Posted on 01/11/2019 5:16:40 AM PST by TexasGunLover
AUSTIN, Texas — A historically inaccurate brass plaque honoring confederate veterans will come down after a vote this morning, WFAA has learned.
The State Preservation Board, which is in charge of the capitol building and grounds, meets this morning at 10:30 a.m. to officially decide the fate of the metal plate.
(Excerpt) Read more at wfaa.com ...
Great post, wardaddy!
The state giving rise to this discussion is Texas. That state was explicit as to slavery.
https://web.archive.org/web/20040404171724/http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/ordnces.html#Texas
WHEREAS, The recent developments in Federal affairs make it evident that the power of the Federal Government is sought to be made a weapon with which to strike down the interests and property of the people of Texas, and her sister slave-holding States, instead of permitting it to be, as was intended, our shield against outrage and aggression.
Other states were equally explicit, and yet other states not as explicit. You can amuse yourself with Florida’s ordinance.
Some states issued a declaration of causes. According to this analysis ...
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/reasons-secession
56% of the reasons cited by Georgia were directly due to slavery.
73% by Mississippi.
54% by Texas.
20% by South Carolina.
Of course, the election of Abraham Lincoln and “context” might indirectly point to slavery. Contrariwise, the tariff and the domination of the Union by northern manufacturing interests is given relatively minor emphasis.
The doctrine of “states’ rights,” it should be pointed out, is a negation of the doctrine of individual rights. The state is sovereign, not the people.
According to the Declaration of Independence, rights are inherent in persons. They join together to form a government to protect those rights. According to states rights, some people can be chattal slaves because the state has decided and people do not have any inherent rights.
To some people, states’ rights is about debt repudiation, as argued by Jefferson Davis before the war. As pernicious as that is, justifying chattal slavery on the basis of states’ rights is much worse.
And as I said, not where it currently existed.
Yes where it currently existed is all that matters.
There were incredibly few in those territories.
So? When the Southern states seceded they did so without making claim to any of the territories of the US. They obviously weren’t very concerned with the spread of slavery. It was only important for votes in the Senate so long as they were in the US.
“You can amuse yourself with Florida’s ordinance.”
The reason I asked about Florida is because earlier you wrote that “other states” seceded to defend slavery and said so in their ordinances of secession. As far as Florida - the third state to secede - it sounded then and now like something you heard somewhere or just made up.
Not to the leaders of the Southern states.
There were incredibly few in those territories.
There weren't all that many in Kansas, either. That didn't stop slavery supporters from trying to bring it in as a slave state in 1857.
So? When the Southern states seceded they did so without making claim to any of the territories of the US. They obviously weren’t very concerned with the spread of slavery. It was only important for votes in the Senate so long as they were in the US.
In 1860 the Democrat Platform called for the acquisition of Cuba. When the Southern leaders met in Montgomery for their constitutional convention in 1861 one of the first objections made was to the proposed name - The Confederate States of North America. Delegates like Alexander Stephens thought it was too limiting. You better believe Southern slave owners were concerned with the spread of slavery and had the Confederacy won its independence then there would have been expansion plans to the south and in the Caribbean.
“The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government from a confederated republic, to a national sectional despotism.” Charleston Mercury 2 days before the November 1860 election
“They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people’s pockets sixty to seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests. These are the reasons why these people do not wish the South to secede from the Union. They, the North, are enraged at the prospect of being despoiled of the rich feast upon which they have so long fed and fattened, and which they were just getting ready to enjoy with still greater gout and gusto. They are mad as hornets because the prize slips them just as they are ready to grasp it. These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union.” The New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861
On November 19, 1860 Senator Robert Toombs gave a speech to the Georgia convention in which he denounced the “infamous Morrill bill.” The tariff legislation, he argued, was the product of a coalition between abolitionists and protectionists in which “the free-trade abolitionists became protectionists; the non-abolition protectionists became abolitionists.” Toombs described this coalition as “the robber and the incendiary... united in joint raid against the South.”
