Arguing the Case for Southern Secession

Lew Rockwell ^ | 12/20/01 | Reviewed by Joseph R. Stromberg

[shuckmaster]

Some reviewers have had a hard time with the present book. They imagine that there is a single historical thesis therein, one subject to definitive proof or refutation. In this, I believe they are mistaken. Instead, what we have here is a multifaceted critique of what must be the most central event in American history.

This is not Mr. Adams’s first book. His For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization (1999) lives up to its title and underscores the importance of a matter frequently ignored by conventional historians. Taxation and other fiscal matters certainly play a major role in Adams’s reconstruction of the War for Southern Independence.

Those who long for the simple morality play in which Father Abraham saved the Union (always capitalized) and emancipated the slaves out of his vision and kindness have complained that Adams has ignored slavery as a cause of the war. That is incorrect. Slavery and the racial issue connected with it are present; they do not, however, have the causal stage all to themselves.

In chapter one, Adams sets the American war over secession in a global context by instancing other conflicts of similar type. He plants here the first seeds of doubt that political separation is inherently immoral. Chapter two deals with Fort Sumter and Lincoln’s successful gamble to have the Confederacy “start” the war. Here one learns that the Fort was primarily a customs house – a nice bit of symbolism, especially since the South paid roughly four times as much in tariffs as the North did.

Given that, Lincoln was very concerned about his tariff revenues in the absence of the Southern states. After Fort Sumter, the (Northern) President unconstitutionally established a blockade of Southern ports on his own motion. Soon, Lincoln had robbed Maryland of self-government and was making other inroads on civil liberty – his idea of preserving the Constitution via his self-invented presidential “war powers” (of which there is not a word in the actual document).

In chapter four, Adams unfolds his revenue-based theory of the war. The shift from a pro-peace to a pro-war position by the New York press and key business interests coincided exactly with their realization that the Confederacy’s low tariffs would draw trade away from the North, especially in view of the far higher Northern tariff just instituted. There is an important point here. It did not automatically follow that secession as such had to mean war. But peace foretold the end of continental mercantilism, tariffs, internal improvements, and railroad subsidies – a program that meant more than life to a powerful Northern political coalition. That coalition, of which Lincoln was the head, wanted war for a complex of material, political, and ideological reasons.

Adams also looks at what might well be called Northern war crimes. Here he can cite any number of pro-Lincoln historians, who file such things under grim necessity. Along the way, the author has time to make justified fun of Lincoln’s official theory that he was dealing with a mere “rebellion” rather than with the decision of political majorities in eleven states.

Other chapters treat the so-called Copperheads, the “treason trial” of Jefferson Davis (which never took place, quite possibly because the unionist case could not have survived a fair trial), a comparative view of emancipation, and the problems of Reconstruction. The author’s deconstruction of the Gettysburg Address will shock Lincoln idolators. Adams underlines the gloomy pseudo-religious fatalism with which Lincoln salved his conscience in his later speeches. This supports M. E. Bradford’s division of Lincoln’s career into Whig, “artificial Puritan,” and practical “Cromwellian” phases – the last item pertaining to total war.

To address seriously the issues presented by Adams requires a serious imaginative effort, especially for those who never before heard such claims about the Constitution, about the war, or about Lincoln. Ernest Renan famously wrote that for Frenchmen to constitute a nation, they must remember certain things and were “obliged already to have forgotten” certain others. Adams focuses on those things which Northerners, at least, have long since forgotten.

What Adams’ book – with or without a single, central thesis – does, is to reveal that in 1860 and early 1861 many Americans, north and south, doubted the existence of any federal power to coerce a state and considered peaceful separation a real possibility. In the late 1790s, The Federalist Papers, for example, laughed down the notion that the federal government could coerce states in their corporate, political capacity. For much of the nineteenth century Americans saw the union as a practical arrangement instrumental to other values. That vision vanished in the killing and destruction of Mr. Lincoln’s war. Americans paid a rather high price for making a means into an end.

