Upper South and Border States' secession

[hawglips]

I have long been intrigued by the response of the Upper South States during the secession era.

These States first rejected, then embraced secession.

Why did they do this? How does one explain their actions?

To kick things off, I'd like to post the thoughts of a Baltimorean who left school to fight for the Southern cause - Randolph Harrison McKim:

It is said, and widely believed, that the people of the South were not attached to the Union and were eager to seize upon an excuse for its dissolution. Even if it were conceded that the South had the right of Secession, or at any rate the right of revolution, we are told that if she loved the Union as she ought to have loved it, she would not have exercised that right.

In considering this assertion it will be necessary to distinguish in our reply between the States that first seceded and the border States of Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Arkansas, which later gave in their adhesion to the Southern Confederacy. As to the former--the cotton States--if it be true, as candid historians acknowledge, that their people "all held that the North was unconstitutionally and unjustly attempting to coerce the sovereign States"3; if it be true, as we have seen is now conceded, that the people of those States solemnly believed that their liberties were assailed, and that the war waged against them was a war of subjugation, then I submit that they were constrained to choose between their love of the Union and their love of liberty; and I do not believe that any brave and candid patriot of any Northern State will condemn them because, holding that belief, they made the choice they did. The judgment of the South may be impeached,1 but not her patriotism; not her love for the Union; if, shut up to such an alternative, she preferred liberty without Union to Union without liberty.

The case of the border States is somewhat different. Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee, were all opposed to Secession. They refused to follow the lead of South Carolina. For example, as late as April 4 Virginia voted by eighty-nine to forty-five against the ordinance of Secession. They believed the Southern States had just grievances against the North, and that there was much to justify the fears which they entertained, but they were not prepared to dissolve the Union. They still hoped for redress within the Union by constitutional means. Moreover, the men who became our greatest generals, and our most illustrious and determined leaders in the Southern Confederacy, were, a majority of them, earnest Union men.

I think it may be said, too, that the States which furnished most of the munitions of war and most of the fighting men were opposed to Secession. The Union which their forefathers had done so much to create,1 first by the sword and then by the pen and the tongue, was dear to their hearts.

But there came a cruel issue. On the 15th of April, 1861, President Lincoln issued a proclamation calling for 75,000 men to coerce the seceded States back into the Union. The border States were called upon to furnish their quota of armed men to march against their Southern brethren. Thus an issue was forced upon them which the future historian, however antagonistic to the South, must ponder with sympathy and emotion. The men of these border States were compelled to decide either to send soldiers to fight against their brethren, or to say, "We will throw in our lot with them and resist military coercion." Now, whatever division of sentiment existed in regard to the policy, or even the right, of Secession, there was almost complete unanimity in these States in repudiating the right of coercion. That right had been vehemently repudiated in the discussions in the Constitutional Convention by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and Edmund Randolph. The South remained true to the doctrine of the fathers on this point.2

It is vain to ask at this date what would have happened
if that fatal proclamation of April 15 had never been issued, but it is impossible to repress the thought that perhaps, after all, the truest statesmanship rested with those who, like Edward Everett, and Horace Greeley, and William H. Seward, and General Scott, believed that the Policy of coercion was a political error. Certain it is that but for that policy those great States just enumerated would not have thrown in their lot with the Southern Confederacy, and it is a supposition by no means destitute of rational foundation that without their support the seven States which had already seceded would have ultimately sought readmission to the Union, and that the Union might have been saved, and slavery ultimately abolished, without the dreadful cost of a fratricidal war and without the unspeakable horrors of that Reconstruction period, when the star of liberty sank as if to rise no more on the Southern States,1 and without that act--the quintessence of injustice to the whites, and of unkindness to the blacks themselves --I mean the act which conferred the right of suffrage indiscriminately on the newly emancipated slaves.

But, waiving all this, I come back to the question, Can any blame attach to the people of the border States for choosing as they chose in the face of the cruel alternative, which was forced upon them by Mr. Lincoln's proclamation, to abandon the Union, or to draw their swords against their Southern brethren?

