1. Prior to the Civil War, there were sectional
threats to secede. The United States has a history of sections of the
country wishing to secede. Sometimes the threat was stronger than at others.
The division was always over sectional interests, that is, the interests of the
north compared to the south’s, or the north and northwest’s, compared to south
and west’s.
2. Slavery was sometimes a factor, but not
always the central issue, in these prior calls for secession. In 1790, New
England states erupted over the Assumption Bill. It was a purely financial
matter: they wanted the Assumption Bill passed in order to gain a huge
financial benefit. They were prepared to secede if they did not get their way. In
1803, the New England states felt aggrieved at the Louisiana Purchase. These
states, being staunchly Federalist, greatly feared that the new land would result
in more Jeffersonian and Republican states, increasing the powerbase of the
pro-slavery South, and eating away at the powerbase of the manufacturing and
anti-slavery New England section. In 1814, New England delegates met at the
Hartford Convention to protest the federal government’s embargo on foreign
trade. Secession was a real option. In the Nullification Crisis of 1832, South
Carolina rejected the Tariff of Abominations, as it reduced British demand for
Carolina cotton. Although many Southern states supported the general desire to
secede, they were not prepared to follow South Carolina at that time. Even
though slavery was present at the time of in the Louisiana Purchase, it can be
persuasively argued that in all of the above instances, including the Louisiana
Purchase one, that the common denominator was the threat to a section’s
powerbase. It will be said that the Missouri Compromise of 1820 averted sure
civil war over the issue of slavery. Most likely. That being said, the question
of secession is not immediately clear here, for passions on both sides were
running high, and it might have been the case of both sides (pro- and
anti-slavery) going at it, rather than the South seceding per se. Nevertheless, the Missouri Compromise does point to slavery
as a central factor behind the possible dissolution of the union.
3. The Union and the Constitution both implied
that the new country was, in a legal sense, pro-slavery. When the colonies
became states, and then a new country, slavery was not deemed to be an issue
that prevented union. More to the point, slave states and non-slaves states
willingly compromised and united in full knowledge of one another’s views on
slavery. Slavery was not a source of division. This union of different states-
pro- and anti-slavery- was legally codified in the Constitution. The
Constitution was a document of many compromises. It does not overtly support slavery (thus appeasing the
North). Yet, it does overtly promote slavery (appeasing the South). Even so,
by allowing for slavery, the Constitution as a legal document codifies slavery
as a national action and belief, and also by its finalizing nature (the
Constitution is “the” word) makes slavery inviolable.
Not
everyone agreed that the Constitution encouraged the national identity of
slavery; even so, it difficult to sustain that conclusion. Some politicians of
the day declared that the Constitution was a bastion of civil rights for all
individuals. One is hard pushed, however, to find any language in the
Constitution suggesting that African Americans had any civil rights. A great
deal was made of the fact that, in the Constitution African Americans were not
called slaves, nor is there mention of slavery. This was hardly something to
draw attention to, given that the Constitution refers to “other persons” or
“persons held to service or labor” who had no civil, or legal, rights. A
compromise was made by North and South to allow three out of five slaves to
count as part of the population. Thereby, the South had an equivalent powerbase
in Congress. Some scholars protest that it is ludicrous to think that the
United States was pro-slavery, for the Northern states were anti-slavery. They
were. However, the matter at hand is not the respective states’ view of
themselves, or of slavery, but of the Constitution’s
‘perception’ of slavery. Other nations noted the Constitution’s “objective” position.
For example, I am not aware that The
British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society ever protests against slavery in
the South merely; yet, the Society does protest against American slavery. If the Constitution was so firmly and clearly for
the civil rights of African Americans (“slaves”), the 13th Amendment
would be superfluous. Indeed, it has been argued that, normally amendments
corrected an imbalance, or lack of a position, in the Constitution, but that
the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments
demonstrated that the Constitution as such was flawed. Others have maintained
the Lincoln defended the Northern cause by use of the Constitution. He did. But
this is not the same as saying that he considered the Constitution an answer to
the pro-slavery group. On the contrary, Lincoln steers wide of the Constitution
as an answer to slavery, and uses the Constitution only to parry the South’s
rebellious actions of seceding from the Union. Indeed, when Lincoln does go to
a historical document for the anti-slavery position, he resorts to the Declaration of Independence.
4. To the North, slavery was not the material, or immediate, cause of the Civil
War; secession and the seizing of federal properties were. At his first
inaugural address (Monday, March 4th, 1861), Lincoln, upon the Constitution’s
authority, endorses the Southern states’ right to practice slavery:
Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern
States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and
their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been
any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to
the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is
found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do
but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that—
I have no purpose, directly
or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where
it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination
to do so.
