Tennessee didn’t have a Declaration of Causes but Governor Harris gave an impassioned speech to the state legislature asking for secession which starts in early on with:
And then goes into an interesting bit where he complains about California being made a “free” state:
Apparently the “Southern people” can’t exploit a land’s natural resources unless they’re allowed to bring slaves along to do it. He also complains:
“Man, remember the good old days when we ALL thought the abolitionists were kooks and idiots? Now they’re all over in the North! What happened, North? You used to be so cool…”
Both points only argue the inferiority of Southern policies and attitudes, morally speaking, even if the North was also quite racist.
LOL. No. It’s an indication of significant racism but significantly less than the South… and most importantly, all of it was ended peacefully and willingly in the North, and only by force in the South (and Southern resistance to the idea of black progress continued for more than a century afterwards).
So yes, again, even though the North was and is far from perfect, it was still a lot better than the South on slavery and racism in general.
You can argue against the straw man that the North was perfect and totally equal – it wasn’t. But it was significantly less bad than the South, overall.
Apparently you think slavery is somehow synonymous with racism, it is not; they are two different things. Racism is the belief that traits inhere in races. Southerners and northerners both believed this. Frankly, there was more racism in the north because there were MORE PEOPLE who were racists in the North than in the South.
What is this “racism in general” nonsense you’re talking about? There were more racists in the North than in the South. What is “racism in general”?
Northerners were unrepentant racists who thought blacks were inferior. So were Southerners. The North was “less bad” in numbers of slaves, although there were still 4 northern slaveholding states. How was the North “significantly less bad than the South, overall” in ANY way regarding racism? Are you suggesting southerners hated blacks but northerners only held a mild dislike? The metric you’re using appears to be number of slaves. If that’s what you think racism is, you’re wrong.
South Carolina was clearly writing out their reason for secession. They wanted to write a document that schoolchildren would be taught in school as their glorious heritage. So if there were another cause, they would have mentioned it.
Further, the document is also a diatribe against states rights – objecting strongly to the fact that states were asserting their rights in opposition to the Federal government. And what was the Federal Government doing that caused South Carolina’s anger: not enforcing the Fugitive Slave Law. So even that was due to slavery.
If there were another cause, they would have mentioned it. No contemporaneous account on the part of the South ever said it was anything else.
As for the myth it had something to do with tariffs, that’s partly a conflation with the Nullification Crisis of 1832. That had been settled and was not a political issue.
And what about Lincoln’s tariff policy was so objectionable to the South that they left? The actual party plank was vague – in the sense that it says “we need a strong tariff policy to foster economic growth.” Nothing new was being proposed. In face, Stephen Douglas’s Democratic Party platform had pretty much the same wording.
But, you say, the South voted for Breckenridge. Maybe his policy was more favorable.
Nope and double nope. Breckenridge took his party platform in toto from the Democratic party platform – with a few extra clauses: Two allowing new states to set up as slave states and a third calling for rigorous enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Law.
The South voted for Breckenridge rather than Douglas. The big difference was that Breckenridge’s platform supported the expansion of slavery and the Fugitive Slave Law.
After the war, Southern supporters pretended this didn’t exist, and made up “causes” that are unsupported by any primary sources. But in all respects, the South left over slavery and made no bones about it until after they were defeated.
This. And I don’t know about others raised and educated here in the southeast, but I never read - never even heard of - the Cornerstone speech until I was well past school age and looked it up myself. Never saw the Confederate constitution in print until the same time, nor the various state declarations of justification. In our various history classes, we were informed that sure, the Civil War legally ended slavery, but its cause was complicated - states’ rights and tariffs and such, and besides, those damnYankees didn’t like black folks, and they owned slaves too. That was back in the seventies and eighties, but some classes still stick to the same crap that we were taught. My own daughter just finished a year of eighth grade Georgia history, and she learned that justification, didn’t see Georgia’s declaration nor Little Alec’s speech until I showed her a few weeks ago. (Despite learning “all about” Georgia native Alexander Stephens in her Ga. History class.) It’s intentional, and ridiculous, if you ask me - I’d rather we all learn “warts and all” history, with the understanding that we’re making progress, than to be taught incompletely and incorrectly, and eventually distrust everything that I was taught.
To the extent that slavery defined and was the underpinning of the South’s entire economy and culture, it would be difficult to find an issue on which they differed with the North that* didn’t* touch on slavery in one way or another.
There are different degrees of racism. People who believe black people are inferior, but still should not be enslaved, are less racist than those who support their enslavement (even if they are still quite racist). Hence, at the time, the North was significantly less racist – far, far more people opposed slavery – and opposing slavery is less racist than supporting slavery even if those who opposed it still had racist beliefs in other ways.
