This morning I am going to quote from South Carolina’s Declaration of Causes of Secession which they issued on December 20, 1860, more than three months before Abraham Lincoln took the oath of office and was inaugurated as our 16th president. You can of course correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the best way to figure out why we had a Civil War and what it was about is to read what South Carolinians said about their reasons for seceding from the Union. If, for example, their qualm was unrelated to slavery, that would be newsworthy. As you’ll see, however, pretty much the entirety of their complaint had to do with slavery. They were really peeved, for example, that slaves were escaping from their territory and Northern States were refusing to send them back. They were greatly irritated that blacks had been granted citizenship in some Northern states. But, most of all, they were convinced that the election of Lincoln would lead to slavery’s exclusion from the new territories.
The ends for which this Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be “to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”
These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. 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 assumed 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 the 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.
For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the Common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the Common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that Slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
This sectional combination for the subversion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons, who, by the Supreme Law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its peace and safety.
On the 4th March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced, that the South shall be excluded from the common Territory; that the Judicial Tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.
The Guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.
Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error, with the sanctions of a more erroneous religious belief.
We, therefore, the people of South Carolina, by our delegates, in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.
This was not a war of Northern aggression. It was a war of choice, and the choice was made first and foremost by South Carolinians who didn’t even wait for Lincoln to take office to announce their secession. Then they fired the first shots in Charleston harbor.
I think the document above is unambiguous about why they made those decisions.
[Cross-posted at Progress Pond]
The South seceded, and fought the war, to preserve slavery.
Lincoln was explicit during the early years of the war that he fought back not for slavery but to preserve the union. A lot of modern confederates use those quotes to argue that the war wasn’t about slavery, but that gets it backwards. The people who started the war, in every confederate state, were very explicitly doing so to preserve slavery. Read the secession statements. Read the speeches of the leading confederate politicians. Read the founding CSA documents, in which the CSA states were free to do anything they wanted EXCEPT, very explicitly, end slavery – in fact it’s clear that the main purpose of even having a confederation was just to preserve slavery (otherwise it was a return to the way the US was before the Constitution, with each state having its own currency, etc).
The confederate flags were basically forgotten after the civil war until the civil rights movement when the battle flag was resurrected by those in the south who were against the federal laws prohibiting lynching, segregation, and vote blocking. In other words, that flag has been used only by those promoting white supremacy. Heritage? Yes, the heritage of racial hatred.
Really nails it down. The Southern “Cause” was about keeping other human beings enslaved. Not “defending their homes”. That was B.S. given out to the poor Southern whites who would never have enough money to buy a slave so that they would fight and die to preserve an economic order that worked to their detriment! They had to compete with workers who weren’t paid anything! The black slaves were fed and housed, but with food raised and cabins built by other unpaid slaves. The slave owners only real expense was for the slave catchers and such that kept the populace under control. Those poor southern whites would have been MUCH better off working together with blacks in a trade union … and still would be! But they are still hoodwinked into opposing harmony with black people and opposing unions to their own economic detriment.
Poor Southern whites were also defending slavery. It’s true that most of them couldn’t afford one, but that wasn’t the point. Slavery was a deeply embedded part of their society, and it gave even the poorest whites a class of people they could think of as inferior. The North threatened white privilege, and Dylann Roof is but one of many, many current examples of how violent the defense of white privilege can still be.
Yes. They were hoodwinked into defending a system that kept them down as permanent losers with the only consolation that they were not on the very bottom rung.
A lot of those poor Southern whites were conscripted in 1863 and 1864, states sent out bounty hunters for draft-dodgers. By 1863, the planters were figuring out how to send other recruits in place of their offspring.
All of my ancestors in the Civil War but one were conscripted. That one was out by 1862 and never went back but was the most patriotic Confederate veteran ever. The brother of my great grandfather is reported to have hidden out in the Pee Dee swamps to avoid conscription. Another tale is that he wasn’t conscripted, but he was hiding out because a local rich guy wanted to send him in place of his son.
It’s much to late to know motives of poor whites in the Civil War. And after the war, they never could be honest about what they actually thought; night riders could be touchy about that sort of honesty.
But even on that point, the South had a completely different view:
James Henry Hammond, “Cotton Is King”
Hammond was also a rapist:
He also engaged in sexual activity with men.
Early in the US history of slavery, there was some truth to the claim that black slaves were treated better than white indentured servants.
