Causes and Events Leading to Secession
I was cleaning out some boxes in the basement today and ran across this term paper from my JC American History class in 1982. I'm not sure what my grade was for the class, but I was proud enough of the paper to keep it all these years. After reading it and seeing all sorts of words I'd never use, I now wonder if I might have taken those phrases from a text somewhere without giving credit to the true author. Nevertheless. I enjoyed reading it again and am providing it here as a discussion topic.
Causes and Events Leading to Secession - Utah Chris - Dec. 1982.
In order to properly understand the causes and events which led to the inevitable secession of the Southern States in 1861 and the reasons which motivated those by whom the secession and civil war was advocated, we must confine our examinations to the history of the country and the conditions prior to the secession of the Unitied States. We must study the theory of the Constitution as understood and explained by its creators and the history of the period prior to 1861, at least as far as it relates to constitutional rights and constitutional construction. We must consider the views entertained by advocates of the states rights doctrine as distinguished from the views of the extreme nationalists, and the long-continued struggle between the leaders of these two parties.
The general assumption that slavery was the sole cause of secession and civil war that followed is far from correct. It is clear that far beyond the question of slavery, even in the earliest days of life of the nation, the two parties began to struggle. The one to maintain the unrelentingly rights of the States, the other to establish and vest greater power in the central government. But even though this leading thought and concede thoughts (not words I would have used) were really at issue in the conflict, slavery was the proximal (again) reason of the civil war. The anti-slavery agitation focused and brought into activeness the theories of the extreme nationalists that the central government had the right to go into the domain of the state governments and regulate their domestic affairs. And the threats of abolitionists awoke the southern people to the realization that the guarantees of the Constitution for the protection of slave property were to be nullified and at least, their States rights destroyed.
Slavery was not only a heritage from the the mother country, but the history of early colonial times shows that it was a forced heritage that was resisted and opposed by the colonies. In the same spirit, the southern people opposed slavery at the time of the Declaration of Independence and were vigorous in resisting the further importation of slaves from Africa. The wisemen of that day foresaw the evils attending such a traffic. Its enormous profits would cause a further great influx of people hardly removed from savagery. But when slavery became a fixed institution, recongized, guaranteed and protected by the Constitution, the people of the south sought to improve, as far as possible, all the evils attending it.
Slavery was part of the common law of England prior to the settlement of the first colonies in America, and became the common law of the colonies; and at the time of the Declaration of Independence existed in each of the 13 colonies. This condition existed despite the efforts of some of the colonies to end it. In 1760, South Carolina passed an act prohibiting the further importation of African slaves. The act was rejected by the Crown; the Governor was reprimanded; and a circular was sent to all Governors of the colonies warning against "presuming to countenance such legislation".
England not only considered the slave trade beneficial, and fostered and protected it, but had actually inaugurated it and established it. William III passed an act reciting that "the trade was, highly beneficial and advantageous to the kingdom."
The first African slaves imported into America were landed by a Dutch trading vessel at Jamestown in 1620, and from that time, the traffic became general throughout all the colonies. Monetary profit to the traders and the need of the negro as a laborer was not the only incentive to this traffic. The press and even the pulpit contended that "it was humane and Christian to bring the heathen savage negroes to the protective care of civilized people." Slaves were imported in large numbers into New England until it was apparent that they were not able to deal with the rigorous climate of the north. Importation to the norther colonies and States gradually diminished and finally ceased. But Northeast shipowners continued to actively engaged in the business of importing and selling slaves. Southern colonists continued to fight against the traffic and Jefferson, in his first draft of the Declaration of Independence, indicated the King in the "cruel matters of war against human nature itself." This traffic against which the colonies had waged war for a century continued to exist at the time of the Declaration of Independence; and when the Constitution was adopted slavery existed in every colony with the possible exception of Massachusetts, where in 1781, by a Supreme Court decision, it was declared inconsistent with the Bill of Rights, "all men are born free and equal."
The framers of the Constitution realized the sensitive and delicate nature of the question of slavery and wisely left it untouched except to protect the property rights of the slaveholders and to give to Congress the power to prohibit the importation of slaves after a certain date. Under a clause in Section 2, Article III of the Constitution, Congress later passed the Fugitive Slave Law of 1793. It provided a $10 tax or duty on the importation of such persons prior to 1808.
