@TEXAS1983
The vast majority of southerners did not own slaves or aspire to own slaves. The Texas Germans in the Hill Country and South Texas were mixed unionist and confederate, but almost none owned slaves or ever wanted to own salves despite having the money to afford them. My Texas German ancestors never owned slaves or aspired to own slaves yet fought for the South. Robert E. Lee inherited slaves and freed them. He had plenty of money to afford slaves and did not want them, yet fought for the South. One of my ancestors signed the South Carolina Ordinance of Secession. After the war, despite knowing what what happen, he lost the last of his wealth and political power supporting African American voting rights and opposing Jim Crow. It seems bizarre to me a former confederate and ardent secessionist would sacrifice his wealth and influence to support the rights of African Americans... unless, of course, ultimately, Africans Americans were not ultimately what the civil war was about. Given that the Emancipation Proclamation did not come until 1863 and given the existence of the Corwin Amendment, it does not seem like African Americans were the issue at hand for at least 1861 and 1862 for either side. I will add the New York City Race Riots (
New York City draft riots - Wikipedia) further indicate that neither side thought they were fighting to decide the question of slavery.
Now, as a Constitutional law scholar who focussed on constitutional history by taking far too many classes on the topic at the University of Texas School of Law, I can explain to you the secession ordinances. You need to understand the legal structure of how declarations of independence are written to correctly understand a document.
In the US Declaration of Independence "
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands".
Did most Americans fight the American Revolution because they wanted to be an independent nation where they could make their own decisions or because they wanted to kill indians and take their land?
In the US Declaration of Independence "
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us"
Did most Americans fight the American Revolution because they wanted to be an independent nation where they could make their own decisions or because they were upset about quartering of troops?
Americans decided in 1776 they wanted to be an independent nation, control their own destiny and not leave decisions on their political questions in the hands of foreigners. Texans (and numerous other Mexican states) decided the same thing in the 1830s. In 1861, the South made the same decision. The message of a declaration of independence/secession document, is that the seceding party no longer feels they control their political future. In doing so, they must list examples where they have no political say. The thirteen colonies did this. Texas did this. Other latin american states did this. The South did this. Unfortunately for the South, it's example was a terrible and horrible one aka slavery. However, the endgame of the south was political freedom and independence, not slavery. How do I know it was not slavery or slavery alone besides the fact so many non-slave holders supported independence from the North?
If the South was just concerned about slavery, the South would have accepted the Corwin Amendment.
Corwin Amendment - Wikipedia
"
Abraham Lincoln, in his first inaugural address on March 4, said of the Corwin Amendment:
I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service ... holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."
Lincoln "
My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."
The Corwin Amendment was ratified by Kentucky, Ohio, Rhode Island, Maryland and Illinois. There were 13 other slaves states that would have ratified it. That was 18 of the 22 states needed to pass a constitutional amendment and "save" slavery. If the South would have realistically rejoined the Union if the Corwin Amendment passed and add Abe Lincoln's support, I have no doubt that at least 4 other states would have ratified it.
Ultimately, slavery in the South was not threatened. What WAS threatened was the South's political power in the Union.
In fact, the South and North were in a never ending power struggle for political power... and in fact this continues into 2020.
During the English Civil War, the Southern Colonies sided with the royalists and the Northern Colonies sided with Cromwell and the Roundheads.
The first Presidential Veto in U.S. history was from George Washington. (
Apportionment Act of 1792 - Wikipedia) It concerned a bill supported by the northern states to give them more representation and therefore more power in Congress.
The War of 1812 was so unpopular in the North that (
Hartford Convention - Wikipedia) that secession was considered among Northern states. States Rights were the main issue here.
South Carolina considered seceding from the Union in 1832 over tariffs favorable to the north and unfavorable to the South (
Tariff of Abominations - Wikipedia and
Nullification crisis - Wikipedia).
Then the election of 1860 happened. For the first time in U.S. history, one region (the North), elected a president by itself. From 1788-1856, every US President enjoyed at least some support in both the North and South. Abraham Lincoln was the first U.S. President election without support in both the North and South. The South seceded in 1860, not because of slavery, but because the region as a whole had become political marginalized. The South felt it would lose its political freedom and be pushed around by the North (which it was completely right about and 100% has happened since 1865. I mean because of something that happened in Minneapolis, Minnesota, the Eyes of Texas and confederate statues have to go).
You believe in the lie that the South and North were one happy family except for slavery. That is not the case. Even without slavery, the South and North were founded by different people (puritans/religious people in the north and profit seekers in the south). The power struggle and civil war between the north and south was always inevitable with or without slavery. It continues to this day without slavery.
The South was fighting for its freedom and independence, just like the 13 colonies, Texas and other states in the Western Hemisphere. The south believed the states themselves were sovereign over the central government. The South wanted its freedom to decide its own political destiny, makes it own mistake and not live under the heel of yankee rule.
Click to expand...
