The cause and reason and instigators was obvious, a point I refuse to debate.

I can't imagine what is being taught now...........probably as far from the truth as you can get.

And honestly, I refer to it as the war of Northern aggression. Feel free to let the ignorant personal attacks of redneck, bigot and racist fly, because really, none here today caused it, took part in it, or anything else. I had family on both sides of the fight and have heard both versions. You can tell where I came down.

BTW, I have some old family documents from that period that need deciphering. Anyone willing to help?

[Herodotus]

How did he handle and present the Fugitive Slave Law, which was the most powerful federal piece of legislation ever to that point, which was clearly a pro-Southern piece of legislation and ran roughshod over state's rights as expressed in the personal liberty laws passed in the north to prevent free blacks from being rounded up and sold into slavery?

It's been a while since I took the course but as I recall he wasn't a fan of the Compromise. The South probably should not have accepted it but due to constant violations of state sovereignty (the Underground Railroad), they felt the had little choice but to accept it.

In his view (admittedly biased) chattel slavery would have died out within 10 years so Northern agitation was unnecessary. It became tyranny of the majority, etc. and the Confederacy believed they had no choice but to secede.

[Herodotus]

Civil War

This is Section 10 of the Constitution, while the Constitution does not specifically address secession it does prohibit states from certain actions:

Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

States could not enter into Confederations as long as they were a part of the "Union", however could they leave the Union and then form a Confederation and do all these things was one of the main questions that drove the Civil War. It was still an open question in 1860 and at that time (pre-Civil War) the Constitution was not considered by all states/people to be the eminent Founding document; the Declaration of Independence held such prominence among them.

The Confederates based their rationale for secession on the Founders (and the Declaration) who presented with tyranny of the majority decided to: Unilaterally Declare Independence, instigate hostilities against foreign occupiers, fight a guerrilla war/holding action, seek and gain sovereign recognition from major European powers, await assistance from said European powers, and thus force foreign occupiers to recognize their sovereignty. Of course it did not work out the same way for the Confederates.

[Shek]

States could not enter into Confederations as long as they were a part of the "Union", however could they leave the Union and then form a Confederation and do all these things was one of the main questions that drove the Civil War. It was still an open question in 1860 and at that time (pre-Civil War) the Constitution was not considered by all states/people to be the eminent Founding document; the Declaration of Independence held such prominence among them.

The Confederates based their rationale for secession on the Founders (and the Declaration) who presented with tyranny of the majority decided to: Unilaterally Declare Independence, instigate hostilities against foreign occupiers, fight a guerrilla war/holding action, seek and gain sovereign recognition from major European powers, await assistance from said European powers, and thus force foreign occupiers to recognize their sovereignty. Of course it did not work out the same way for the Confederates.

It wasn't the tyranny of the majority in 1776, but the tyranny of the king, although I would agree that if a tyranny of the majority (that trampled upon minority rights) presented itself, then there could be grounds for revolution. However, in the case of the South, they held the power to prevent tyrannical legislation from passing through the Congress, with the Senate being the body where they held the power (I'd have to look up the exact seats for the 1861 Congress, but they absolutely had the power to filibuster). Additionally, with the decision from Dred Scott, it was clear that the SCOTUS was in the tank for the South and slave owner interests. Thus, there was no tyranny.

Next, if you look at their causes of secession documents, which would be the closest thing to a declaration of independence, all of them clearly posit that the secession is over slavery (Georgia mentions some other reasons, but towards the end and with less priority). If the South wanted to use the moral authority of the Declaration of Independence, a document that appeals to the natural right of man in stating that "all men are created equal" and guaranteed the "right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness," then they cannot at the same deny that "all men are created equal" and guaranteed the "right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness." There is a fundamental contradiction in appealing to a higher moral authority when denying the moral rights afforded by that same authority.

South Carolina Declarations of Causes of Seceding States American Civil War
Mississippi Declarations of Causes of Seceding States
Georgia Declarations of Causes of Seceding States Civil War
Texas Declarations of Causes of Seceding States

I don't disagree with you that the South felt this way, but I also don't want to give a free pass since it wasn't an analogous situation and appealed to a moral authority to continue and expand an immoral institution (also, I suspect that you don't agree with the reasoning but were just pointing it out - I'm just trying to shoot the message and not the messenger :) ).

[Albany Rifles]

Shek

I believe you miss out on one point about the Southern leaders.

They did believe all men were created equal...but they did not consider slaves as men. Therefore, in their minds, there was no contradiction.

