see: https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declarati...
"The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union."
I think there's a tendency for discussions about the south's position in the civil war to end up with slavery poisoning the well.
edit: see Texas’ declaration of secession for what it looked like when they weren’t shy about saying the quiet part out loud.
That they might no longer be allowed to engage in chattel slavery at some indeterminate point in the future. Outright abolition was still a fringe policy at the beginning of the war.
They seemed to regard abolition as no longer a fringe policy but one which, in the North, was effectively mainstream, and were certain that after Lincoln's inauguration the North would wage a war to exterminate slavery.
> For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms [emphasis in the original] of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. ...
> On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.
The Texans seemed to have similar viewpoints that the abolition of slavery was not a fringe policy, and would be carried out during the next administration:
> By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress, and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments. ...
> And, finally, by the combined sectional vote of the seventeen non-slave-holding States, they have elected as president and vice-president of the whole confederacy two men whose chief claims to such high positions are their approval of these long continued wrongs, and their pledges to continue them to the final consummation of these schemes for the ruin of the slave-holding States.
(I trust that "within the next administration" isn't what you mean by "indeterminate".)
In the north and even in the Republican party itself immediate abolition without compensation was still certainly a 'fringe' view. However the new administration was pretty explicit about not allowing new slave states to join in the future while simultaneously allowing accept new free states.
Slave states would've been outvoted in Congress, which would've probably led to eventual abolition. However it would've been a slow and gradual process with possible compensation and much closer to a 'death by a thousand cuts' (anything else would've just triggered a secession and most northern politicians certainly preferred allowing the Southern states to maintain slavery for the foreseable future).
So I certainly doubt most reasonable people in the South expected that slavery would be abolished 'within the next administration,' but they still must have seen the writing on the wall and judged that they'll never be in a stronger position than they were at that time. When they actually decided to secede, it made sense to use the strongest/most outlandish language possible in their propaganda (since of course, there were still probably some people who might have believed it)
> immediate abolition without compensation
Whoa there. Please do not shift your argument.
Earlier you wrote "indeterminate point" not "immediate abolition" and you wrote "outright abolition", not a specific type of abolition.
My reading of the declarations was they thought would be during the Lincoln administration, not "immediate" upon his inauguration, but also not "indeterminate".
> So I certainly doubt most reasonable people in the South
Do you have supporting evidence for your belief? I mean, these people elected the leaders of the state, so why do you think "most" people disagreed?
Depends on how do you define 'believe'. Politicians back then (just like now) certainly often said things they didn't believe in when doing so was politically advantageous.
I certainly believe that they thought that the new administration was probably the biggest threat to slavery in the last 50 years or so and its actions were likely to lead to eventual abolition. Does not change the fact that immediate abolition was politically infeasible (which is something Lincoln himself reiterated during his inaugural address and I have to reiterate that while opposed to slavery Lincoln himself was not an abolitionist and did not run on abolitionist ticket).
> Whoa there. Please do not shift your argument.
Am I? Sorry, my comment might not have been clear, I certainly did not want to imply that abolition was likely at any point during the Lincoln administration (at least before the next election).
> Do you have supporting evidence for your belief? I mean, these people elected the leaders of the state, so why do you think "most" people disagreed?
I'll have to shift my argument in this case and say "most rational people".
Also if we look at all of the quotes you posted:
- slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
- that the South shall be excluded from the common territory
- war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States (unless you believe they mean a literal war)
- and their pledges to continue them to the final consummation of these schemes for the ruin of the slave-holding States.
none of these seem to imply that their authors believed that abolition was imminent (in the next 4 years or so):
> Do you have supporting evidence for your belief
Anyone who vaguely understood the political situation in 1860 would have know that (peaceful) abolition during the next 4 years was unfeasible.
> so why do you think "most" people disagreed?
Disagreed with what exactly?
Why do you believe that? All of the declarations of succession I've argue otherwise.
Georgia's says "The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity."
Mississippi's says "until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice" against "the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world".
You wrote "none of these seem to imply that their authors believed that abolition was imminent (in the next 4 years or so)."
The documents of succession are clear that they don't want to be under Lincoln, with the Republican party in control.
Mississippi's says "There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union"." They are clear that if they stay in the Union then they are certain abolition will come.
