You are siting alot of of state actions which are irrelevant to this discussion. The other acts are limiting the spread of slavery and do not concern where it already exists. This was designed to destroy the balance of power that existed in the Senate and in turn give the north the ability to pass acts like the Morrill Tariff. These two caught me by surprise. I have read in many places that the ban on the importation of slaves by the Confederate Congress was more comprehensive than any previous anti-slave legislation. I have also read that the slave markets in Baltimore were active through the war. Score one for you. It's not just my opinion, but that of many of the founding fathers. It was Hamilton that said "The states are nations." If secession weren't legal Thomas Jefferson sure didn't know it. The following quote is from a book I have of his letters. Letter to Joseph Priestley, Jan. 29, 1804; Ford, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 8:295.
Well, I can see you have a serious ideological attachment to this notion. All I can say is that if you ask 1000 knowledgeable people, "What was the root cause of the split between north and south?", about 950 would say slavery and maybe 1 would say Hamiltonian perversions of the constitution and northern lust for West Virginia. I can accept what you argue about the politics of the secession, but not regarding this notion that slavery had nothing to do with any of this. I repeat a simple question: Why do you find it neccessary to deny that disagreement over slavery was always the fundamental issue, the defining issue, and the principal disuniting factor that resulted in secession and war?
You had asked for legislation supporting my statement that northerners were trying to pass legislation to abolish slavery. These were all examples of attempts to do so before the civil war. The confederacy did not exist and this was the United States gradually ridding itself of slavery. Everybody knew the southern states would be the last to let go, but most did not foresee a civil war. They foresaw more legislation eventually leading to a national referendum. Trade with the British and French was vital to the Confederacy so they had to adopt the very strengent anti-slavery politices of their trading partners. They had no further need to import slaves anyway, they were self sufficient in reproduction of healthier, English-speaking slaves. No doubt there was always a flourishing black market in the border states, but no legal trade. You might enjoy reading "Twelve Years a Slave" by Solomon Northup some day. He was a free negro and a literate businessman in Pennsylvania who was abducted in Baltimore and sold into slavery on the Red River in Louisiana for 12 years until he managed to get word out to his family and obtain his legal release from slavery. It's a great book, recently republished by LSU Press. I understand, but their personal opinions are not the Constitution and they often disagreed with each other, especially Hamilton and Jefferson.
Red, the northern states did not abolish slavery, by and large, for moral reasons, but because slavery did not jive with a manufacturing economy. It was much cheaper to pay an immigrant worker next to nothing and not have to worry about their health and welfare. The abolishment of slavery in the large states did not result in emancipation. Most slaves ended up being shipped down south. But, they are among the folks who framed the Constitution. Secession was a recognized right by most lawmakers and constitutional scholars in the early 19th century. This is why there was no threat of military action when the northern states threatened secession in 1814. The legality of secession was even taught at West Point. It became increasingly important for the northern economy to generate revenue by unfairly taxing the southern states. By the time of the Civil War (a term I actually hate) the north could not afford to allow secession, despite its legality. I have a quote from Lincoln that says such directly. When I get home I will look it up and post it with its source. I believe it was from one of the Horace Greeley letters.
I think it was both, El Stupendo Fanatico. The huge abolitionist movement in the north was certainly moralist. Also, people forget that the big midwestern US states were also an agricultural area, not a manufacturing center. It was not manufacturing that kept slavery out of Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, etc.
Red, I do not hold that slavery had nothing to do with resultant secession. I just hold that the fact that slavery was an issue at all was because of the difference of opinion in what the scope of government should be. The Southern Statesmen had MANY issues with the direction the Union was taking. Slavery as a tipping point, I can see. I honestly feel the Root issue was goes back to the Hamiltonian\Jeffersonian positions concerning the degree of centralization of power. Slavery is a non issue if there isn't a major breach in agreement over how much power does the central government wield. Both sides fought voraciously to obtain the upper hand. When the South lost that battle, secession was inevitable. I know it is a fine line that I hold. I think, however, it is an important one. It is too easy to blame the war on a villainous South trying to protect its rights to hold slaves. I will not attribute pure and altruistic motives to the North when their objectives were much greater than the sole issue of slavery.
"Slavery was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." -- Jefferson Davis "I do not wish to be misunderstood upon this subject of slavery in this country. I suppose it may long exist, and perhaps the best way for it to come to an end peaceably is for it to exist for a length of time. But I say that the spread and strengthening and perpetuation of it is an entirely different proposition. There we should in every way resist it as a wrong, treating it as a wrong, with the fixed idea that it must and will come to an end." -- Abraham Lincoln
Quote Tag? Robert E. Lee, that great promoter of slavery and discreditor of States rights: Since my interview with you on the 18th I have felt that I ought not longer retain my commission in the Army . . . It would have been presented at once, but for the struggle it has cost me to separate myself from a service to which I have devoted all the best years of my life, and all the ability I possessed . . . I shall carry with me to the grave the most grateful recollections of your kind consideration and your name and fame will always be dear to me. Save for defense of my native state, I never desire again to draw my sword. In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country.
Many years ago, I was in hs. At that time, we were taught that the balance of power was the real issue. If I remember correctly, there were two plans being presented. I think it was the Virginia plan and some other plan (I think it was the New Jersey plan) One plan called for one vote for every three slaves. The other was one vote for every five slaves. Of course, the south wanted one for three because they knew they could control the vote of the slaves. For whatever reasons, the shot on Fr. Sumter just started the actual war. Supposedly, Lincoln brought the moral issue of slavery later in the war. The south had the better leaders, the better fighting men, and what they considered a "cause." Lincoln brought out the slavery issue as a moral reason for the north to continue fighting. Had the south had the resources that the north had, things may have ended differently. "Cotton" sandwiches are very dry. When I was in D.C., I went to the Smithsonian. In a glass display, they had a journal of a northern soldier. I read where he complained that they had had to kill a mule to feed the men that night. Then he added, " But I guess that ain't so bad. I hear the rebs across the river are eating rats."