“Before... the revolution [the South] was the seat of wealth, as well as hospitality....Wealth has fled from the South, and settled in regions north of the Potomac: and this in the face of the fact, that the South, in four staples alone, has exported produce, since the Revolution, to the value of eight hundred millions of dollars; and the North has exported comparatively nothing. Such an export would indicate unparalleled wealth, but what is the fact? ... Under Federal legislation, the exports of the South have been the basis of the Federal revenue.....Virginia, the two Carolinas, and Georgia, may be said to defray three-fourths of the annual expense of supporting the Federal Government; and of this great sum, annually furnished by them, nothing or next to nothing is returned to them, in the shape of Government expenditures. That expenditure flows in an opposite direction - it flows northwardly, in one uniform, uninterrupted, and perennial stream. This is the reason why wealth disappears from the South and rises up in the North. Federal legislation does all this.” ——Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton
[To a Northern Congressman] “You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue laws, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange, which you hold against us. You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers of Northern Capitalist. You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights and our institutions.” Rep. John H. Reagan of Texas
“Northerners are the fount of most troubles in the new Union. Connecticut and Massachusetts EXHAUST OUR STRENGTH AND SUBSTANCE and its inhabitants are marked by such a perversity of character they have divided themselves from the rest of America - Thomas Jefferson in an 1820 letter
“Neither “love for the African” [witness the Northern laws against him], nor revulsion from “property in persons” [“No, you imported Africans and sold them as chattels in the slave markets”] motivated the present day agitators,”…... “No sir….the mask is off, the purpose is avowed…It is a struggle for political power.” Jefferson Davis 1848
“What do you propose, gentlemen of the free soil party? Do you propose to better the condition of the slave? Not at all. What then do you propose? You say you are opposed to the expansion of slavery. Is the slave to be benefited by it? Not at all. What then do you propose? It is not humanity that influences you in the position which you now occupy before the country. It is that you may have an opportunity of cheating us that you want to limit slave territory within circumscribed bounds. It is that you may have a majority in the Congress of the United States and convert the government into an engine of Northern aggrandizement. It is that your section may grow in power and prosperity upon treasures unjustly taken from the South, like the vampire bloated and gorged with the blood which it has secretly sucked from its victim. You desire to weaken the political power of the Southern states, - and why? Because you want, by an unjust system of legislation, to promote the industry of the New England States, at the expense of the people of the South and their industry.” Jefferson Davis 1860 speech in the US Senate
Georgia’s declaration of causes does talk about slavery a lot. It also talks about economics. To wit:
“The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.
But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded— the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.
All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon……”
Finally South Carolina Senator/Congressman Robert Barnwell Rhett aka “the Father of Secession” wrote
the Address of South Carolina to Slaveholding States, which the convention adopted on December 25, 1860 to accompany its secession ordinance.
“The Revolution of 1776, turned upon one great principle, self government, and self taxation, the criterion of self government. Where the interests of two people united together under one Government, are different, each must have the power to protect its interests by the organization of the Government, or they cannot be free. The interests of Great Britain and of the Colonies, were different and antagonistic. Great Britain was desirous of carrying out the policy of all nations toward their Colonies, of making them tributary to their wealth and power. She had vast and complicated relations with the whole world. Her policy toward her North American Colonies, was to identify them with her in all these complicated relations; and to make them bear, in common with the rest of the Empire, the full burden of her obligations and necessities. She had a vast public debt; she had a European policy and an Asiatic policy, which had occasioned the accumulation of her public debt, and which kept her in continual wars. The North American Colonies saw their interests, political and commercial, sacrificed by such a policy. Their interests required, that they should not be identified with the burdens and wars of the mother country. They had been settled under Charters, which gave them self government, at least so far as their property was concerned. They had taxed themselves, and had never been taxed by the Government of Great Britain. To make them a part of a consolidated Empire, the Parliament of Great Britain determined to assume the power of legislating for the Colonies in all cases whatsoever. Our ancestors resisted the pretension. They refused to be a part of the consolidated Government of Great Britain.
