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.
Ole,
I think Derrick is refering to the growing inbalance in population between free and slave states, not Lincoln's election in 1860. Free state representation was greater than slave state, unsurprisingly since more people lived in free states. The absolute number of free vs. slave states had shifted in free state favor too.
This was a burning concern to slaveholders, who feared losing their power and influence nationally. As long as they held the majority in the Democratic party, they still had decisive influence, even if they were a minority nationally. With the election of Lincoln even that lever seemed to go.
If Lincoln had assumed office without secession, he might have built a Southern Republican party: a party with a platform that called for stripping the slaveowning elite of their privileges, over representation in elections and tax breaks.
Exactly. The tariff on raw wool was favored by the northwestern wool growers, and the tariff on finished woolens was favored by the weavers. Those who bought finished woolens got the bite. Somehow, I get the feeling that a great many more northerners than southerners bought woolens.
Yes. The tariff on imported raw wool was actually quite popular with small farmers -- even though the economics worked out in a way that meant only large producers really made enough money to be meaningful. The small guy thought of it as his own "protective tariff", a way of getting a little something to protect the common man. That was one of the reasons it was so popular in the old Northwest and places like western Virginia.
Manufacturers basically didn't care as long as they weren't made to suffer for it.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
If Lincoln had assumed office without secession, he might have built a Southern Republican party: a party with a platform that called for stripping the slaveowning elite of their privileges, over representation in elections and tax breaks.
This point was a concern to the Southerners (at least the politicians). They figured that a few years of Republican administration in Washington could lead to the foundation of a Republican Party in the South (i.e., Southerneres who voted Republican) through use of the traditional patronage system (which the Democrats had usually controlled in the 1840s-1850s, a useful tool in making sure Democrats dominated Southern states.)
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
The Civil War began because the Northern States gained total control of the House of Representatives, Senate, and Presidency which caused the Southern States to loose all representation in the law making process and as a result the Southern States were highly taxed and the money raised from these taxes was spent for internal improvements in the Northern States, so it became neccesary for the Southern States to suceed from the Union and fight for their independence to form their own country called the Confederate States of America where they would have total control of the law making process and have a government that truely represented the Southern People of the United States of America.
The above should be memorized by every citizen of the United States, it should be in every history book, but it is not. The problem is the way our history teachers were taught. If your answer to the Civil War's cause has the phrase "too free the slaves" in it, then your dead wrong. If it has the phrase "over states rights" in it, then your also wrong. If it has the phrase "fought over taxes" in it , then you are wrong. It was fought because the South lost all representation in the law making process as stated above.
Welcome to the board, Derrick.
I'm afraid you are about 100% wrong in your statement above.
But rather than take my word for it, may I present Alexander Stephens and part of his speech against Georgia's secession to the Georgia Legislature, Nov. 14, 1860?
"The President of the United States is no Emperor, no Dictator--he is clothed with no absolute power. He can do nothing, unless he is backed by power in Congress. The House of Representatives, to the Conservative Constitutional Party of the country, which I here will call the National Democratic Pary, because that is the cognomen it has at the North. There are twelve of this Party elected from New York, to the next Congress, I believe. In the present House, there are but four, I think. In Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, and Indiana, there have been gains. In the present Congress, there were one hundred and thirteen Republicans, when it takes one hundred and seventeen to make a majority. The gains in the Democratic Party in Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Jersey, New York, Indiana, and other States, notwithstanding its distractions, have been enought to make a majority of near thirty, in the next House, against Mr. Lincoln. Even in Boston, Mr. Burlingame, one of the noted leaders of the fanatics of that section, has been defeated, and a Conservative man returned to in his stead. Is this the time, then, to apprehend that Mr. Lincoln, with this large majority of the House of Representatives against him, can carry out any of this unconstitutional principles in that body?
In the Senate, he will also be powerless. There will be a majority of four against him. This, after the loss of Bigler, Fitch, and others, by the unfortunate dissensions of the National Democratic Party in their States, Mr. Lincoln can not appoint an officer without the consent of the Senate--he can not form a Cabinet without the same consent. He will be in the condition of George the Third (the embodiment of Toryism), who had to ask the Whigs to appoint his ministers, and was compelled to receive a Cabinet utterly opposed to his views; and so Mr. Lincoln will be compelled to ask of the Senate to choose for him a Cabinet, if the Democracy or that Party choose to put him on such terms. He will be compelled to do this, or let the Government stop, if the National Democratic Senators (for that is their name at the North), the Conservative men in the Senate, should so determine. Then how can Mr. Lincoln obtain a Cabinet which would aid him, or allow him to violate the Constitution? Why, then, I say, should we disrupt the ties of this Union, when his hands are tied--when he can do nothing against us?"