The happy Negro theory. How convenient.
Of course it was about slavery, as reflected through many conflicts that arose because the South was using effectively free labor (and not in the original Republican “free land, free labor, free money” sense). Edmund Ruffin would not have come down from the Northern Neck of Virginia to Charleston to fire the first shot if it had not been about defending slavery.
Yes, yes, yes. The Southern meadow-pie machines are humming this morning trotting out the same old 150-year-old evasions. And completely ignoring the fourth flag of the Confederacy, the one that flew proudly at Appamattox and the mustering out at Bennett Place – a plain white sheet.
I am going to state this once more…yes, it is a good thing to demonize the Confederate flag as much as possible if you believe in…if you believe in what I like to call “human ecology.” If you believe that the various races have basically the same set of talents and the same percentages of people who hold more or less of those talents. To give every human being his or her chance to excel would seem to be a no-brainer for a society that itself wants to excel.
Except…the no-brainers appear to be running the society.
If anyone thinks that “equality” is going to be in any way substantially impacted by not flying the Confederate flag on the South Carolina Capital grounds, I’ve got a redesigned Coca Cola can for them, the contents of which will taste way better than the “old” Coke. They can drink it on the bridge I’m gonna sell them, too.
It’s just more branding, Booman. Change the shell but keep the contents, no matter how execrable those contents may be.
The “new” South Carolina?
Not yet, Booman.
Not yet.
Bet on it.
But don’t buy it!!!!
Don’t buy the hype.
Please.
Slavery still exists; it’s just been transferred to yet another new can.
North and south.
Bet on that as well.
AG
Sigh.
No one in their right goddamned mind thinks that dragging that flag down and consigning it to the dustbin of history is going to magically fix things,
BUT. IT. IS. A. START.
Making their symbols toxic is a step on the way to making their ideas toxic.
Freaking WALMART has decided to stop selling the traitor’s banner!
(for how long until they quietly re-instate it is another question) but trust me, this is a goddamn sea change.
A “start,” eh?
Tell that to the welfare neighborhoods of the U.S.
The poverty-wage neighborhoods.
The terrible school neighborhoods.
The drug neighborhoods.
The “My child isn’t safe on the streets” neighborhoods.
The people in those neighborhoods really don’t give a rat’s ass about the Confederate flag or the morons who worship it.
Will not flying that flag on the South Carolina Capitol grounds or not selling it at Walmart give their children a chance at a better education? Drug free/crime free streets? Of course not. The people who run things here…the corporatists…need cheap labor. It’s as simple as that. They also need to look like they are the workers’ friends. Hence this whole Confederate flag mollygobble. But actually take the trillions and trillions of dollars spent in Blood For (Cheap) Oil and instead use them to educate those workers and make their lives better? Hell no!!! An educated worker is a dangerous worker…dangerous because no longer cheap if for no other reason.
You write:
My turn to sigh.
Do you really think that most of the real movers and shakers of this country believe that people of color are in any way, shape or form “inferior” to people of European ascent? Again…hell no!!! They are just a conveniently (skin)-marked cheap labor force and have been so since slavery days. It’s hard to keep slave labor when the slaves look just like the masters. It gets so confusing!!!
Those “symbols” of which you speak are just brands for the ignorant. Change the brand…the symbol…and sell the same poison until people begin to get wise, then change it again.
That’s what is happening now.
Bet on it.
Do something truly substantive?
A third time:
And a fourth:
What’s that you say?
Sigh…
Lissen up, desert rat.
If a pol is in a big-time national position…and I mean really big-time, like the Clintons and the Bushes…their financial support is coming from the very people who have a vested interest in keeping cheap labor cheap.
Bet on it.
Sigh…
AG
Of course not. Everyone knows the way to magically fix things is to type WTFU at strangers on the internet.
You are no stranger.
WTFU.
AG
The flag is just a start. I have never understood the South’s Civil War reenactments. Battle field reenactments where they honor their defeat of the north in a battle they won in a war they lost. That has always been a head scratcher wrinkle between the eyebrows thing for me. No where else in the world are there loser war reenactments. Imagine if Mexican Americans had an Alamo reenactment where they storm the Alamo and kill Davy Crockett.
Your head scratcher gave me chuckle. Imagine all those pro-Vietnam War Americans holding Battle of Hue reenactments.
It’s why all the symbols of loser aggressors (ie. Nazi’s) have to be crushed as well.
