“Our new government,” Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens said on March 21st, 1861, “is founded…upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition.” Only ten days before, Stephens had witnessed the adoption of the Confederate Constitution, and his speech focused on the differences between this novel document and its American forebear. As Stephens declared, the Confederate Constitution reflected the sentiments of the new nation insofar as slavery was concerned. Refined and finalized over only twelve days in late February and early March of 1861 at a convention in Montgomery, Alabama, the Confederate Constitution enshrined slavery as the heart of the Confederate States. Various battles between the moderate delegates and pro-slavery zealots marked the document’s creation, …show more content…
In his 1881 defense of the Confederacy, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, former Confederate president Jefferson Davis wrote that “the Constitution of the United States was the model followed throughout.” Davis’ claim is misleading: while the delegates saw the U.S. Constitution as a template, they saw their constitution as “decidedly better than the old,” largely because of its protection of slavery. It also, to an unprecedented degree, explicitly embraced slavery, a characteristic quite distinct from the Constitution’s evasions of the issue. Whereas James Madison, the father of the Constitution, had believed that it was “wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men,” the Confederate Constitution unabashedly promoted slavery. Thus the character of the Confederate Constitution was strikingly different from its U.S.
In, “Apostles of Disunion: Southern Secession Commissioners and the Causes of the Civil War,” Charles B. Dew analyzes the public letters and speeches of white, southern commissioners in order to successfully prove that the Civil War was fought over slavery. By analyzing the public letters and speeches, Dew offers a compelling argument proving that slavery along with the ideology of white supremacy were primary causes of the Civil War. Dew is not only the Ephraim Williams Professor of American History at Williams College, but he is also a successful author who has received various awards including the Elloit Rudwick Prize and the Fletcher Pratt Award. In fact, two of Dew’s books, Tredegar Iron Works and Apostles of Disunion and Ironmaker to
In the book, Apostles of Disunion, author Charles B. Dew opens the first chapter with a question the Immigration and Naturalization service has on an exam they administer to prospective new American citizens: “The Civil War was fought over what important issue”(4). Dew respond by noting that “according to the INS, you are correct if you offer either of the following answers: ‘slavery or states’ rights’” (4). Although this book provides more evidence and documentation that slavery was the cause of the Civil War, there are a few places where states’ rights are specifically noted. In presenting the findings of his extensive research, Dew provides compelling documentation that would allow the reader to conclude that slavery was indeed the cause for both secession and the Civil War.
The American Civil War not only proved to be the country’s deadliest war but also precipitated one of the greatest constitutional crises in the history of the United States. President Lincoln is revered by many Americans today as a man of great moral principle who was responsible for both preventing the Union’s dissolution as well as helping to trigger the movement to abolish slavery. In retrospect, modern historians find it difficult to question the legitimacy of Lincoln’s actions as President. A more precise review of President Lincoln’s actions during the Civil War, however, reveals that many, if not the majority, of his actions were far from legitimate on constitutional and legal grounds. Moreover, his true political motives reveal his
“A house divided against itself cannot stand (Document M)”, said by Abraham Lincoln about how the North and South couldn’t continue being half free and half slave states it would slowly destroy the government that they tried to create. Lincoln also stated that, “Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it… or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become lawful…(Document M)”. Scott Dred a slave while wanting to become a member of the political community as told by the legislative and the historians that, “...a Negro of the African race was regarded by them as an article of property (Document L).” With the help of the rights given to him from the North it was stated that, “..in the territory of the United States north of the line therein mentioned, is not warranted by the Constitution, and is therefore void (Document L).” Politics assisted with the cause of the Civil war because the Southern and Northern views on freedom were too different that their would never be a real resolution that would make both political parties within the states
Disapproval, the Confederacy, and slavery were amongst the many crises Abraham Lincoln faced when addressing his First Inaugural speech (Lincoln, First Inaugural, p.37). Above all, Lincoln’s speech was stepping on the boundaries of the southern slave states. Once states began to secede, new territories formed and the disapproval of Lincoln grew. Despite Lincoln’s attempts of unifying the antislavery and confederate views, many whites refused to follow his untraditional beliefs. Lincoln encountered hostile and admirable emotions from the people of the Union and the Confederacy. However, despite his representation of the Union, not everyone agreed with his views.
