Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > American History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

American History American History Forum - United States, Canada, Mexico, Central and South America


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 29th, 2017, 10:24 AM   #51
Citizen
 
Joined: Aug 2017
From: Tijuana, Mexico
Posts: 41

Southern Declaration of Independence statements.

If one reads the Declaration of Causes (the declarations of independence) issued by the states when they left the union one sees how important slavery and the ability to protect slavery was to the succeeding states. The claim by the Confederate states that the War Between the States was about state rights was not advanced until after the lost they lost the Civil War and created the Lost Cause Myth to justify their actions.

BTW, states have powers, not rights. People have rights and the right--as explained above--the right Southerners were willing to fight for was the right to own slaves anywhere in the nation. Hence their desire to see slavery allowed in the territories and the enforcement of things like the fugitive slave laws which forced Northern states yo accept slavery throughout the entire nation.


South Carolina:
... an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery... The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burdening 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 [non-slave] States have assume[d] 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 enjoin 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.

Texas:
[Texas was] received as a commonwealth [into the United States] holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.

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 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 [holder] ... 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.

Mississippi:
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. ... a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.

Georgia:
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. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. ... The North demanded the application of the principle of prohibition of slavery to all of the territory acquired from Mexico and all other parts of the public domain then and in all future time.

Last edited by Daniel2010; December 29th, 2017 at 10:26 AM.
Daniel2010 is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 4th, 2018, 01:09 PM   #52
Archivist
 
Joined: Dec 2017
From: Florida
Posts: 212

On the subject of slavery as a cause for the Civil War or whatever title you wish to give it, it certainly was an issue, for some. Not every Southern was supportive of slavery in the South and owning a slave was expensive, something many impoverished whites did not have. While I think slavery was an issue that caused the war, it's not like every Southern owned a slave or were interested in fighting for slavery especially when it was screwing many of them over. Now politicians certainly have an interest in prolonging slavery because they were more likely to be the owners. I'm skeptical of individuals who think that all Southerners would go to war to fight for a race they thought were less than human and in some cases were screwing them over economically. I mean even Northerners didn't want to fight to free slaves (see NY Draft Riots).

Concerning the original post, yes it is a contradiction to say that this nation was birthed in liberty and yet all individuals in it are bound to this social contract for all time without the ability to leave.
Divinespark is offline  
Old January 4th, 2018, 05:12 PM   #53

Recusant's Avatar
Miscreant Erendrake
 
Joined: Sep 2009
From: Sector N after curfew
Posts: 2,555
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinespark View Post
Concerning the original post, yes it is a contradiction to say that this nation was birthed in liberty and yet all individuals in it are bound to this social contract for all time without the ability to leave.
Individual citizens of the US can and do renounce their citizenship; they have the right to leave unless they've been incarcerated for criminal acts.

States on the other hand have entered into a union which was unequivocally described in the Articles of Confederation at its outset as 'perpetual.' Accordingly nowhere in those articles is there any provision for secession by any state or group of states. In fact Article 13 reaffirms several times the perpetual nature of the union.

Nor is there any provision for secession in the Constitution as originally ratified by the states, which as I mentioned previously in this thread was written "in Order to form a more perfect Union." By no means does the Constitution of the United States nullify the perpetual nature of the original union. Under the 14th amendment no state shall deprive any of its citizens the rights they possess which are protected by the government of the United States; this would clearly include the right to citizenship in the United States.

Last edited by Recusant; January 4th, 2018 at 05:20 PM.
Recusant is offline  
Old January 4th, 2018, 09:54 PM   #54
Archivist
 
Joined: Dec 2017
From: Florida
Posts: 212

Quote:
Originally Posted by Recusant View Post
Individual citizens of the US can and do renounce their citizenship; they have the right to leave unless they've been incarcerated for criminal acts.

States on the other hand have entered into a union which was unequivocally described in the Articles of Confederation at its outset as 'perpetual.' Accordingly nowhere in those articles is there any provision for secession by any state or group of states. In fact Article 13 reaffirms several times the perpetual nature of the union.

Nor is there any provision for secession in the Constitution as originally ratified by the states, which as I mentioned previously in this thread was written "in Order to form a more perfect Union." By no means does the Constitution of the United States nullify the perpetual nature of the original union. Under the 14th amendment no state shall deprive any of its citizens the rights they possess which are protected by the government of the United States; this would clearly include the right to citizenship in the United States.
Yes but they cannot renounce their citizenship and retain what is rightfully theirs (their property).

Concerning your comments about secession for states, I need only to point to the tenth amendment which states that powers not delegated to the government by the Constitution are retained by the states and its people. The power to leave a union which is not delegated to the government by the Constitution, therefore, is retained by the states and people.
Divinespark is offline  
Old January 4th, 2018, 10:02 PM   #55

Maki's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2017
From: Republika Srpska
Posts: 1,761

Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinespark View Post
On the subject of slavery as a cause for the Civil War or whatever title you wish to give it, it certainly was an issue, for some. Not every Southern was supportive of slavery in the South and owning a slave was expensive, something many impoverished whites did not have. While I think slavery was an issue that caused the war, it's not like every Southern owned a slave or were interested in fighting for slavery especially when it was screwing many of them over. Now politicians certainly have an interest in prolonging slavery because they were more likely to be the owners. I'm skeptical of individuals who think that all Southerners would go to war to fight for a race they thought were less than human and in some cases were screwing them over economically. I mean even Northerners didn't want to fight to free slaves (see NY Draft Riots).
Slavery gave status to even the poorest whites. After all, if they were poor, they were still white and above blacks. Also, many Southern whites shared the same concerns as many in the North (especially new immigrants) about freeing the blacks, namely they feared competition in the job market and generally there was racism all throughout the USA at the time so this also contributed to the support of slavery by the non-slaveholding Southerners. There was even an element of ideal life in the South that appealed to many, an ideal of a gentleman living on a plantation with his slaves. This ideal was widespread throughout the South, and many non-slaveholders wanted to achieve it and it wouldn't be possible without slavery. Add to this the planter propaganda which hailed slavery as essential to the South and the main thing that separated the gentlemanly South from the Yankees and it's not hard to see why many non-slaveholding whites supported slavery. Of course, in the areas of the South that wasn't that much invested in slavery, for example West Virginia, there was less support for slavery.
Maki is offline  
Old January 4th, 2018, 10:08 PM   #56
Archivist
 
