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.
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
Marc,
Welcome to the group. Good to see you here. I think you'll enjoy this group a great deal. I agree with what you say, but I'd clarify it in saying Lincoln was speaking specifically of attempts to break up the Republican party by using John Brown and other means to somehow delegitimize it.
Thanks for the welcome. I have noticed that the tone of discourse here tends to remain civil, even when contentious. I very much appreciate that, and hope that I can make some contributions to the discussions.
best,
marc
__________________ "It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues." - Abraham Lincoln
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?
I am saying that Lincoln wished to be publically identified with the moderate wing of the Republican party and not with the radical, Seward, wing of the Republican party. Lincoln wanted to avoid identification with the Radicals because they had endorsed violence by supporting John Brown and that endorsement scared voters. Lincoln wanted to make his position look more appealing by pointing out that "if you don't take the moderate road of gradual abolition via the ballot box you will be faced with the Radical alternative--more violence." This is the position any good politician would adopt, I think.
On the other hand, Lincoln held some admiration for Brown, if not for Brown's methods, and Linclon said so.
The referrence Lincoln made to John Brown demonstrates my original contention that abolitionists were viewed by many people, north and south, as violent and as a danger to the future of the Union. That contention is reinforced by the 1859 newspaper editorials I have posted. These original sources cannot be dismissed since they reflect the opinions of people of the times. To call them "propaganda" is to beg the question. Lincoln knew the editorials reflected a widely held opinion--abolitionists are violent and dangerous--and he both distanced himself from that position while using the fear to make his position apper more appealing.
With the passage of time all abolitionists were tarred with the Radical brush.
." [David S. Reynolds, John Brown, Abolitionist: The Man Who Killed Slavery, Sparked the Civil War, and Seeded Civil Rights, pp. 163-164]
Regards,
Cash[/quote]
There have been discussions before about the reliability of sources. I will stand with Randall and Donald, that Free State abolitionists introduced violence into Kansas. The title of the above indicates a point of view which raises questions about its objectivity. I also recommend reading the reviews of Reynolds, they often point out that this is a "worshipful" biography.
Still, history is about points of view, as I have commented before.
I am saying that Lincoln wished to be publically identified with the moderate wing of the Republican party and not with the radical, Seward, wing of the Republican party.
Well, I doubt many would agree that Seward was all that much of a radical, but this appears to be quite a shift from your original position that Lincoln was threatening terrorist attacks if the ballot box was not used to end or limit slavery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
Lincoln wanted to avoid identification with the Radicals because they had endorsed violence by supporting John Brown and that endorsement scared voters.
Actually, Lincoln denied ANY Republican involvement with John Brown.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
Lincoln wanted to make his position look more appealing by pointing out that "if you don't take the moderate road of gradual abolition via the ballot box you will be faced with the Radical alternative--more violence." This is the position any good politician would adopt, I think.
You're misrepresenting Lincoln's words again. He said no such thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
The referrence Lincoln made to John Brown demonstrates my original contention that abolitionists were viewed by many people, north and south, as violent and as a danger to the future of the Union.
No, that's not your original contention. Your original contention was that the abolitionists turned to terrorism and lawlessness. When you couldn't support that contention you shifted your claim to say that abolitionists were viewed by many as violent.
