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.
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.
Or maybe it was propaganda?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
Question: Were Free State leaders abolitionists?
Answer: Yes
Not quite accurate. Some were, some weren't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
Question: Were these men engaged in acts of violence?
Answer: Yes
Why is this assertion wrong?
It neglects the fact that they were retaliating against the violence that was begun by the proslavery side, and it neglects the fact that the vast majority of the violence was committed by the proslavery side.
"The historical record indicates that the proslavery side committed most acts of violence. Of the fifty-two who died in the Kansas slavery battles of 1855 to 1858, almost 75 percent were Free State settlers. Of the thirty-six Free State casualties, twenty-eight were murders; the remaining eight occurred during battle. In contrast, only eight on the proslavery side were murdered. Among the rest, five died in battle, two were killed accidentally by their own violence, and one was shot when he disturbed a Free State meeting.
"The eight proslavery people murdered included the five John Brown killed at Pottawatomie. It was John Brown who, more than anyone else, 'brought Southern tactics to the Northern side,' as a contemporary journalist put it. There was appropriateness in Brown's using terror to avenge the sack of Lawrence and the caning of Sumner, typically Southern acts of violence met by characteristic Northern timidity. Sumner's helpless passivity before Brooks's sadistic attack was not unlike the inability of the citizens of Lawrence to resist the invading border ruffians. The Missourian David Atchison told his troops outside Lawrence that the gutless Free-Staters who had not fired a shot, 'tonight ... will learn a Southern lesson they will remember.' The federal officer Nathaniel Lyon sneered at 'the wanton cowardice' and 'the craven fear of Northern men in abandoning their helpless families to the merciless outrages of the inexorable savages.'
"John Brown agreed with these sentiments. He called the Free State residents of Lawrence 'cowards, or worse' for not resisting the border ruffian invasion. At Pottawatomie he would prove that a Northern group could slaughter the enemy just as Southern mobs had for decades: on a negligible pretext, using a sneak attack when the enemy was defenseless, and with disregard for possible punishment--punishment that for Brown, as for 90 percent of the antebellum Southerners involved in mob action, never came." [David S. Reynolds, John Brown, Abolitionist: The Man Who Killed Slavery, Sparked the Civil War, and Seeded Civil Rights, pp. 163-164]
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."
You seem to be confused. You made a statement about Sutherland in a book about the Cooper Union address, not about Dred Scott. I'm asking for the citation to the book that talks about Cooper Union.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
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.
I'm using what Lincoln actually said, rather than a concocted misrepresentation of what he said. His words do speak for themselves. If you break up the Republican Party, antislavery people will have no peaceful alternative. He specifically denies that Brown in any way represented Republicans. You grossly misrepresent his speech.
"And then Linocln employs a rapid-fire series of warnings to argue that challenging the legitimacy of the Republican party was much the same as challenging the legitimacy of the Union itself. He leaves little doubt where the destructive spiral would lead.
" 'And how much would it avail you, if you could ... break up the Republican organization?
" 'You cannot destroy that judgment and feeling--that sentiment--by breaking up the political organization which rallies around it.' "
[Harold Holzer, Lincoln at Cooper Union: The Speech That Made Abraham Lincoln President, pp. 137-138]
And here's to brave Virginia,
The Old Dominion State.
With the young Confederacy
At length has linked her fate.
Impelled by her example,
Now other States prepare
To hoist on high the Bonnie Blue flag
That bears a single star.
Cash, the book in question is Fellman, Michael;Lesley J. Gordon; Daniel E. Sutherland, THIS TERRIBLE WAR: THE CIVIL WAR AND ITS AFTERMATH.New York: Longman, 2003.
P. 7 "Lincoln frequently used John Brown as a kind of warning, as he did in his famous Cooper Union address on February 27, 1860, when he said that if"the peaceful channel of the ballot box" were not used, should the Democrats be successful in using John Brown to break up the Republican Party, antislavery sentiment would not disappear but would find another course, and the number of John Browns would then multiply."
My statement is but a paraphrase of what these men have said. But, they too may be confused and contorting things. Or it may be that I have correctly understood Lincoln, abolitionists and their tendency toward violence, and that I have the facts straight. In any case, I seem to have good company for the views I hold.
P. 7 "Lincoln frequently used John Brown as a kind of warning, as he did in his famous Cooper Union address on February 27, 1860, when he said that if"the peaceful channel of the ballot box" were not used, should the Democrats be successful in using John Brown to break up the Republican Party, antislavery sentiment would not disappear but would find another course, and the number of John Browns would then multiply."
