3 ms·

The injustices being, primarily, that they were no longer allowed to engage in chattel slavery.

bandyaboot 3y ago
What Texas deemed “odious unconstitutional restrictions”.
qwytw 3y ago
> that they were no longer That they might no longer be allowed to engage in chattel slavery at some indeterminate point in the future. Outright abolition was still a fringe policy at the beginning of the war.
- eesmith 3y ago
  My reading of South Carolina's "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union" says they believed otherwise. They seemed to regard abolition as no longer a fringe policy but one which, in the North, was effectively mainstream, and were certain that after Lincoln's inauguration the North would wage a war to exterminate slavery. > 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 [emphasis in the original] 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 "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. ... > On the 4th day of 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 Texans seemed to have similar viewpoints that the abolition of slavery was not a fringe policy, and would be carried out during the next administration: > By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress, and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments. ... > And, finally, by the combined sectional vote of the seventeen non-slave-holding States, they have elected as president and vice-president of the whole confederacy two men whose chief claims to such high positions are their approval of these long continued wrongs, and their pledges to continue them to the final consummation of these schemes for the ruin of the slave-holding States. (I trust that "within the next administration" isn't what you mean by "indeterminate".)
  - qwytw 3y ago
    Yes, you're definitely right about what they said, I'm not sure they really believed it ,though. In the north and even in the Republican party itself immediate abolition without compensation was still certainly a 'fringe' view. However the new administration was pretty explicit about not allowing new slave states to join in the future while simultaneously allowing accept new free states. Slave states would've been outvoted in Congress, which would've probably led to eventual abolition. However it would've been a slow and gradual process with possible compensation and much closer to a 'death by a thousand cuts' (anything else would've just triggered a secession and most northern politicians certainly preferred allowing the Southern states to maintain slavery for the foreseable future). So I certainly doubt most reasonable people in the South expected that slavery would be abolished 'within the next administration,' but they still must have seen the writing on the wall and judged that they'll never be in a stronger position than they were at that time. When they actually decided to secede, it made sense to use the strongest/most outlandish language possible in their propaganda (since of course, there were still probably some people who might have believed it)
    - eesmith 3y ago
      Are you really arguing that they didn't believe the position they presented in their declarations of succession? > immediate abolition without compensation Whoa there. Please do not shift your argument. Earlier you wrote "indeterminate point" not "immediate abolition" and you wrote "outright abolition", not a specific type of abolition. My reading of the declarations was they thought would be during the Lincoln administration, not "immediate" upon his inauguration, but also not "indeterminate". > So I certainly doubt most reasonable people in the South Do you have supporting evidence for your belief? I mean, these people elected the leaders of the state, so why do you think "most" people disagreed?
      - qwytw 3y ago
        >Are you really arguing that they didn't believe the position they presented in their declarations of succession? Depends on how do you define 'believe'. Politicians back then (just like now) certainly often said things they didn't believe in when doing so was politically advantageous. I certainly believe that they thought that the new administration was probably the biggest threat to slavery in the last 50 years or so and its actions were likely to lead to eventual abolition. Does not change the fact that immediate abolition was politically infeasible (which is something Lincoln himself reiterated during his inaugural address and I have to reiterate that while opposed to slavery Lincoln himself was not an abolitionist and did not run on abolitionist ticket). > Whoa there. Please do not shift your argument. Am I? Sorry, my comment might not have been clear, I certainly did not want to imply that abolition was likely at any point during the Lincoln administration (at least before the next election). > Do you have supporting evidence for your belief? I mean, these people elected the leaders of the state, so why do you think "most" people disagreed? I'll have to shift my argument in this case and say "most rational people". Also if we look at all of the quotes you posted: - slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. - that the South shall be excluded from the common territory - war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States (unless you believe they mean a literal war) - and their pledges to continue them to the final consummation of these schemes for the ruin of the slave-holding States. none of these seem to imply that their authors believed that abolition was imminent (in the next 4 years or so): > Do you have supporting evidence for your belief Anyone who vaguely understood the political situation in 1860 would have know that (peaceful) abolition during the next 4 years was unfeasible. > so why do you think "most" people disagreed? Disagreed with what exactly?

