- This topic has 6 voices and 11 replies.
-
Posts
-
The Washington Post has an article written by a sociologist author on five “myths” of Southern secession. They are:1. The South seceded over states' rights.2. Secession was about tariffs and taxes.3. Most white Southerners didn't own slaves, so they wouldn't secede for slavery.4. Abraham Lincoln went to war to end slavery.5. The South couldn't have made it long as a slave society.Some things concern me about this and I would like to discuss them. First, the author's argument that the South's actions shows it did not respect the right of the North seems to be a mischaracterization of the issue; second, the use of a comparison which claims to explain why low-income Americans were against tax increases on the rich is awful and suggests to me that the author has a particular ideological bias; and third, troubling to me on a more general basis is that the author has written a book called "Lies My Teacher Told Me". If the author is inserting ideology into the matter, is he really correcting "lies" or instead creating new ones?Anyway, read over his article and let me know what you think.
Here is the full text of the article.
Five myths about why the South secededBy James W. LoewenThe Washington PostSunday, January 9, 2011; 12:00 AM One hundred and fifty years after the Civil War began, we're still fighting it -- or at least fighting over its history. I've polled thousands of high school history teachers and spoken about the war to audiences across the country, and there is little agreement even on why the South seceded. Was it over slavery? States' rights? Tariffs and taxes? As the nation begins to commemorate the anniversaries of the war's various battles -- from Fort Sumter to Appomattox -- let's first dispense with some of the more prevalent myths about why it all began. 1. The South seceded over states' rights.Confederate states did claim the right to secede, but no state claimed to be seceding for that right. In fact, Confederates opposed states' rights -- that is, the right of Northern states not to support slavery. On Dec. 24, 1860, delegates at South Carolina's secession convention adopted a "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union." It noted "an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery" and protested that Northern states had failed to "fulfill their constitutional obligations" by interfering with the return of fugitive slaves to bondage. Slavery, not states' rights, birthed the Civil War. ....http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/07/AR2011010703178.html?sid=ST2011010703601(ed. Sorry I had to chop this down to avoid copyright entanglements. - Phid)
Actually the author is pretty much on target. Outside of the George Bush reference (which was a stretch), I didn't see anything that I couldn't honestly say is “wrong.” In fact, this article goes hand in hand with what I was taught at UK and UofL.
In general I think the author is correct in saying that first and foremost the Civil War was fought over slavery. I don't think the Civil War would have happened (at least not when it did happen) if an abolitionist had not been elected president.Perhaps what the author says about the tax cuts is stretchering things. But I think there is some validity in what he says. After all the US has not experienced the type of class envy one sees in some countries because so many people in the hope/believe they can/will some day be part of the rich.The author may also be stretching thing somewhat on States Right. But I do not think the conflict was fought over States Rights, tariffs, etc. I think these were arguments that came into existence later to appeal to Europe for military assistance during the war and/or to put a better "face" on the conflict by the South after it lost the war.As my sister, who lives in South Carolina, once told me: What I am supposed to tell my children? That their ancestors [who on her husband's side, I believe, owned slaves and fought in the Civil war] were bad men?
From Georgia?s Declaration of Causes:The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery?A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia?Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation and demanded the prompt and efficient exercise of this power to that end. This insulting and unconstitutional demand was met with great moderation and firmness by the South?From Mississippi?s Declaration of Causes: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. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. 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. From South Carolina?s Declaration of Causes:And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act. ?an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery?. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey? the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals?The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor. We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume 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; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection. From Texas?s Declaration of Causes:When we advert to the course of individual non-slave-holding States, and that a majority of their citizens, our grievances assume far greater magnitude. The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article [the fugitive slave clause] of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions-- a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation. Some of those States have imposed high fines and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal laws enacted in accordance therewith. In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States. For years past this abolition organization has been actively sowing the seeds of discord through the Union, and has rendered the federal congress the arena for spreading firebrands and hatred between the slave-holding and non-slave-holding States. By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress, and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments. They have proclaimed, and at the ballot box sustained, the revolutionary doctrine that there is a 'higher law' than the constitution and laws of our Federal Union, and virtually that they will disregard their oaths and trample upon our rights. They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture?
This statement from the article is kind of misleading in my opinion: “Confederate states did claim the right to secede, but no state claimed to be seceding for that right. In fact, Confederates opposed states' rights — that is, the right of Northern states not to support slavery. ” I don't think I have ever heard the claim that the South did not support states rights. I think the issue he is getting at is that southerners did not think they should lose ownership of their slaves if they took their slaves into a free-state. They objected to differing interpretations of property law if I understand the issue correctly. I mean, if you support chattel slavery, then a slave is property and I think it is reasonable to be upset if another jurisdiction says that this one class of property is illegitimate when you cross a state boundary. I definitely do not think that the south was trying to deny northern states their rights, that argument can probably go both ways.As to the rest of the article, his facts are correct but there is definitely a slant to the way he presents them. I too, am suspicious that he may have an agenda based on the title of his upcoming work.
