On Confederate Memorial Day, an honest annotation of the Mississippi Declaration of Secession

Mississippi Today ^ | 04/29/2024 | Michael Guidry

[TexasKamaAina]

The Declaration of Secession was the result of a convention of the Mississippi Legislature in January of 1861. The convention adopted a formal Ordinance of Secession written by former Congressman Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar. While the ordinance served an official purpose, the declaration laid out the grievances Mississippi’s ruling class held against the federal government under the leadership of President-elect Abraham Lincoln...The convention really couldn’t be any more straightforward:

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery--the greatest material interest in the world.

[FLT-bird]

and that has nothing to do with the fact that the CSA constitution forbid the abolition of slavery

By the Confederate government only - not by any state which wished to do so. It simply couldn't be imposed on individual states by the central government. It also couldn't be mandated by the central government. As with everything else, the sovereignty of the states was fully respected within the CSA.

[steve in DC]

It is of continued interest to me as to how the Constitution is applied today as compared to how it was intended to be applied at the time of ratification.

Of passing interest is Amendment 1.

At the time of ratification, the States were functionally independent nations, confederated. The empowerment of the Federal government was not terribly unlike the formation of the EU.

Independent nations bound by common currency, and regulation of trade among signatories, etc.

The Constitution laid out what the Federal government could and could not do, and established the structures within which it would/could operate.

At that time, interestingly, the State of Maryland required that all government officials be Roman Catholic. This was in no way seen as a violation of the establishment clause as it was not the Federal government doing the establishment, but the State.

The Constitution governed(s) the actions of the Federal government. The States were largely free to operate without Federal oversight or interference.

Slavery, despite its inherent immorality, was not addressed in the Constitution. Had it been none of the Slave states would have ratified it.

In advance of the Civil War it rightly, probably, should have been addressed as the Abortion issue was recently ruled by the Supreme Court. And for similar reasons.

Was Slavery the cause of the Civil War? In my mind it was not. State’s Rights was the cause.

But Slavery was, without question, the catalyst.

[DiogenesLamp]

I've read this argument before. It's been years since I've read contemporary reports but I don't recall ever seeing the argument that Roberts puts forth.

As a strategy to get you out of the Union, you wouldn't want to say things that would undermine it.

As Roberts points out, Congress had every authority to raise taxes on them, and there was nothing they could do about it, so their only legal argument was to claim breach of contract on the issue of slavery, even though their real gripe was the money. (60% of the total value of their production went to the North.)

But to see an example of someone of that time period talking about the economic unfairness they were dealing with, here is a speech by Robert Rhett.

http://www.civilwarcauses.org/rhett.htm

My point in posting the article was to spur some thought over culpability for the violence and economic drag that 13% of our population imposes on the rest of us.

That 13% is the tool Liberals use to keep their grip on power. With that power comes their wealth. They suck most of their money out of government either by administering government policies or selling access to government through bribes.

They are not going to do anything about that 13% because that would threaten their power, and *THEY* control the media, publishing, the Universities, and government.

People who celebrate Confederate heritage don't seem to take that into account.

I don't have any Confederate heritage. My family didn't arrive here until after 1900, and none of them have ever lived in a Confederate state.

I just realized some years ago the narrative we have been sold regarding the civil war is intentionally misleading.

[DiogenesLamp]

It was only protecting slavery in the states where it already existed. It did not protect slavery in future states.

"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, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."

Seems as if future states could have slavery if they wanted it. The Corwin Amendment would seemingly prevent Congress from interfering.

It needed 3/4 of the states to ratify it, which seemed unlikely.

16 slave owning states in a Union of 33 states. It only needed 22 states to pass, and the Chief Proponent in the Senate, William Seward, (Former governor of New York, currently Senator of New York, and then designated as Lincoln's secretary of State) said he "guaranteed" that New York would pass it. Given New York's heavy economic dependency on slavery, this was a very realistic probability.

With New York on board, it is quite likely that all the states heavily dependent upon New York economically would have fallen in line. (Great Lake States.)

5 Northern States *DID* pass it.

It was pretty much a certainty that it would pass if the Southern states had taken them up on the offer.