I'm confused, are you admitting that Mr. Lincoln was attempting to be a moderating influence on the issue of abolition, or that in contrasting "the ballot box" with John Brown, he was somehow endorsing Brown?
__________________ -
"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
Cash, the book in question is Fellman, Michael;Lesley J. Gordon; Daniel E. Sutherland, THIS TERRIBLE WAR: THE CIVIL WAR AND ITS AFTERMATH.New York: Longman, 2003.
P. 7 "Lincoln frequently used John Brown as a kind of warning, as he did in his famous Cooper Union address on February 27, 1860, when he said that if"the peaceful channel of the ballot box" were not used, should the Democrats be successful in using John Brown to break up the Republican Party, antislavery sentiment would not disappear but would find another course, and the number of John Browns would then multiply."
My statement is but a paraphrase of what these men have said. But, they too may be confused and contorting things. Or it may be that I have correctly understood Lincoln, abolitionists and their tendency toward violence, and that I have the facts straight. In any case, I seem to have good company for the views I hold.
My apologies for jumping in on this discussion, which I have been following with interest. I don't see how this passage can be interpreted to mean that Lincoln in any way endorsed Brown, endorsed violence, or that members of the Republican party endorsed violence. It is merely pointing out that Lincoln contrasted Brown with the peaceful efforts of the Republicans using the political process to achieve their anti-slavery goals, but that even the obstruction of these peaceful, political efforts (i.e. the Democrats' efforts to link Brown with Republican politicians) would not put an end to anti-slavery sympathies. Those sympathies, if blocked through legal, political means, would emerge elsewhere, including acts of violence similar to those of Brown and his followers. In essence, Lincoln invoked Brown's violence as a kind of bell-weather of the depth of anti-slavery attitudes, and America could not afford to bury its head in the sand.
best,
marc
__________________ "It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues." - Abraham Lincoln
My apologies for jumping in on this discussion, which I have been following with interest.
No apologies accepted Marc. Anything posted is public domain. If someone wants a conversation to be private, there's that option. By the way, warm welcomes.
Quote:
I don't see how this passage can be interpreted to mean that Lincoln in any way endorsed Brown, endorsed violence, or that members of the Republican party endorsed violence.
Stick around. You'll see a whole bunch more plain statements misinterpreted.
By the way, your post was one of clearest, most direct posts I've yet seen. Thank you.
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
My apologies for jumping in on this discussion, which I have been following with interest. I don't see how this passage can be interpreted to mean that Lincoln in any way endorsed Brown, endorsed violence, or that members of the Republican party endorsed violence. It is merely pointing out that Lincoln contrasted Brown with the peaceful efforts of the Republicans using the political process to achieve their anti-slavery goals, but that even the obstruction of these peaceful, political efforts (i.e. the Democrats' efforts to link Brown with Republican politicians) would not put an end to anti-slavery sympathies. Those sympathies, if blocked through legal, political means, would emerge elsewhere, including acts of violence similar to those of Brown and his followers. In essence, Lincoln invoked Brown's violence as a kind of bell-weather of the depth of anti-slavery attitudes, and America could not afford to bury its head in the sand.
best,
marc
Jump right in, Marc! I'm having a hell of a time sorting out RebProf's and Cash's dispute.
__________________ -
"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
Cash, the book in question is Fellman, Michael;Lesley J. Gordon; Daniel E. Sutherland, THIS TERRIBLE WAR: THE CIVIL WAR AND ITS AFTERMATH.New York: Longman, 2003.
Thanks for the cite. I'll look for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
P. 7 "Lincoln frequently used John Brown as a kind of warning, as he did in his famous Cooper Union address on February 27, 1860, when he said that if"the peaceful channel of the ballot box" were not used, should the Democrats be successful in using John Brown to break up the Republican Party, antislavery sentiment would not disappear but would find another course, and the number of John Browns would then multiply."
My statement is but a paraphrase of what these men have said. But, they too may be confused and contorting things. Or it may be that I have correctly understood Lincoln, abolitionists and their tendency toward violence, and that I have the facts straight. In any case, I seem to have good company for the views I hold.
I don't think this supports your view at all. In fact, it supports what I've been saying on this. Note they talk about using John Brown to break up the Republican Party. You don't appear to have any company at all for the views you hold. Your own source contradicts you and Holzer contradicts you.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