[Herodotus]

It wasn't the tyranny of the majority in 1776, but the tyranny of the king, although I would agree that if a tyranny of the majority (that trampled upon minority rights) presented itself, then there could be grounds for revolution. However, in the case of the South, they held the power to prevent tyrannical legislation from passing through the Congress, with the Senate being the body where they held the power (I'd have to look up the exact seats for the 1861 Congress, but they absolutely had the power to filibuster). Additionally, with the decision from Dred Scott, it was clear that the SCOTUS was in the tank for the South and slave owner interests. Thus, there was no tyranny.

No doubt it probably was not completely analogous in terms of "tyranny", however after the election of 1860 the Republicans (with an obvious anti-slavery platform Republican Party National Platform, 1860) held absolute majorities in the House and Senate and the Presidency. 37th United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I don't know about filibuster rules prior to 1872 Filibuster and Cloture - Rules of the Senate: Filibuster & Cloture but it may have not been a hard rule. The slave states only had 45% of the seats in the Senate (including Delaware), and while the filibuster was a possibility Senate rules can also change with a simple majority.

The Confederates may not have wanted to tempt fate. Likewise with the SCOTUS, justices die or resign (Lincoln appointed five Justices Abraham Lincoln's Supreme Court) and the balance could easily tip.

Next, if you look at their causes of secession documents, which would be the closest thing to a declaration of independence, all of them clearly posit that the secession is over slavery (Georgia mentions some other reasons, but towards the end and with less priority). If the South wanted to use the moral authority of the Declaration of Independence, a document that appeals to the natural right of man in stating that "all men are created equal" and guaranteed the "right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness," then they cannot at the same deny that "all men are created equal" and guaranteed the "right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness." There is a fundamental contradiction in appealing to a higher moral authority when denying the moral rights afforded by that same authority.

A.R. already mentioned this, but yeah slaves were considered property; and though ironic and hypocritical the Confeds didn't see any contradiction in what they were doing. After all some of the most prominent Founders were slave owners (Jefferson, Washington).

I don't disagree with you that the South felt this way, but I also don't want to give a free pass since it wasn't an analogous situation and appealed to a moral authority to continue and expand an immoral institution (also, I suspect that you don't agree with the reasoning but were just pointing it out - I'm just trying to shoot the message and not the messenger :) ).

Not completely analogous no, but it was what the Confederates aspired to, however misguided their intentions were.

Another question I wanted to pose more generally and one in which the answer was not clear in 1860 is: Who created the Constitution: the states, or the people? If the states created the Constitution could they not then dissolve their bond with the Union?

[Shek]

No doubt it probably was not completely analogous in terms of "tyranny", however after the election of 1860 the Republicans (with an obvious anti-slavery platform Republican Party National Platform, 1860) held absolute majorities in the House and Senate and the Presidency. 37th United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I don't know about filibuster rules prior to 1872 Filibuster and Cloture - Rules of the Senate: Filibuster & Cloture but it may have not been a hard rule. The slave states only had 45% of the seats in the Senate (including Delaware), and while the filibuster was a possibility Senate rules can also change with a simple majority.

Remember, the deep Southern states didn't seat members because they had already seceded, and so the statistics don't reflect the true power that the South would have had and the fact is that the Democrats would have been the majority in the Senate (so the GOP could not have invoked a majority to change the cloture rule, which did exist at the time, U.S. Senate: Art & History Home > Origins & Development > Powers & Procedures > Filibuster and Cloture).

The Confederates may not have wanted to tempt fate. Likewise with the SCOTUS, justices die or resign (Lincoln appointed five Justices Abraham Lincoln's Supreme Court) and the balance could easily tip.

Two of those five appointments were due to the Civil War (one resignation and an expansion slot). Furthermore, if you want to slice it further, if the Southern Democrats had not ruptured from the Democratic Party, then the GOP would have never picked up the presidency in the first place in 1860.

A.R. already mentioned this, but yeah slaves were considered property; and though ironic and hypocritical the Confeds didn't see any contradiction in what they were doing. After all some of the most prominent Founders were slave owners (Jefferson, Washington).

I'd concur that the Southerners saw slaves strictly as property and so didn't see the irony in evoking the Declaration of Independence. However, arguments that invoke the founding fathers as slaveholders aren't strong one s in my opinion given their sentiments and efforts to emancipate their slaves. As an example, Jefferson included this charge against the king in the very first draft of the Declaration:

"has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere."

Jefferson would seek to emanicipate his slaves but couldn't do to debt. Washington did emancipate his slaves upon his death (and provided for the care of the elderly and infirm slaves that would not have a chance to survive on their own).

Another question I wanted to pose more generally and one in which the answer was not clear in 1860 is: Who created the Constitution: the states, or the people? If the states created the Constitution could they not then dissolve their bond with the Union?

The Constitution was not seen as simply a legal contract between the states, but rather as something deeper that bound the people.

