The South was looking ahead and seeing the inevitable ~ that there would be a Constitutional ban on slavery. This was framed as “States Rights”…but that was not an acceptable option under the Constitution…and neither was an autonomously-decided secession.

In fact, before the Constitution was written several tried to do so. Recall the Shay’s and Whiskey Rebellions (as well as a few others). These were rather vigorously suppressed by the men we call the ”Founders”…or later ”Framers” who devised the Constitution to strengthen the Federal Government. Secession was not in the books after that…at least not without the agreement of Congress.

”And taking into account, Great Britian was able to end its own slavery, generally in the Caribbean colonies, by Compensated Emancipation, in only six years, and with NO war. Eh?”

Actually there were long efforts to eradicate slavery in both England and Scotland dating back into the late 1600’s. Colonial slavery was ended only after several quite violent slave uprisings, and the recognition that England could gain an upper hand on France and Spain by terminating the slave trade. So war (with France) and in their Caribbean (and African) colonies, were involved in the banning of slavery. And these bans were not without WAR.

”At the time of secession, Slavery was on the major topic anyhow. Only 25% of southern families owned slaves. And note that the Emancipation Proclamation, which Lincoln himself said was only a politicaly ploy, only freed slaves in the south, not necessarily controlled at the point by the Union, but did NOTHING for slaves in the ’safe’ border states.”

Most Southern families didn’t own slaves simply because they couldn’t afford them. It wasn’t because they didn’t want one. Or because they opposed the institution. Actually, slavery had been prohibited already in the recent Territorial acquisitions of the West…by Congress. And some border States abutting the Southern slave-holding States did ban slavery…but this was resisted strongly by Southerners. Tensions were increased due to ambivalent court rulings in slavce ”transport cases” (e.g. California vs. Smith 1846 compared to the Dred Scot ruling). Southerners argued ”States Rights” but ignored the right of States like California to establish that their residents were free. Then Southerners argued that it was individual rights to define people as property that held sway.

NYT: Gates Endorses Troop Withdrawals: Translation Poor People’s Kids and Husbands Ain’t Never Comin’ Home

Reminds me: In recent years there’s been a revival of a legend of “loyal slaves” who willingly fought, with their masters’ consent, for the Confederacy. But it was quite thoroughly debunked back when there were still Confederate survivors alive to shoot it down: In the years from 1913 to 1915, the battle over this myth raged in the pages of Confederate Veteran magazine.

During 1913, the pro-myth people made their pitch, and it is their writings that the current would-be revivers of the myth like to cite. But in June of 1915, conclusive evidence, in the form of communications between Robert E. Lee and the Confederate government in early 1865, was published in the magazine showing that not only did no blacks ever fight for the Confederacy, it was simply not even legal right up until the Confederate government, in a last-ditch move, authorized it in late March of 1865 — less than two weeks before the end, and far too late for any black troops to be mustered, even had their owners been willing to part with them.

In fact, as late as February 10, 1865, an attempt to legalize the use of black soldiers (which General Lee had been begging to do for some time, as his troops were heavily outnumbered in the field)was shot down vehemently:

FRIDAY, February 10, 1865.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SECOND CONGRESS-SECOND SESSION

EMPLOYMENT OF NEGROES AS SOLDIERS

Mr. Wickham, of Virginia, moved the indefinite postponement of the bill. He was opposed to its going to a select committee. If it went to any committee it should go, in the regular channel, to the Committee on Military Affairs. He wished, however, this question of arming and making soldiers of negroes to be now disposed of, finally and forever. He wished it to be decided whether negroes are to be placed upon an equality by the side of our brave soldiers. They would be compelled to. They would have to camp and bivouac together.

Mr. Wickham said that our brave soldiers, who have fought so long and nobly, would not stand to be thus placed side by side with negro soldiers. He was opposed to such a measure. The day that such a bill passed Congress sounds the death knell of this Confederacy. The very moment an order goes forth from the War Department authorizing the arming and organizing of negro soldiers there was an eternal end to this struggle.-(Voice-That’s so.)

The question being ordered upon the rejection of the bill, it was lost-ayes 21, noes 53. As this vote was regarded as a kind of test of the sense of the House upon the policy of putting negroes into the army, we append the ayes and noes-the question being the rejection of this bill authorizing the employment of negroes as soldiers:

Ayes-Messrs. Baldwin, Branch, Cruikshank, De Jarnette, Fuller, Garland, Gholson, Gilmer, Lamkin, J. M. Leach, J. T. Leach, McMullin, Miles, Miller, Ramsey, Sexton, Smith, of Alabama, Smith, of North Carolina, Wickham, Witherspoon, Mr. Speaker.

Noes-Messrs. Akin, Anderson, Barksdale, Batson, Bell, Blandford, Boyce, Bradley, H. W. Bruce, Carroll, Chambers, Chilton, Clark, Clopton, Cluskey, Conrad, Conrow, Darden, Dickinson, Dupre, Ewing, Farrow, Foster, Funsten, Gaither, Goode, Gray, Hartridge, Hatcher, Hilton, Holder, Holliday, Johnston, Keeble, Lyon, Pugh, Read, Rogers, Russell, Simpson, J. M. Smith, W. E. Smith, Snead, Swan, Triplett, Villere, Welsh.

As was noted in the WSJ on May 8, 1997:

“It’s pure fantasy,’ contends James McPherson, a Princeton historian and one of the nation’s leading Civil War scholars. Adds Edwin Bearss, historian emeritus at the National Park Service: ‘It’s b.s., wishful thinking.’ Robert Krick, author of 10 books on the Confederacy, has studied the records of 150,000 Southern soldiers and found fewer than a dozen were black. ‘Of course, if I documented 12, someone would start adding zeros,’ he says.

“These and other scholars say claims about black rebels derive from unreliable anecdotes, a blurring of soldiers and laborers, and the rapid spread on the Internet of what Mr. McPherson calls ‘pseudohistory.’ Thousands of blacks did accompany rebel troops — as servants, cooks, teamsters and musicians. Most were slaves who served involuntarily; until the final days of the war, the Confederacy staunchly refused to enlist black soldiers.

“Some blacks carried guns for their masters and wore spare or cast-off uniforms, which may help explain eyewitness accounts of blacks units. But any blacks who actually fought did so unofficially, either out of personal loyalty or self-defense, many historians say.

“They also bristle at what they see as the disingenuous twist on political correctness fueling the black Confederate fad. ‘It’s a search for a multicultural Confederacy, a desperate desire to feel better about your ancestors,’ says Leslie Rowland, a University of Maryland historian. ‘If you suggest that some blacks supported the South, then you can deny that the Confederacy was about slavery and white supremacy.’

“David Blight, an Amherst College historian, likens the trend to bygone notions about happy plantation darkies.’ Confederate groups invited devoted ex-slaves to reunions and even won Senate approval in 1923 for a “mammy” monument in Washington (it was never built). Black Confederates, Mr. Blight says, are a new and more palatable way to ‘legitimize the Confederacy.’”

-G

Fort Sumter;

OK, let me see … my notes indicate — secession happened before the election. And, (I have to laugh here, having lived (?) in Providence”) The Daily Post reported: ” For Three weeks the administration newspapers have been assuring us that Fort Sumter would be abandoned. “Mr. Lincoln saw an opportunity to inaugurate civil wae without appearing in the character of an aggressor.”

Nary the first nor the last newspaper to take exception … “a pretext for letting loose the horrors of war.” (Jersey City Standard)

Tsk!!