Arguing the Case for Southern Secession

Some reviewers have had a hard time with the present book. They imagine that there is a single historical thesis therein, one subject to definitive proof or refutation. In this, I believe they are mistaken. Instead, what we have here is a multifaceted critique of what must be the most central event in American history.

This is not Mr. Adams’s first book. His For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization (1999) lives up to its title and underscores the importance of a matter frequently ignored by conventional historians. Taxation and other fiscal matters certainly play a major role in Adams’s reconstruction of the War for Southern Independence.

Those who long for the simple morality play in which Father Abraham saved the Union (always capitalized) and emancipated the slaves out of his vision and kindness have complained that Adams has ignored slavery as a cause of the war. That is incorrect. Slavery and the racial issue connected with it are present; they do not, however, have the causal stage all to themselves.

In chapter one, Adams sets the American war over secession in a global context by instancing other conflicts of similar type. He plants here the first seeds of doubt that political separation is inherently immoral. Chapter two deals with Fort Sumter and Lincoln’s successful gamble to have the Confederacy “start” the war. Here one learns that the Fort was primarily a customs house – a nice bit of symbolism, especially since the South paid roughly four times as much in tariffs as the North did.

Given that, Lincoln was very concerned about his tariff revenues in the absence of the Southern states. After Fort Sumter, the (Northern) President unconstitutionally established a blockade of Southern ports on his own motion. Soon, Lincoln had robbed Maryland of self-government and was making other inroads on civil liberty – his idea of preserving the Constitution via his self-invented presidential “war powers” (of which there is not a word in the actual document).

In chapter four, Adams unfolds his revenue-based theory of the war. The shift from a pro-peace to a pro-war position by the New York press and key business interests coincided exactly with their realization that the Confederacy’s low tariffs would draw trade away from the North, especially in view of the far higher Northern tariff just instituted. There is an important point here. It did not automatically follow that secession as such had to mean war. But peace foretold the end of continental mercantilism, tariffs, internal improvements, and railroad subsidies – a program that meant more than life to a powerful Northern political coalition. That coalition, of which Lincoln was the head, wanted war for a complex of material, political, and ideological reasons.

Adams also looks at what might well be called Northern war crimes. Here he can cite any number of pro-Lincoln historians, who file such things under grim necessity. Along the way, the author has time to make justified fun of Lincoln’s official theory that he was dealing with a mere “rebellion” rather than with the decision of political majorities in eleven states.

Other chapters treat the so-called Copperheads, the “treason trial” of Jefferson Davis (which never took place, quite possibly because the unionist case could not have survived a fair trial), a comparative view of emancipation, and the problems of Reconstruction. The author’s deconstruction of the Gettysburg Address will shock Lincoln idolators. Adams underlines the gloomy pseudo-religious fatalism with which Lincoln salved his conscience in his later speeches. This supports M. E. Bradford’s division of Lincoln’s career into Whig, “artificial Puritan,” and practical “Cromwellian” phases – the last item pertaining to total war.

To address seriously the issues presented by Adams requires a serious imaginative effort, especially for those who never before heard such claims about the Constitution, about the war, or about Lincoln. Ernest Renan famously wrote that for Frenchmen to constitute a nation, they must remember certain things and were “obliged already to have forgotten” certain others. Adams focuses on those things which Northerners, at least, have long since forgotten.

What Adams’ book – with or without a single, central thesis – does, is to reveal that in 1860 and early 1861 many Americans, north and south, doubted the existence of any federal power to coerce a state and considered peaceful separation a real possibility. In the late 1790s, The Federalist Papers, for example, laughed down the notion that the federal government could coerce states in their corporate, political capacity. For much of the nineteenth century Americans saw the union as a practical arrangement instrumental to other values. That vision vanished in the killing and destruction of Mr. Lincoln’s war. Americans paid a rather high price for making a means into an end.

Have you ever read the confederate documents of the period? Ever read any of the Declarations of the Causes of Secession published by four of the states? Ever read any of the speeches of Alexander Stephens, vice-president of the confederate states? Or Barnwell Rhett or Edmund Ruffin or William Yancey? Those men, in their own words, make it clear what the reason for rebellion was. Defense of slavery. You can rewrite history but you can't remove words from the mouths of men once they are spoken.

