". . . The contest was between those who held it to be strictly Federal in its character, and those who maintain it was thoroughly National. . . "
This is Stephens' invention.
The conflict was between two federal systems, one of which saw slavery as the essence of its social being and one of which saw liberty as the essence of its social being.
The Confederacy claimed for its ideal not a federal system, but a confederated system - i.e. a system akin to that which obtained under the Articles of Confederation wherein the states were essentially sovereigns who were bound by a treaty.
In reality, the Confederacy was a federal government, as it proved by introducing universal conscription, stripping the individual states of the power to decide the legality of slavery for themselves, etc.
Some view the above as post-war whitewash used to minimize the role that slavery played in bringing about the war. Perhaps it was.
It clearly was - unless Stephens was a schizophrenic.
There were fundamental differences between North and South in how the Constitution was viewed
Indeed. That difference of opinion doesn't invalidate the Constitution.
These kinds of petty squabbles went back and forth and the North had its own similar grievances.
None of them are grounds for secession, either individually or as a group.
Protectionist tariffs had the effect of extracting wealth from the South for the benefit of Northern manufacturers and providing jobs for northern workers. Put a pencil to paper sometime and you'll see how much this amounted to.
A common claim, but a false one.
The tariff created plenty of Southern jobs as well - Northern manufacturers invested their money back into the South, and the runup in cotton prices during the 1850s far outstripped the tariff.
There were Southerners who liked the tariff as well - sugar growers and rice growers.
Moreover, the tariff payments went into the federal treasury for the benfit of both Northerners and Southerners.
Finally, demand for cotton was so strong that there were none of the drops in agricultural demand that Southern politicians warned about - Europeans grumbled and paid the duties because the margin on textiles was profitable.
Was the tariff good policy? No. Did it stop the Southern economy from doubling between 1850 and 1860? No.
Nope.
It passed the Senate 25-14.
Unless one wants to argue that MS, AL, GA, SC, NC, TX or LA would have voted for the tariff in the Senate, the tariff would have failed.
Southern states were being taken advantage of.
No they weren't. The South's economy was unharmed by economic nationalism, and the South was given a much larger vote in Congress due to their sweetheart deal in the Constitution than they deserved.
Southern states felt they had the right under the Tenth Amendment (the Tenth being the basis of so-called "state's rights") to leave the old voluntary union
States don't have rights, and the Tenth Amendment does not delegate a power to secede. The Constitution states explicitly that it, and not state law, is the supreme law of the land.
I've read somewhere that the value of slaves on the market took a big hit when Lincoln was elected.
I'm sure they did.
New England states threatened secession when the Louisiana Purchase expanded the area of slavery (later legislated away) and when slave state of Texas was added to the Union.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
Is there a Senator on the other side who to-day will agree that we shall have equal enjoyment of the Territories of the United States?
You don't need slaves to "enjoy" the benefits of owning land in a new territory.
[you]: This is Stephens' invention.
So you say. Davis had similar ideas. From a Davis speech on April 29, 1861:
Strange, indeed, must it appear to the impartial observer, but it is none the less true, that all these carefully worded clauses [rb: in the Constitution and Bill of Rights] proved unavailing to prevent the rise and growth in the Northern States of a political school which has persistently claimed that the government thus formed was not a compact between States, but was in effect a national government, set up above and over the States. An organization created by the States to secure the blessings of liberty and independence against foreign aggression has been gradually perverted into a machine for their control in their domestic affairs; the creature has been exalted above its creators; the principals have been made subordinate to the agent appointed by themselves.
Lincoln was the philosophical descendant of the Federalists who pushed for the national rather than a federal government. Lincoln's preposterous theory that the Union created the states was necessary for him because if he admitted that states created the federal government he would have a hard time arguing against the right of states to secede.
The Confederacy claimed for its ideal not a federal system, but a confederated system - i.e. a system akin to that which obtained under the Articles of Confederation wherein the states were essentially sovereigns who were bound by a treaty.
As Madison said in Federalist 39 [my emphasis below]:
Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act.
In reality, the Confederacy was a federal government, as it proved by introducing universal conscription, stripping the individual states of the power to decide the legality of slavery for themselves, etc.
The Confederate Constitution agreed to by the individual Confederate states made slavery the law of the land. Universal conscription was a step toward a more centralized government. But the Confederate Constitution (you know, that document approved by all Confederate states) said:
Sec. 8. The Congress shall have power-
- To raise and support armies;
The Confederate Congress approved universal conscription by 53 to 26 in the House and 19 to 5 in the Senate. Incidentally, 11 of the 13 original states resorted to conscription during the American Revolution.
None of them are grounds for secession, either individually or as a group.
I believe that is for the aggrieved states to decide, not you and not Lincoln.
States in the Confederacy retained the right to secede. They could have left if they felt the need.
A common claim, but a false one.
Do a material balance around the two regions and see for yourself. The tariff propped up prices that Southerners had to pay for Northern manufactured goods. This was a huge transfer of wealth.
There were Southerners who liked the tariff as well - sugar growers and rice growers.
As I remember the Confederate tariff reduced the tariff rate for sugar to 20%. I'm not sure where rice ended up on the Confederate Tariff. Perhaps it was part of:
Bacon, pork, hams, lard, beef, wheat, flour and bran of wheat, flour and bran of all other grains, Indian corn and meal, barley, rye, oats and oatmeal, and living animals of all kinds, not otherwise provided for; also, all agricultural productions, including those of the orchard and garden, in their natural state, not otherwise provided for.
Those items were exempt from duty.
It passed the Senate 25-14.
Yes, passed by the old Senate that was elected in 1858. If the Southern senators had been there in the old Senate they could have blocked its passage. But they knew they couldn't stop it in the incoming Senate that took office in March, 1861. December 1860 vote calculations had shown the South losing the future tariff vote in the incoming Senate even if no state seceded.
I found it interesting that six of the 14 Senate votes against the Morrill Tariff came from the West which also suffered economically under the tariff. The other eight votes against came from the South (if you include one vote from Maryland). No votes against it came from the manufacturing North.
Could it be that the politicians back then knew something you don't? If the tariff were neutral or even beneficial to the West and South as you seem to think, why did they vote against it?
States don't have rights, and the Tenth Amendment does not delegate a power to secede. The Constitution states explicitly that it, and not state law, is the supreme law of the land.
That's why I put quotation marks around "state's rights." You have quite a different view of the Tenth Amendment that do I. As Madison said [emphasis mine below]:
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.
Now where exactly is secession banned in the Constitution in some definite statement? There is no definite statement to that effect, and three of the original states said in their ratification documents that they could resume their own governance if they wished, or words to that effect.
As long as states remain in the Union, they are bound by the Constitution (except apparently for Northern states that nullified the Fugitive Slave Law). Once seceded, however, the US Constitution and its Supremacy Clause no longer applies to the seceded state.