South Carolina specifically named "On the 4th day of March next" as the day when "The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy."
Georgia again: "Such are the opinions and such are the practices of the Republican party, who have been called by their own votes to administer the Federal Government under the Constitution of the United States. We know their treachery; we know the shallow pretenses under which they daily disregard its plainest obligations. If we submit to them it will be our fault and not theirs. ... because their avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides. To avoid these evils we resume the powers which our fathers delegated to the Government of the United States, and henceforth will seek new safeguards for our liberty, equality, security, and tranquillity."
These aren't people thinking they can wait until the next election to see what happens, and perhaps they can decide to succeed then. These are people convinced that if they stay with the Union any longer then their entire way of life will be destroyed. That's why seven states succeed before Lincoln was inaugurated.
How do you get from those statements to "none of these seem to imply that their authors believed that abolition was imminent (in the next 4 years or so)"?
You commented;
> Does not change the fact that immediate abolition was politically infeasible (which is something Lincoln himself reiterated during his inaugural address and I have to reiterate that while opposed to slavery Lincoln himself was not an abolitionist and did not run on abolitionist ticket).
That's not relevant because my comments all concern chargingmarmot's claim at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37383422 , concerning the reasons for why the South succeeded.
That those reasons may be ill-founded is a different discussion, while I want to stay on topic as Civil War discussions have consumed countless hours.
The fact is, many of the states which succeeded did do because they want to keep slavery, as they very clearly justified at the time. The injustices they felt were because they (correctly!) thought that the Constitution was created to preserve slavery, and that compact was no longer being followed.
If you conjecture it was merely "politically advantageous" and they didn't actually believe it, then you aren't taking this seriously and presenting solid evidence to support your conjecture.
Otherwise, are we also to take racist nonsense like
> We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.
as more political posturing that they didn't actually believe?
Yes, thank you, that's exactly what I sad. Southern politicians believed that they'll never be in a stronger position than they were at that point and if they were going to do something they have to do it now.
> The fact is, many of the states which succeeded did do because they want to keep slavery, as they very clearly justified at the time.
Absolutely. Never claimed the opposite. My only point that they rebelled because they believed that the Republicans will weaken and restrict the institution of slavery over time which would result in eventual abolition.
> If you conjecture it was merely "politically advantageous" and they didn't actually believe it, then you aren't taking this seriously and presenting solid evidence to support your conjecture.
I'm sorry but you arguments seem to lack nuance to an almost extreme degree. There is a lot space between "maintaining the status quo" and "imminent (over the next 4 years) abolition". Of course they believed that the new Republican administration and shifting popular opinions in the north (from maintaining the status quo to limiting the expansion of slavery into new territories) were a huge threat to slavery.
> How do you get from those statements to "none of these seem to imply that their authors believed that abolition was imminent (in the next 4 years or so)"?
I'm seriously puzzled how do we get the complete opposite by reading the same words? None of those quotes imply that they believed that abolition was imminent or might happen in the near future.
My entire point was and still is this:
while their desire to maintain slavery was obviously the main reason of the rebellion nobody viewed abolition as an imminent threat or that it might occur over the next 4 years (that was politically inconceivable both in the south and the north). The southern states seceded because their politicians assumed that the new administration will do everything it can to weaken the institution of slavery and limit its expansion which would've led to its eventual demise (at and indeterminate point in the future).
Could you clarify which part exactly do you disagree with?
Documents like that are a much better guide to the normative beliefs to which the authors wish to appeal than the factual beliefs they hold.
What are those "frequent violations of the Constitution"?
> In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.
> The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
> This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.
> The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.
> The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution.
It's all about the injustice that they are not able to keep slaves like they want to.
Second sentence:
"For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery."
Third sentence:
"...and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property..." (my emphasis)
C'mon.
Obviously it was about slavery in the broad sense but the rebellion was mostly preemptive and they had to come up with some justification. Chances are that slavery would've lasted another 10-20 years had the southern states not seceded.
Why then should the South believe any statement made by Lincoln?
We know what the State of Georgia thought about the Republican Party: "The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers ... We know their treachery; we know the shallow pretenses under which they daily disregard [the Constitution's] plainest obligations."
They were motivated because they didn't trust the treacherous Republican Party to maintain slavery.