The Southern States, now stand exactly in the same position towards the Northern States, that the Colonies did towards Great Britain. The Northern States, having the majority in Congress, claim the same power of omnipotence in legislation as the British parliament. “The General Welfare,” is the only limit to the legislation of either; and the majority in Congress, as in the British parliament, are the sole judges of the expediency of the legislation, this “General Welfare” requires. Thus, the Government of the United States has become a consolidated Government; and the people of the Southern State, are compelled to meet the very despotism, their fathers threw off in the Revolution of 1776.
And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.
There is another evil, in the condition of the Southern toward the Northern States, which our ancestors refused to bear toward Great Britain. Our ancestors not only taxed themselves, but all the taxes collected from them, were expended among them. Had they submitted to the pretensions of the British Government, the taxes collected from them, would have been expended in other parts of the British Empire. They were fully aware of the effect of such a policy in impoverishing the people from whom taxes are collected, and in enriching those who receive the benefit of their expenditure. To prevent the evils of such a policy, was one of the motives which drove them on to Revolution. Yet this British policy, has been fully realized towards the Southern States, by the Northern States. The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected, three fourths of them are expended at the North. This cause, with others, connected with the operation of the General Government, has made the cities of the South provincial. Their growth is paralyzed; they are mere suburbs of Northern cities. The agricultural productions of the South are the basis of the foreign commerce of the United States; yet Southern cities do not carry it on. Our foreign trade, is almost annihilated…… To make, however, their numerical power available to rule the Union, the North must consolidate their power. It would not be united, on any matter common to the whole Union in other words, on any constitutional subject for on such subjects divisions are as likely to exist in the North as in the South. Slavery was strictly, a sectional interest. If this could be made the criterion of parties at the North, the North could be united in its power; and thus carry out its measures of sectional ambition, encroachment, and aggrandizement. To build up their sectional predominance in the Union, the Constitution must be first abolished by constructions; but that being done, the consolidation of the North to rule the South, by the tariff and slavery issues, was in the obvious course of things.
“The people of the Southern States, whose almost exclusive occupation was agriculture, early perceived a tendency in the Northern States to render the common government subservient to their own purposes by imposing burdens on commerce as a protection to their manufacturing and shipping interests. Long and angry controversies grew out of these attempts, often successful, to benefit one section of the country at the expense of the other. And the danger of disruption arising from this cause was enhanced by the fact that the Northern population was increasing, by immigration and other causes, in a greater ratio than the population of the South. By degrees, as the Northern States gained preponderance in the National Congress, self-interest taught their people to yield ready assent to any plausible advocacy of their right as a majority to govern the minority without control.” Jefferson Davis Address to the Confederate Congress April 29, 1861
“Secession, southerners argued, would ‘liberate’ the South and produce the kind of balanced economy that was proving so successful in the North and so unachievable in the South.” (John A. Garraty and Robert McCaughey, The American Nation: A History of the United States to 1877, Volume One, Sixth Edition, New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1987, pp. 418-419, emphasis in original)
It is ridiculous to pretend slavery was not the root cause - slavery, the defense of it, and the desire to be able to move to California or elsewhere and take one’s slaves with you.
It was about “states rights”, but the only right being violated was the right to expand slavery into other territories.
Its ridiculous to claim slavery was the root cause when the Northern dominated federal government was only too happy to enshrine express protection of slavery in the constitution.
You claim the only right being violated was the right to take slaves into the territories. This is patently false. The federal government was steadily usurping ever more power the states never agreed to delegate to it. It has already adopted a practically unlimited definition of the general welfare clause to dole out all kinds of largesse to overwhelmingly northern business interests. It had no limit on the amount of tariff it could impose nor any obligation to balance out the burden of its taxation on the various states or regions. It had simply claimed for itself the power of judicial review as well as several others it was nowhere granted. The root cause was the South’s dissatisfaction with being taxed for others’ benefit just as that had been the root cause of their grandparents’ generations’ unhappiness with the British Empire.
In an attempt to draw the states back in, or to keep the border states from leaving, the Corwin Amendment to the Constitution was proposed:
But by that time (March 1861), the south wasn’t interested in compromise.
