Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
Just one last word on the 'Virginia=the South' digression, (last for me at least, Ole, cause I know you will inevitably have the last last word.)
During the Virginia Secession Convention (Feb. 13 thru April 17, 1861) there was an implicit question as to where Virginia belonged as to North/South, Union/Confederacy.
From Freehing's examination of the "Proceedings of the Virginia State Convention of 1861":
"the meaning of being a Virginian was hotly disputed. Some unwavering Unionists, particularly from the largely nonslaveholding northwestern counties, thought of Virginia as akin to a northern yeoman state, with the unfortunate, but probable necessary, side institution of slavery.[And we know where West Virginia came from] A surprisingly large group of compromisers, particularly from Virginia's central areas with only moderate numbers of slaves, considered the state neither northern or southern. They hoped for a third confederacy, composed of free-labor and slave-labor border states. Finally, a fiery group of secessionists, particularly from the eastern areas with a large population of slaves, considered Virginia a classic slave community. They dare to dream of a quasi-aristocratic southern Confederacy."
-The Reintegration of American History by William W. Freehling.
[editorial comments, mine]
__________________ -
"It was a very peculiar time." - Franklin D. Cossitt
Ancestors in USA Army: 6th IA Inf, 11th IL Cav, 1st AL Cav; 122nd NY Inf; 6th MI Cav; 35th MA Inf; 100th IL Inf; 1st CO Inf/Cav; 22nd IN Inf
War is caused by conflict of interests. Struggles for political power, land, resources.
Remarkable how none of those figured into northern reasons for invading the south. The north had as much political power as it was going to get until the next election. Control of the government, however tenuous, gave it control of federal lands and resources. Strangely enough, the south protested the temporary diminution of its political power and its inability to create new slave territories. Resources? What resources -- precisely -- was the war about?
Quote:
The issue of slavery was a side-show.
Southern states seceded because they feared for the safety of slavery under a Republican government. This is quite evident in the Declarations of Secession, Declarations of Causes, and the report of the Committee of 33, as well as in records of debates of secession conventions. When all the reasons for secession are stacked up, it's fruitless to argue that slavery was a sideshow.
Quote:
98-99% of the North cared nothing about slaves...and they proved it during the war.
Accurate statement #1! I'd put it at 85 - 90 percent, but the numbers are unimportant. A very few of the Union boys cared about freeing slaves. Most signed up to keep alive the novel idea of a republic -- an experimental idea that took 13 colonies from infancy to a formidable world power in 80 short years. The entire world, except for this corner of it, operated on the principle of inherited privilege. In the U.S. alone could a man rise to ownership and comfort in spite of who his father was. Immigrant and natural born alike, they joined up for the idea -- OK, some joined up because a war might be fun.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
So Brooks devised another plan. He came upon Sumner while he was seated at a desk in the Senate chamber -- a desk that was bolted to the floor. He struck without warning, beating Sumner -- who had his legs trapped in the desk and could not rise under the blows -- unmercifully as he was unable to defend himself. Finally, Sumner managed to rip the desk from the floor and stagger away to collapse, at which point Brooks finally stopped beating him.
Now Sumner may have been a lot of things. He certainly had made cruel fun of Senator Brooks in his "Crime Against Kansas" speech. But to say that he passively submitted to this violent assault, as the quote does, is simply incorrect.
Quibble ended.
Regards,
Tim
Tim,
Thanks for your comments, but it seems to me the perception by all who read about it in the newspapers was that Sumner passively accepted the beating.
Here's how David Donald described it:
" 'I have read your speech twice over carefully,' Brooks began in a low voice. 'It is a libel on South Carolina and Mr. Butler, who is a relative of mine--' As Sumner seemed about to rise, Brooks interrupted himself to give Sumner 'a slight blow' with the smaller end of his cane. Stunned, Sumner instinctively threw out his arms to protect his head, and Brooks felt 'compelled to strike him harder than he had intended.' He began to rain down blows, and, he boasted: 'Every lick went where I intended.' In the excitement, Brooks forgot that he had set out only to flog Sumner, and began to strike him on the head 'as hard as he could.'