[exmarine]

No single person was hanged for treason after the ACW. On the -other- hand, loyal citizens were hanged by the dozens in East Tennessee and in Texas by CSA authorities--simply for professing loyalty to the old flag.

NO, but the North had their own evil Stevens - didn't they? It was because of him and the other northern radicals that reconstruction was such a dismal failure. Lincoln promised "malice toward none and charity towards all," and Stevens hated southerners with an evil passion.

[Non-Sequitur]

Whoa there, sunshine. "There were plenty of ways for the abolitionists to triumph without plunging the Country into a Civil War..."? Who started the rebellion, North or south? Who fired the first shot, North or south? You may say that the war could have been avoided if the North had only let the south leave. I can respond by saying that the war could have been avoided if the south had not rebelled. For you to put the blame entirely on the North is yet another case of southern revisionism and selective memory.

Regardless of what you thought you were fighting for, the men who started the rebellion had an agenda of their own. And that agenda was the defense of slavery. Their agenda was your agenda. Their cause was your cause. Nothing will change that.

[stainlessbanner]

The CSA grew too - it actually controlled quite a bit of industries during the war.

Lincoln used the guise of "war powers" and generated pork barrel spending. Never before had our government reached so far into individual states' affairs.

[WhiskeyPapa]

I'm not a southerner, but I believe Jeff Davis was correct - the U.S. Constitution is a compact of States, and if a State wants to back out of that Compact, it has the right to do so.

Davis was very willing to have the states coerced by the US government when it came to returning fugitive slaves.

Later, as president of the so-called confederate states he was a strong supporter of the central government coercing the states.

Can you believe it?

"Conscription dramatized a fundamental paradox in the Confederate war effort: the need for Hamiltonian means to achieve Jeffersonian ends. Pure Jeffersonians could not accept this. The most outspoken of them, Joseph Brown of Georgia, denounced the draft as a "dangerous usurpation by Congress of the reserved rights of the states...at war with all the principles for which Georgia entered into the revolution." In reply Jefferson Davis donned the mantle of Hamilton. The Confederate Constitution, he pointed out to Brown, gave Congress the power "to raise and support armies" and to "provide for the common defense." It also contained another clause (likewise copied from the U.S. Constitution) empowering Congress to make all laws "necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers." Brown had denied the constitutionality of conscription because the Constitution did not specifically authorize it. This was good Jeffersonian doctrine, sanctified by generations of southern strict constructionists. But in Hamiltonian language, Davis insisted that the "necessary and proper" clause legitimized conscription. No one could doubt the necessity "when our very existance is threatened by armies vastly superior in numbers." Therefore "the true and only test is to enquire whether the law is intended and calculated to carry out the object...if the answer be in the affirmative, the law is constitutional."

--Battle Cry of Freedom, James McPherson P.433

Well, now; it seems like if Davis could do it, then surely Lincoln could do it using the EXACT same language. What do you think?

[exmarine]

While you do point out an apparent disconnect in Davis' thinking, the fact remains that secession from the Union is well within the rights of any State. All other issues aside, it is extremely difficult to refute Davis' case for this. Constitutional lawyers can't even do it.

[stainlessbanner]

I believe it was Garrison the abolitionist that argued NORTHERN SECESSION. He felt the way to get rid of slavery was to let the South alone and the North would secede.

An interesting perspective: pro-secession, anti-slavery.

[WhiskeyPapa]

But about 1/3 of southerners DID own slaves.

What is your source for this statistic? I think it's high.