Those who nominated and
elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar
declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in
the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear
and emphatic resolution which I now read:
Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and
especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic
institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that
balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric
depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any
State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.[1]
The South did not declare war against the North at first. The
South merely seceded, state by state, and seized federal properties. They did
so because they thought anything federal within their states was now state
owned. They reached that conclusion because they had seceded from the federal
government and the union. In Lincoln’s early speeches and correspondence, he
clearly and unequivocally stated that his sole concern was that by use of military
force the Union would thwart the seceding states that had confiscated federal
property, thereby hindering the federal government’s capacity to function. Thus,
Lincoln the lawyer’s first official
proclamation against the South, given on April 15,
1861, focuses upon the usurpation of federal rights by the South:
Whereas the
laws of the United States have been for some time past, and now are opposed, and
the execution thereof obstructed, in the States of South Carolina, Georgia,
Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, by combinations too
powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by
the powers vested in the Marshals by law,
Now therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United
States, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, and the laws,
have thought fit to call
forth, and hereby do call forth, the militia of the several States of the
Union, to the aggregate number of seventy-five thousand, in order to suppress
said combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. The details, for
this object, will be immediately communicated to the State authorities through
the War Department.
I appeal to all loyal citizens to favor, facilitate and aid
this effort to maintain the honor, the integrity, and the existence of our
National Union, and the perpetuity of popular government; and to redress wrongs
already long enough endured.
I deem it proper to say that the first service assigned to the
forces hereby called forth will probably be to re-possess the forts, places,
and property which have been seized from the Union; and in every event, the
utmost care will be observed, consistently with the objects aforesaid, to avoid
any devastation, any destruction of, or interference with, property, or any
disturbance of peaceful citizens in any part of the country.[2]
I mean, his
country has just been plunged into civil war, and Lincoln sounds like a clerk
of the court enumerating charges against a defendant! In like manner, Lincoln writes
another proclamation in April 19, 1861:
Whereas an
insurrection against the Government of the United States has broken out in the
States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana,
and Texas, and the laws of the United States for the collection of the revenue
cannot be effectually executed therein comformably to that provision of the
Constitution which requires duties to be uniform throughout the United States:
And whereas a combination of persons engaged in such
insurrection, have threatened to grant pretended letters of marque to authorize
the bearers thereof to commit assaults on the lives, vessels, and property of
good citizens of the country lawfully engaged in commerce on the high seas, and
in waters of the United States: And whereas an Executive Proclamation has been
already issued, requiring the persons engaged in these disorderly proceedings
to desist therefrom, calling out a militia force for the purpose of repressing
the same, and convening Congress in extraordinary session, to deliberate and
determine thereon:[3]
4. To the South, the material (immediate)
cause of secession was the election of Lincoln. As soon as he was elected-
game over!
5. Initially in the North slavery was not the ideological cause of the Civil War.
In his early comments, Lincoln nowhere states that slavery was the cause of the
War. He does, however, say time and again that the attack on the Union was the
real cause. To the North, in other words, the ideological cause of the War was
the inviolability of the Union.
6. In the South, the right of sovereign states
to practice slavery was the ideological
cause of the War. This meant that to the South states’ rights and slavery
went hand-in-glove. It was not that slavery, all by itself, was the ideological
cause; nor was it states’ rights all by themselves. Rather, it was the
relationship between both. Indeed, in theoretical, or doctrinal, terms states’
rights were the fundamental issue because slavery was upheld by the
Constitution and all states had initially practiced slavery, going back to the founding
of the colonies. So, some states, such as Georgia and Mississippi, outrightly
declared slavery to be the core issue. Yet, the framework for this complaint
was that the Constitutional rights of these states to hold slaves was being
attacked.[4] State’s
rights were crucial in that context; to both states, it was the right of
states, according to the Constitution, to practice slavery. Therefore, to both
these states, slavery was the core issue only because of the right of states to
practice slavery. South Carolina reverses the emphasis of Georgia and
Mississippi. South Carolina refers to many “reasons”, and the first one
mentioned is the violation of the Constitution, and the second the encroachment
upon states’ rights. The South Carolinian declaration then goes into detail
about the history of its sovereign rights. It is only much later in the
document that reference is made to the hostility toward slavery by
non-slaveholding states.[5] In
its declaration of causes, Texas made immediate comment upon its sovereignty,
and then moved on to thoroughly expand upon the right to be a slave-state, and
upon white supremacy.[6] Virginia
mentions the word ‘slave’ but once, “slaveholding”, and prefaces it with a
comment asserting their rights within the Constitution, which were now being
oppressed by the “Federal Government”.[7]
7. It is later that the North moves to saying
that slavery is the ideological cause of the War. Scholars note the from
the Emancipation Proclamation onward, Lincoln’s rhetoric changes drastically,
choosing to target the time-honored concepts of freedom, liberty, and justice; he
moves away from his legalistic, Unionistic, and Constitutional emphases, to
focus upon the freedom of slaves within the states attacking the Union. Here we
see Lincoln’s heart transformed, moving from a concerned legal mind to a broken,
enraged, human being.