Joined: Dec 2017
From: Florida
Posts: 212

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maki View Post
Slavery gave status to even the poorest whites. After all, if they were poor, they were still white and above blacks. Also, many Southern whites shared the same concerns as many in the North (especially new immigrants) about freeing the blacks, namely they feared competition in the job market and generally there was racism all throughout the USA at the time so this also contributed to the support of slavery by the non-slaveholding Southerners. There was even an element of ideal life in the South that appealed to many, an ideal of a gentleman living on a plantation with his slaves. This ideal was widespread throughout the South, and many non-slaveholders wanted to achieve it and it wouldn't be possible without slavery. Add to this the planter propaganda which hailed slavery as essential to the South and the main thing that separated the gentlemanly South from the Yankees and it's not hard to see why many non-slaveholding whites supported slavery. Of course, in the areas of the South that wasn't that much invested in slavery, for example West Virginia, there was less support for slavery.
There is a difference between slavery and racism. Racism gave status to whites. And while slavery was a firm bulwark to buttress racist views, there would be other systems in place to maintain that status.
Divinespark is offline  
Old January 4th, 2018, 10:21 PM   #57

Maki's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2017
From: Republika Srpska
Posts: 1,761

Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinespark View Post
There is a difference between slavery and racism. Racism gave status to whites. And while slavery was a firm bulwark to buttress racist views, there would be other systems in place to maintain that status.
Slavery prevented blacks from competing with poor whites for some low-paying jobs. Yes, it's true that slavery often worked against those poor whites, since in the South there was a huge number of workers you didn't have to pay (slaves), but still the pro-slavery propaganda was widespread in the South, it was in the newspapers, in the churches. People are generally easily influenced by such propaganda. 19th century US Southerners were no different.
Maki is offline  
Old January 5th, 2018, 06:20 AM   #58
Archivist
 
Joined: Dec 2017
From: Florida
Posts: 212

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maki View Post
Slavery prevented blacks from competing with poor whites for some low-paying jobs.
So did Black Codes and Jim Crow laws.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Maki View Post
Yes, it's true that slavery often worked against those poor whites, since in the South there was a huge number of workers you didn't have to pay (slaves), but still the pro-slavery propaganda was widespread in the South, it was in the newspapers, in the churches. People are generally easily influenced by such propaganda. 19th century US Southerners were no different.
Yes, there was propaganda but that doesn't mean it was entirely effective.
Divinespark is offline  
Old January 5th, 2018, 06:50 AM   #59

Maki's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2017
From: Republika Srpska
Posts: 1,761

Quote:
So did Black Codes and Jim Crow laws.
The only reason they were implemented was because they slavery was gone. The pre-war Southerners had a tested system to enforce white supremacy, they didn't need to change it.


Quote:
Yes, there was propaganda but that doesn't mean it was entirely effective.
Well, it was not always effective, as we can see from the secession of West Virginia from Virginia, but it was effective overall. Initially, the secessionists were worried about non-slaveholding whites not being in favor of secession and they used white supremacy rhetoric to convince them to fully side with the secession. They foretold a great destruction of Southern values, marriages between "fair daughters of the South and barbaric negroes". Some even went as far to claim that abolishing slavery would lead to whites being enslaved by blacks. The Southern propaganda claimed that the only way for the white man to be free is to keep the blacks as slaves. They even addressed the divide between the rich and poor in the South, saying that in the event of abolition, the rich would be able to save themselves, while the yeoman farmers would suffer.
Maki is offline  
Old January 5th, 2018, 12:54 PM   #60

Recusant's Avatar
Miscreant Erendrake
 
Joined: Sep 2009
From: Sector N after curfew
Posts: 2,555
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinespark View Post
Yes but they cannot renounce their citizenship and retain what is rightfully theirs (their property).
Do you mean real estate? Non-citizens can and do own real estate in the US. You're going to have to clarify your point here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinespark View Post
Concerning your comments about secession for states, I need only to point to the tenth amendment which states that powers not delegated to the government by the Constitution are retained by the states and its people. The power to leave a union which is not delegated to the government by the Constitution, therefore, is retained by the states and people.
By what logic would the government of the United States delegate a hypothetical "power to leave the union" to itself? "The US government reserves to itself the power to leave itself"? Have I somehow misunderstood what you're saying here?

In fact the union from its inception was intended and understood to be perpetual; it was described as such unequivocally when the United States was formed, and the states joined the union with that understanding. Therefore your hypothetical "power to leave the union" is not retained by the states.
Recusant is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > American History

Tags
civil, newbie, war



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Newbie Cameronian New Users 3 July 17th, 2017 09:11 PM
Hello from a newbie JoanGF New Users 4 February 3rd, 2015 10:00 AM
Hello Everybody...a newbie here! dale1257 New Users 12 August 6th, 2012 10:55 AM
Newbie Caelyn New Users 24 December 22nd, 2010 09:18 AM
Newbie rokerman New Users 23 September 16th, 2010 01:01 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.