Writing this in opposition to the Constitution, Patrick Henry saw it as between the people:

Federal v. Consolidated Government: Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention

The fate ... of America may depend on this. ... Have they made a proposal of a compact between the states? If they had, this would be a confederation. It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, sir, on that poor little thing -- the expression, We, the people, instead of the states, of America. .

Madison, the father of the Consitution, didn't see a right to secession, but to revolution.

Founding.com: A Project of the Claremont Institute

I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession." But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy

Andrew Jackson, the President and a Southern Democrat, wrote the following in the wake of the Nullification Crisis:

Buchanan, while certainly not a President to look up to, even exposed the slippery slope that any conceived notion of secession brought with it:

1860 State of the Union Address by James Buchanan

In order to justify secession as a constitutional remedy, it must be on the principle that the Federal Government is a mere voluntary association of States, to be dissolved at pleasure by any one of the contracting parties. If this be so, the Confederacy is a rope of sand, to be penetrated and dissolved by the first adverse wave of public opinion in any of the States. In this manner our thirty-three States may resolve themselves into as many petty, jarring, and hostile republics, each one retiring from the Union without responsibility whenever any sudden excitement might impel them to such a course. By this process a Union might be entirely broken into fragments in a few weeks which cost our forefathers many years of toil, privation, and blood to establish.

Such a principle is wholly inconsistent with the history as well as the character of the Federal Constitution.

[Julie]

The North created laws so Negroes could not live there. The Union did not want Negroes to migrate to the western states, wanted them contained in the South. The Union did not want them to own land, or vote, nor work as a slave.

Julie, just curious....you say The North I didn't realize there was a "Northern" Government. There were individual state governments which made individual state laws.

During the American Civil War, the Union was a name used to refer to the federal government of the United States, which was supported by the twenty-three states which were not part of the secession attempt by the 11 states that tried to form the Confederacy. Although the Union states included the Western states of California, Oregon, and (after 1864) Nevada, as well as states generally considered to be part of the Midwest, the Union has been also often loosely referred to as "the North", both then and now.[1]

Union (American Civil War) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

[Prof]

Zraver sayeth: The Civil War should rightly be seen as the forces of unionism against the almost feudal aristocrats. One of the great tragedies of that war is that among the dead only the first part of that narrative died. The second part survived, crawled out from under reconstruction and then spent almost the entire next hundred years recreating the exact same social norms as existed in the Antebellum South; a few rich white planters, merchants and bankers using fear to turn the majority poor rural whites against the even poorer blacks when in fact poor whites and blacks have more in common with each other than a share cropper and a land lord ever will.
Zraver:

Yo. Alabama's bizarre & increasingly immense 1901 constitution was undeniably designed to disenfranchise small landholders, tenant land users & industrial employees, black or white, centralizing power in the state capitol at the expense of local "home rule." Racism we certainly had to repletion, but social class & economic centralism were the more powerful, although less noisy, motors.

Doc

[Julie]

Morrill Tariff Bill

Prior to 1824 the average tariff level in the U. S. had been in the 15 to 20 % range. This was thought sufficient to meet federal revenue needs and not excessively burdensome to any section of the country. The increase of the tariff to a 20% average in 1816 was ostensibly to help pay for the War of 1812. It also represented a 26% net profit increase to Northern manufacturers.

In 1824 Northern manufacturing states and the Whig Party under the leadership of Henry Clay began to push for high, protective tariffs. These were strongly opposed by the South. The Southern economy was largely agricultural and geared to exporting a large portion of its cotton and tobacco crops to Europe. In the 1850’s the South accounted for anywhere from 72 to 82% of U. S. exports. They were largely dependent, however, on Europe or the North for the manufactured goods needed for both agricultural production and consumer needs. Northern states received about 20% of the South’s agricultural production. The vast majority of export volume went to Europe. A protective tariff was then a substantial benefit to Northern manufacturing states, but meant considerable economic hardship for the agricultural South.

Northern political dominance enabled Clay and his allies in Congress to pass a tariff averaging 35% late in 1824. This was the cause of economic boom in the North, but economic hardship and political agitation in the South. South Carolina was especially hard hit, the State’s exports falling 25% over the next two years. In 1828 in a demonstration of unabashed partisanship and unashamed greed the Northern dominated Congress raised the average tariff level to 50%. Despite strong Southern agitation for lower tariffs the Tariff of 1832 only nominally reduced the effective tariff rate and brought no relief to the South. These last two tariffs are usually termed in history as the Tariffs of Abomination.

This led to the Nullification Crisis of 1832 when South Carolina called a state convention and “nullified” the 1828 and 1832 tariffs as unjust and unconstitutional. The resulting constitutional crisis came very near provoking armed conflict at that time. Through the efforts of former U. S. Vice President and U. S. Senator from South Carolina, John C. Calhoun, a compromise was effected in 1833 which over a few years reduced the tariff back to a normal level of about 15%. Henry Clay and the Whigs were not happy, however, to have been forced into a compromise by Calhoun and South Carolina’s Nullification threat. The tariff, however, remained at a level near 15% until 1860. A lesson in economics, regional sensitivities, and simple fairness should have been learned from this confrontation, but if it was learned, it was ignored by ambitious political and business factions and personalities that would come on the scene of American history in the late 1850’s.