8. Lincoln was always believer in white
supremacy. It is commonly assumed that because Lincoln freed the slaves
that he was against the idea of white supremacy. Indeed, many in Lincoln’s day
accused him of saying that he believed in the equality of the races. In his
debates with Douglas, he openly rejected this critique, asserting unequivocally
the supremacy of the white race. Being the man that he was, Lincoln bent over
backwards to make it clear that he did NOT believe in the equality of the
races. In a presidential campaign speech, Lincoln avowed:
While I was at
the hotel to-day an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was
really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white
people. [Great laughter.] While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion
to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would
occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say
then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way
the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]---that
I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor
of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I
will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the
white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living
together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot
so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior
and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior
position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive
that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be
denied everything. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman
for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. [Cheers and laughter.] My
understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year,
and I certainly never have had a black woman for either a slave or a wife. So
it seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves
or wives of negroes. I will add to this that I have never seen to my knowledge
a man, woman or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social
and political, between negroes and white men.[8] [parentheses
are not mine]
Many
such comments exist that come from Lincoln’s mouth. In reality, the equality of
the races was very much a minority position in the United States at that time,
including within the North. The inequality of the races was assumed by the
Constitution, sealed by the Supreme Court, and practiced by succeeding
executive offices. Lincoln did not believe that whites and blacks could, or
should, mix, for the latter were inferior to the former- a position identical
in nature to Jefferson’s. Some scholars have said this was an aberration, an
immature Lincoln, who later grew up to become the mature, “modern” leader we
know, the Lincoln of the Gettysburg Address. Certainly, the Address draws upon
Jefferson’s Declaration and its
comment saying that all men were created equal. Yet, to both Jefferson and
Lincoln, this equality had only two facets: that because God created all, all
people are equally valid before God, who is no respecter of persons; secondly, since
we are all God’s creation, and equally so, we all equally have a right to exist
in harmony alongside one another, without being enslaved by one another. None
of this suggested for a moment that the races were racially equivalent! We
should add to this that, Lincoln’s Reconstruction policy was the Ten Percent Plan:
if 10% of a Confederate state swore allegiance to the Union and to its policies
on slavery, that state could return to the Union. It is highly doubtful that
this plan was the output of a mind bent on asserting equality of the races!
Also, if racial equality was the point of the War, why did we need three Amendments
to eventually secure this right (13th, 14th, 15th)?
[1] Abraham Lincoln, “First Inaugural
Address of Abraham Lincoln”, The Avalon
Project, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lincoln1.asp,
accessed 3/7/18.
[2] Abraham Lincoln, “Collected
Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 4,” Collected
Works of Abraham Lincoln, https://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lincoln4/1:527.1?rgn=div2;view=fulltext,
accessed 3/7/18.
[3] Abraham Lincoln, “Collected
Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 4,” Collected
Works of Abraham Lincoln, https://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lincoln4/1:545.1?rgn=div2;view=fulltext,
accessed 3/7/18.
[4] “Primary Source. The Declaration
of Causes of Seceding. Georgia”, Civil
War Trust, https://www.civilwar.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states,
accessed 3/7/2018; “Primary Source. The Declaration of Causes of Seceding. Mississippi”,
Civil War Trust, https://www.civilwar.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states#Mississippi,
accessed 3/7/2018.
[5] “Primary Source. The Declaration
of Causes of Seceding. South Carolina”, Civil
War Trust, https://www.civilwar.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states,
accessed 3/7/2018.
[6] “Primary Source. The Declaration
of Causes of Seceding. Texas”, Civil War
Trust, https://www.civilwar.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states,
accessed 3/7/2018.
[7] “Primary Source. The Declaration
of Causes of Seceding. Virginia”, Civil
War Trust, https://www.civilwar.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states,
accessed 3/7/2018.
[8] Abraham Lincoln, “The
Lincoln-Douglas Debates 4th Debate Part 1. September 18, 1858,” TeachingAmericaHistory, http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/the-lincoln-douglas-debates-4th-debate-part-i/,
accessed 3/7/2018.
No comments:
Post a Comment