The fact that the Corwin Amendment was offered as well as the fact that Lincoln made it perfectly clear on numerous occasions that he had no desire to threaten slavery as well as the complete lack of political support for abolition in the North all make it clear that slavery simply was not threatened in the US. Had the protection of slavery rather than economics been the main concern, the Southern states could have had that for the asking.
Yes to the leaders of the Southern states or at least most of them. Slavery was merely the pretext - economics then as now was what really drove things.
Yes it was a power struggle. Votes in the senate mattered a lot (for those economic arguments) so long as the Southern states were in. Once they were no longer in the US, there was no need for votes in the Senate and no concern with spreading slavery. The power struggle was over.
It was the era of Manifest Destiny and that held true for both the US and the CSA. Were there bound to be some expansionist sentiments in the CSA as there had been and still were in the USA? Of course. That’s imperialism/expansionism. That’s not some holy crusade to expand slavery. Cuba already had slaves.
So, we are admitted that Texas, the state giving rise to this threat, seceded because of slavery.
But, you want to argue that Florida DID NOT secede because of slavery. The ordinance I referenced isn’t specific about that. Do you have a source that says why Florida seceded?
And the reason why they gave up and left the U.S., leaving the power struggle behind, was because of slavery. Which brings us back to the initial error pointed out in the plaque.
It was the era of Manifest Destiny and that held true for both the US and the CSA. Were there bound to be some expansionist sentiments in the CSA as there had been and still were in the USA? Of course. That’s imperialism/expansionism. That’s not some holy crusade to expand slavery. Cuba already had slaves.
And the Confederate Constitution guaranteed those territories would be slave territories and the states made out of them would be slave states. Non-slave territories and non-slave states were prohibited. Which is why the Corwin amendment held no interest to them; it didn't protect slavery to the extent their new constitution did.
And the reason why they gave up and left the U.S., leaving the power struggle behind, was because of slavery. Which brings us back to the initial error pointed out in the plaque.
No, the reason they left was economics...specifically the tariff, unequal expenditures and ever growing usurpation of power by the federal government - in which they knew they would always be outvoted.
“. . . delegates from the Deep South met in Montgomery, Alabama, on February 4 [1861] to establish the Confederate States of America. The convention acted as a provisional government while at the same time drafting a permanent constitution. . . . Voted down were proposals to reopen the Atlantic slave trade . . . and to prohibit the admission of free states to the new Confederacy. . . .
“The resulting constitution was surprisingly similar to that of the United States. Most of the differences merely spelled out traditional southern interpretations of the federal charter. . . .
“. . . 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. What they really wanted was to recreate the Union as it had been before the rise of the new Republican Party, and they opted for secession only when it seemed clear that separation was the only way to achieve their aim. The decision to allow free states to join the Confederacy reflected a hope that much of the old Union could be reconstituted under southern direction.” (Robert A. Divine, T. H. Bren, George Fredrickson, and R. Hal Williams, America Past and Present, Fifth Edition, New York: Longman, 1998, pp. 444-445, emphasis added)
Really? Well then someone should have told the rebel leadership that.
Voted down were proposals to reopen the Atlantic slave trade . . .
Included were protections for slave imports from the U.S.
...and to prohibit the admission of free states to the new Confederacy. . . .
Article IV, Section 2 of the Confederate Constitution said, "The Confederate States may acquire new territory...In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States..." So the Confederate Constitution guaranteed slavery in the territories. How could non-slave states then be created from slave-holding territories? Article IV Section 2 also mandated, "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired." So how could a Confederate state decide to become a non-slave state if the constitution protected the right of people from other states to bring their slaves into any state they wanted?
“The resulting constitution was surprisingly similar to that of the United States. Most of the differences merely spelled out traditional southern interpretations of the federal charter. . . .
If you overlook the ten references to slaves or slavery, and the lengths which the constitution went to in order to protect it. The U.S. Constitution, on the other hand, has not a single reference to slaves.
“. . . 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.
Then why the need to protect slavery to the extent it did?
Really? Well then someone should have told the rebel leadership that.
Yes really and noone needed to tell them. They knew full well why they were leaving
Included were protections for slave imports from the U.S.