> Why then should the South believe any statement made by Lincoln?
Because it was politically infeasible to actually abolish slavery in the next 4 years and because Lincoln is still accountable to his northern voters (overwhelming majority of whom preferred the continuation of slavery to the collapse of the Union).
> They were motivated because they didn't trust the treacherous Republican Party to maintain slavery.
I'm not sure treachery is the right word. Republicans were generally pretty open their desire to weaken the institution of slavery and limit it's expansion into new territories. Eventually that would've probably led to abolition.
You are rejecting the literal words they used to describe the Republican party, which I quoted. Those are by definition the right words for describing their viewpoints because that is what they wrote.
You also reject the reasons they wrote to justify secession, because you think it did not make sense. Remember, these are people who believed "the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty", and whose use of slave labor enriched their economy - you have different belief in what God wanted, so cannot use your beliefs as a lens to interpret what made rational sense to them.
You cannot have a good understanding of history if you filter the primary documentation through your own interpretations and discard anything that does not make sense to you.
No, I never said that.
> Remember, these are people who believed "the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free
How is this relevant? I never defended slavery or claimed that the southern states did not rebel to protect slavery.
> if you filter the primary documentation through your own interpretations and discard anything that does not make sense to you.
I'm not doing that either.
Did you read the quote you posted?
> "The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers ... We know their treachery; we know the shallow pretenses under which they daily disregard [the Constitution's] plainest obligations
Could you explain how exactly am I misinterpreting it?
If you reading that quote as "we believe that the abolition of slavery is imminent and will happen in the next years" that's a pretty obvious misinterpretation.
I don’t give a shit about caste, never have, and for most part can’t tell based on last names, but I’ll be honest that even after decades I still feel a little raw about reservation.
None of that matters since many of these incidents happen within 15 minutes of the first meeting. Roughly around when they start to realize and ask, “oh, you’re not Brahmin?”
Importantly, this question sounds more like trying to find a reason why casteism is justified tbh.
No of course it’s not justified, and not sure why you thought I was trying to do that. I apologize if my comment came across like that.
I have never been in your shoes, so was trying to understand.
The US is quite large so this is a YMMV thing. I solve this issue by just not associating very much with my ex-countrymen. I get enough of them when I go to visit my parents, I don't need to constantly mingle with more Indians. I have a solid set of diverse friends (one or two are Indian).
It helps that in my workplace I tend not to think of anyone as a 'friend' and just keep my interactions professional.
I guess the works for all kinds of cases of discrimination.
UT Southwestern is quite famous for protecting its image at all costs.
And because I know people will wonder: no, I am not Indian and know very little about caste so you can rest assured this isn't a biased response.
You think teaching them that it's wrong to discriminate based on caste is a step on "a rather steep slippery slope towards" genocide??
When I was a child there were a lot of scandals about girls disappearing from school because they were married off to a cousin back in Morocco.
Just clarifying that discrimination doesn't have to result in being fired or passed over for a promotion to count as discrimination.
1. If a bunch of co-workers who are vegetarian due to their ancestry choose to exclude me from lunches because I want to eat meat, can I sue them for caste discrimination?
2. If someone makes fun of me because I wear a mark on my forehead, can I sue them for caste discrimination?
All laws need to have bounds that operate within the constraints of the US Constitution. This is why I was limiting the scope of my comments to hiring/firing/promotion related topics. I am sympathetic to social issues like what OP is talking about, but also do not believe that new laws can solve all of them.
Also, the existence of such a law should have a chilling effect on this behaviour. Even if it doesn't get rid of it. E.g. presumably HR policies & training will have to be updated to highlight it on pain of exposing employers to legal action.
It kind of sucks that South Asians apparently need to be singled out like this, but it seems like a pretty cut-and-dried civil rights issue.
I’m not of the “lowest caste” as it’s perceived but by looks I am often mistaken to be a Brahmin, one of the highest ones. So my fellow Brahmins get offended when I’m not strictly vegetarian, and get more so to learn that I’m not Brahmin or that I believe India should remain secular.
I’d advise anyone not fully informed to not give too much credence to people opposing this legislation; I spend a lot of time weeding and working around them and can assure you this is a real thing and should be codified just to remind them what America should stand for.