"Dazed by the first blow, Sumner of course could not remember that in order to rise from his desk, which was bolted to the floor by an iron plate and heavy screws, he had to push back his chair, which was on rollers. Perhaps half a dozen blows fell on his head and shoulders while he was still pinioned. Eyes blinded with blood, 'almost unconsciously, acting under the instinct of self-defence,' he then made a mighty effort to rise, and, with the pressure of his thighs, ripped the desk from the floor. Staggering forward, he now offered an even better target for Brooks, who, avoiding Sumner's outstretched arms, beat down 'to the full extent of his power.' So heavy were his blows that the gutta-percha cane, which he had carefully selected because he 'fancied it would not break,' snapped, but, with the portion remaining in his hand, he continued to pour on rapid blows. The strokes 'made a good deal more noise after the stick was broken than before. They sounded as if the end of the stick was split.'
"As soon as Sumner was free from the desk, he moved blindly 'down the narrow passage-way, under the impetuous drive of his adversary, with his hands uplifted.' As 'Brooks continued his blows rapidly with the part of the stick he held in his hand.' Sumnerlost consciousness and 'was reeling around against the seats, backwards and forwards.' 'His whole manner seemed ... like a person in convulsions; hisarms were thrown around as if unconsciously.' Knocking over another desk, diagonally in front of his own, he seemed about to fall when Brooks reached out and with one hand held Sumner up by the lapel of his coat while he continued to strike him with the other. By this time the cane had shivered to pieces. Sumner, 'entirely insensible' and 'reeling and staggering about,' and was about to fall in the aisle. 'I ... gave him about 30 first rate stripes,' Brooks summarized. 'Towards the last he bellowed like a calf. I wore my cane out completely but saved the Head which is gold.' " [David H. Donald, _Charles Sumner and the Coming of the Civil War,_ pp. 294-295]
Commenting on this, David Potter wrote, "It is well to remember, however, that all that anyone knew at the time was that Brooks had assaulted Sumner and had injured him, and that after these injuries, he appeared disabled and did not return to the Senate." [David M. Potter, _The Impending Crisis, 1848-1861,_ p. 211]
It seems to me that from Brown's perspective, then, reading about the assault in the media, Sumner didn't fight back and didn't resist, thus passively accepted the beating.
I agree. The South went to war and left the Union over it's interest to protect the institution of slavery. The North went to war because of it's interests to preserve the Union.
Quote:
"Struggles for political power..."
True. The South had maintained political power in the US Government for decades, ensuring that slavery was protected and that threats to it were minimized. When Lincoln was elected, this political power was threatened, even though the South retained control of the House and the Supreme Court, this power was needed to be maintained, even at the expense of Union.
Quote:
"land"
The South also continued agitation for expansion of slavery and attempted to aquire land by buying or taking by force Cuba and agitating for slavery's expansion in Central and South America and tried to do so by encouraging filibustering expeditions. It insisted that slavery be allowed to expand into the territories and reneged on the Missouri Compromise in order to expand throughout the land reguardless of States Rights.
Quote:
"resources."
And the one resource the South wanted to protect at all cost, the institution of slavery on which it based it's political and financial wealth.
Quote:
"The issue of slavery was a side-show."
From the White House Studies program, an article by Max. J. Skidmore, dated January 1, 2002.
"...The South, to be sure, was unique, but it was slavery and all that went with it that created Southern uniqueness. The South shared basic American institutions and the essentials of American culture, but the history of slavery there and its continued presence added a dimension absent elsewhere...
Except for slavery and its effects, there was as least as much difference nationally between urban and rural as between "North" and South. Despite the many assertions of Southern uniqueness that have disregarded slavery, it is doubtful that there is any other single factor unique to the South sufficient to account for its willingness -- and on the part of some, it's eagerness -- to destroy the Union. All that truly has set the South apart in any significant manner is related directly to the presence in large numbers of people of African descent in a predominantly rural region with a heritage its spokesmen described as their "Peculiar Institution." Kenneth Stampp put it clearly. He wrote that fundamentally:
"The Confederacy was not the product of genuine southern nationalism. Indeed, except for the institution of slavery, the South had little to give it national identity, and the notion of a distinct southern culture was largely the figment of the romantic imagination of a handful of intellectuals and pro-slavery propagandists..."