Between 1878 and 1808, the question of prohibiting the importation of slaves was entirely under the control of the States and every southern State which had not already done so enacted laws prohibiting further importation of slaves. Jeffersons earnestness in opposing the traffic has already been noticed, and Virginia was the first State to prohibit it.
In 1807, Congress passed an act prohibiting the importation of slaves into any part of the United States after January 1st, 1808. The vote in the House was 113 to 5. This vote shows the absence of any sectional division or sentiment on the subject. Prior to this, in 1784, Virginia ceeded the Northwest Territory to the United States, and in 1787, before the adopters of the Constitution approved the ordinance for the government of the Northwest Territory. The 6th Article of the ordinance stated, "there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said Territory, otherwise than in punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted." In December 1805, a petition to Congress to suspend the operation of 6th Article was reported on favorably but no final action was taken.
Although the importation of slaves was prohibited, the institution of slavery became more firmly entrenched in the slave holding States. In 1819, a violent dispute arose between the north and the south on the occasion of the proposal to admit Missouri as a State. After a year of bitter controversy, a settlement was reached in a compromise where Missouri, with a State Constitution permitting slavery, was admitted, but as to the remaining portion of the territory of the United States north of 36 degrees and 30 minutes north, it was provided that slavery should be prohibited (I wonder if this is the Mason/Dixon line?). In the north, the compromise was exceedingly unpopular and a general movement looking toward the abolition of slavery was commencing.
In 1840 and 1844, the Anti-Slavery Party had Presidential candidates in the field. The annexation of Texas, the war with Mexico, and the further acquisition of territory furnished cause for additional controversy over slavery. In 1848, the Anti-Slavery Party showed growing strength and political campaigns took an increasing bitterness. One side depended on the guarantees of the Constitution to protect property rights (slavery), and the other insisted upon their right to prevent the extension of slavery, "while conceding" as Judge Cooley admitted, "that the Federal Government was powerless to disturb it in the States." During these times of fierce controversy, the greatest minds from all sections of the country devoted their efforts to securing peace. Clay, Webster, Cass and Benton met harmoniously and their efforts secured the compromise of 1850 by which California was admitted as a free State, new States were to be permitted to be carved out of Texas, the slave trade was prohibited in the District of Columbia, and new territories were to be organized without either expressly permitting or prohibiting slavery. The Missouri Compromise was repealed and the Fugitive Slave Law was nullified in the north. As a result, in Kansas, armed conflicts erupted between the opposing factions ending with John Brown making a raid with a band of Northerners into Virginia in October of 1859, in an attempt to incite the negroes in the south toward insurection and bloodshed.
The almost unanimous sentiment, North and South, upon the question of re-opening the African slave trade is shown by the vote on the resolution introduced into the House by South Carolina on December 15th, 1856. "Resolved, that it is inexpedient, unwise and contrary to the settled policy of these United States, to repeal the laws prohibiting the African slave trade." This resolution was adopted by a vote of 183 to 8 and those voting against it explaining that "no proposition looking to the opening of the slave trade having been presented was out of place." In 1856, the Anti-Slavery Party had made great progress and came near to electing their candidate for President. It was also hoped that the decision of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott Case, would put an end to the political agitation, but the decision was adverse to the theories of the abolitionists and added fuel to the flames. The Supreme Court and the venerable Chief Justice became objects of venomous abuse as a result. Moderation and reason seemed annihilated in the bitterness of feeling (sort of sounds like the DemonCats now adage, doesn't it?). The ablest minds of the North were trying to construct arguments to justify the compelling policy of ending slavery. Floods of anti-slavery literature poured out of the north and was passed to impressionable youth, the pulpit, the lecture halls, and the press. Each took it up and echoed it with appeals.