Brad Warthen: Today finally IS a great day
Brad Warthen is a journalist who covers the South Carolina Legislature. He thinks that a miraculous change of direction has occurred, one unpredicted by past behavior.
The legislative situation is a matter of getting a vote that the legislature will consider authority for the governor to take down (er “move” the flag). Other states move them to historical museums. It either takes a 50% vote to repeal the law requiring a 2/3 vote or it takes a 2/3 vote to remove the flag. I am assuming (but I might be wrong) that all Democratic legislators will vote to remove the flag one way or another. If the 50% rule applies, that requires 6 Republican Senators plus Democrats and 17 Republican legilators plus Democrats.
The talk yesterday was of putting the measure in the state budget bill, which is close to being complete (June 30 is the annual deadline for a July 1-June 30 fiscal year) in this extended session. The Speaker of the House is behind the legislation; no word about the Speaker Pro Tem of the Senate.
It is possible to pass the legislation quickly or to stall until the mood of unity passes. Warthen thinks that this time it will get done.
SC December 1860:
Was that a rational understanding of Lincoln in real time? If so, it tends to be minimized in the history that has been taught and passed down to us.
But from that, was this a rational conjecture:
Some then and now would wish that it were so. However, the USG is incredibly slow to act to correct injustice and inequality. The later tolerance of and refusal to act against Jim Crow laws for almost a century is evidence that the conjecture, at least in the near future beginning in 1860, was Southern paranoia. A continuing feature of Southern heritage/culture because that region of the country has always refused to do the right thing all on its own, and engages in all sorts of horrible acts to support its refusal.
Yes, Lincoln made his position on slavery clear. He was opposed to further extension of slavery, but he would not interfere with it where it already existed.
Which was not actually a neutral position, though, because it was based on the understanding that slavery couldn’t survive unless it expanded. If slavery was confined to the states where it already existed, then pretty soon the slave states would be outnumbered by free states, and eventually they’d be able to pass a constitutional amendment banning slavery.
The fifteen slaveholding states would still be able to block a constitutional amendment today. I think what the slaveholding states were more afraid of would be a federal government that eliminated the fugitive slave laws. It takes a lot of heavy-handed government oppression to maintain something as nasty as chattel slavery.
Two of the eleven slave-holding confederate states, FL and VA, might break differently today. Among the four slave-holding non-confederate states, DE, KY, MD and MO, they tend to break 50/50. Then there’s WV.
I haven’t heard about the constitutional amendment rationale for Lincoln’s position on not extending slavery (though it’s possible he once may have offered it). He did note that by preventing its spread to the new territories and confining it to an increasingly small and isolated portion of the union, the practice would eventually die out, wither on the vine as I believe he once put it.
But he was always more confident in standing for the anti-extension principle than he was in foreseeing how or when slavery would end.
Well, I didn’t mean to attribute that to Lincoln. I’m not even sure if I could provide a source, so I’m not going to put too much weight on it. I just wanted to make the more general observation that both sides of the debate tended to agree that slavery couldn’t survive unless it expanded. So to a southerner, saying one was against the extension of slavery was tantamount to calling for abolition.
I heard/read the same thing. That it was dying in the slave states for multiple reasons including over crowding, poor crop rotation, and slaves being freed. That’s why they needed slavery always expanding to create space so it didn’t burn out in the slave states
“Was that a rational understanding of Lincoln in real time? ” If I recall the Lincoln-Douglass debates from High school correctly, and I’m not sure I do because it was a small unit junior year American history, then yes, it was a rational understanding. Lincoln opposed slavery, at least in the abstract.
Regarding the Republican party taking control of the government, the slave holders did have reason to fear. Although Lincoln was not radical, there was a large faction of the Republican Party that was militantly anti-slavery. I don’t think it was in control of the Legislature but it was frothing for battle, not that I blame them. The slave-holders had reason to fear and if they were committed to going to the mattresses, it may have been rational to strike first. Rather like Hitler launching his Eastern front.
I think Lincoln understood the injustices of slavery far more than just in the abstract. He remarked how he had always been “naturally opposed” to slavery from an early age, probably going back to childhood and the harsh treatment from Thomas Lincoln. He had personally witnessed the cruelty of slavery first-hand during his travels to N.O. in early adulthood.
As a later lawyer and ambitious politician however, and owing to his cautious temperament, he was firmly in the antislavery camp while declining to go further and embrace the abolitionists’ approach.