The article continues...
THE CAUSE OF THE CIVIL WAR
"Much writing about the Civil War has, despite massive evidence to the contrary, asserted that it resulted from a wide range of overwhelmingly divisive sectional differences. Such interpretations tend to downplay -- if not to deny outright -- the importance of slavery and to portray the South as victim, regardless of its insistence that slavery should be permitted to spread as a condition of continued union. Alan Nolan has decried such interpretations as "distinctly marked by Southern advocacy," and wrote bluntly that "the Lost Cause was expressly a rationalization, a cover-up." It should be obvious that before the War Southern leaders themselves characterized slavery as the issue. Nevertheless, following the Civil War and flying in the face of the facts, the "Southerners" contention that slavery had nothing to do with the war was widely accepted in the postwar North and became part of the Civil War legend in the popular mind."
Fawn Brodie lamented in 1962 that the Southern viewpoint had come to "premeate the writings of historians from every section of the country."
This had not always been the case. For decades following the War, it was only Southern apologists -- those who had been vigorously at work creating a myth of the "Lost Cause" who denied that it resulted because of slavery. James Ford Rhodes shortly after the turn of the century asserted the principle that until then had had general acceptance, that slavery had been the Civil War's single cause. However simplistic such a view may appear -- wars, after all, are complicated phenomena -- there is one sense in which the "single cause" notion is hardly open to dispute. As Rhodes put it, "the question may be isolated by the incontrovertible statement that if the Negro had never been brought to America, our Civil War could not have occurred."
...The corrective efforts of many historians from Allan Nevins onward have had an effect. "Today," as Eric Foner has written, "nearly all historians view slavery as the war's fundamental cause, Emancipation as central to its meaning and consequences, and Reconstruction as a praiseworthy effort to establish the principle of racial justice in the United States." Nevertheless, it remains common to hear in classrooms across the country that slavery was not "really" the War's cause. A nunber of such interpretations have been based upon economic analysis -- frequently reflecting Marxist influence. These have joined with defensive efforts by Confederate apologists. Certainly they produce strange bedfellow indeed, but their cohabitation has been consistent with Richard Hofstadlter's designation in 1948 of Calhoun as the "Marx of the Master Class."
Regardless of these interpretations and notwithstanding some abortive threats from New England during the Madison administration, there was only one major difference among sections that was truly so divisive as seriously to threaten the Union. That difference was not climate, terrain, economics, politics, constitutional concern, or the like -- it was slavery. Slavery is the reason why it was the South, and only the South, that attempted to cut its ties with the rest of the country."
The entire article from which the above sections were taken, may be found here:
"98-99% of the North cared nothing about slaves..."
True. At the beginning of the war, very true.
After Antietam and the Emancipation Proclamation, not true.
Quote:
"...and the proved it during the war."
Not true and the historical evidence is there, if you want to read it.
From Antietam on, most Northern soldiers, no matter what their feelings on race and negroes, had come to the realization that slavery had brought on the war and needed to be destroyed.
While perhaps they did not want to live next to newly freed slaves or compete with them for jobs or living space, the fact remains from late 1862 until the end of the war, in their eyes at least, slavery brought on the war.
In short, friend Battalion, slavery was hardly a 'side-show.'
The cause of the war was something the South knew from the beginning and what the North finally came around to, as the gentleman in my signature lines stated so long ago:
"The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery."
And to try and deny that cause at this late date with all the historical sources we have freely available today, is just plain impossible.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
It seems to me that from Brown's perspective, then, reading about the assault in the media, Sumner didn't fight back and didn't resist, thus passively accepted the beating.
Having taken a few shots to the head, it might well be concluded that Sumner was quite disoriented and unable to effectively resist. It might well be noted, and I don't remember where I read this, that Brooks had a few backwatchers to prevent interference from others in the chamber. "Passively accepted?" Seems to me there was little opportunity or ability to fight back.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Just one last word on the 'Virginia=the South' digression, (last for me at least, Ole, cause I know you will inevitably have the last last word.)
During the Virginia Secession Convention (Feb. 13 thru April 17, 1861) there was an implicit question as to where Virginia belonged as to North/South, Union/Confederacy.