It has been well and wisely said by a recent historian (Mr. Rhodes) that "the political reason of Virginia, Maryland, and Kentucky inclined them to the North, their heartstrings drew them to the South." I put it to any man with a heart to say, whether, when the bayonet is directed against the bosom of a member of one's own household, he is to blame for throwing himself into the breach in his defence, even though the bayonet be in the hand of the officer of the law? I affirm that the ties of blood and kindred are more sacred even than those which bind a man to the government of his country. Could the men of Virginia and North Carolina and Tennessee be expected to raise their hands against their family altars and firesides, whatever view they might have taken of the constitutional questions at issue? But the men of those States believed with great unanimity that the sovereignty of a State was inviolable by the General Government. That was the faith they had received from their fathers, from a long line of illustrious statesmen and political philosophers. Of this let one decisive example suffice. Though Robert E. Lee abhorred the idea of Secession and loved the Union with a passionate devotion, yet when he was asked by a member of a committee of Congress whether he did not consider that he was guilty of treason in drawing his sword in behalf of the South, he answered: "No, I believed my allegiance was due to the State of Virginia."

The people of the South believed, as we have said, that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. They believed the General Government had no rightful power of coercion. Their New England brethren had for many years confirmed them in that belief. Moreover they believed a union by force not the Union which the fathers had in view. A governmental fabric pinned together by bayonets did not seem to them a republic, but a despotism.

(Message edited by hawglips on October 26, 2004)

Hal,
When I think of secession, the war betwixt the states, the conflict in general, I see it from one point of view first and last, The Great State of Tennessee's. I see other things to be sure. Fully and as completely as I can. But to me I cannot look beyond State's Rights even in my studies. So when I see the war, I see it from Tennessee's POV. Which, like Virginia, North Carolina and Arkansas is rarely considered much less addressed. When you consider these state's declarations, intents and rejections it shows State's Rights was an issue that is being minimized. I posted a LOT of info once on Tennessee's POV but it was ignored completely. Oh well.

I will state one thing though. Tennessee indeed rejected secession at first. But once the populace voted to secede it did so wholeheartedly. There is much said about how eastern Tennessee was pro Union. This is not entirely true. Much of this come from one pro Union Newspaper. Now bear in mind, there were a LOT of pro union people in east Tennessee. But only if their enemies on the next hill went sesesh. If the people they hated ‘over thar’ went union then they wore the grey. They wanted to secede from Tennessee to form their own state once. But not to join the Union. In short they fought each other. Bitterly. And why shouldn’t they. Look into the Revolutionary War. A LOT of blood feuds started then. The Tories were nothing much anywhere but in the South the Tories and Rebs were so vicious it appalled the British. So by 1860, these mountain folk were like a domestic dispute. Fight each other and turn on everyone that would dare interfere.

YMOS
tommy

[hawglips]

Tommy, I think the reason the perspectives of the upper South states are so rarely considered or discussed, is because those perspectives do not further the myth so dear to force-union apologists, and do not lend themselves well to the standard "slavery as the cause" defense of the North's war against self-determination.

Being from NC, I have always been interested in the reasoning behind the Tarheel State's rejection and subsequent embrace of secession. The flip-flop is fascinating.

The language used by the various governors in response to Lincoln's call for troops leave little room for doubt as to the cause of their secessions (or attempted secessions):

AR: "The demand is only adding insult to injury. The people of this commonwealth are freemen, not slaves, and will defend to the last extremity their honor, lives, and property against Northern mendacity and usurpation."

TN: "Tennessee will not furnish a single man for purpose of coercion, but 50,000, if necessary, for the defense of our rights and those of our Southern brethren."

...and...

TN: "In such unholy crusade no gallant son of Tennessee will ever draw his sword."

VA: "Your object is to subjugate the Southern States, and requisition made upon me for such an object--an object, in my judgment, no within the purview of the Constitution or the act of 1795-will not be complied with. You have chosen to inaugurate civil war, and having done so, we will meet it in a spirit as determined as the Administration has exhibited toward the South."