From Jim Epperson's website:

"J.E.B. DeBow was the publisher/editor of DeBow's Review, a leading antebellum monthly magazine, published in New Orleans. DeBow was a committed pro-slavery Southerner who felt that the North was oppressing the South. He also, contrary to the beliefs of most white Southerners, passionately wanted the South to move away from agriculture and develop an industrial base. He was fascinated by numbers and had served as director of the 1850 United States census and had argued that the collection and distribution of statistics was an important task which required a professional staff, serving not just every ten years but all the time. DeBow was concerned about the claims of people like Helper that the average Southerner, being a non-slaveholder, had no stake in the success of the Confederacy. It is an interesting turn around from those late twentieth century Confederate supporters who argue that the Peculiar Institution had nothing to do with the Civil War. DeBow disagreed with that philosophy and the January 1861 issue of the Review carried an article by him refuting the claims that the average Southerner did not have a stake in the survival and expansion of slavery.

Reprinted below is his analysis of the 1850 census and what it showed about the actual percentages of Southerners who were part of slave holding families, not just the more limited numbers counting only the actual (usually the senior male member) owner.

[The] non-slaveholding class ... were even more deeply interested than any other in the maintenance of our institutions, and in the success of the movement now inaugurated for the entire social, industrial, and political independence of the South. ? When in charge of the national census office, several years since, I found that it had been stated by an abolition senator from his seat, that the number of slaveholders at the South did not exceed 150,000. Convinced that, it was a gross misrepresentation of facts, I caused a careful examination of the returns to be made, which fixed the actual number at 347,255, and communicated the information, by note, to Senator Cass, who read it in the Senate. I first called attention to the fact that the number embraced slaveholding families, and that to arrive at the actual number of slaveholders, it would be necessary to multiply by the proportion of persons which the census showed to a family. When this was done, the number was swelled to about two millions.

Since these results were made public, I have had reason to think that the separation of the schedules of the slave and the free was calculated to lead to omissions of the single properties, and that on this account, it would be safe to put the number of families at 375,000, and the number of actual slaveholders at about two millions and a quarter. Assuming the published returns, however, to be correct, it will appear that one half of the population of South Carolina, Mississippi, and Louisiana, excluding the cities, are slaveholders, and that one third of the population of the entire South are similarly circumstanced.

The average number of slaves is nine to each slaveholding family, and one half of the whole number of such holders are in possession of less than five slaves. It will thus appear that the slaveholders of the South, so far from constituting, numerically, an insignificant portion of its people, as has been malignantly alleged, make up an aggregate greater in relative proportion than the holders of any other species of property whatever, in any part of the world; and that of no other property can it be said, with equal truthfulness, that it is an interest of the whole community. While every other family in the States I have specially referred to are slaveholders, but one family in every three and a half families in Maine, New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, are holders of agricultural land; and in European states the proportion is almost indefinitely less. The proportion which the slaveholders of the South bear to the entire population is greater than that of the owners of land or houses, agricultural stock, State, bank, or other corporation securities anywhere else. No political economist will deny this. Nor is that all. Even in the States which are among the largest slaveholding, South Carolina, Georgia, and Tennessee, the land proprietors outnumber nearly two to one, in relative proportion, the owners of the same property in Maine, Massachusetts, and Connecticut; and if the average number of slaves held by each family throughout the South be but nine, and if one half of the whole number of slaveholders own under five slaves, it will be seen how preposterous is the allegation of our enemies, that the slaveholding class is an organized wealthy aristocracy.

The poor men of the South are the holders of one to five slaves, and it would be equally consistent with truth and justice to say that they represent, in reality, its slaveholding interest.

The fact being conceded, that there is a very large class of persons in the slaveholding States who have no direct ownership in slaves, it may be well asked, upon what principle a greater antagonism can be presumed between them and their fellow-citizens, than exists among the larger class of non-landholders in the free States and the landed interests there? If a conflict of interest exists in one instance, it does in the other; and if patriotism and public spirit are to be measured upon so low a standard, the social fabric at the North is in far greater danger of dissolution than it is here. Though I protest against the false and degrading standard to which Northern orators and statesmen have reduced the measure of patriotism, which is to be expected from a free and enlightened people, and in the name of the non-slaveholders of the South, fling back the insolent charge that they are only bound to their country by the consideration of its "loaves and fishes," and would be found derelict in honor and principle, and public virtue, in proportion as they were needy in circumstances, I think it but easy to show that the interest of the poorest non-slaveholder among us is to make common cause with, and die in the last trenches, in defence of the slave property of his more favored neighbor."