The fact of the matter is, and was, Derrick, Lincoln and the Republican Party had ONLY captured the White House and did NOT have a majority in either the House or the Senate. And one should remember, the United States Supreme Court was made up primarily/a majority of Southern appointees and slaveholders.
Out of the three branches of the Federal Government, Congress, the Supreme Court, and the President, Lincoln only held one.
And here is another source you might consider from the time. The Staunton Spetator, Virginia, Oct. 23, 1860:
Nothing To Dread From Lincoln.
"Even though Lincoln shoud be elected, and should be disposed to commit some agression upon the rights of the South, he could not do it. The Supreme Court is against the theories of his party. The Senate is against them and the Congress will be against them. There are 237 members of the House--Oregon and California send three against him, Ohio ten, Indiana four, Illinois five, Pennsylvania five, and the South eighty-nine, 116 in all. We have but to elect three other anti-Lincoln members and all is safe. New York city alone will elect six. There cannot in any event then be danger of present aggression against the South, and if conservation and a Union spirit shall prevail in the border Southern States, we may prevent any of the other States, by reason and argument, from seceding, if Lincoln should be elected.
To break up the Government under these circumstances, simply because Lincoln should be elected, would be adding madness to treason.--The danger is in the Cotton States, and not in the North. The spirit of prohibition as represented by Lincoln will be impotent for mischief, but the spirit of disunion, as represented by Yancey and other extremists of the South may be potential for indescribable evils. The people should do all they can to elect the Union loving conservatives, Bell and Everett, for then there would be no danger of disunion and civil war."
The South did NOT lose representation in the government by the election of Lincoln, in the Senate or the House. Nor did it lose power in the Supreme Court.
The South GAVE away representation in those bodies by walking out and proceeding with unilateral secession.
So you see, Derrick, if we ask every US Citizen to memorize what you say above, it would be inaccurate and not historical fact.
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
This point was a concern to the Southerners (at least the politicians). They figured that a few years of Republican administration in Washington could lead to the foundation of a Republican Party in the South (i.e., Southerneres who voted Republican) through use of the traditional patronage system (which the Democrats had usually controlled in the 1840s-1850s, a useful tool in making sure Democrats dominated Southern states.)
Tim
This is something I've heard many times, but still do not fully understand. What federal patronage positions were there besides postmasters? Were they concerned that building a Republican party in the south would encourage slave insurrections? Was it a fear that a Republican party in the south would turn non-slaveholding whites against slaveholders? Were their fears justified? If anyone can provide some answers to these questions or books that address these questions I would be grateful. I read about it all the time, but seldom in any great detail.
"...The great conservative institution of slavery, so excellent in itself, and so necessary to civil liberty and the dignity of the white race, is one of the grand objects of our struggle. It should never be lost sight of, nor under any pressure should we ever take any step incompatible with the relation of master and slave. No enterning wedge to emancipation should ever be allowed. It should not be held forth to the slave as a boon for his services. Our theory is, that he is better off as a slave; and even if he were not, we could not safely have an emancipated class of them amongst us. Much less can we put arms in his hands. That would ruin him forever. Slavery afterwards would be impossible."
Arkansas, Telegraph of January 13, 1865.
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
You'll get better answers soon, Parrott, but if I might lead off: Postmasters would allow delivery of seditious mail, (The secessionists were not secure enough to allow the spread of contrary information.) so were by themselves a powerful danger. Customs officials and minor governmental functionaries might also be replaced by activist Republicans.
True, there were not that many patronage positions of influence, but such was the paranoia (or propaganda) value of electioneering. "Were their fears justified?" Perhaps. I wouldn't put it past Lincoln to apply some pressure. But then, preaching the perceived threat was more valuable than any real damage.
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
Richmond Enquirer, Saturday Morning, March 23, 1861.
The True Issue.
"...The ultimatum of the seceded States is left in no uncertainty; it is to be found in the solemn action of the Montogmery Constitution and may be analyzed as follows:
1. That African slavery in the Territories shall be recognized and protected by Congress and the Territorial Legislatures.
2. That the right to slaveholders of transit and sojourn in any State of the Confederacy, with their slaves and other property, shall be recognized and respected.
3. That the provision in regard to fugitive slaves shall extend to any slave lawfully carried from one State into another, and there escaping or taken away from his master.
4. That no bill or ex post facto law (by Congress or any State,) and no law impairing or denying the right of property in negro slaves, shall be passed.
5. That the African slave trade shall be prohibited by such laws of Congress as shall effectually prevent the same."
__________________ "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
As we've discussed a few times, the fact a war was going on became an issue to many men of the South. Slavery was doubltess in the middle of much of the ruckus; no argument there.