The Southern aristocracy was all about expanding slavery into new territory.

This again. This is the lie that never quits.

Tell you what. You show me *WHERE* you think Slavery would expand to if left unchecked, and *I* will show you why that could not happen.

I will show you why it was impossible to "expand" slavery anywhere.

Cotton needed new ground.

Show me where you think it would have gone, and I'll show you why that wasn't going to happen.

The "expansion" argument was just a trick liberals pulled to stay in power. It was never a serious threat. It was phony baloney nonsense used as propaganda to help them keep a majority in the congress.

[DiogenesLamp]

The Democrats turned from the party of small government, states rights and the working man to the party of centralized power, big government, socialism and most recently fascism....ie government and big business in bed together.

Fascism is how the civil war started. The protectionist laws passed by congress were meant to benefit primarily Northern businesses. Business became very interested in colluding with government for their own profit, and let us not forget Lincoln was a corporate railroad lawyer, which meant he had worked for the most powerful corporations in existence at the time.

He delivered to them handsomely when he signed the Railways act of 1862, which vastly increased their wealth.

I think Fascism has been baked into our cake since Alexander Hamilton proposed making laws specifically to benefit businesses. The South took the Jeffersonian approach.

[DiogenesLamp]

But Slavery was, without question, the catalyst.

The possibility that the North would lose all the money the slaves produced was the catalyst.

In 1860, Southern production created 200 million in trade value with Europe, and 500 million in trade value with the North.

The vast bulk of that money ended up in Northern pockets, primarily as a consequence of protectionist laws and protectionist tariffs.

With the South seceding, the North was looking at kissing 700 million per year in value good bye.

They were not amused, and in fact were quite alarmed.

When they invaded, it wasn't because they cared about slaves, it was because they cared about themselves.

[FLT-bird]

But Slavery was, without question, the catalyst.

Slavery was an issue that divided the regions. I'll even stipulate it was an important issue. I do not agree however with the claims of some that it was the only issue. I don't even agree that it was the most important issue.

The South hated centralized power and favored states' rights. That wasn't something they came up with in the mid 19th century so as to protect slavery as some claim. That was what Southerners believed in at the time the US Constitution was ratified and that is still their inclination today. The North - especially New England - favored the centralization of power be that 250 years ago or today.

THE big issue IMO was the same one it almost always is - money. The Southern states economy was geared toward the export of cash crops. They needed low tariffs. The North which was behind Britain and France when it came to industrializing, needed protectionist tariffs against imports from those countries because it could not compete otherwise. Given their larger population, the North was almost always able to push through a higher tariff than the Southern states wanted. Even the "compromise" tariff was 17%. When they could get their way, they pushed it up to over 50%. The Confederate Constitution set the maximum at 10%.

This issue affected every Southerner be they among the 5.63% of the White population who owned slaves or the 94.37% who did not. The North then using its greater representation in Congress to vote itself far more of the federal government's expenditures even after Southerners had paid 75% of the tariff was like rubbing salt in the wound.

Just as their grandfathers had done when they felt they were getting hosed for others' benefit in 1775, the Southern states had had enough by 1861....knowing they could no longer stop the Morrill Tariff from passing.

People almost always fight over money.

[FLT-bird]

That's something I've wondered about. I think the South might have fared better if they had waited to see how Lincoln handled the slavery question.

Slavery wasn't the big concern. The Morrill Tariff was. It was going to pass the Senate. It had already passed the House. Lincoln was a huge proponent of it. Southerners had already seen how damaging the Tariff of Abominations was to their economy a generation earlier. Now those tariff rates were going to go right back to ruinous levels. They had had enough. Though it isn't the moral feel-good cause its portrayed as now, slavery was just the excuse for the Southern states to leave and it was the very first bargaining chip the Northern states offered to sacrifice. It was money both sides were actually interested in.

[jmacusa]

“Not Geez not again’’.

Sure looks like it.

[jmacusa]

A lot happier.

[jmacusa]

HEY, LOST CAUSE LOSERS: The South still LOST! Get over it.

[FLT-bird]

I see somebody has fallen off the wagon again.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "No matter how much Southerners hated high tariffs after seeing how much damage it did to their economy during the Tariff of Abominations and the Nullification Crisis that followed, they could not say it was unconstitutional..."