In fact, the poor whites were fighting for slavery also.

Sorry if the record of the day seems to conflict with the myth that some perpetrate today.

Walt

[Non-Sequitur]

We may have grounds for agreement here. For the north, at least at the beginning, it was never about slavery. It was about preserving the country as a whole, complete, the way our founding fathers had presented it to us. If you had asked the average Union soldier what he was fighting for, the overwhelming majority would have given that as their reason. Lincoln himself made no secret of his goal, to preserve the Union and not to either end or defend slavery. As the war progressed, ending slavery became a political goal and was incorporated into the Republican platform in 1864.

But for the south from the beginning the cause was the defense of the institution of slavery. They made no secret of that. Their Secession Declarations, their last minute attempts at compromise all dealt with slavery and it's protection. Not only where it existed but to ensure that it would be allowed to spread in the non-state territories.

I don't understand this confederate revisionism. Sure we can look at slavery today and agree on its evil. I do not for a moment think that you confederate supporters want to bring slavery back. But look at the world through 1860 eyes. Morality aside, slavery was a fact. It was legal. It was the reason for the rebellion. Why do you deny it>

[exmarine]

When judging a source, one must take bias into account. I believe DeBow may have had a motive for inflating the statistics, and I would not accept these statistics at face value without corroborating evidence. While I am not saying the figures are wrong, they could be correct, I am saying that a good historian must take bias into account.

[WhiskeyPapa]

While you do point out an apparent disconnect in Davis' thinking, the fact remains that secession from the Union is well within the rights of any State.

Sure, but not under U.S. law.

For the record, this is part of section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789:

"And be it further enacted, That the Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies of a civil nature, where a state is a party, except between a state and its citizens; and except also between a state and citizens of other states, or aliens, in which latter case it shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction."

Now unless the actions of the secessionists in the ACW were in fact a criminal act (got my vote), it was a civil controversy. And since the Supreme Court has jurisdiction, no ordinance or act of secession can withstand that challenge, can it?

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

When judging a source, one must take bias into account. I believe DeBow may have had a motive for inflating the statistics, and I would not accept these statistics at face value without corroborating evidence.

Well, the reason that DeBow would inflate the stats was because he was a strong propenent of slavery.

You are wise to cooroborate any source though.

Walt

[exmarine]

There is no doubt that slavery was a major cause of the war. But there were other factors as well. It was also a clash of cultures. The southern culture was totally agrarian and bucolic, while the north was more modern and factory-based. States rights was also an undeniable factor - this can be seen in R.E. Lee's decision to fight for VIRGINIA (not the south, but for Virginia). Clearly, his allegiance was to his state, not the Federal Government. Today, I'm sure that many people distrust, fear, and even despise the Federal Government - it is grown far beyond what is defined in the Constitution. I, for one, don't like centralized power - it smacks of communism and dictatorship.

[exmarine]

Wait! Was that Court Decision based on an intrepretation of a "compact of states"? :)

[Just another Joe]

Morality aside, slavery was a fact. It was legal. It was the reason for the rebellion. Why do you deny it?

Again, I don't think it was the fact of keeping slaves, it was the RESULT of keeping slaves.
If they could have got the same result from keeping giant sloths in a cage the war would have been about keeping giant sloths in a cage.
The south had too much of a productivity advantage over the north due to slavery.
No matter what the cause, after the southern states declared that they were seceeding from the union, the northern states had the excuse they needed to negate what they percieved as an advantage the south had.

[4CJ]

Trolls from DU? Not hardly - I donate my money to FreeRepublic. Misrepresent the facts?