So states that had slavery could continue to sell across state lines just as they had done previously. Big deal.
Nonslaveholding states could be admitted - just as was said and contrary to what you claimed.
Except for the fugitive slave clause and the 3/5ths compromise. The Confederate Constitution essentially had the Corwin Amendment. Not much was different.
They wanted to provide each member state the leeway to manage it as they saw fit without interference from the central confederate government.
You left out a much more strict interpretation of the general welfare clause as well as expressly limiting tariffs to 10% as well as very tight restrictions on the ability of the central government to spend money such as a line item veto, a ban on riders being attached to bills, term limits etc. They were specifically addressing many of the ills they had seen in the US constitution. We would be better of today if many of these provisions had been adopted into the US constitution. Their objections went way beyond slavery.
expand slavery expand to where in the CONUS? California admitted as a free state in 1850. Where else?
That's because it wasn't a Rebellion, and the underlying cause was not to sustain slavery.
Slavery was already sustained, and would remain sustained so long as the Union followed the law.
I figured this article would be some bullsh*t like this.
Slavery was legally protected in the USA, and would have continued being legally protected in the USA absent an attempt by states to break away.
Lincoln was even desirous to make it even more legally protected than it already was. (Corwin Amendment)
Many in the north had no desire to fight for blacks, but NO ONE went to war to defend taxes on the south! Had it merely had been taxes, no war would have been needed.
The only state rights they felt a need to fight over was the right to extend slavery into other states. And to make sure their shrinking power due to the addition of non-slave states didn't ultimately result in a ban on slavery.
"California admitted as a free state in 1850. Where else?"
Based on the Missouri Compromise, things were starting to look bad for the slave owning states:
In 1854, the Missouri Compromise of 1820 was superseded by the Kansas–Nebraska Act, which allowed white male settlers in the new territories to determine through popular sovereignty whether they would allow slavery within each territory. The result was that pro- and anti-slavery elements flooded into Kansas with the goal of voting slavery up or down, leading to bloody fighting. An effort was initiated to organize Kansas for admission as a slave state, paired with Minnesota, but the admission of Kansas as a slave state was blocked because of questions over the legitimacy of its slave state constitution. Anti-slavery settlers in "Bleeding Kansas" in the 1850s were called Free-Staters and Free-Soilers, because they fought (successfully) to include Kansas in the Union as a free state in 1861.
When the admission of Minnesota proceeded unimpeded in 1858, the balance in the Senate was lost; a loss that was compounded by the subsequent admission of Oregon as a free state in 1859.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_states_and_free_states
And it was only going to get worse with time. The non-slave states had a faster population growth, so the House was no longer in control by the South. And with every new non-slave state added, the Senate became increasingly non-slave. And the Electoral College already favored non-slavery, and it was only going to get worse. In time, a Constitutional Amendment banning slavery might have passed, or federal law requiring freedom for slaves.
There was only one thing the South had to fight over: the continuation of slavery, which in turn required expanding slavery into new states.
I'm going to present you with something that you may find very confusing.
Slavery was legal in the United States in 1861. It was literally impossible to make it illegal, and Lincoln tried to offer the South even stronger protection for it.
Therefore the real reason for leaving had nothing to do with slavery.
Notice: When Minnesota was added as a free state in 1858, and Oregon in 1859, the balance in the Senate went from 13:13 to 15:13. Kansas made it 16:13.
“Following the Leavenworth Constitution’s defeat, the Legislature again crafted a new document the following year, dubbed the Wyandotte Constitution. The convention assembled at Wyandotte - (Kansas City) on July 5, 1859. After much debate, a new constitution was submitted to the people for a vote which passed on October 4, 1859. It was then sent to the Federal Government for ratification. Following numerous long debates in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate, President James Buchanan authorized Kansas to become the 34th state of United States on January 29, 1861. Only six days after Kansas was entered into the Union as a free state, the Confederate States of America formed between seven Southern states that had seceded from the United States in the previous two months.”
http://www.legendsofkansas.com/kansasterritory.html
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.