FWIW -- I think your whole post is very well expressed and will take considerable effort to unpackage and correct.
So, others have already pointed to a flaw or two in your logic, but there is much more to mention.

[BroJoeK]

HandyDandy: "There are those, (some on this thread) who in this year 2024 will bend, twist, spindle and mutilate that most basic statement and use it to prove that Lincoln, Republicans and the Union were promoting Slavery everywhere and forevermore.
I put forth that they are part and parcel to the very people who have contributed to bringing our country to its knees today, by tarnishing our heritage."

It's well worth noticing how many of our pro-secessionists also support Russia's invasion of Ukraine!??!

The names Yevgeny Prigozhin and Internet Research Agency (IRA) out of Olgino, St. Petersburg come to my mind, though most of our posters here pre-date the IRA's founding in 2013.
On the other hand, Putin's Old KGB Web Brigades go all the way back to the year 2000, when Putin first came to power in Russia, and Russians or Soviets were working at information operations for many decades prior.

They would certainly love nothing better than to force the USA into the kind of collapse as the Old Soviet Union suffered in 1991.

Of course, it's not going to happen, not ever, but that won't be for lack of trying by a good many Lost Cause posters on Free Republic.

Said to be the IRA, Olgino, St. Petersburg, "bot farm":

[jeffersondem]

“They (Southerners) would certainly love nothing better than to force the USA into the kind of collapse as the Old Soviet Union suffered in 1991. Of course, it's not going to happen, not ever . . .”

Our nation is collapsing right now.

But I think I know what you mean. You mean that post-modern liberals in the U.S. that control the federal government will never allow a peaceful breakup of the empire like the communists in the old Soviet Union did.

As long as post-modern northern liberals are in charge of nuclear weapons, no wealth or person will escape their grasp. You have described the intent of post-modern northern liberals accurately; still, things happen sometimes .

[jeffersondem]

“Slavery, despite its inherent immorality, was not addressed in the Constitution.”

It was addressed in the sense it was enshrined in the United States Constitution.

[x]

it was clear from the actions of the Montgomery convention that the goal of the new converts to secessionism was not to establish a slaveholders' reactionary utopia.

The key words would be "the new converts," not the whole of the Confederate constitutional convention or government. Whether "new converts" is more accurate than "moderates" or "cooperationists" is another matter, but they were latecomers to the secessionist cause, in contrast to those who had been for secession for some time and who had originally sparked secession in the Deep South.

George Rable writes in "The Confederate Republic":

On March 8, Tom Cobb moved to prohibit the admission of nonslaveholding states to the Southern republic. But Cobb's own Georgia delegation was divided, with Stephens and Robert Toombs leading the opposition. After three days of debate the motion failed. The delegates eventually agreed to a compromise allowing for the admission of free states but requiring a two-thirds vote of approval from both House and Senate. This result gave new life to reports of sentiments for compromise in the convention and greatly alarmed the fire-eaters. Both sides probably attached too much importance to this matter because it was unlikely that any free states would want to join the Confederacy, and in any case, the new nation's commitment to slavery was embedded in the Constitution.

The convention was in a compromising mood and the measure wasn't as significant as some late 20th century historians might have believed. 2/3rds of each half of the Confederate Congress would have to approve and the Senate would vote as states.

This meant that the Deep South States would be able to block any admission of free states on the first go around. The 2/3rds requirement and the Confederacy's explicit and pronounced committment to slavery meant that few free states would realistically be tempted to join.

Why would free states that had objected to slave catchers coming north to take back runaways ever vote to join a country that was even more dedicated to catching and returning runaways? Why would Deep South militants who were worried about the flagging committment to slavery in the Border States and even in the Upper South agree to admitting free states into their Confederacy? That would be inviting the abolitionist foxes into the slaveowner's henhouse. So yes, the door was theoretically open to admitting free states, but it was based on some imaginary future. It was also a good public relations measure, if anyone had noticed it at the time.