The South has furnished near three-fourths of the entire exports of the country. Last year she furnished seventy-two percent of the whole ... we have a tariff that protects our manufacturers from thirty to fifty percent, and enables us to consume large quantities of Southern cotton, and to compete in our whole home market with the skilled labor of Europe. This operates to compel the South to pay an indirect bounty to our skilled labor, of millions annually.
Daily Chicago Times, 10 Dec 1860

That either revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the ports must be closed to importations from abroad ... If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe.
New York Evening Post, 12 Mar 1861

Just stating the facts.

[Colt .45]

In response to your assertion the South seceeded to defend slavery I say .... BULL SH*T! The South seceeded over economics and federal intrusions into their lives. At the time of South Carolina's secession in 1860, the southern states were p[aying 4 times the tariffs that the Northern States were paying. They had to keep slavery due to the industrial North needing the Southern grown cotton for their textile mills. It was cheaper for the Northern States to obtain cotton from the South than to try and import it from overseas.

Had Stephen Douglas been elected instead of Lincoln, the Northern States would've been the ones to seceed from the South. Slavery, while it was a small part of the culture of the South, was more for the agrarian produce than as a "joyful" institution. The roots of Southern secession go way back to the early 1800's. The growing gap between the Northern and Southern views finally became unbearable to the Southern States by 1859 and in 1860 they decided to make their break. Legally/morally they had that right as the Federal Government had become overbearing on them.

[Non-Sequitur]

Oh please. What little industry the south had prior to the war contracted rather than expanded. The south was incapable of replacing railroad rails or rolling stock, its iron industry couldn't supply its needs, it was totally dependent on imports or capture for small arms, artillery, and almost every other military need. The south didn't have an industrial base in 1861 because it didn't want one and it felt it didn't need one.

[WhiskeyPapa]

The South seceeded over economics and federal intrusions into their lives.

What federal intrusions? By whom? ATF, FBI, CIA, IRS? Maybe the BLM?

None of these agencies existed. Prior to 1860 the feds had basically very little presence in anyone's lives.

Oddly, and you can look this up--the most intrusive federal act was the Fugitive Slave Act!

And that was forced on the country by the slave holders who later wanted to say the federal compact was broken. All this neo-confederate crap would gag a maggot.

Or even a balrog

Walt

[stainlessbanner]

What? I was throwing you a bone.

Influence of the CSA spread into Southern Industry. I didn't say Industry expanded.

Ease up the trigger finger, cowpoke.

[Mudboy Slim]

Walt, buddy, yer apparent blindness to the fact that there were two very real--yet very opposite--versions of what happened regarding the War of Northern Aggression belies the fact that you may indeed, be a Victim of Yankee Propoganda. Of course, this is only My Humble Opinion, but please let me explain...

"I seem to recall that both Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens, the head traitors, don't you know, both wrote long tomes justifying their wartime actions after the war."

First off, Davis and Stephens were far from "Traitors"...they were simply representing their constituents who had exercised their Constitutional Right to leave the Union. Why does that bother you so? And BTW...did the Public School you attended up North assign either Davis' or Stephens' book as required reading?! No, I didn't think so.

"No single person was hanged for treason after the ACW."

And Sherman's March to Atlanta in which hundreds of homes were burned, livestock was slaughtered, and innocents were RAPED and MURDERED never happened, right?! SHEEEESH...do you even realize how inanely-biased yer argument is, my Yankee FRiend?!

"On the -other- hand, loyal citizens were hanged by the dozens in East Tennessee and in Texas by CSA authorities--simply for professing loyalty to the old flag."

Perhaps I need to do some additional reading because I have never heard that this was a major problem and common occurence...can you suggest a reference to buttress this allegation?

"What the record shows is that losers had a great hand in writing the history of the war, and losers perpetuate it unto this very day."

Calling those who did not prevail in this most-avoidable war "losers" does not decrease the legitimacy of their argument one iota, IMHO.

MUD