Posted on 06/28/2017 11:20:43 AM PDT by Sopater
It was against the law in some states to advocate abolition of slavery or circulate abolitionist literature. There were problems sending abolitionist papers through the US Mail. Abolitionists could be attacked by mobs. From 1836 to 1844 under the "gag rule" anti-slavery petitions couldn't even be discussed in Congress, but even after that, the Senate refused to consider such legislation. Most of the rest of the country was doing what the slave owners wanted by not advancing anti-slavery legislation. It's churlish now to blame them for doing what pro-slavery forces wanted at the time.
In saying that, I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to those that say the North fought the war to “free the slaves” and not for the North's economic and political self-interest.
That is the fallacy of the excluded middle. You say that the only two alternatives are that the US fought the war because wanted to free the slaves or because they wanted to advance Northern economic and political interests. In fact most of the reasons why we fought don't fit in either of those restrictive categories. People fought because they didn't believe secession was constitutional. Or because they were outraged by the assault on the flag and American troops. Or because the secessionists started shooting first. Or because they didn't like arrogant slaveowners. Or because they feared the break-up of the country and the anarchy that would result. Or because they thought slavers were coming for them. Or because they were drafted. Plenty of reasons.
The other fallacy in your post is that you aren't asking why the rebels fought. Self-interest? Or to preserve slavery? Sticking to your exclusion of other motives, it doesn't look like either of those were very good reasons. If there were other reasons for taking up the Confederate cause, why do you deny or ignore that there may have been other reasons for fighting for the Union?
Yes, there were 2 or 3 cases brought before the court in Massachusetts and in those cases the courts decided on the side of the slaves. No law was passed.
However, and it is a big however, people continued to hold slaves past 1800! The rulers would not pass laws against slavery because they were afraid the commonwealth would become a haven for runaway slaves and they would have to support them.
Some towns even required slave owners to post a bond for their slaves in case the slaves couldn’t care for themselves.
If slavery didn’t exist in Massachusetts in 1800, why did they require slave owners to post bond for their slaves?
Union troops walked into abandoned Ft. Pickens on Jan. 8. Later that evening, local men attempted the same. OR records reported that Union Troops initiated alarms, and the men left.
We're the "alarms" gunfire?
The next meeting between the Union Navy and locals was on the evening of the 12th when a party of four locals approached the fort to speak of Naval occupancy withdrawal. See pg 337.
Again, no seizure.
The next communique between the principles was from Florida official William Chase who “begged” Union officials to turn over the forts without bloodshed.
See page 338.
Hardly seizure.
The civility of the Florida officials continued despite this:
“By the eve of the Civil War, the small force of U.S. troops assigned to Pensacola Bay were quartered at Barrancas Post. Forts Pickens
and McRee were occupied by caretakers.
“It is a little known fact that the first shots of the Civil War were actually fired on the drawbridge of Fort Barrancas on January 8, 1861, more than three months before the Confederate bombardment of Fort Sumter.
“Concerned over the secession movement in the Southern states and aware of rumors that state troops were preparing to move on the post, Lieutenant Adam J. Slemmer, thecommander of Fort Barrancas, posted a sergeant's guard in the fort and placed his men on high alert. The guards observed shadowy figures on the drawbridge and confronted them. When the intruders failed to identify themselves, the U.S. soldiers fired a volley at them.” ExploreSouthernHistory.com
The OR reports another similar event five days later. See page 337.
Article 5 of the Confederate Constition contradicts your assertion.
1. Upon the demand of any three states, legally assembled in their several conventions, the Congress shall summon a convention of all the states, to take into consideration such amendments to the Constitution as the said states shall concur in suggesting at the time when the said demand is made; and should any of the proposed amendments to the Constitution be agreed on by the said convention—voting by states—and the same be ratified by the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states, or by conventions in two-thirds thereof—as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the general convention—they shall thenceforward form a part of this Constitution. But no state shall, without its consent, be deprived, of its equal representation in the Senate.
I believe you are referring to a situation that existed in 1703, (not after 1800). In 1790 there were no slaves counted on the Massachusetts census. The requirement that a bond be posted by a slave owner in Massachusetts occurred in 1703.
Sorry, should have included you in post #305.
Without an amendment to the Confederate Constitution, each State of the Confederacy had to allow slavery and could not take action to end the practice. This how it was originally written and ratified. Of course they could amend their Constitution. Was that Constitution ever amended to allow states the right to change the status of slavery?