At the time, the South depended on slavery to support their way of life. In fact, “to protect slavery the Confederate States of America would challenge the peaceful, lawful, orderly means of changing governments in the United States, even by resorting to war.” (635) Lincoln believed that slavery was morally wrong and realized that slavery was bitterly dividing the country. Not only was slavery dividing the nation, but slavery was also endangering the Union, hurting both black and white people and threatening the processes of government. At first, Lincoln’s goal was to save the Union in which “he would free none, some, or all the slaves to save that Union.” (634) However, Lincoln realized that “freeing the slaves and saving the Union were linked as one goal, not two optional goals.” (634) Therefore, Lincoln’s primary goal was to save the Union and in order to save the Union, Lincoln had to free the slaves. However, Paludan states that, “slave states understood this; that is why the seceded and why the Union needed saving.” (634) Lincoln’s presidential victory was the final sign to many Southerners that their position in the Union was
Imagine a historian, author of an award-winning dissertation and several books. He is an experienced lecturer and respected scholar; he is at the forefront of his field. His research methodology sets the bar for other academicians. He is so highly esteemed, in fact, that an article he has prepared is to be presented to and discussed by the United States’ oldest and largest society of professional historians. These are precisely the circumstances in which Ulrich B. Phillips wrote his 1928 essay, “The Central Theme of Southern History.” In this treatise he set forth a thesis which on its face is not revolutionary: that the cause behind which the South stood unified was not slavery, as such, but white supremacy. Over the course of fourteen elegantly written pages, Phillips advances his thesis with evidence from a variety of primary sources gleaned from his years of research. All of his reasoning and experience add weight to his distillation of Southern history into this one fairly simple idea, an idea so deceptively simple that it invites further study.
As many southerners explained including Stephens, is that “Slavery thus defined the South” that created “and any attempt to lure the errant slave states back into the union required unprecedented negotiating skills and a willingness to compromise” (Goldfield399). Stephens explained that if the North and South could not agree then that they need to be appointed to the head of congress and let them decide the decision on what needs to be done. The cornerstone speech was made by Alexander Stephens to explain his views on the North and South with the main focus on slavery and their rights as
Lincoln, Abraham. “Restating Positions on Slavery: December 1860.” Simpson, Brooks D., Stephen W. Sears, and Aaron Sheehan-Dean 109-110.
SON OF THE SOUTH, Slavery and the Framing of the U.S. Constitution, 2011, retrieved February 21st 2011 from http://www.sonofthesouth.net/slavery/slavery-us-constitution.htm
In The article “Slavery, the Constitutional, and the Origins of the Civil War”, Paul Finkelman discusses some of the events that he believes lead the United States to have a Civil War. He discusses how both the North and the South territories of the Untied States did not see eye to eye when it came to ab...
Nullification is a precursor to secession in the United States as it is also for civil wars. However, in contrast, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions did not suggest that states should secede from the union. Under the direct vigilance and radical views of Calhoun, he suggested that states should and could secede from the union if they deem a law was unconstitutional. Calhoun’s reputation as a “Cast Iron” proved fittingly as compromises were reached for the proposed Tariffs. The southern states contribution to the financial welfare of the union as a result of slavery was undoubtedly substantial, but as history unfolded, it was not a just means to financial stability. His views of constitutional propriety was for the “privileges of minority” rather than for the “rights of the minority.” [2]
The presidential elections of 1860 was one of the nation’s most memorable one. The north and the south sections of country had a completely different vision of how they envision their home land. What made this worst was that their view was completely opposite of each other. The north, mostly republican supporters, want America to be free; free of slaves and free from bondages. While on the other hand, the south supporters, mostly democratic states, wanted slavery in the country, because this is what they earned their daily living and profit from.
In 1838, in my Resolutions Upholding Slavery, I shared that we, the states, entered the Union under the Federal Constitution. We did this because of its view of increased security and its natural, political, and social advantages (Resolutions Upholding Slavery). Before this, we were free, independent and sovereign States, and since we have given the Union its power under the Constitution, the States should retain the power to choose slavery or not. Also, since slavery existed before and during the formation of the Constitution, and we give the Union its power, it is the Unions job to uphold the slave system. If they abolish slavery they are favoring the North, if they impose slavery on everyone they are going against the choice of many Northerners to not own slaves. The Constitution states the equality of rights among the people and if they take away or impose something on either the Southerners or the Northerners, this destroys that equality, and thus destroys the Union itself (Resolutions Upholding Slavery).
When Abraham Lincoln spoke at his inauguration on March 1861, the nation’s mood was grim. It was a frigid day and the sky was grey. Even worse, nobody knew how the newly-elected President, a novice lawyer, would handle the nation’s biggest problem since its inception: Southern secession. The U.S., and its grandeur and resplendence were at stake and were now reduced to nothing more than the preposterous “Disunited States of America.” Americans were in a state of perplexity, and one question remained etched in the minds of Americans: “Did the South have a legal right to secede from the Union?” No, the South did not have a legal right to secede from the Union, due to the longevity of the Union, the solidarity between the states, and the menacing implications secession entails.