From Freehing's examination of the "Proceedings of the Virginia State Convention of 1861":
"the meaning of being a Virginian was hotly disputed. Some unwavering Unionists, particularly from the largely nonslaveholding northwestern counties, thought of Virginia as akin to a northern yeoman state, with the unfortunate, but probable necessary, side institution of slavery.[And we know where West Virginia came from] A surprisingly large group of compromisers, particularly from Virginia's central areas with only moderate numbers of slaves, considered the state neither northern or southern. They hoped for a third confederacy, composed of free-labor and slave-labor border states. Finally, a fiery group of secessionists, particularly from the eastern areas with a large population of slaves, considered Virginia a classic slave community. They dare to dream of a quasi-aristocratic southern Confederacy."
-The Reintegration of American History by William W. Freehling.
[editorial comments, mine]
I think that division of Virginia into parts is fairly accurate. Virginia in those days was an even larger state than it is now. If you lived in one of the northwestern counties, the connection to Tidewater Virginia was not all that clear and accounted for much of the division. They tended to believe that the plantation owners and slaveholders in the East had too much power and were giving little importance to their interests.
To put a little perspective on this, if you were in Harpers Ferry on the Potomac and wanted to go to Richmond the quickest and most convenient route was to take train to Baltimore and then sail on a steamer down the Chesapeake to the James River. If you lived west of there, the route was longer and more difficult, but probably involved heading north to catch the B&O east to Baltimore and then south on a steamer.
The difficulties of travel meant normal commerce and interaction with the Tidewater was limited. The northwestern counties had much more to do with the Ohio Valley and Pittsburgh on a routine basis. Their way of life was closer to that, and their business interests became entwined with them. This was not just a matter of slavery. Where eastern Virginia was strongly opposed to the Morrill Tariff in 1860, western Virginia supported it. Why? Because they saw their interests the same way Republicans in PA and the midwest did: closely alligned with the steel/iron business in Pittsburgh, and to some extent with the small farmers' interest in an import duty on raw wool. (This last was a mirage; while the idea was sold as benefitting small farmers, only large sheep operations really saw improvement.)
The secession convention decision plays out along almost pure sectional lines. Virginians voted heavily for secession and war there and in the election that ratified the decision, but western Virginians were opposed. Not surprising the state split in the next four years.
War is caused by conflict of interests.
Struggles for political power, land, resources.
The issue of slavery was a side-show.
98-99% of the North cared nothing about slaves...
...and they proved it during the war.
Battalion,
The North or the Union or whatever you wish to call it only went to war because they were attacked. No effort at all was made against the seceding states until they struck that blow, no troops were raised, no funds voted for war, nothing except purely defensive moves to safeguard existing US interests and troops were made until the rebellious states violently attacked the United States. No honest man, familiar with the facts, could possibly maintain any other position.
That settles the entire issue of why the North went to war: they did it out of self-defense, a response to aggressive, violent attack by Southerners.
Why did the South go to war? Simply put, to get their own way. They wanted to leave an agreement they had solemnly sworn would be perpetual, and they wanted to do it without any of their partners having a say in how it was done. These were the sort of people who saw things as their way or the highway. Compromise and going along to get along were things they found offensive. So they made their plans and they acted. They declared the Union broken, which had no legal force, and they raised troops and they made preparations. When they could not get exactly what they wanted when they wanted, they struck.
The Confederacy went to war over secession -- both for their own already declared act and for the not-yet-accomplished secession of the Upper South. Those original states seceded over slave property. They said so openly. They declared it solemnly in formal documents. They spoke movingly of it in conventions and legislatures. They blared it loudly it from podiums and street corners. They proclaimed it proudly in their newspapers.
The political power they wanted was the power to have slaves and to enforce that right no matter what their fellow Americans wanted, to dominate instead of to work together. The land they wanted was as available to them as to any other -- but sometimes without slaves. The resources they wanted were as much theirs as any other Americans -- but sometimes they could not use slaves to work them.
They knew what secession was about, and said so. They knew that secession might lead to war, and chose to accept war gladly. They cheered as the war began, with a blow struck by their own hands. It was all about slavery, just as they said. By what right do you call them all liars?
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
