Right, but that 15% made up the majority of the economic and political power in the South. They had an influence beyond their raw numbers. And most of those people who didn’t own slaves still supported slavery. It’s true that a love of slavery wasn’t the main motivator for most of the soldiers who fought, but it was the debates over slavery and especially the expansion of slavery that led to secession.
States rights really wasn’t an issue after the 1830s. And, on the subject of states rights, even though the seceeding states gave them lip service, in practice, they were selective in their advocacy. The Dred Scott case was hailed throughout the South, even though that limited states rights, and a lot of Southerners were avid opponents of Stephen Douglas’s “popular sovereignty” proposal, so much so that, when he won the nomination for President in 1860, Southern Democrats walked out of the convention and nominated someone else. So, I’d say that states rights was less of an issue than you, and a lot of Confederate apologists make it out to be.
*"Right, but that 15% made up the majority of the economic and political power in the South. They had an influence beyond their raw numbers. And most of those people who didn’t own slaves still supported slavery. It’s true that a love of slavery wasn’t the main motivator for most of the soldiers who fought, but it was the debates over slavery and especially the expansion of slavery that led to secession. -Captain Amazing *
Absolutely. I objected to the claim that the South didn’t care AT ALL about States’ Rights and that the Civil War was ONLY about slavery.
*"So, I’d say that states rights was less of an issue than you, and a lot of Confederate apologists make it out to be. *
That’s hysterical! Recognizing the issue that States’ Rights played in the Civil War makes one a Confederate Apologist? Does recognizing infringement on States’ Rights today make them a Radical, Right-Wing Fascist?
MFitz
*“The germ of destruction of our nation is in the power of the judiciary, an irresponsible body- working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall render powerless the checks of one branch over the other and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.”
I don’t think that by the time of the Civil War, the southern state governments did care about states’ rights much more than state governments in the rest of the country. “States’ Rights” was a Democratic Party rallying cry, to be sure, but by 1860, there was a general consensus on what the role of the national government in relation to the states should be. This consensus was challenged by the Civil War in both the USA and the CSA, and in both cases, the national government increased its power at the expense of state governments, but that was a result of the war.
If states’ rights really were important to the Confederacy, you’d expect the Confederate Constitution to reflect that, either by limiting national power or increasing state power, but, other than in three specific issues (guaranteeing the existance of slavery, banning federal funds for domestic improvements, and restricting the President to a single, 6 year term), you don’t see that the Confederate Constitution is different than the US Constitution.
And, really, only the domestic improvements clause is a states rights’ issue. The single term presidency is a general reform to make sure the president doesn’t do things just to win reelection, and the slavery guarantee, while it prevents the national government from outlawing slavery, prevents state governments from outlawing slavery also.
So, I would argue that, no, states’ rights and the fear of a too large national government were not factors in the secession. Fear of a hostle, anti-slavery, non-southern controlled national government was, but that’s hardly the same thing. States’s rights were used as a slogan, but I don’t see any real evidence that that was anything more than Confederate propaganda. You’re welcome to disagree, of course, but I’d like to see your evidence.
And I didn’t say you were a confederate apologist. I don’t know, nor do I care, if you are. I just noted that Confederate apologists tend to make a similar argument as yours: that the issue of states’ rights was a very important factor behind secession, and that the issue of slavery was an unimportant factor.
I understand where you’re coming from now. I’ve also known folks who say that slavery had nothing to do with it. There is also evidence that the CSA respected individual liberties less than in the North (the draft, Andersonville, etc.) I think our differences in this regard is relatively small: only disagreeing on a few percentage points of how significant States’ Rights were in the cause of the Civil War. The truth is, I live in the NE and both of my great grandfathers fought for the North. That having been said, the attention I give/gave to the States’ rights issues has more to do with the fact that most people in the US at that time, both Northern and Southern would be appalled by the powers the Federal Government has since taken for itself. That is the source of my passion.
MFitz
*“The germ of destruction of our nation is in the power of the judiciary, an irresponsible body- working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall render powerless the checks of one branch over the other and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.”
That the North and South had different points of contention in the first half of the 19th century has little or no bearing on the overwhelming point of contention in 1861.
I’m not certain about this, but I think that the link in the OP is incorrect about the unconstitutional nature of the Congress which approved the amendment to start with. The link implies that Congress was unconstitutional because they refused to seat the Members from the southern states.
The assertion seems to me to be based upon a 1969 case, Powell v. McCormack. In that case the Supreme Court decided that Congress could only declare a potential Member “unqualified” if he or she failed to meet the basic membership requirements laid out in the Constitution itself.
Refusal to seat a Member is possible thanks to Article 1, Section 5, clause 1.:
Clause 2 in turn points out that it takes a 2/3 majority to expel a Member once seated.
Here’s where my knowledge of the subject completely cracks up. Maybe you folks can help me out.
Sometimes Congress appeared to prefer refusal to seat over expulsion. For example, in 1919, Congress overwhelmingly declared socialist Representative and antiwar activist Victor Berger’s seat “vacant.” In other words, they refused to seat him after they had seated him, rather than simply expel him (there was only one vote in his favor). Why vacate his seat rather than throw his ass out? (See also Theodore Bilbo, a virulent “send 'em back to Africa” Senator from Missippi who was refused a seat in 1947.)
Congress has still refused to seat Members in the wake of Powell v. McCormack. Probably the most recent and notorious example is Richard McIntyre in 1985, which many claim was the inciting incident which eventually led to the Republican usurpation of the House of Representatives under the leadership of Newt Gingrich. As I understand it, McIntyre’s election, though really too close to call, was certified by Indiana. So how did Congress get away with refusing to seat him in the wake of Powell?
None of this matters for jack, right? I’m sure there’s some fun little latin phrase which translates to something like, “sorry, but that’s water under the bridge, and our current judgment cannot annul past actions.”
That third point, as I very poorly describe it, seems to be the the one that trips up the loons every time they want to declare Texas its own country, or not pay income taxes, or whatever. Anyway, thanks in advance for your help if you can point me in the direction of a firmer answer to my questions above.