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.
Yes, the 'hint' was broad enough but facing 3-1 odds on CWT keeps a bad ol' reb like myself a tad busy.:-)
Thanks for the history of this incident. I didn't know this info and appreciate it very much.
I never really focussed upon the political/legal aspects of the WBTS. My primary interest was always the battles and leaders; the stereotypical Southern military 'hot head'if you will. :-)
After being a member of this most humble and 'moderate' forum for a while, I can see the focus of most people has been upon the political and social aspects. Interesting....
With you on that one. Until last year, my reading was confined to tracing movements, evaluating generals and unit commanders, constructing orders of battle, analyzing casualties -- putting the pieces together on the ground. My most neglected books were those on what I have categorized as SocioPol. I was quite content to let others debate the root causes and political ramifications.
Now I'm hard put to get back into my battles. Kind of makes life interesting, doesn't it?
Regards,
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
The Dred Scott decision has been misrepresented by those who claim only one finding, namely that Scott was not a citizen and had no right to sue. That is the first part of the finding. The majority also ruled that a stay on free soil did not make one a free man. That part of the decision validated the Fugitive Slave Law and overturned the Missouri Compromise. If the president and congress cannot eleminate slavery in the 1820 bill, what does that say about their ability to end slavery?
This was the meaning of the decision as understood at the time and by most historians since. The "obiter dictum" in the case was the comment that slaveowners could go anywhere they chose taking slaves with them and do so for any length of time. This comment caused the Republican Party to fear the Court was about to use another case to overturn state laws prohibiting slavery.
Any standard history of the Scott case makes clear the importance of both parts of the majority finding.
Question: Why did the 1850 newspaper editors call abolitionists violent, dangerous, and a threat to the preservation of the Union?
Answer: Because that is the way abolitionists were perceived by the editors and many of their readers.
Question: Were Free State leaders abolitionists?
Answer: Yes
Question: Were these men engaged in acts of violence?
Answer: Yes
Is that Daniel Sutherland? Which book are you referencing in particular? I suggest that you go read Harold Holzer, Lincoln at Cooper Union: The Speech That Made Abraham Lincoln President.
Fellman, Gordon, & Sutherland: This Terrible War. p.67
The Court "decided that kAfrican Amemricans wer not citizens and that Scott had no right even to sue in federal court. . . . In any event, went the majority decision, a temporary residence in nonslave territory did not bestow freedom or abrogate the rights of property."
The gratuitous comments that slaves could be taken anywhere and the implied limitations on the powers of the president and congress caused the Republicans to fear a conspiracy between the Democratic president and the Democratic-dominated court.
My major point of contention is that the ruling includes more than merely a ruling on citizenship. No state, other that Massachusetts, considered free men of color to be citizens, much less slaves.
My second point is that the perceptions of the people of the time are the basis on which actions were taken. We cannot ignore those perceptions and understand the past--we cannot insist that our ideas are to be dominant instead of theirs. This is why the perceptions of the 1859 newspaper editors are of greater weight than any pattern of conduct any of us wish to impose on the people of that time. As Fellman, et al., put it, "appearances counted more than reality in the tumultuous 1850s." On many occasions that is still the case.
As to Lincoln at Cooper Union, I have read the book you recomment. I feel you are attempting to use a literal interpretation to avoid the reality of the comments. Lincoln wished to present the Republican Party as "moderate" and to avoid open identification with the "radical" element. Thus, at Cooper Union when Lincoln refers to the Republican Party he always means the "moderate" wing. His words speak for themselves--deal with slavery our (moderate) way or face the violence of the "radical"wing who has given you John Brown.
Dear Alabaman:
Outnumbered 3 to 1? Just the kind of odds a good Southerner should like!
Ole,
The 1850s stuff is interesting to me too. What people thought about race, democracy, liberty, and power.
I think the problem is the appeal to principles like the right to secession, or upholding the government. What were you seceding for? Was the government worth upholding?
The "rebs" on this forum talk about abolition violence, an overbearing federal government, Constitutionalism, state's rights etc. They may be sincere, but the secesh of the time were interested in GETTING THEIR WAY. The fugitive slave law is all about denying liberty, an overbearing federal government, and resorting to violence. Dollars to donuts nobody will want to post about this particular inconsistency.
The "rebs" on this forum talk about abolition violence, an overbearing federal government, Constitutionalism, state's rights etc. They may be sincere, but the secesh of the time were interested in GETTING THEIR WAY. The fugitive slave law is all about denying liberty, an overbearing federal government, and resorting to violence. Dollars to donuts nobody will want to post about this particular inconsistency.
You may send my dollars to ...... I was betting 100 dozen donuts.
I'm still struggling to find a precise focal point for the secessionists' discombulation. There seems to be a suspiciously large amount of personal, aristocratic power-grab behind all the nicer-sounding things like states' rights, returning to the original meaning of the constitution (including correcting the original error regarding to "all men are created equal'), crying about bad press, the all too real fear of losing the political power they had held since 1789 -- my way or the highway.
As someone said earlier (was it RebProf?), perceptions are real. My question comes around to who, if anyone, was shaping those perceptions. Start with a few hard feelings, stir in some sectional/cultural/economic differences and you get some full-blown hate being built up.
'Bama (IIRC) puts great store in the "sectional differences" angle. Although I don't assign as much weight to that theory, I can't entirely discount it. Sectional differences would certainly account for them/us feelings, but Mississippi was as different from Virginia as Wisconsin was from Pennsylvania. Aha! you say, but a certain, unnamed condition was in common across the entire southland bound that group of states closer together. Nothing like that existed between Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. From that simplistic observation, one might assume that this common condition was at least one contributor to southern cohesion against a business-as-usual north.
When may I expect your payoff?
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
Dear Ole,
I'll owe you, should you ever come to Massachusetts.
I'm thinking, not of you, but some of the other posters who just want to ignore slavery and its influence. Look away Dixie land, as I posted elsewhere. People are getting all hot and bothered about John Brown. How many people did he kill or maim compared to William Walker, a personality I haven't seen posted anywhere here?
I don't know enough to spout off on cultural differencies, north and south, but obviously slavery had something to do with that, not just directly, but indirectly, on Southern concepts of honor, and their feeling about land, about conformity and being bossed around, either by a bureaucrat or anybody else.
Slavery was one of many causes of the WBTS and not THE only cause. Never have I discounted slavery as a causation entirely, have I? or at least I didn't intend to. The neo-unionist on this forum just wish it to be the ONLY cause for some reason. My assertion is the two sections could not agree on one single thing. RE: Ole's comment: The South had many sub-cultures within the "southern" culture thus Virginians thought slightly different than Alabamians, and etc. But, ALL had one common sectional theme; the desire to be free of the Union. The Confederation of Southern states fielded an army which is well regarded by most world historians, so cohesiveness was definitely present. Of course I have to fight off the perpetual thought bombardment by neo-unionist that I am incorrect. Oh well...
Anyway, my favorite song is the Bonnie Blue Flag, not Dixie. ;-)
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
