The goal of
secession, said Jefferson Davis, was to protect the rights of “sovereign
states” from “tremendous and sweeping usurpation” by the federal government.
“The truth remains intact and incontrovertible, that the existence of African
servitude was in no wise the cause of the conflict, but only an incident.”
Was this the primary
reason that the Southern States seceded in 1860? To determine this it is necessary to investigate
whether his statement is consistent with words, writings, and actions of
Southern politicians leading up to the secession and ultimate war. That
is, what does the evidence show was the goal of secession.
The political
situation in 1860 was Lincoln, a republican, had been elected to the
presidency, but not by a large majority and the democrats might have been able
to control the Senate. Thus, while they
were losing some political ground there was no evidence of the eminent passing
of abolition of slavery bill or of losing significant power in the congress. At
this point states’ rights was not a critical issue.
In 1850
cotton was the major export of the US and slaves were the primary capital asset
of the country. The South was a slave
society and could not exist economically without slaves. Thus, cotton and it means of production,
slaves, were of utmost importance to the economy of the South.
As discussed
in the lectures, as the United States added new territories it became clear to
Southern politicians that they were losing power to the North and the potential
for abolition was growing. The South
became obsessed with retaining slavery. Because
slavery was such an immoral act, there was no way to argue directly for its
continuance. So their strategy became to focus on an indirectly related constitutional
issue, states’ rights. However, virtually
everything they did and said was about slavery.
Except for slavery no other issue concerned states rights.
To illustrate
this point I will discuss a few of the important documents of the time.
The 1850
Compromise contained statements that the new New Mexico Territory and Utah Territory could
in principle decide in the future to become slave states; the fugitive slave
act was strengthened and; slave trade was banned in Washington DC. There was no mention of either increased or
decreased states right for the new territories.
The Mississippi secession document starts with this preamble:
“Our position is
thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material
interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far
the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These
products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an
imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the
tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow
at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long
aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation.
There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a
dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our
ruin.
Clearly this is an admission that by far the biggest issue on
their minds was slavery.
Four of the reasons listed in the South Carolina secession
document were issues of slavery. None
had anything to do with state sovereignty.
The Kansas–Nebraska Act of 1854 opened new lands for settlement, and had the effect
of repealing the Missouri Compromise allowing white male settlers to determine through popular
sovereignty whether they would allow slavery. The result was
that both sides flooded into Kansas with the goal of voting slavery up or down,
leading much bloodshed. There was no
mention of states’ rights in that act.
Davis'
statement is demonstrably untrue. His revisionist spin on the cause of
the conflict cannot be reconciled with the historical record. While most
of the seceding States did not give reasons for their decision to secede, a
handful of States did offer reasons and they overwhelmingly centered on the
issue of slavery.
Thus, Davis’s comments of yesteryear, like FOX news today, bear no resemblance to the true facts of that situation.