“he was firmly in the antislavery camp while declining to go further and embrace the abolitionists’ approach. “
Exactly what I was trying to say. You said it perfectly.
a few years back read a 19th century Lincoln book online [it was anti Lincoln] arguing that his grandmother, Lucy Hanks, was a slave. looks at lots of deed and wills from when his grandmother, great grandmother was in VA unlike the narrowly posed “was Nancy Hanks illegitimate” question that I’ve seen, though I’ve done little research on it.
The Lincoln-Douglas debates are a good example of the minimization that Marie mentioned in her initial comment. The debates are famous, of course, but how many people know that they were entirely and completely about slavery? I didn’t until I started reading a lot of US history a few years ago. And then I found that slavery was the dominant issue even between northerners like Lincoln and Douglas, let alone between the North and the South.
And of course the war had already started in Kansas anyway. Another example–I had heard about Bleeding Kansas, but I didn’t realize how utterly simple the conflict was. One side was fighting to bring slavery to Kansas, and the other side was fighting to keep it out.
Just a note. At the Missouri Welcome Center (on I-44?) there is a sign that says “Where The Civil War Started”. Inside they talk about the unofficial fighting which I believe was cross-border with Kansas.
I always wanted to visit Lawrence and see what historical stuff they had. Destruction as bad as Atlanta. Maybe worse, because it was deliberate terrorism and Atlanta was at least strategic.
And that document isn’t even the half of it. The Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader is a useful compendium.
Of course, basically the entire history of the United States up to 1860 proves that the war was about slavery. To try to argue that it wasn’t about slavery, you basically have to ignore the entire historical record.
Who cares what the Civil War was ‘about?’
Even if WWII had been ‘about’ marshmallows and freedom, that doesn’t make the Holocaust any worse, or the swastika any less execrable. If every traitor fighting for the CSA had a pure heart and a noble soul, they were still fighting for mass rape, torture, and child murder, and they were still traitorous genocidal terrorists.
It’s not a good thing that this wasn’t a war of Northern aggression. I WISH it had been. I’d be prouder to be an American if it had been.
Not if you regard slavery a moral atrocity.
“Most are smarter than me.”
An honest man!
I just can’t understand how the conversation disintegrates. It starts off about what was the cause of the Civil War, and then we get some rants about whether removing the confederate Northern army banner will solve our problems. I don’t recall anyone saying it would. The secession was about maintaining slavery. The war started out about maintaining the Union, but it was apparent that slavery had to go. The flag represents evil, and should go, whether or not anything else follows from it.
Dylann Roof is a more accurate personification of the Republican id than Donald Trump ever will be. Just sayin’.
It seems the best we can hope for is shaming these unreconstructed traitors and white supremacists back into silence; let’s get the most mileage out of this while we can. They are holding us all back.
OT:Langston Hughes Warned Us About Trolls Like Don Lemon
It has come to the point that the mere presence of Don Lemon warrants me to take a deep breath and possibly a shot of some dark liquor.
On one hand, it is perplexing how off-the-wall, insensitive and lackadaisical Lemon has become. But on the other hand, Langston Hughes forewarned us of the arrival of someone like him in “The Fun of Being Black,” an essay published in 1958’s ” The Langston Hughes Reader.” In the acerbically funny piece, the Harlem-based scribe pokes fun of the idea that gabbing blacks (and whites) thrive on fighting racism in America at the time.
So I do not know why some folks (me included) are always lamenting the particular fact that we have a race conflict in America–because a great many people get a great deal of fun out of our contemporary white-Negro battles, not to speak of the jobs that are held as a result.
Hughes sarcastic description of “crusaders” who “off the public platform” were “some of the happiest-looking people you could ever hope to meet” actually applies today. Now we call that person a “troll.”
For those of you who don’t know, a troll is someone who raises controversial, discredited or irrelevant arguments for the sole purpose of making people angry, creating confusion, fueling discord and getting attention. Trolls aren’t concerned with engaging in an honest debate. They just want a strong emotional reaction. They satisfy their thirst by manipulating passion points.
Don Lemon is a troll.
http://www.colorlines.com/articles/langston-hughes-warned-us-about-trolls-don-lemon
A tweet. Meowwwwwwwwwwww
Fox Business
Coulter: @nikkihaley is an immigrant and doesn’t understand American history.
Coulter is a rightwing demagogue that doesn’t understand the definition of immigrant.