__________________ Ancestors in US Army: 13th TN Cav; 10th TN Cav; 3rd NC Inf
Ancestors in CSA Army: 48th VA; 63rd VA, 5th NC Cav; 37th NC
Wife and Grandson's CSA: 15th AL, 51st GA, 41st TN; 36th TN; GA Mil 1197 Dist
I'm afraid you are about 100% wrong in your statement above.
But rather than take my word for it, may I present Alexander Stephens and part of his speech against Georgia's secession to the Georgia Legislature, Nov. 14, 1860?
"The President of the United States is no Emperor, no Dictator--he is clothed with no absolute power. He can do nothing, unless he is backed by power in Congress. The House of Representatives, to the Conservative Constitutional Party of the country, which I here will call the National Democratic Pary, because that is the cognomen it has at the North. There are twelve of this Party elected from New York, to the next Congress, I believe. In the present House, there are but four, I think. In Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, and Indiana, there have been gains. In the present Congress, there were one hundred and thirteen Republicans, when it takes one hundred and seventeen to make a majority. The gains in the Democratic Party in Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Jersey, New York, Indiana, and other States, notwithstanding its distractions, have been enought to make a majority of near thirty, in the next House, against Mr. Lincoln. Even in Boston, Mr. Burlingame, one of the noted leaders of the fanatics of that section, has been defeated, and a Conservative man returned to in his stead. Is this the time, then, to apprehend that Mr. Lincoln, with this large majority of the House of Representatives against him, can carry out any of this unconstitutional principles in that body?
In the Senate, he will also be powerless. There will be a majority of four against him. This, after the loss of Bigler, Fitch, and others, by the unfortunate dissensions of the National Democratic Party in their States, Mr. Lincoln can not appoint an officer without the consent of the Senate--he can not form a Cabinet without the same consent. He will be in the condition of George the Third (the embodiment of Toryism), who had to ask the Whigs to appoint his ministers, and was compelled to receive a Cabinet utterly opposed to his views; and so Mr. Lincoln will be compelled to ask of the Senate to choose for him a Cabinet, if the Democracy or that Party choose to put him on such terms. He will be compelled to do this, or let the Government stop, if the National Democratic Senators (for that is their name at the North), the Conservative men in the Senate, should so determine. Then how can Mr. Lincoln obtain a Cabinet which would aid him, or allow him to violate the Constitution? Why, then, I say, should we disrupt the ties of this Union, when his hands are tied--when he can do nothing against us?"
The fact of the matter is, and was, Derrick, Lincoln and the Republican Party had ONLY captured the White House and did NOT have a majority in either the House or the Senate. And one should remember, the United States Supreme Court was made up primarily/a majority of Southern appointees and slaveholders.
Out of the three branches of the Federal Government, Congress, the Supreme Court, and the President, Lincoln only held one.
And here is another source you might consider from the time. The Staunton Spetator, Virginia, Oct. 23, 1860:
Nothing To Dread From Lincoln.
"Even though Lincoln shoud be elected, and should be disposed to commit some agression upon the rights of the South, he could not do it. The Supreme Court is against the theories of his party. The Senate is against them and the Congress will be against them. There are 237 members of the House--Oregon and California send three against him, Ohio ten, Indiana four, Illinois five, Pennsylvania five, and the South eighty-nine, 116 in all. We have but to elect three other anti-Lincoln members and all is safe. New York city alone will elect six. There cannot in any event then be danger of present aggression against the South, and if conservation and a Union spirit shall prevail in the border Southern States, we may prevent any of the other States, by reason and argument, from seceding, if Lincoln should be elected.
To break up the Government under these circumstances, simply because Lincoln should be elected, would be adding madness to treason.--The danger is in the Cotton States, and not in the North. The spirit of prohibition as represented by Lincoln will be impotent for mischief, but the spirit of disunion, as represented by Yancey and other extremists of the South may be potential for indescribable evils. The people should do all they can to elect the Union loving conservatives, Bell and Everett, for then there would be no danger of disunion and civil war."
The South did NOT lose representation in the government by the election of Lincoln, in the Senate or the House. Nor did it lose power in the Supreme Court.
The South GAVE away representation in those bodies by walking out and proceeding with unilateral secession.
So you see, Derrick, if we ask every US Citizen to memorize what you say above, it would be inaccurate and not historical fact.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
As you know, the saddest fact of all was that Congress didn't have the fortitude to work out those difference in the hallowed halls. Throwing lead balls through the air was a very poor alternative.
__________________ Ancestors in US Army: 13th TN Cav; 10th TN Cav; 3rd NC Inf
Ancestors in CSA Army: 48th VA; 63rd VA, 5th NC Cav; 37th NC
Wife and Grandson's CSA: 15th AL, 51st GA, 41st TN; 36th TN; GA Mil 1197 Dist
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