Well, have some direct quotes from the people you mentioned.

Mississippi Secession Document (January, 1861): "That they have elected a majority of electors for President and Vice-President on the ground that there exists an irreconcilable conflict between the two sections of the Confederacy in reference to their respective systems of labor and in pursuance of their hostility to us and our institutions, thus declaring to the civilized world that the powers of this government are to be used for the dishonor and overthrow of the Southern section of this great Confederacy.”

South Carolina Secession Decree (December, 1860) “In the present case, the fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the states have deliberately refused for years past to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own statutes for the proof.

“We affirm that these ends for which this government was instituted have been defeated, and the government itself has been destructive of them by the action of the nonslaveholding states. Those states have assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the states and recognized by the Constitution.”

Virginia Secession Document (April, 1861): “The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the constitution of the United States of America, having declared that the powers granted under the said constitution were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression; and the federal government having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the southern, slaveholding states.”

Alexander Stephens, “Cornerstone Speech”, (March, 1861): “Allow me briefly to allude to some of these improvements. The question of building up class interests, or fostering one branch of industry to the prejudice of another under the exercise of the revenue power, which gave us so much trouble under the old constitution, is put at rest forever under the new. We allow the imposition of no duty with a view of giving advantage to one class of persons, in any trade or business, over those of another. All, under our system, stand upon the same broad principles of perfect equality. Honest labor and enterprise are left free and unrestricted in whatever pursuit they may be engaged. This old thorn of the tariff, which was the cause of so much irritation in the old body politic, is removed forever from the new.”

Fascinating documents, all. Let's read some more from them, shall we?

Mississippi Secession Document, 1861 -

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth...There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin."

The Declaration of Secession for South Carolina mentions slavery or slaves 18 times. No other cause is mentioned.

Alexander Stephens' cornerstone speech:

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other -- though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. [Applause.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

So what were they fighting for, Pea?

Oh please. What little industry the south had prior to the war contracted rather than expanded. The south was incapable of replacing railroad rails or rolling stock, its iron industry couldn't supply its needs, it was totally dependent on imports or capture for small arms, artillery, and almost every other military need. The south didn't have an industrial base in 1861 because it didn't want one and it felt it didn't need one.

Your bias is showing.

Artillery, Arms & Ammunition: Tredegar Iron Works

The Tredegar Iron Works, located in Richmond, was in 1860 a first-class operation employing 1000 slaves and skilled workers and was producing cannon and gun carriages for the U.S. government, as well as locomotives, rails for railroads, wheels and undercarriages for railroad cars, iron bar, boilers, cables, and naval hardware.

"What federal intrusions? By whom? Prior to 1860 the feds had basically very little presence in anyone's lives. The answer is Congress.

from a very famous speech in Georgia just after adoption of the Confederate constitution in 1861

"The question of building up class interests, or fostering one branch of industry to the prejudice of another under the exercise of the revenue power, which gave us so much trouble under the old constitution, is put at rest forever under the new".

"We allow the imposition of no duty with a view of giving advantage to one class of persons, in any trade or business, over those of another.

"All, under our system, stand upon the same broad principles of perfect equality. Honest labor and enterprise are left free and unrestricted in whatever pursuit they may be engaged.

This subject came well nigh causing a rupture of the old Union, under the lead of the gallant Palmetto State, which lies on our border, in 1833. This old thorn of the tariff, which was the cause of so much irritation in the old body politic, is removed forever from the new. [Applause.]

"Again, the subject of internal improvements, under the power of Congress to regulate commerce, is put at rest under our system. The power claimed by construction under the old constitution, was at least a doubtful one-it rested solely upon construction. We of the South, generally apart from considerations of constitutional principles, opposed its exercise upon grounds of its inexpediency and injustice. Notwithstanding this opposition, millions of money, from the common treasury had been drawn for such purposes. Our opposition sprang from no hostility to commerce, or all necessary aids for facilitating it. With us it was simply a question, upon whom the burden should fall."

