From: s...@esinet.net (Shack Toms)
Subject: Re: Geographical Sensibilities
Date: 1998/03/26
Message-ID: <352353ab.139234796@localhost>
X-Deja-AN: 337894600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: s...@esinet.net
References: <6euh7c$dfm@top.mitre.org> <6euo6d$3pd$1@fddinewz.oit.unc.edu> <35242232.10374618@news.asacomp.com> <3513E2AF.302E@erols.com> <351929ae.26253896@news.direct.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: ESInet - Charlottesville, VA
Newsgroups: alt.fan.cecil-adams


g...@direct.ca (Greg Goss) wrote:

>Of course the North allowed slavery everywhere except the CSA.  I was
>taught that Lincoln freed all the slaves that he had *NO* control
>over, and thus, that the Emancipation Declaration was nothing but
>propaganda.

Not everywhere.   The only areas in the Union where slavery was
allowed were the states of Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia,
Maryland, and the District of Columbia.   Of course most of these
regions think of themselves as Southern, but they did not secede
(in some cases because Lincoln suspended enough of their
political rights that they couldn't secede).   West Virginia is
an odd case, it seceded from Virginia shortly after Virginia
seceded from the USA.   It then applied for admission to the USA
but the admission was delayed because West Virginia did not want
to adopt a state constitutional provision ending slavery within
its borders.   It finally adopted a phase-out of slavery.

It is especially significant that the District of Columbia
permitted slavery, since the government of that area is, by
constitutional provision, controlled by the US Congress.

The emancipation proclamation was intended to foment a slave
revolt in the seceding areas.   It didn't work for that.   But
the union forces did free slaves in areas that they captured, in
a way.

Interestingly, shortly after the CSA states seceded, the Union
Congress passed, by the appropriate 2/3 supermajority,  a
constitutional amendment that would have irrevocably forbid the
federal government from interfering with slavery in the states.
It was never ratified by the states, of course, but it passed the
post-secession Congress handily.   It was signed by Lincoln, too
(though a president's signature is not necessary for passage of a
constitutional amendment, it is traditionally permitted for the
president to express his approval by signing it).

The issues involved in that whole episode of American History are
complicated.   The protection of slavery argument was prominent
in lots of Southern rhetoric, though not at all prominent in the
rhetoric of the president of the CSA.   The abolitionist argument
was not a large factor in the North as a reason to go to war
(though it became more prominent as the war progressed).   The
USA and CSA constitution were almost identical with regard to
slavery, except that the CSA constitution embodied explicitly
lots of aspects of the USA constitution that had been argued and
decided by the USA Supreme Court.   Interestingly, the full
impact of the Dred Scott decision only applied in the USA and not
the CSA.

Basically, though, the high points of the Southern side of the
slavery dispute was that slavery should be permitted in the
territories, that slaves who escaped to free states should be
returned, and that states should be allowed to decide for
themselves whether to permit slavery.   The third point was not
really in dispute before the war, and certainly did not lead to
secession.   With respect to the other two points, the South
essentially abandoned its position when it seceded.

After secession the South would have no influence at all over the
so-called expansion of slavery into the territories.   Of course
the South anticipated that it might gain some territories of its
own some day, but as it had recently won in the US Supreme Court
on the issue of slavery in the US territories this was a big
concession.

Furthermore, after secession the CSA was a separate nation and
therefore the fugitive slave provision of the USA constitution no
longer applied to its slaves.   Thus the South would have no
claim at all for the return of any slaves who escaped to Northern
free states.

So, despite the large amount of rhetoric in the South over the
protection of slavery, I don't think that this was the trigger of
secession, or at least it was not enough to trigger secession on
its own.   It was mostly a symbolic issue.   As a symbol of the
political split, it was often talked about in place of the other
issues.   But, especially at the time the South seceded, the
South didn't gain ground on the slavery issue through secession
and, in fact, lost significant and recent gains.

I think most Southerners would have found it easier to accept a
war for the abolition of slaves, every Southern state has
ratified the 13th amendment (outlawing slavery of anyone but
criminals), though some not until fairly recently.    But if
abolition were the goal of the war, that could have been a
condition of surrender and everybody could have gone on in peace.
I think that the real thorn in the side of the South was having
to rejoin the Union.   If all the Union were fighting for was the
abolition of slavery, then why re-annex the CSA?   Why not just
demand that they abolish slavery but then leave them to
self-government after that?

It is interesting to me that lately I have seen several posts
from around the world that indicate that the war is taught
outside the USA as "the secession of the anti-federalists",
rather than as a war over slavery.   I think that this is the
more correct view, but that the war cannot be understood without
recognizing the large factor the slavery issue played.

But, of course, teaching the war as a battle over
self-determination doesn't make the victors seem very nice, so
that isn't the way it is taught in US history books.

Shack
-- 
"Only now, at the end, do you understand." -- Emperor Palpatine