While many people in the north were acting solely on the belief that slavery was wrong and should be abolished, it was not until the question became one of national and political importance that the party opposed to the one in power used it as a means to secure control of the government. Like all other questions that become political, misrepresentation of the grossest character were made in order to attain political ends (sounds like the DemonCats again, doesn't it?). The southern people were greatly incensed by the misrepresentations over their cruelty and immorality, and believed the object of these was to arouse sentiment leading by an attempt by the North through the national government to interfere with the rights of self-government guaranteed by the Constitution and to deprive them of their property (slaves). The feelings of resentment naturally followed and widened daily, weekly and yearly, until it became apparent that only the ceasing of the agitation could prevent the complete separation of the two factions and lead to civil war. From the moment John Brown began his raid in Virginia, the south saw the necessity of preparing to protect its rights and property, within the Union if possible, out of it if necessary.
These were the conditions in 1860, when the Anti-Slavery Party or Republican Party (funny how the Republicans never get credit for this, especially when the party was formed from the Anti-Slavery movement), elected its candidate not on the strength in the north, but on the division among the Democrats. By the election of Lincoln, the south came away with an understanding that the Constitution was to be disregarded and slavery destroyed, leading to their financial ruin and the annihilation of the south. Wendell Phillips said, "the state of things is just what we have attempted to bring about... the Republican party is a party of the north pledged against the south." (Now, I'd call the Republican party the party of the sensible pledged against the party with a mental disorder.) And the southern people turned to the only remedy remaining to them after the 75 years of the Union when they believed was legal and proper for the denial of rights by the national government, namely, secession.
Lincoln was not an extremist, but not as conciliatory as Douglas or Bell. He regarded slavery as an instrument of man's selfishness, but he recognized the constitution right of the south to maintain the institution. Although, before the presidential campaign, he had protested the extension of slavery into the territories, Lincoln opposed radical measures advocated by the abolitionists, and saw some hope for the ultimate extinction of slavery in the natural course of human affairs. The south, however, listened primarily to his more radical comments, which held slavery to be "a moral, a social, and a political wrong," and trusted neither him nor his party. When he was elected, seven States of the lower south from South Carolina to Texas, seceded and formed a separate confederacy.
As the various States seceded, they took possession of the federal property within their boundaries. But they did not have the strength to seize certain offshore forts, notably Fort Sumter, in the harbor of Charlestown, South Carolina, and Fort Pikens, in the harbor of Pensacola, Florida. South Carolina sent emissaries to Washington to ask for the surrender of Fort Sumter, which was garrisoned by a small force under Major Robert Anderson Bucahanan. Major Anderson repeatedly refused to yield the fort while fearing he might provoke a clash. In January 1861, he decided to reinforce it. By his direction, an unarmed merchant ship, the Star of the West, proceeded to the Fort with troops and supplies. When the vessel attempted to enter the harbor, it encountered fire from shore batteries and turned back.
When Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4th, 1861, he dispatched a naval relief expedition to the Fort. He notified the South Carolina authorities who notified the Confederate authorities, that ships were on the way to bring supplies but not to land troops or munitions unless resistance was offered. This move placed the Confederate government in a dilemma. If they permitted the expedition to land, they would be bowing tamely to Federal authority. Their people might not believe that they meant to sustain secession. But if they fired on the ships or the Fort, they would make themselves appear as the aggressors. After hours of discussion, the Confederate government in Montgomery, Alabama, order General P.G.T. Beauregard, in charge of Confederate forces at Charlestown, to demand surrender, and if the demand was refused, to reduce the Fort. Beauregard made the demand, Anderson rejected it. The Fort was bombarded for two days on April 12th and 13th, 1861. On April 14th, Anderson surrendered.
War had come. Lincoln moved to increase the army and called on the States to furnish troops to restore the union. Now, four more slave States seceded and joined the Confederacy.
The American war of the 1860's was not a Civil War in the usual sense. The contestants were not fighting for control of the government, but over the attempt of the south to become a separate nation. The term Civil War does not take into sufficient account the Confederate States of America being an organized, responsible government, possessed of the attributes of sovernty.
The importance of the Civil War in the stream of American History is immense. This conflict settled once and for all the questions of secession and slavery. It won for the nation and its form of government increased prestige abroad. It gave a tremendous impetus to nationalism, industrialism, consolidation, and urbanization. It also enhanced the predominance of the North and East in numbers, wealth, and power while plunging the South into greater depths of economic and political subservience. The war further provided a rich and enduring theme for history, literature, folklore, and drama. Yet it failed to resolve many old issues and created countless new ones. From the advantages gained by big business during the war and reconstruction periods were to arise many of the domestic problems that beset the nation for decades to come. It did not secure for the negro, the full participation in a free society. And it left a legacy of hatred between victor and vanquished.