." [David S. Reynolds, John Brown, Abolitionist: The Man Who Killed Slavery, Sparked the Civil War, and Seeded Civil Rights, pp. 163-164]
Regards,
Cash
There have been discussions before about the reliability of sources. I will stand with Randall and Donald, that Free State abolitionists introduced violence into Kansas.[/quote]
Randall and Donald don't say that, though. So once again you're standing alone surrounded by phantom allies you conjured up out of nothing. As David Potter wrote, "Thus, while antislavery men were first to organize migration as a means of continuing the contest over slavery, Missourians were first to openly invoke the use of force." [David M. Potter, The Impending Crisis, 1848-1861, p. 200]
Among the first of these was the so-called "Platte County Self-Defensive Association," led by B. F. Stringfellow. "Over the summer of 1854, the Self-Defensives accused a local man of forging passes for runaways. Convicted of abolitionism, they shaved his head and gave him forty-eight hours to leave the county. In July 1854, the Platte County Self-Defensives publicly tried a Massachusetts man, who was waiting to move to Kansas, for abolitionism. Sentenced to twenty-four lashes, the man was ultimately escorted to Iowa." [Nicole Etcheson, Bleeding Kansas: Contested Liberty in the Civil War Era, pp. 32-33] The first casualty was a free-state man named Dow, who was murdered by a proslavery man named Coleman on November 21, 1854 just south of Lawrence. [James C. Malin, "The Proslavery Background of the Kansas Struggle," Mississippi Valley Historical Review, Vol X, No. 3, Dec. 1923, p. 299]
"As boatload after boatload of detested Yankees and Northern settlers passed up the tawny river, the naturally hospitable Missouri slaveholder was surprised, astounded, then disturbed; and as the volume of Northern emigration swelled in numbers, his soul was filled with fury and bitter hatred. Even at the present day different sections of the Union seriously misjudge each other; but in 1854 an impassable gulf intervened between free and slave sections. They could never fairly comprehend each other's motives. To the slave-owner the 'peculiar institution' was God-ordained; it was inextricably bound up with his whole industrial and social system. By what principle did these 'pauper' laborers and abolition fanatics dare to approach the borders of western Missouri and disturb the already unstable equilibrium of a slave community? Had it not been agreed that Nebraska should be a free state and that Kansas should be a slave state? Was not this a fair proposition? If threats and bluster would not deter these Northern interlopers, then more serious measures must be employed. In June, 1854, before a single Eastern colony had set foot on Kansas soil, the Platte County Argus declared that
" 'they [Northern emigrants] must be met, if need be, with the rifle. We must meet them at the very threshold and scourge them back to their caverns of darkness. They have made the issue, and it is for us to meet and repel them, even at the point of the bayonet.'
"Prompt steps were taken to put this programme [sic] into practice." [W. H. Isely, "The Sharps Rifle Episode in Kansas History," American Historical Review, Vol XII, No. 3, April, 1907, p. 550]
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
The title of the above indicates a point of view which raises questions about its objectivity. I also recommend reading the reviews of Reynolds, they often point out that this is a "worshipful" biography.
Still, history is about points of view, as I have commented before.
Nice attempt to dodge the statistics, which Prof. Reynolds' footnotes say come from David Grimsted, American Mobbing, 1828-1861: Toward Civil War (New York, 1998), p. 248. The fact remains that the proslavery side started the violence and the free-state side was the victim of violence the vast majority of the time.
Regarding the biography of Brown, it is definitely sympathetic to Brown, but I wouldn't call it "worshipful." One can read an excerpt here:
Post #975 "Well, I doubt many would agree that Seward was all that much of a radical, but this appears to be quite a shift from your original position that Lincoln was threatening terrorist attacks if the ballor box was not used to end or limit slavery."
Seward was not as radical as Chase but his "irrepressible conflict" speech and his endorsement of "higher law" certainly place him in the Radical ranks. By the way, my position is, and has been, that abolitionists turned to terrorism and lawlessness after Dred Scott because the only peaceful options open to them were long and slow. While moderate abolitionists rejected violence the radical abolitionists endorsed these acts and the public perception came to be that all abolitionists were in agreement. I have posted editorials from 1859 papers, north and south, Democratic and Whig, to show this perception was wide-spread. I have contended, and still contend, that Lincoln used the Cooper Union speech to warn that if the moderate Republican path was not followed then more violence was ahead. It has been stated in some postings that this is not the case. I will allow the sources I have quoted to speak for themselves. Disagreeing with my statement in no way disproves it, no matter how vehemently that disagreement is stated.
Post #976 Randall and Donald don't say that, though. So once again you're standing alone surrounded by phantom allies you conjure up out of nothing."
Randall & Donald, CIVIL WAR AND RECONSTRUCTION, pp 98-99 "The activities of the New England Emigrant Aid Company, writes Samuel A. Johnson, "furnished the excuse, and some measure the provocation, for the Missouri invasion" of Kansas by "border ruffians"; the society gave "encouragement, advice, and money" to the free-state leaders in Kansas; and it was the officers of the company, if not the company itself, that armed the Free-State party." I emphasize the words "furnished the excuse, and some measure theprovocation." The blame does not lie all on the pro-slavery side.
The broader issue here is the nature of the matter of slavery. I disagree with those who wish to limit slavery to those who owned slaves (and their families.) The issue of slavery in American life includes those who captured Africans, who transported them, who sold and bought them, who manufactured consumer goods from slave-produced raw materials, and those who purchased those consumer goods. The issue not involves the defenders of slavery, it includes those who opposed the practice. In the case of the Radical abolitionists the methods by which they pursued their goals contributed to the coming of the war. That is my continuing point relative to the focus of this thread.