NC: "I have to say in reply that I regard the levy of troops made by the administration for the purpose of subjugating the States of the South as in violation of the Constitution and a gross usurpation of power. I can be no party to this wicked violation of the laws of the country, and this war upon the liberties of a free people. You can get no troops from North Carolina."

MO: "Your requisition, in my judgment, is illegal, unconstitutional, and revolutionary in its object, in human and diabolical, and cannot be complied with. Not one man will the State of Missouri furnish to carry on any such unholy crusade."

MD: "Whereas the war against the Confederate States is unconstitutional and repugnant to Civilization, and will result in bloody and shameful overthrow of our institutions; and while recognizing the obligations of Maryland to the Union, we sympathize with the South in the struggle for their rights -- for the sake of humanity we are for peace and reconciliation, and solemnly protest against this war, and will take no part in it;"

KY: "I say emphatically Kentucky will furnish no troops for the wicked purpose of subduing her sister Southern States."

Hal

Governor Ellis of North Carolina
"Your despatch is received, and if genuine, which its extraordinary character leads me to doubt, I have to say in reply, that I regard the levy of troops made by the Administration for the purpose of subjugating the States of the South, as in violation of the Constitution and a usurpation of power. I can be no party to this wicked violation of the laws of the country, and to this war upon the liberties of a free people. You can get no troops from North Carolina."

Governor Magoffin of Kentucky

: "Your despatch is received. I say emphatically that Kentucky will furnish no troops for the wicked purpose of subduing her sister Southern States."

Governor Harris of Tennessee
: "Tennessee will not furnish a single man for coercion; but fifty thousand, if necessary, for the defence of our rights or those of our Southern brethren."

Governor Jackson of Missouri
"There can be, I apprehend, no doubt that these men are intended to make war on the seceded States. Your requisition, in my judgment, is illegal, unconstitutional and revolting in its objects, inhuman and diabolical, and cannot be complied with. Not one man will the State of Missouri furnish to carry on such an unholy crusade."



Arkansas’s Governor Rector
““In answer to your requisition for troops from Arkansas to subjugate the Southern States, I have to say that none will be furnished. The demand is only adding insult to injury. The people of this commonwealth are freemen, not slaves, and will defend, to the last extremity, their honor, lives, and property against Northern mendacity and usurpation.””

The Articles of secession....

Arkansas
Whereas, in addition to the well-founded causes of complaint set forth by this convention, in resolutions adopted on the 11th of March, A.D. 1861, against the sectional party now in power in Washington City, headed by Abraham Lincoln, he has, in the face of resolutions passed by this convention pledging the State of Arkansas to resist to the last extremity any attempt on the part of such power to coerce any State that had seceded from the old Union, proclaimed to the world that war should be waged against such States until they should be compelled to submit to their rule, and large forces to accomplish this have by this same power been called out, and are now being marshaled to carry out this inhuman design; and to longer submit to such rule, or remain in the old Union of the United States, would be disgraceful and ruinous to the State of Arkansas:

Missouri

Whereas the Government of the United States, in the possession and under the control of a sectional party, has wantonly violated the compact originally made between said Government and the State of Missouri, by invading with hostile armies the soil of the State, attacking and making prisoners the militia while legally assembled under the State laws, forcibly occupying the State capitol, and attempting through the instrumentality of domestic traitors to usurp the State government, seizing and destroying private property, and murdering with fiendish malignity peaceable citizens, men, women, and children, together with other acts of atrocity, indicating a deep-settled hostility toward the people of Missouri and their institutions

(Message edited by aphillbilly on October 29, 2004)

[hawglips]

There's a lot of talk here about the constitution, usurpation, violation of the laws, wickedness, violation of liberties, etc, as their reasons, and not much talk of slavery.

Hal

"...wicked violation of the laws of the country..."

"...this war upon the liberties of a free people..."

"...Your object is to subjugate the Southern States..."

"...Northern mendacity and usurpation..."

"...the war against the Confederate States is unconstitutional and repugnant to Civilization..."