What Texas deemed “odious unconstitutional restrictions”.

> that they were no longer That they might no longer be allowed to engage in chattel slavery at some indeterminate point in the future. Outright abolition was still a fringe policy at the beginning of the war.

eesmith 3y ago
My reading of South Carolina's "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union" says they believed otherwise. They seemed to regard abolition as no longer a fringe policy but one which, in the North, was effectively mainstream, and were certain that after Lincoln's inauguration the North would wage a war to exterminate slavery. > 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 [emphasis in the original] 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 "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. ... > On the 4th day of 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 Texans seemed to have similar viewpoints that the abolition of slavery was not a fringe policy, and would be carried out during the next administration: > By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress, and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments. ... > And, finally, by the combined sectional vote of the seventeen non-slave-holding States, they have elected as president and vice-president of the whole confederacy two men whose chief claims to such high positions are their approval of these long continued wrongs, and their pledges to continue them to the final consummation of these schemes for the ruin of the slave-holding States. (I trust that "within the next administration" isn't what you mean by "indeterminate".)
- qwytw 3y ago
  Yes, you're definitely right about what they said, I'm not sure they really believed it ,though. In the north and even in the Republican party itself immediate abolition without compensation was still certainly a 'fringe' view. However the new administration was pretty explicit about not allowing new slave states to join in the future while simultaneously allowing accept new free states. Slave states would've been outvoted in Congress, which would've probably led to eventual abolition. However it would've been a slow and gradual process with possible compensation and much closer to a 'death by a thousand cuts' (anything else would've just triggered a secession and most northern politicians certainly preferred allowing the Southern states to maintain slavery for the foreseable future). So I certainly doubt most reasonable people in the South expected that slavery would be abolished 'within the next administration,' but they still must have seen the writing on the wall and judged that they'll never be in a stronger position than they were at that time. When they actually decided to secede, it made sense to use the strongest/most outlandish language possible in their propaganda (since of course, there were still probably some people who might have believed it)
  - eesmith 3y ago
    Are you really arguing that they didn't believe the position they presented in their declarations of succession? > immediate abolition without compensation Whoa there. Please do not shift your argument. Earlier you wrote "indeterminate point" not "immediate abolition" and you wrote "outright abolition", not a specific type of abolition. My reading of the declarations was they thought would be during the Lincoln administration, not "immediate" upon his inauguration, but also not "indeterminate". > So I certainly doubt most reasonable people in the South Do you have supporting evidence for your belief? I mean, these people elected the leaders of the state, so why do you think "most" people disagreed?
    - qwytw 3y ago
      >Are you really arguing that they didn't believe the position they presented in their declarations of succession? Depends on how do you define 'believe'. Politicians back then (just like now) certainly often said things they didn't believe in when doing so was politically advantageous. I certainly believe that they thought that the new administration was probably the biggest threat to slavery in the last 50 years or so and its actions were likely to lead to eventual abolition. Does not change the fact that immediate abolition was politically infeasible (which is something Lincoln himself reiterated during his inaugural address and I have to reiterate that while opposed to slavery Lincoln himself was not an abolitionist and did not run on abolitionist ticket). > Whoa there. Please do not shift your argument. Am I? Sorry, my comment might not have been clear, I certainly did not want to imply that abolition was likely at any point during the Lincoln administration (at least before the next election). > Do you have supporting evidence for your belief? I mean, these people elected the leaders of the state, so why do you think "most" people disagreed? I'll have to shift my argument in this case and say "most rational people". Also if we look at all of the quotes you posted: - slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. - that the South shall be excluded from the common territory - war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States (unless you believe they mean a literal war) - and their pledges to continue them to the final consummation of these schemes for the ruin of the slave-holding States. none of these seem to imply that their authors believed that abolition was imminent (in the next 4 years or so): > Do you have supporting evidence for your belief Anyone who vaguely understood the political situation in 1860 would have know that (peaceful) abolition during the next 4 years was unfeasible. > so why do you think "most" people disagreed? Disagreed with what exactly?