This statement from the article is kind of misleading in my opinion: "Confederate states did claim the right to secede, but no state claimed to be seceding for that right. In fact, Confederates opposed states' rights -- that is, the right of Northern states not to support slavery. " I don't think I have ever heard the claim that the South did not support states rights. I think the issue he is getting at is that southerners did not think they should lose ownership of their slaves if they took their slaves into a free-state. They objected to differing interpretations of property law if I understand the issue correctly. I mean, if you support chattel slavery, then a slave is property and I think it is reasonable to be upset if another jurisdiction says that this one class of property is illegitimate when you cross a state boundary. I definitely do not think that the south was trying to deny northern states their rights, that argument can probably go both ways.As to the rest of the article, his facts are correct but there is definitely a slant to the way he presents them. I too, am suspicious that he may have an agenda based on the title of his upcoming work.
Your assessment of the section on states' rights is exactly what my concern is. The author makes it seem as if the South was violating its own claimed belief by not respecting the rights of Northern states; ergo, the South was not pro-states' rights. But in truth, it seems an argument could (or should) be made that the South thought its own rights were being trampled on first, which then led to its disagreement over claims made by the North.
This statement from the article is kind of misleading in my opinion: "Confederate states did claim the right to secede, but no state claimed to be seceding for that right. In fact, Confederates opposed states' rights -- that is, the right of Northern states not to support slavery. " I don't think I have ever heard the claim that the South did not support states rights. I think the issue he is getting at is that southerners did not think they should lose ownership of their slaves if they took their slaves into a free-state. They objected to differing interpretations of property law if I understand the issue correctly. I mean, if you support chattel slavery, then a slave is property and I think it is reasonable to be upset if another jurisdiction says that this one class of property is illegitimate when you cross a state boundary. I definitely do not think that the south was trying to deny northern states their rights, that argument can probably go both ways.As to the rest of the article, his facts are correct but there is definitely a slant to the way he presents them. I too, am suspicious that he may have an agenda based on the title of his upcoming work.
Your assessment of the section on states' rights is exactly what my concern is. The author makes it seem as if the South was violating its own claimed belief by not respecting the rights of Northern states; ergo, the South was not pro-states' rights. But in truth, it seems an argument could (or should) be made that the South thought its own rights were being trampled on first, which then led to its disagreement over claims made by the North.
Well the South was guilty of hypocrisy. Southerners played an integral part in drafting the Constitution and forming the Republic. When things began to go against them politically, they cried foul. So yes, they only cared about state's rights so long as it applied to their states in particular.
I would disagree with the following:1. The South seceded over states' rights.2. Secession was about tariffs and taxes.3. Most white Southerners didn't own slaves, so they wouldn't secede for slavery.Let me gather my thoughts and I will expound....
Well the South was guilty of hypocrisy. Southerners played an integral part in drafting the Constitution and forming the Republic. When things began to go against them politically, they cried foul. So yes, they only cared about state's rights so long as it applied to their states in particular.
Well, if you had a car that was stolen and brought to another state which did not allow you to recover it there, wouldn't you think that the other state's claim of a right meant little since the rights granted to you in your state came first? (Granted, when slaves got away from their masters in the South there was no injustice committed, but slaveholders would still have perceived that an injustice was committed).
I suppose that looking at the South as hypocrites and whiners is one position. I dont necessarily think that is correct. I am not going to argue the moral correctness of slavery. I do however think that looking at it objectively, the south did have a valid complaint when it came to the way different classes of property were treated. It is irrelevant to the legal argument that slaves were people. They were property and should be have been treated as such in the spirit of legal fairness if nothing else.The issue is also often painted as one in which the South refused to compromise, that is also not so. The problem was that once the abolitionists got a little bit of what they wanted they would not give it up. The abolitionists eventually pushed the South's back against the wall where they could no longer compromise and retain their traditional way of life. The abolitionists did not want just a piece of the cake, they wanted the whole thing.
Well the South was guilty of hypocrisy. Southerners played an integral part in drafting the Constitution and forming the Republic. When things began to go against them politically, they cried foul. So yes, they only cared about state's rights so long as it applied to their states in particular.
Well, if you had a car that was stolen and brought to another state which did not allow you to recover it there, wouldn't you think that the other state's claim of a right meant little since the rights granted to you in your state came first? (Granted, when slaves got away from their masters in the South there was no injustice committed, but slaveholders would still have perceived that an injustice was committed).
But the North enforced the slave codes for the most part. Southerners seceded because they saw the writing was on the wall for slavery, and pretty much anything else on their agenda because free states were beginning to outnumber slave states. The South couldn't do anything about control of the House of Representatives, but so long as they could equal free state representation in the Senate, they could stop anything that would threaten slavery. Once the balance tipped against them, and the slave states became hemmed in, their only option was to hold onto the presidency, and when Lincoln won, they panicked. Having said all this, if the South had not fired on Fort Sumter, a political solution may have presented itself, or Europe might have sided with the South (to weaken American competition for no other reason). So basically, the South seceded out of fear, and committed state suicide (to borrow from my professor Dr. Mackey). For once they fired the first shot becoming the belligerent party, their goose was cooked.