Meaning that, in general, the North behaved in a less racist way than the South, because there was less slavery, less brutality against blacks, and the like. The North was pretty racist but was significantly less racist than the South.
Because they had a lot fewer slaves, a lot more states that outlawed slavery, and in general black people were treated better in the North.
That’s part of racism, but not the only part. Rape is another part, as are whippings and other forms of brutality. All of this occurred less in the North, primarily because there was a lot less slavery. With less slavery, less brutality, and less mistreatment of black people, that means that the North was significantly less racist, and (more importantly) much much better for black people than the South.
In an indirect way, it was. The South was being drained of wealth-because the North made most manufactured goods. The South kept its inefficient, one-crop slave -based plantation system, and was in hock to Northern banks. The big slave owners knew what was going on, but were too attached to their way of life to change.
Gotcha, so slavery = racism. Well when you define the term that way, guess what?, you win the argument. Except slavery isn’t racism. And there aren’t gradations of “racism.” There may be more or less violent acts, but those acts are not “racism.”
Racism is a belief. The clue is the suffix. One either believes traits inhere in races (usually with the belief that one race is superior) or one does not. If you and I both agree Asians are more industrious than other races, and you refuse to hire non-Asians but I do not, you are not MORE RACIST than I am; we are equally racist. Neither your, nor my, actions strengthen or lessen our racist belief that Asians are more industrious.
It’s as idiotic as saying, “There was more Marxism in Poland than in Romania because there were more state-owned factories in Poland, even though Romania had more avowed Marxists.” Um, no, the number of factories is not Marxism. If you want to measure how widespread a belief is, you count the number of adherents.
The problem you have is in trying to defend Northern racism. So you try to redefine racism as slavery so you can say, “The South was more racist.” It wasn’t. Unfortunately for you, slavery is not racism.
Nope, slavery is not the only form of racism, and yes, there are gradations of racism – your grandma saying a racial slur is less racist than lynching a black man.
If you lynch black people and I don’t, you are more racist than I am. If you own slaves and I reject slavery, than you’re more racist.
Nope, you’re wrong. Racism is a belief. Look it up. Slavery is not defined by racism nor racism by slavery. Look it up.
No, if we both agree blacks are inferior, lynching is irrelevant to the belief which we share. Moreover, if I own slaves because it’s profitable and you don’t because it’s unprofitable in your climate, but we both agree blacks are inferior, slavery is absolutely no commentary on our racism.
This does touch on slavery, too. Texas was worried about Mexican incursions against slave holding territory, since Mexico didn’t have slavery and many Mexicans were sympathetic to slave freedom. It always comes back to slavery. In fact, reading the Texas cause for secession, it’s hard to believe that slavery wasn’t the justification.
“Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated States to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility [sic] and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery–the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits–a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.”
“The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slave-holding States.”
[QUOTE=Grotonian]
if I own slaves because it’s profitable and you don’t because it’s unprofitable in your climate, but we both agree blacks are inferior, slavery is absolutely no commentary on our racism.
[/QUOTE]
You shouldn’t cut and paste from Donald Trump’s campaign commercials without his permission.
Racism is, unfortunately, an ongoing problem in many parts of the world. (Sometimes Xenophobia is the word–when the different groups of people happen to resemble each other.)
The fact is that the CSA tried to break the Union because they wished to preserve Slavery. (Yes, that was Reason #1; do not try to lecture me about Texas history.) Alas, Racism has survived (and not just in the South). But the Union endures & Slavery is gone.
Dominion of Memories: Jefferson, Madison and the Decline of Virginia shows how the once-great state suffered because of the power of the slavemasters. They clung to their agrarian way of life even as the land wore out, eschewing industrial development, neglecting to develop canals (& railroads when the time came) & regarding public education as unnecessary expense. So the state declined & the South declined–making the region less attractive to immigrants than the North. And making the South more likely to lose the war they started.
Slavery was the root of it all. Read Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia to discover why this pioneer of Scientific Racism excused slavery; those free blacks would have to be shipped far, far away. (Which would cost too much & TJ, like most planters, was eternally in debt–especially with his elegant lifestyle.)
If your form of slavery is race based, then yes, slavery = racism.
If you say, held slaves that you captured in war, like if England held French people as slaves because they won war, then that form of slavery would not be racist. The ancient Greeks held slaves from anybody they conquered. Not based on their race but on if they lost a war.
They held black slaves because they were black.
Yes there were racist people in the north, there are racist people in the north now, even in Massachusetts. Does that make you feel better?