Causes and Events Leading to Secession - Utah Chris - Dec. 1982.
In order to properly understand the causes and events which led to the inevitable secession of the Southern States in 1861 and the reasons which motivated those by whom the secession and civil war was advocated, we must confine our examinations to the history of the country and the conditions prior to the secession of the Unitied States. We must study the theory of the Constitution as understood and explained by its creators and the history of the period prior to 1861, at least as far as it relates to constitutional rights and constitutional construction. We must consider the views entertained by advocates of the states rights doctrine as distinguished from the views of the extreme nationalists, and the long-continued struggle between the leaders of these two parties.
The general assumption that slavery was the sole cause of secession and civil war that followed is far from correct. It is clear that far beyond the question of slavery, even in the earliest days of life of the nation, the two parties began to struggle. The one to maintain the unrelentingly rights of the States, the other to establish and vest greater power in the central government. But even though this leading thought and concede thoughts (not words I would have used) were really at issue in the conflict, slavery was the proximal (again) reason of the civil war. The anti-slavery agitation focused and brought into activeness the theories of the extreme nationalists that the central government had the right to go into the domain of the state governments and regulate their domestic affairs. And the threats of abolitionists awoke the southern people to the realization that the guarantees of the Constitution for the protection of slave property were to be nullified and at least, their States rights destroyed.
Slavery was not only a heritage from the the mother country, but the history of early colonial times shows that it was a forced heritage that was resisted and opposed by the colonies. In the same spirit, the southern people opposed slavery at the time of the Declaration of Independence and were vigorous in resisting the further importation of slaves from Africa. The wisemen of that day foresaw the evils attending such a traffic. Its enormous profits would cause a further great influx of people hardly removed from savagery. But when slavery became a fixed institution, recongized, guaranteed and protected by the Constitution, the people of the south sought to improve, as far as possible, all the evils attending it.
Slavery was part of the common law of England prior to the settlement of the first colonies in America, and became the common law of the colonies; and at the time of the Declaration of Independence existed in each of the 13 colonies. This condition existed despite the efforts of some of the colonies to end it. In 1760, South Carolina passed an act prohibiting the further importation of African slaves. The act was rejected by the Crown; the Governor was reprimanded; and a circular was sent to all Governors of the colonies warning against "presuming to countenance such legislation".
England not only considered the slave trade beneficial, and fostered and protected it, but had actually inaugurated it and established it. William III passed an act reciting that "the trade was, highly beneficial and advantageous to the kingdom."
The first African slaves imported into America were landed by a Dutch trading vessel at Jamestown in 1620, and from that time, the traffic became general throughout all the colonies. Monetary profit to the traders and the need of the negro as a laborer was not the only incentive to this traffic. The press and even the pulpit contended that "it was humane and Christian to bring the heathen savage negroes to the protective care of civilized people." Slaves were imported in large numbers into New England until it was apparent that they were not able to deal with the rigorous climate of the north. Importation to the norther colonies and States gradually diminished and finally ceased. But Northeast shipowners continued to actively engaged in the business of importing and selling slaves. Southern colonists continued to fight against the traffic and Jefferson, in his first draft of the Declaration of Independence, indicated the King in the "cruel matters of war against human nature itself." This traffic against which the colonies had waged war for a century continued to exist at the time of the Declaration of Independence; and when the Constitution was adopted slavery existed in every colony with the possible exception of Massachusetts, where in 1781, by a Supreme Court decision, it was declared inconsistent with the Bill of Rights, "all men are born free and equal."
The framers of the Constitution realized the sensitive and delicate nature of the question of slavery and wisely left it untouched except to protect the property rights of the slaveholders and to give to Congress the power to prohibit the importation of slaves after a certain date. Under a clause in Section 2, Article III of the Constitution, Congress later passed the Fugitive Slave Law of 1793. It provided a $10 tax or duty on the importation of such persons prior to 1808.
Between 1878 and 1808, the question of prohibiting the importation of slaves was entirely under the control of the States and every southern State which had not already done so enacted laws prohibiting further importation of slaves. Jeffersons earnestness in opposing the traffic has already been noticed, and Virginia was the first State to prohibit it.