Why couldn't they just be cool and talk it out?

Well, of course you know they attempted to, but Lincoln would have no part of it.

CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE CONFEDERATE COMMISSIONERS, MR. SECRETARY SEWARD AND JUDGE CAMPBELL.

The Commissioners to Mr. Seward.

WASHINGTON CITY, March In, 1861.

Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of State of the United States.

Sir: The undersigned have been duly accredited by the Government of the Confederate States of America as commissioners to the Government of the United States, and, in pursuance of their instructions, have now the honor to acquaint you with that fact, and to make known, through you to the President of the United States, the objects of their presence in this capital.

Seven States of the late Federal Union, having in the exercise of the inherent right of every free people to change or reform their political institutions, and through conventions of their people withdrawn from the United States and reassumed the attributes of sovereign power delegated to it, have formed a government of their own. The Confederate States constitute an independent nation, de facto and de jure, and possess a government perfect in all its parts, and endowed with all the means of self-support.

The undersigned have now the honor, in obedience to the instructions of their Government, to request you to appoint as early a day as possible, in order that they may present to the President of the United States the credentials which they bear and the objects of the mission with which they are charged.

We are, very respectfully, your obedient servants, [ Signed]

JOHN FORSYTH

MARTIN J. CRAWFORD.

Oh print the rest of the quote, Pea. The article goes on to say,

"But after the start of the Civil War, Tredegar became the major arsenal for the South, specializing in heavy coastal cannon, 12-pounder Napoleons, and three-inch ordnance guns. The company made almost half the cannon produced domestically, along with artillery projectiles, naval mines, experimental submersible vessels, armor plating for ironclads, and heavy equipment for other arsenals and powder mills."

Nothing about manufacturing rails or locomotives during the war. I imagine that they had more pressing needs in cannon and the like. Other articles give the production of cannon at Tredegar as 1000 during the entire war. So I think that my statements in Reply 137 are still accurate. The southern manufacturing did contract during the course of the war. The south was incapable of replacing rails, rolling stock, certainly not as fast as the North tore them up. And the south was unable to provide the majority of its armaments.

It is a simple misstatement of fact to say that these powers were delegated to the federal government. They were -transferred- as everyone understood. There was no question in the framers' minds. Legal secession was a construct of a later generation.

They were lucky that these comissioners approached Lincoln. Jackson would have hanged them all.

Walt

With a view to a speedy adjustment of all questions growing out of this political separation, upon such terms of amity and good will as the respective interests, geographical contiguity, and future welfare of the two nations may render necessary, the undersigned are instructed to make to the Government of the United States overtures for the opening of negotiations, assuring the Government of the United States that the President, Congress, and people of the Confederate States earnestly desire a peaceful solution of these great questions; that it is neither their interest nor their wish to make any demand which is not founded in strictest justice, nor do any act to injure their late confederates.
The undersigned have now the honor, in obedience to the instructions of their Government, to request you to appoint as early a day as possible, in order that they may present to the President of the United States the credentials which they bear and the objects of the mission with which they are charged.
We are, very respectfully, your obedient servants, [ Signed]
JOHN FORSYTH
MARTIN J. CRAWFORD.
Thank God the good people of this country slam dunked these sorry cretins. Thanks for posting this.

Walt

It was shameful and disgraceful, and your lame attempt at obfuscation won't change that.

So, the Commissioners requesting meetings with Lincoln is not enough for you. OK.

Here is what another state did:

Taken from US House of Representatives Misc. Documents, 36th Congress, 2nd Session, Document No. 27.

RESOLUTIONS OF THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE RELATIVE TO

The present condition of national affairs, and suggesting certain amendments to the Constitution

-------------------- January 28, 1861. -- Laid upon the table, and ordered to be printed.

-------------------- 1. Resolved by the general assembly of Tennessee, That a convention of delegates from all the slaveholding States should assemble at Nashville, Tennessee, or such other place as a majority of the States co-operating may designate, on the 4th day of February, to digest and define bases upon which, if possible, the federal Union and the constitutional rights of the slave States may be preserved and perpetuated....

