And, these were the border states who knew no matter how the war ended, they’d probably lose their slaves.
I never really understood what the South thought they could gain from secession. Their main complaint was the Northern states were not allowing slave owners to rampage throughout the North and seize what were suppose to be runaway slaves. Did the South think that being an independent country would make the North less reluctant to return runaway slaves? Did the South think that after starting a war, and defeating the North, the North would be more compliant on this issue? Hey, you want us to return runaway slaves? We’ll do that after we finish arming them and giving them military training!
Slavery was dying, and the South could see that, but tried to pretend it wasn’t happening. Once the railroads and improved infrastructure came through the South, it would be almost to prevent slaves from escaping over a long and almost impossible to defend border. Maybe that’s why one of the few changes in the Confederate constitution banned their government from making any transportation improvement projects.
It’s like those who want the U.S. to return back to the halcyon days of the 1950s when men were men, women were women, and minorities knew their place.
For an examination of the Southern attitudes as they set to launch a new country, I’d suggest Look Away!: A History of the Confederate States of Americaby William C. Davis. It’s a modern look at their insanity that will displease those who still romanticize the South. “I have never read such a scornfull and dark book of the people of the South and the Confederacy in my life.” says a one-star comment. The opening section on the writing of their new Constitution is very dark indeed. Later he skips among a number of individual issues with less success, except for specialists. But he uses endless quotes from their own writings to show exactly who they were and why they needed a war.
Interesting essay. He missed the biggest point on States Rights. The South wanted States Rights when it came to allowing slavery. However, they strenuously objected to States Rights when it came to opposing slavery. Should a state have the right to ban slaves and prevent people from entering with slaves? No! Should a state have a right to prevent outsiders from coming in and dragging off people into chattel slavery without due process? No!. Should a state be allow its citizens to seize free people and enslave them, and when caught, refuse to allow them to be procecuted for their crimes because that would mean a colored man would have to testify against a white man? Of course. That’s the state’s right!
I think one thing never really hit upon with the Confederacy is that many of the biggest backers were also the same group who bought into the idea of The Golden Circle. Imagine a giant circle with Havana as its center. The radius of the Golden Circle stretches all the way to Richmond and maybe up to Washington DC. It includes all of the deep south, Mexico, and the Caribbean.
The Golden Circle would be a slave holding empire where the cream of southern society would rule over lessor people. Expanding the institution of slavery wasn’t just something to bring to the newly opened West. Between the Mexican-American war and the Civil War, there were a whole flock of Southern adventurers who spent their time filibustering. Filibustering was invading a country with a weak government with a small private army and taking it over with the purpose of turning it into a personal colony. The most famous of these was William Walker who actually ruled Nicaragua for a few years before being tossed out by a coalition of Central American armies.
The Confederate Congress spent quite a bit of time planning their future rather than – I don’t know – figuring out how to fight that war they started. They talked about how the Confederacy was the first step to a Tropical (slave holding) Republic that would stretch from the Ohio River down to Brazil (the only other independent country that still had slavery).
When the civil war was nearing its end, Lincoln was negotiating a peace agreement with the Confederate government. Lincoln simply wanted some sort terms of surrender. However, the Confederate officials talked about the Northern and Southern armies working together and invading and conquering Mexico.
Lincoln, who not only voted against the war with Mexico, but kept up that opposition even after the U.S. was victorious, had no desire for invading Mexico. He especially didn’t want to do it with the idea these were two separate armies representing two separate countries invading a third. The talks went no where. Richmond fell, Lee surrendered, and the Confederate government fled to Alabama and disbanded itself.
Part of the reason is that the Southerners never really believed that the North would go to war against them. They had been right all the way through Buchanan, who did nothing while seven states seceded out from underneath him.
The Republicans were a minority party up until Lincoln’s election. It can’t be said that they represented the opinion of the country as a whole, and it can’t be said that Lincoln ran on a war platform.
But the hothead secessionists, who Davis calls the Coral Reefers, wanted war because they believed that the North wouldn’t fight, or at least couldn’t fight. They held an exaggerated ideal of the South’s martial culture and of the moral purity that being part of the oligarchy conferred on them. They won the early political battles, winning the state votes for secession and getting most of the victories in the framing of the Constitution. Their slates went on to form the Congress.
Objectivity and pragmatics were not in their makeup. They didn’t - couldn’t - recognize the enormous advantages in materiel and men that the North had, which would eventually win the war, and didn’t - couldn’t - envision any outcome other than their winning. Waging the war was secondary to their vision at all times.
Southerns have always pointed out that Lincoln didn’t win any Southern states and wasn’t even on the ballot due to lack of support. Of course, if the slaves were allowed to vote their 3/5 vote rather than their owners, I think Lincoln could have swept up much of the South too.
If the South never fired upon Ft Sumter, they would have won. The North had less than 6,000 men in the army. The North controlled no forts in the South except for three water based ports. Ft. Sumter was useless for the North and not a threat to Charleston.
If the South choose not to fire a shot, they would have de-facto independence. The North didn’t have had the military it needed to force the South back, and ithere would be little taste to increase the size of the military in order to force back those reluctant states. The South had a military, forts, mints, boat yards, etc. They could have easily operated as an independent state. They probably get diplomatic recognition by much of Europe. After a year or two of sulking, the North would be forced to recognize the Confederacy.
Of course, the Confederacy would have been only seven states and probably not very viable as a country. Since most of the slave states stayed in the Union, the Confederacy couldn’t have made the case that the Union was Anti-slavery and was a threat to their pro-slavery society. The physical size of the Confederacy was tiny, so it would have been much easier for slaves to escape.
I believe what made them fire the shot at Fort Sumter was the dream of the Golden Circle which meant that Richmond had to be part of the Confederacy. Firing upon Fort Sumter divided the Union. What became the Union wanted revenge. The Upper South cheered the Confederate victory and pro-secessionist fever swept through that area. Once Lincoln made the call for troops, the Upper South joined the lower South.
Secession was in the planning for quite some time. Gadsden Purchase (in 1854) was the last bit of land added to the U.S. mainland. It was a tiny slice of Northern Mexico that allowed for a southern railroad route to California – which the South had wanted to split up, so the southern half could have been a pro-slavery state.
The people behind pushing the Gadsden Purchase read like a Confederacy Who’s Who. First, there was Gadsden who was a strong advocate of Southern California becoming a slave state, and when that failed in 1850, championed Southern secession. There’s Jefferson Davis who was the Secretary of War under the Pierce administration and strongly backed the purchase.