In 1807, Congress passed an act prohibiting the importation of slaves into any part of the United States after January 1st, 1808. The vote in the House was 113 to 5. This vote shows the absence of any sectional division or sentiment on the subject. Prior to this, in 1784, Virginia ceeded the Northwest Territory to the United States, and in 1787, before the adopters of the Constitution approved the ordinance for the government of the Northwest Territory. The 6th Article of the ordinance stated, "there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said Territory, otherwise than in punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted." In December 1805, a petition to Congress to suspend the operation of 6th Article was reported on favorably but no final action was taken.
Although the importation of slaves was prohibited, the institution of slavery became more firmly entrenched in the slave holding States. In 1819, a violent dispute arose between the north and the south on the occasion of the proposal to admit Missouri as a State. After a year of bitter controversy, a settlement was reached in a compromise where Missouri, with a State Constitution permitting slavery, was admitted, but as to the remaining portion of the territory of the United States north of 36 degrees and 30 minutes north, it was provided that slavery should be prohibited (I wonder if this is the Mason/Dixon line?). In the north, the compromise was exceedingly unpopular and a general movement looking toward the abolition of slavery was commencing.
In 1840 and 1844, the Anti-Slavery Party had Presidential candidates in the field. The annexation of Texas, the war with Mexico, and the further acquisition of territory furnished cause for additional controversy over slavery. In 1848, the Anti-Slavery Party showed growing strength and political campaigns took an increasing bitterness. One side depended on the guarantees of the Constitution to protect property rights (slavery), and the other insisted upon their right to prevent the extension of slavery, "while conceding" as Judge Cooley admitted, "that the Federal Government was powerless to disturb it in the States." During these times of fierce controversy, the greatest minds from all sections of the country devoted their efforts to securing peace. Clay, Webster, Cass and Benton met harmoniously and their efforts secured the compromise of 1850 by which California was admitted as a free State, new States were to be permitted to be carved out of Texas, the slave trade was prohibited in the District of Columbia, and new territories were to be organized without either expressly permitting or prohibiting slavery. The Missouri Compromise was repealed and the Fugitive Slave Law was nullified in the north. As a result, in Kansas, armed conflicts erupted between the opposing factions ending with John Brown making a raid with a band of Northerners into Virginia in October of 1859, in an attempt to incite the negroes in the south toward insurection and bloodshed.
The almost unanimous sentiment, North and South, upon the question of re-opening the African slave trade is shown by the vote on the resolution introduced into the House by South Carolina on December 15th, 1856. "Resolved, that it is inexpedient, unwise and contrary to the settled policy of these United States, to repeal the laws prohibiting the African slave trade." This resolution was adopted by a vote of 183 to 8 and those voting against it explaining that "no proposition looking to the opening of the slave trade having been presented was out of place." In 1856, the Anti-Slavery Party had made great progress and came near to electing their candidate for President. It was also hoped that the decision of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott Case, would put an end to the political agitation, but the decision was adverse to the theories of the abolitionists and added fuel to the flames. The Supreme Court and the venerable Chief Justice became objects of venomous abuse as a result. Moderation and reason seemed annihilated in the bitterness of feeling (sort of sounds like the DemonCats now adage, doesn't it?). The ablest minds of the North were trying to construct arguments to justify the compelling policy of ending slavery. Floods of anti-slavery literature poured out of the north and was passed to impressionable youth, the pulpit, the lecture halls, and the press. Each took it up and echoed it with appeals.
While many people in the north were acting solely on the belief that slavery was wrong and should be abolished, it was not until the question became one of national and political importance that the party opposed to the one in power used it as a means to secure control of the government. Like all other questions that become political, misrepresentation of the grossest character were made in order to attain political ends (sounds like the DemonCats again, doesn't it?). The southern people were greatly incensed by the misrepresentations over their cruelty and immorality, and believed the object of these was to arouse sentiment leading by an attempt by the North through the national government to interfere with the rights of self-government guaranteed by the Constitution and to deprive them of their property (slaves). The feelings of resentment naturally followed and widened daily, weekly and yearly, until it became apparent that only the ceasing of the agitation could prevent the complete separation of the two factions and lead to civil war. From the moment John Brown began his raid in Virginia, the south saw the necessity of preparing to protect its rights and property, within the Union if possible, out of it if necessary.