I’d imagine amending their Constitution was not top of mind over the course of those four years, as they were at war and practically besieged the entire time, wouldn’t you?
Probably correct in that assessment. They didn’t even have time to assemble a Supreme Court in accordance with the Confederate Constitution.
The Confederacy offered freedom to any slave who chose to fight for the Confederacy in the Civil War, before it was so offered by the Union.
The primary issues were State’s Rights not being overwhelmed by federal power.
One could charge Union soldiers for being traitors of the US Constitution for not respecting the rights of other states.
A war was fought over the issue. Had the Union been just, as victors, they would not now try to rewrite history to claim the war was premised as one against slavery. They simply cower from their past unjust position and seek to pivot towards more recent political hyperbole.
Please cite the documents issued by the Confederate Government that offered slaves freedom in exchange for service in the Confederate Army. How many slaves took the Confederate Government up on that offer of freedom in return for service?
As far as charging Union Soldiers with treason, read the definition of treason in the United States Constitution.
Article III section 3 of the United States Constitution states “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” It would be much easier to levy treason charges against General Lee, General Bragg, or General Gordon then it would be to charge Sergeant Bull, Private Billings, or Corporal Klegg.
Had the South been honest in accepting their defeat, they would not have tried to rewrite history to claim “States Rights” as the premise for secession. They simply cower from their past unjust position and attempt to deny the real driving force behind the secession of the first seven states.
They did manage to resist suspending writ of habeas corpus and a functional court system was maintained throughout the war, at least here in my home state of North Carolina it was. NC was an interesting case, striving very hard to maintain independence from Richmond as much as possible but providing more soldiers and materiel to the war effort than any other state. Slighted in positions of command, it was the old vale of humility between two mountains of conceit thing, NC was looked down upon. It had been sort of wild and comparatively undeveloped. Gov. Vance walked a tightrope quite well, the war was popular in the planter east, unpopular in the mountainous west and the central Piedmont was vacillating to the point of dubious at times. He kept them all satisfied to the point of winning reelection in the middle of the war.
Like Virginia, North Carolina seceded from the Union because they would not willingly make war on the other States of the South. North Carolinas provided more direct support to their soldiers serving in the Confederate Army, then any of the other Southern States. Gov. Vance established a knitting mill and shoe factory to provide uniforms and shoes to NC soldiers. This was done right up to the end of the War. NC is also torn by the war. Like the far western part of Virginia, the far Western part of the state had little use for the Confederacy and resisted quite vigorously the Confederate draft. The coastal are was occupied for most of the war, and the Union was able to raise several regiments for the Army from the local population.
The blockade runners were fascinating, much as the centuries of pirates before them they utilized the shifting shoals of the NC coast to evade capture. They were beautiful, sleek ships. The State of NC owned four, the most storied of which was the Advance.
Your comment in question was: “...and that no state (operating under the Confederate Constitution) could take any action to end the practice (of slavery). That is why the “State Rights” argument is pure Male Bovine Scat.” See your comment #100
They could change their federal law.
When you write, “main reason” is sounds like you exclude the possibility there were multiple reasons. In the First American Revolutionary War there were twenty or thirty reasons given by the founding fathers to dissolve the political bands.
The southern states seceded because they became convinced it was in their own best self interest to secede. Or to put it in classic terms, they wanted “to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Nothing wrong with that. It was an American tradition.
“I think fighting for your country against the forces of a rebellion trying to tear it apart is a moral cause.”
If this is an endorsement of King George, you make Professor Williams’ point.
His point being: “Confederate generals were fighting for independence from the Union just as George Washington and other generals fought for independence from Great Britain. Those who’d label Gen. Robert E. Lee as a traitor might also label George Washington as a traitor. I’m sure Great Britain’s King George III would have agreed.”
I love Professor Walter Williams.
When the Government tells a state they cannot do anything, such as abolish slaver, that is against the principal of “States Rights”. So the argument that secession was drive by “states rights” is BS, because the Confederate Constitution would not permit member states to outlaw slavery. Yes the could amend the constitution to change that, but as written, Confederate states had no legal authority to end the institution of slavery.
Thanks, never knew the NC actually owned it own blockade runners.
Slavery. The answer is slavery. The fact that you wouldn’t even use that word in your answer further demonstrates the factual and moral bankruptcy of your arguments.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.