High protective tariffs were always the policy of the old Whig Party and had become the policy of the new Republican Party that replaced it. A recession beginning around 1857 gave the cause of protectionism an additional political boost in the Northern industrial states.

In May of 1860 the U. S. Congress passed the Morrill Tariff Bill (named for Republican Congressman and steel manufacturer, Justin S. Morrill of Vermont) raising the average tariff from about 15% to 37% with increases to 47% within three years. Although this was remarkably reminiscent of the Tariffs of Abomination which had led in 1832 to a constitutional crisis and threats of secession and armed force, the U. S. House of Representatives passed the Bill 105 to 64. Out of 40 Southern Congressmen only one Tennessee Congressman voted for it.

U. S. tariff revenues already fell disproportionately on the South, accounting for 87% of the total. While the tariff protected Northern industrial interests, it raised the cost of living and commerce in the South substantially. It also reduced the trade value of their agricultural exports to Europe. These combined to place a severe economic hardship on many Southern states. Even more galling was that 80% or more of these tax revenues were expended on Northern public works and industrial subsidies, thus further enriching the North at the expense of the South.

In the 1860 election, Lincoln, a former Whig and great admirer of Henry Clay, campaigned for the high protective tariff provisions of the Morrill Tariff, which had also been incorporated into the Republican Party Platform. Lincoln further endorsed the Morrill Tariff and its concepts in his first inaugural speech and signed the Act into law a few days after taking office in March of 1861. Southern leaders had seen it coming. Southern protests had been of no avail. Now the South was inflamed with righteous indignation, and Southern leaders began to call for Secession.

[Julie]

I believe tariffs caused much of the antagonism between the North and the South, some Southern States were already threatening secession, and when Lincoln became President, it was even going to become more economically worse for the South.

[Shek]

The history here is all wrong. The Morrill Tariff, while passing the House in 1860, was shot down in the Senate. It could not pass because of the Southern vote. The only reason that it passed in 1861 was because of Southern secession. Had the South not seceded, then their Senators would have been seated and would have defeated the bill, and Lincoln therefore would not have had a Morrill Tariff to sign. Because of this, the Tariff of 1857, which had the lowest tariff rate in decades, would have remained in effect.

Therefore, the Morrill Tariff cannot be used to support any explanation of secession since it came after secession. In fact, its passage undermines the Southern argument that Southern interests could not be protected within the governmental structure of the Union.

[Shek]

I believe tariffs caused much of the antagonism between the North and the South, some Southern States were already threatening secession, and when Lincoln became President, it was even going to become more economically worse for the South.

Julie,
A series of compromise bills to avert secession of additional states as well as bring back the states that had already seceded were thrown into the arena in 1861. What were the topics addressed in this bills? Did any of them address tariffs? If not, why not?

[Herodotus]

Remember, the deep Southern states didn't seat members because they had already seceded, and so the statistics don't reflect the true power that the South would have had and the fact is that the Democrats would have been the majority in the Senate (so the GOP could not have invoked a majority to change the cloture rule, which did exist at the time, U.S. Senate: Art & History Home > Origins & Development > Powers & Procedures > Filibuster and Cloture).

Shek,

No doubt I misread the numbers there. So the Democrats had the majority in the Senate, but were all Democrats "pro-slavery"? Could the "pro-slavery" contingent rely on other Dems to help provide a filibuster? Obviously the Southerners did not think that was the case, that they could rely on the filibuster as an indefinite block against anti-slave (or anti-pro-slave) legislation, otherwise why secede?

Two of those five appointments were due to the Civil War (one resignation and an expansion slot). Furthermore, if you want to slice it further, if the Southern Democrats had not ruptured from the Democratic Party, then the GOP would have never picked up the presidency in the first place in 1860.

But there's the rub; the Democrats by 1860 were not monolithic. As a national party it had too many factions, spread itself too thin, and lost its majority. The Republicans were founded as an anti-slave party, and that was pretty much the litmus test. So the Southern Democrats were not only faced with a determined Republican party but also possible dissent from their ostensible allies within the Democratic Party.

So in that view they could have seen it as tyranny of the majority. I don't necessarily agree that that was the case, but arguments have been made to that effect.

I agree also that the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence were tantamount to the foundation of a free society whereas the Confederacy was more about preserving slavery. So in that regard it was (and remains) disingenuous for Confeds to base their argument on WWFD (What Would the Founders Do?).