These were the conditions in 1860, when the Anti-Slavery Party or Republican Party (funny how the Republicans never get credit for this, especially when the party was formed from the Anti-Slavery movement), elected its candidate not on the strength in the north, but on the division among the Democrats. By the election of Lincoln, the south came away with an understanding that the Constitution was to be disregarded and slavery destroyed, leading to their financial ruin and the annihilation of the south. Wendell Phillips said, "the state of things is just what we have attempted to bring about... the Republican party is a party of the north pledged against the south." (Now, I'd call the Republican party the party of the sensible pledged against the party with a mental disorder.) And the southern people turned to the only remedy remaining to them after the 75 years of the Union when they believed was legal and proper for the denial of rights by the national government, namely, secession.
Lincoln was not an extremist, but not as conciliatory as Douglas or Bell. He regarded slavery as an instrument of man's selfishness, but he recognized the constitution right of the south to maintain the institution. Although, before the presidential campaign, he had protested the extension of slavery into the territories, Lincoln opposed radical measures advocated by the abolitionists, and saw some hope for the ultimate extinction of slavery in the natural course of human affairs. The south, however, listened primarily to his more radical comments, which held slavery to be "a moral, a social, and a political wrong," and trusted neither him nor his party. When he was elected, seven States of the lower south from South Carolina to Texas, seceded and formed a separate confederacy.
As the various States seceded, they took possession of the federal property within their boundaries. But they did not have the strength to seize certain offshore forts, notably Fort Sumter, in the harbor of Charlestown, South Carolina, and Fort Pikens, in the harbor of Pensacola, Florida. South Carolina sent emissaries to Washington to ask for the surrender of Fort Sumter, which was garrisoned by a small force under Major Robert Anderson Bucahanan. Major Anderson repeatedly refused to yield the fort while fearing he might provoke a clash. In January 1861, he decided to reinforce it. By his direction, an unarmed merchant ship, the Star of the West, proceeded to the Fort with troops and supplies. When the vessel attempted to enter the harbor, it encountered fire from shore batteries and turned back.
When Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4th, 1861, he dispatched a naval relief expedition to the Fort. He notified the South Carolina authorities who notified the Confederate authorities, that ships were on the way to bring supplies but not to land troops or munitions unless resistance was offered. This move placed the Confederate government in a dilemma. If they permitted the expedition to land, they would be bowing tamely to Federal authority. Their people might not believe that they meant to sustain secession. But if they fired on the ships or the Fort, they would make themselves appear as the aggressors. After hours of discussion, the Confederate government in Montgomery, Alabama, order General P.G.T. Beauregard, in charge of Confederate forces at Charlestown, to demand surrender, and if the demand was refused, to reduce the Fort. Beauregard made the demand, Anderson rejected it. The Fort was bombarded for two days on April 12th and 13th, 1861. On April 14th, Anderson surrendered.
War had come. Lincoln moved to increase the army and called on the States to furnish troops to restore the union. Now, four more slave States seceded and joined the Confederacy.
The American war of the 1860's was not a Civil War in the usual sense. The contestants were not fighting for control of the government, but over the attempt of the south to become a separate nation. The term Civil War does not take into sufficient account the Confederate States of America being an organized, responsible government, possessed of the attributes of sovernty.
The importance of the Civil War in the stream of American History is immense. This conflict settled once and for all the questions of secession and slavery. It won for the nation and its form of government increased prestige abroad. It gave a tremendous impetus to nationalism, industrialism, consolidation, and urbanization. It also enhanced the predominance of the North and East in numbers, wealth, and power while plunging the South into greater depths of economic and political subservience. The war further provided a rich and enduring theme for history, literature, folklore, and drama. Yet it failed to resolve many old issues and created countless new ones. From the advantages gained by big business during the war and reconstruction periods were to arise many of the domestic problems that beset the nation for decades to come. It did not secure for the negro, the full participation in a free society. And it left a legacy of hatred between victor and vanquished.
posted by Utah Chris at 8:36 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home