Replies

but rather over Republican promises to prevent slavery's expansion into any western territories which didn't want it

Yes, but the discussion was over the principle of limited government than over the actual expansion of slavery. Anyone who looks at the western territories that were being argued over can see that these lands were not lands that were profitable for cotton farming and slavery. Take a look at New Mexico territory. This territory was open to slavery but it never had more than a dozen slaves. The point of the arguements was who got to decide this issue for each territory...the people of that teritorry or the fed gov?

Confederate leadership was virtually 100% slave-holders, and were primarily motivated by their desires to preserve, protect and defend their "peculiar institution" of slavery That is the reason they refused, even months before the bitter, bitter end, to make a peace deal with Lincoln which would have freed slaves, even with Lincoln's offer of $400,000,000 in compensation!

Your problem is you keep trying to portray them as being for the permanent perpetuation of slavery. They weren't . They were for abolishing it graudally in their own time like the North did. And I think you misunderstand their refusal to make peace even when offered compensation for the slaves. It wasn't slavery they were trying to protect, it was their independence. Taking the deal would have meant surrender. They began freeing and arming blacks on their own before they were forced to surrender. They even told Europe earlier on that they would free their slaves within five years in return for recognition. Independence was what they really valued.

Rubbish & propaganda, because 1860 Republicans never threatened slavery in the South.

Of course they didn't. The arguements between the politicians was always about the territories. The only ones who brought up the topic of immediate abolition everywhere were the abolitionists, many of whom were quite vitriolic and supported murderers like John Brown. while Republicans were mostly Northern, Unionist voters could be found in every Southern state

Of course. And you are correct in noting that the Republican party at that time was purely a sectional phenomena.

I think you underestimate the tariff issue. True the Morrill tariff was not passed while the South was still in the union, but they had had all election season to hear the North talk about passing it.

may even have admitted that abolishing slavery was necessary.

He was the one who approved of telling Britain and France that the South would abolish slavery in return for recognition.

falls into the same category as the North's 1861 desperate attempt to save the Union by making legal slavery a matter of constitutional amendment. It shows that under duress, some people will say & do anything.

If slavery was the only issue or even the most important one, then they would have taken the North up on this offer. And likewise if slavery was the only or the main issue they wouldn't have offered to give it up to gain recogntition.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "The point of the arguements was who got to decide this issue for each territory...the people of that teritorry or the fed gov?"

Republicans proposed that people of each territory should decide.
In that they were supported by Northern "Douglas Democrats", but opposed by Southern Democrats who insisted such decisions be made in Washington.

That is the issue which split the Democrat convention in Charleston, SC, in April 1860.
Southern Democrats were for more Federal power protecting slavery, while Northern Democrats & Republicans wanted more territorial & states' rights to abolish it.

The result was Southern Fire Eaters, lead by William Yancey, walked out and eventually nominated their own candidates.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Your problem is you keep trying to portray them as being for the permanent perpetuation of slavery.
They weren't .
They were for abolishing it graudally in their own time like the North did."

Sure, that's a nice revisionist fantasy, but there's no historical evidence from the time to support such wild claims.
What the evidence supports is that Fire Eaters and others who lead the charge for secession were motivated exclusively by their desires to protect slavery.

One of those was former US Senator, then Confederate Senator Louis Wigfall, noted in previous posts here:

"Sir, I wish to live in no country where the man who blacks my boots or curries my horse is my equal."

January 1865

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "It wasn't slavery they were trying to protect, it was their independence.
Taking the deal would have meant surrender."

And yet, within weeks of losing both independence and slavery, unconditionally, they rejected an opportunity to bargain for a better deal.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "They began freeing and arming blacks on their own before they were forced to surrender."

Pathetic, weak, half-hearted, insincere and way-way too late to make any difference.
Confederates had finally seen the handwriting on the wall, and made just enough changes allowing them to revise & rewrite history for their own benefit.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "The only ones who brought up the topic of immediate abolition everywhere were the abolitionists, many of whom were quite vitriolic and supported murderers like John Brown."

There were no "murderers like John Brown".
Brown himself was captured, tried & executed for his crimes.
His actions, while admired by some, were widely condemned by many in the North.
Of his "secret six" wealthy supporters, three fled to Canada to avoid arrest, one to Italy, one to an insane asylum (Garret Smith) with only one, Thomas Higginson, openly defending Brown.

Curiously, Garret Smith before admitting himself to an insane asylum, became the object of Senator Jefferson Davis' wrath, when Davis "unsuccessfully attempted to have Smith accused, tried, and hanged along with Brown."

In 1867 Smith helped underwrite $100,000 bond needed to free Jefferson Davis from prison.

Bottom line: John Brown's raid was highly exaggerated by Fire Eater propagandists in the South to gain sympathy for their cause of secession.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "And you are correct in noting that the Republican party at that time was purely a sectional phenomena."