In the late 1790s, The Federalist Papers, for example, laughed down the notion that the federal government could coerce states in their corporate, political capacity

Bump for historical truth and an excellent book.

Well, the Federalist Papers can now be found as book; in the late 18th century they were a series of articles in various newspapers. You can't seem to get much right.

You guys are so comical. First off, the Constitution had been in operation for several years by the "late 1790's". The Federalist Papers were all done about ten years earlier. Washington was inaugurated on April 30, 1789. Duh.

Secondly, if the Federalist Papers say what you claim, put it in the thread and show us. But you won't do that, because then your misinformation campaign will be revealed for the nonsense that it is.

Walt

Well, you can try to discount what they "thought" might happen, but here is the document describing what was about to happen:

REPUBLICAN NATIONAL PLATFORM ADOPTED AT CHICAGO, 1860

Resolved, That we, the delegated representatives unite in the following declarations:

1. That the history of the nation, during the last four years, has fully established the propriety and necessity of the organization and perpetuation of the Republican party,...

2. That the...Union of the States, must and shall be preserved.

3. That to the Union of the States this nation owes its unprecedented increase in population,...and we hold in abhorrence all schemes for Disunion, ...and we denounce those threats of Disunion, in case of a popular overthrow of their ascendency, as denying the vital principles of a free government, and as an avowal of contemplated treason, which it is the imperative duty of an indignant People sternly to rebuke and forever silence.

4. That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively is essential to that balance of powers on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depends; ...

7. That the new dogma, that the Constitution, of its own force, carries Slavery into any or all of the Territories of the United States, is a dangerous political heresy, at variance with the explicit provisions of that instrument itself, with contemporaneous exposition, and with legislative and judicial precedent; is revolutionary in its tendency, and subversive of the peace and harmony of the country.

8. That the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom; That as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished Slavery in all our national territory, ordained that "no person should be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," it becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation is necessary, to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it; and we deny the authority of Congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to Slavery in any Territory of the United States.

9. That we brand the recent re-opening of the African slave-trade, under the cover of our national flag, aided by perversions of judicial power, as a crime against humanity and a burning shame to our country and age; and we call upon Congress to take prompt and efficient measures for the total and final suppression of that execrable traffic.

10. That in the recent vetoes, by their Federal Governors, of the acts of the Legislatures of Kansas and Nebraska, prohibiting Slavery in those Territories, we find a practical illustration of the boasted Democratic principle of Non- Intervention and Popular Sovereignty, embodied in the Kansas-Nebraska bill, and a demonstration of the deception and fraud involved therein.

12. That, while providing revenue for the support of the General Government by duties upon imports, sound policy requires such an adjustment of these imposts as to encourage the development...

15. That appropriations by Congress for River and Harbor improvements...

16. That a Railroad to the Pacific Ocean is imperatively demanded...

That was old news, Pea. The idea of a convention of slave states that would meet and come up with a list of demands that would end the threat of secession was put forward at the very beginning of the rebellion by a political factions known as Cooperationists. Their idea was that if the slave states work together and, if their demands weren't met, seceeded together then it would reduce the chance of the situation degenerating into war. They were completely opposed by the Secessionists and the idea of a convention was voted down in every one of the seven original confederate states that it was proposed in. If you are some how suggesting that this was a serious negotiation attempt with the Lincoln government on the part of Tennessee then you are badly mistaken. The idea was dead by the time Tennessee published this document, killed by secessionists.

It seems our resident one trick pony is at it again. Just for fun, here are some thoughts for him to chew on...

"I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." - Abraham Lincoln speaking a the Inauguration of the 16th President of the United States, March 4, 1861

The amendment about which he was speaking that had been passed by an all yankee congress (the southern senators and representatives had almost entirely left washington by that time) only two days earlier....

"Article Thirteen. "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."

APPROVED, March 2, 1861. Source: U.S., Statutes at Large, Treaties, and Proclamations of the United States of America, vol. 12 (Boston, 1863), p. 251.

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." - Lincoln, 8/17/1858.

"You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence.... It is better for us both, therefore, to be separated." - Lincoln, speaking to a group of former slaves 8/1862

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.