Emory Thomas suggests in "The Confederate Nation" that some moderates believed that free states in the Mississipi Valley might at some point be tempted to join, and that those states' admission would strengthen the Confederacy to get territories for slave owners elsewhere -- in the West, in Mexico or (I'll add) the Caribbean. In any event, none of this affected the Confederacy's committment to slavery, whatever late 20th century historians might imagine.

Politicians make compromises and concessions. They kick the can down the road. Often they make sure that their concessions aren't likely to have serious real world consequences. The Confederate convention didn't bar the admission of free states. They didn't make it easy either. If it happened at some point down the road, the CSA would deal with that later. It didn't affect the Confederacy's commitment to slavery.

There's a parallel to the Corwin Amendment. Congress and Lincoln threw it out there as a last ditch attempt to save the union. It worked for a minute. The Upper South rejected secession before war began. Then it didn't work. It was never really going to bring back the Deep South States that had seceded. Secession gave them all the security for slaveholding they wanted. They had crossed the Rubicon and they weren't coming back.

It isn't true that Lincoln was lobbying the states to ratify the amendment after war began. The amendment had already failed in its purpose, and there was no reason to carry on with it. Even before the war, Lincoln's support for the amendment was lukewarm and distanced. He said he had no objection to it and notified state governors that the amendment was submitted for ratification without explicitly endorsing it.

[FLT-bird]

The key words would be "the new converts," not the whole of the Confederate constitutional convention or government. Whether "new converts" is more accurate than "moderates" or "cooperationists" is another matter, but they were latecomers to the secessionist cause, in contrast to those who had been for secession for some time and who had originally sparked secession in the Deep South.

Be they "new converts" or not, their will obviously represented the majority since their proposal to ban the slave trade was passed and the attempt to prevent states that did not allow slavery from joining the Confederacy was defeated.

George Rable writes in "The Confederate Republic": On March 8, Tom Cobb moved to prohibit the admission of nonslaveholding states to the Southern republic. But Cobb's own Georgia delegation was divided, with Stephens and Robert Toombs leading the opposition. After three days of debate the motion failed. The delegates eventually agreed to a compromise allowing for the admission of free states but requiring a two-thirds vote of approval from both House and Senate. This result gave new life to reports of sentiments for compromise in the convention and greatly alarmed the fire-eaters. Both sides probably attached too much importance to this matter because it was unlikely that any free states would want to join the Confederacy, and in any case, the new nation's commitment to slavery was embedded in the Constitution.

It showed that far from being "all about" slavery, the CSA was perfectly willing to admit states that had banned it and that they were more concerned with having a more decentralized form of government and fully respecting the sovereignty of the states. The Confederate Constitution no more had slavery embedded in it than the US Constitution did. The situation wrt slaves, the states' laws and the rights of slaveholders were not different than had been the case in the US.

The convention was in a compromising mood and the measure wasn't as significant as some late 20th century historians might have believed. 2/3rds of each half of the Confederate Congress would have to approve and the Senate would vote as states.

The CSA was in general much more willing to respect the sovereignty of the states and had a much more decentralized government. That was true of everything - not just the admission of new confederate states.

This meant that the Deep South States would be able to block any admission of free states on the first go around. The 2/3rds requirement and the Confederacy's explicit and pronounced committment to slavery meant that few free states would realistically be tempted to join.

I don't agree with that assessment at all. If a state that had already banned slavery wanted to join and the states in the Confederacy deemed them a trustworthy partner as well as a beneficial new member to have, they would have almost certainly been admitted.

Why would free states that had objected to slave catchers coming north to take back runaways ever vote to join a country that was even more dedicated to catching and returning runaways?

Some states saw considerable opposition to slave catchers capturing fugitive slaves. Others not nearly so much. I doubt the ones that had strong movements against it would have ever considered joining the CSA anyway so its a moot point.

Why would Deep South militants who were worried about the flagging committment to slavery in the Border States and even in the Upper South agree to admitting free states into their Confederacy?

I haven't seen evidence of some deep worry on the part of Southerners from the Deep South that the states of the Upper South had "a flagging commitment to slavery". Southerners viewed it as a matter for the people of each state to decide.

That would be inviting the abolitionist foxes into the slaveowner's henhouse.