No, that's not what I said.
In 1860 there was no national party, because both previous national parties had split in half.
In 1860 the Democrat party split in half between Northern Douglas Democrats and Southern Breckenridge Democrats.
The old Whig party had already split, between Northern Lincoln Republicans and Southern John Bell Constitutional Unionists.

And three of the four regional parties were Unionists, which on the question of secession made them allies: effectively one national party.

Only one of the four -- Southern Democrats -- was threatening to secede if the election didn't go their way.
The fact that Lincoln Republicans won the majority of electoral votes was not anticipated by some, but was exactly what Southern secessionist Fire Eaters wished for.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "I think you underestimate the tariff issue.
True the Morrill tariff was not passed while the South was still in the union, but they had had all election season to hear the North talk about passing it."

Like I said, tariffs were "politics as usual".
Tariffs went up, they went down, you win some, lose some and come back to politic another day.
So, there was simply no reason why a proposed modest increase in tariffs should drive some to declare their secession.

And indeed, when you read their original "Reasons for Secession" documents, while slavery is mentioned many, many times, tariffs are not mentioned, even once.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: Davis "...was the one who approved of telling Britain and France that the South would abolish slavery in return for recognition."

That obscure tale took a lot of googling to find & verify.
It comes from a Duncan Kenner, very large slave-holder, as reported to William Henry and first recorded in 1899.
The key fact to remember, if the tale is even true, it came at the very end of the war, as a last desperate act, before the Confederacy collapsed.
Here is the heart of the story:

"Kenner suggested that Davis tell both governments that the Confederacy would abolish slavery.
No timeframe was discussed, and Kenner originally floated the idea of presenting the plan to the Confederate Congress.
Davis asked Kenner not to do so and rejected the idea outright, thinking that the situation was not yet desperate enough to warrant such a move, but in late 1864 he sent for Kenner and told him to put the plan in motion.
Kenner was given credentials and set out on a secret mission to Europe in January 1865.
He arrived just weeks before Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox Courthouse..."

The Brits, to their credit, utterly rejected Kenner's desperate proposal.
Soon after, Lee surrendered.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "If slavery was the only issue or even the most important one, then they would have taken the North up on this offer.
And likewise if slavery was the only or the main issue they wouldn't have offered to give it up to gain recogntition."

Protecting slavery was the reason -- the only reason cited -- for Deep South declarations of secession.
But clearly, once Confederate government formed, then self-preservation became its number one objective.

*************

Insane former NY Congressman Garret Smith, supported John Brown in 1859, helped pay $100,000 bond to free Jefferson Davis from prison, in 1867.

Brojoke said: 1860 Republicans never threatened slavery in the South.....That is Rubbish.

From a leader who knew the circumstances of impending conflict (December 3, 1860):

"The long-continued and intemperate interference of the Northern people with the question of slavery in the Southern States has at length produced its natural effects. The different sections of the Union are now arrayed against each other, and the time has arrived, so much dreaded by the Father of his Country, when hostile geographic parties have been formed.

"I have long foreseen and often forewarned my countrymen of the now impending danger. This does not proceed soley from the claim on the part of Congress or the Territorial legislatures to exclude slavery from the Territories, nor from the efforts of different States to defeat the execution of the fugitive-slave law.

"All or any of these evils might have been endured by the South without danger to the Union (as others have been) in the hope that time and reflection might apply the remedy. "The immediate peril arises not so much from these causes as from the fact that the incessant and violent agitation of the slavery question throughout the North for the last quarter of a century has at length produced its malign influence on the slaves and inspired them with vague notions of freedom.

"Hence a sense of security no longer exists around the family altar. This feeling of peace at home has given place to apprehensions of servile insurrections. Many a matron throughout the South retires at night in dread of what may befall herself and children before the morning. Should this apprehension of domestic danger, whether real or imaginary, extend and intensify itself until it shall pervade the masses of the Southern people, then disunion will become inevitable.

"Self-preservation is the first law of nature, and has been implanted in the heart of man by his Creator for the wisest purpose; and no political union, however fraught with blessings and benefits in all other respects, can long continue if the necessary consequence be to render the homes and firesides of nearly half the parties to it habitually and hopelessly insecure.

"Sooner or later the bonds of such a union must be severed. It is my conviction that this fatal period has not yet arrived, and my prayer to God is that He would preserve the Constitution and the Union throughout all generations.
"But let us take warning in time and remove the cause of danger. It can not be denied that for five and twenty years the agitation at the North against slavery has been incessant. In 1835 pictorial handbills and inflammatory appeals were circulated extensively throughout the South of a character to excite the passions of the slaves, and, in the language of General Jackson, “to stimulate them to insurrection and produce all the horrors of a servile war.” This agitation has ever since been continued by the public press, by the proceedings of State and county conventions and by abolition sermons and lectures.

"The time of Congress has been occupied in violent speeches on this never-ending subject, and appeals, in pamphlet and other forms, indorsed by distinguished names, have been sent forth from this central point and spread broadcast over the Union.