In an attempt to prove a point sometimes words are spoken, and statements are made, which go too far. The idea that abolitionists were violent, that the Republican party was identified with abolitionism, and that the people of 1859/60 viewed abolitionists as dangerous and a threat to national unity is clear from the record. To contend that the idea is conjured "up out of nothing" is an attempt to deny the facts.
Or it may be in the zeal to prove a cherished belief, that some facts are left out, ignored, or are too uncomfortable to list, while other facts are overplayed thereby giving a very false impression of historical fact.
The statement that abolishionists should be compared with modern-day terrorists, resorting to acts of violence and terror is one that you have failed to prove beyond what one would consider reasonable with justification according to historical facts. Your proof does not hold up under serious observation.
But, if one looks to history and a factual record, we see many, many instances of pro-slavery forces committing many acts of violence and terror along with repression of many Northern citizens and states against the activities of abolishionist groups, with the break-up of peaceful meetings, destroying presses, hindering the mails, even causing the deaths of members of those groups. At times, even federal government agencies were arrayed against abolishionist organizations.
The degree at which you wish to portray these groups in their violent activities does not support your overall contention, i.e., abolishionists were terrorists.
Respectfully,
Unionblue
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
Post #975 "Well, I doubt many would agree that Seward was all that much of a radical, but this appears to be quite a shift from your original position that Lincoln was threatening terrorist attacks if the ballor box was not used to end or limit slavery."
Seward was not as radical as Chase but his "irrepressible conflict" speech and his endorsement of "higher law" certainly place him in the Radical ranks.
Perhaps, if one wishes to simply cherrypick carefully selected portions of his record. It doesn't seem to me that an objective scrutiny of his entire record sustains the assertion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
By the way, my position is, and has been, that abolitionists turned to terrorism and lawlessness after Dred Scott because the only peaceful options open to them were long and slow.
And your position is untenable. John Brown and his follwers were an anomaly. The violence in Kansas was due to what the proslavery side had already started doing. You have yet to show any other abolitionists who turned to terrorism and lawlessness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
I have contended, and still contend, that Lincoln used the Cooper Union speech to warn that if the moderate Republican path was not followed then more violence was ahead.
And it's been shown that's a misrepresentation of what Lincoln said. Even the source you provided contradicts you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
It has been stated in some postings that this is not the case. I will allow the sources I have quoted to speak for themselves. Disagreeing with my statement in no way disproves it, no matter how vehemently that disagreement is stated.
But your own source disproves it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
Post #976 Randall and Donald don't say that, though. So once again you're standing alone surrounded by phantom allies you conjure up out of nothing."
Randall & Donald, CIVIL WAR AND RECONSTRUCTION, pp 98-99 "The activities of the New England Emigrant Aid Company, writes Samuel A. Johnson, "furnished the excuse, and some measure the provocation, for the Missouri invasion" of Kansas by "border ruffians"; the society gave "encouragement, advice, and money" to the free-state leaders in Kansas; and it was the officers of the company, if not the company itself, that armed the Free-State party." I emphasize the words "furnished the excuse, and some measure theprovocation." The blame does not lie all on the pro-slavery side.
Nothing in that passage says anything about the Free-state side starting the violence. They are talking about the emigration movement into Kansas causing the border ruffians to move into Kansas as well. It was the proslavery side who started the violence in Kansas, as I've shown repeatedly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
The broader issue here is the nature of the matter of slavery. I disagree with those who wish to limit slavery to those who owned slaves (and their families.) The issue of slavery in American life includes those who captured Africans, who transported them, who sold and bought them, who manufactured consumer goods from slave-produced raw materials, and those who purchased those consumer goods. The issue not involves the defenders of slavery, it includes those who opposed the practice. In the case of the Radical abolitionists the methods by which they pursued their goals contributed to the coming of the war. That is my continuing point relative to the focus of this thread.
Red herring. The issue that concerns us in this thread is who was willing to secede and start a war to preserve slavery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebProf
In an attempt to prove a point sometimes words are spoken, and statements are made, which go too far. The idea that abolitionists were violent, that the Republican party was identified with abolitionism, and that the people of 1859/60 viewed abolitionists as dangerous and a threat to national unity is clear from the record. To contend that the idea is conjured "up out of nothing" is an attempt to deny the facts.
Wrong again. The idea that abolitionists were violent is conjured up out of nothing. You misrepresented Lincoln, you misrepresented Randall and Donald, who don't support the claim that the Free-State side began the violence in Kansas, and you misrepresented Fellman, Gordon, and Sutherland when they actually contradicted you. Your claim that they support you is in fact conjured up out of nothing.
Sorry, RebProf, I couldn't help myself when I came across it.
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
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