Just because the people of one state had chosen to get rid of slavery it does not necessarily follow that they would then try to force their choice on others. Most Southerners saw it as a matter for each sovereign state to decide.

So yes, the door was theoretically open to admitting free states, but it was based on some imaginary future. It was also a good public relations measure, if anyone had noticed it at the time.

Nobody could know what the future would hold. The future is always imaginary.

Emory Thomas suggests in "The Confederate Nation" that some moderates believed that free states in the Mississipi Valley might at some point be tempted to join, and that those states' admission would strengthen the Confederacy to get territories for slave owners elsewhere -- in the West, in Mexico or (I'll add) the Caribbean. In any event, none of this affected the Confederacy's committment to slavery, whatever late 20th century historians might imagine.

Slavery was primarily used in the production of cotton and tobacco - and to a much lesser extent, rice and sugar. The West is simply not suitable for these crops. Witness the tiny number of slaves actually domiciled in the Arizona Territory which included present day New Mexico as well. What the Confederacy was really committed to was respecting the sovereignty of each state.

Politicians make compromises and concessions. They kick the can down the road. Often they make sure that their concessions aren't likely to have serious real world consequences. The Confederate convention didn't bar the admission of free states. They didn't make it easy either. If it happened at some point down the road, the CSA would deal with that later. It didn't affect the Confederacy's commitment to slavery.

The Confederacy was no more committed to slavery than the US was.

There's a parallel to the Corwin Amendment. Congress and Lincoln threw it out there as a last ditch attempt to save the union. It worked for a minute. The Upper South rejected secession before war began. Then it didn't work.

The states of the Upper South chose to stay in initially not because of the Corwin Amendment which wasn't drafted until after the 7 states of the Deep South had already seceded. The states of the Upper South only chose secession when they were forced to choose between that or attacking other sovereign states to impose a government on them that they did not consent to. The fact that the North was perfectly willing to explicitly protect slavery effectively forever demonstrates once again that slavery was not really threatened in the US.

It was never really going to bring back the Deep South States that had seceded. Secession gave them all the security for slaveholding they wanted. They had crossed the Rubicon and they weren't coming back.

The hope was precisely that it would bring back the states of the Deep South. Since slavery wasn't really their primary concern - and wasn't threatened in the US anyway - it did not address their big concerns which were economic and philosophical against the ever growing usurpation of more and more power by the federal government at the expense of the states. Refusing the Corwin amendment which they had to know would bring war was the one thing that did risk the continuing existence of slavery. They chose that course because slavery was not their main concern.

It isn't true that Lincoln was lobbying the states to ratify the amendment after war began. The amendment had already failed in its purpose, and there was no reason to carry on with it. Even before the war, Lincoln's support for the amendment was lukewarm and distanced. He said he had no objection to it and notified state governors that the amendment was submitted for ratification without explicitly endorsing it.

He didn't put nearly the effort into getting states to ratify it after he started the war that he had before that. Still, he did continue to exert influence to get it passed. While he claimed he merely "had no objection" to it and even that he had not seen it in his inaugural address, that was a lie. He had orchestrated its passage and had worked closely with Corwin and Seward to draft it, get it passed with a supermajority in both houses of Congress and then lobby state governments to pass it. Politicians lied then just as they do today.

[FLT-bird]

But I think I know what you mean. You mean that post-modern liberals in the U.S. that control the federal government will never allow a peaceful breakup of the empire like the communists in the old Soviet Union did. As long as post-modern northern liberals are in charge of nuclear weapons, no wealth or person will escape their grasp. You have described the intent of post-modern northern liberals accurately; still, things happen sometimes .

I think you're absolutely right that the Authoritarian Left would be very much against any of their tax cattle escaping but if red states were to come into control if some of the nuclear weapons on their territory, that would probably be enough to force the Leftists to make a deal to separate peacefully. They no more want to glow radioactive green than anybody else.

[jmacusa]

So, there ‘s no liberals south of the Mason-Dixon? Bullshit.

The same political party that gave us 1861 is the same party in power now- The Democrat Party. The party of the Confederacy and all of you Johnny Reb wannbe’s are closet Democrats with a pair as big as all outdoors to go running around calling yourselves conservatives and Republicans.