"..the wicked purpose of subduing her sister Southern States..."

"..Your requisition... is illegal, unconstitutional, and revolutionary in its object, inhuman and diabolical..."

"...unholy crusade ..."

"...a sectional party, has wantonly violated the compact..."

"...in violation of the Constitution and a usurpation of power.."

[hawglips]

An interesting editorial on how Virginia was united behind secession after Lincoln's actions.

Hal


******************************************
Staunton Spectator
April 30, 1861
How Virginia was United
(Column 2)

We have no disposition, says the Lynchburg Virginian, to obtrude old party issues upon the people now, believing that everything of the kind should be deprecated and avoided. Our people are united, as they ought to be, in opposition to Black Republican oppression and tyranny. Yet, we occasionally hear some indiscreet persons reproaching those who were more reluctant to anticipate the issue now forced upon them by others--with being the authors of the mischief we are now suffering. Such persons assume--and it is the merest assumption--that if we had presented a united front in the beginning of the present troubles, there would have been no conflict. They forget that it was simply impossible to bring our people to that point, and that, if even a majority had been found willing to separate from the Union one month ago, a very large minority would have been restless and dissatisfied. The moral force of our action would have been impaired, if no worse consequence had ensued. But, by our patient efforts in behalf of the Union, compromise and peace, we forced Lincoln to a development of his policy, and such a development as has united us to a man. This is the best vindication that could be given of the wisdom of our policy. In confirmation of this view, we submit the following from the Richmond "Examiner," a journal that lampooned the Convention and the Union men with unwonted severity.--the "Examiner" says:

"The bug-bear of civil war need not frighten no one. We are not engaged in Virginia civil war, and, thank heaven all danger of that most dreadful of human scourges is past. It almost reconciles us to the delay of the Convention.-- That delay has made Virginia a unit--has made the whole South a unit. The natives of the South are leagued and confederated to repel Northern invasion, and establish Southern independence."

And the "delay" of the late Union men brought about this "league" and hearty confederation of Southern men. This shall be our consolation amidst all the sorrows that may await us.

[hawglips]

BY THE GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA.

A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas, seven of the States formerly composing a part of the United States, have, by authority of their people, solemnly resumed the powers granted by them to the United States, and have framed a Constitution and organized a Government for themselves, to which people of those States are yielding willing obedience, and have so notified the President of the United States by all formalities incident to such action, and thereby become to the United States a separate, independent and foreign power.

And, whereas the Constitution of the United States has invested Congress with the sole power 'to declare war,' and until such declaration is made, the President has no authority to call for an extraordinary force to wage offensive war against any foreign power;

and whereas on the 15th inst., the President of the United States, in plain violation of the Constitution, has issued a proclamation calling for a force of seventy five thousand men, to cause the laws of the United States to be duly executed over a people who are no longer a part of the union, and in said proclamation threatens to exert this unusual force to compel obedience to his mandates;

and whereas, the General Assembly of Virginia would consider such an exertion of force as a virtual declaration of war, to be resisted by all the power at the command of Virginia;

and subsequently, the Convention now in session, representing the sovereignty of this State, has re-affirmed in substance the same policy, by almost equal unanimity;

and whereas the State of Virginia deeply sympathizes with the Southern States, in the wrongs they have assumed;

and having made earnest efforts peaceably to [ ] the differences which have severed the Union, and have failed in that attempt through this unwarranted act on the part of the President;

and it is believed that the influences which operate to produce this proclamation against the seceded States will be brought to bear upon this Commonwealth, if she should exercise her undoubted right to resume the powers granted by her people, and it is due to the honor of Virginia that an improper exercise of force against her people should be compelled:

Therefore I, John Letcher, Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, have thought proper to order all armed volunteer regiments or companies within this State forthwith to hold themselves in readiness for immediate orders, and upon reception of this proclamation to report to the Adjutant General of the State their organization and numbers, and prepare themselves for efficient service.-Such companies as are not armed and equipped will report that fact, that they may be properly supplied. {L.S.}

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the Commonwealth to be affixed, this 17th day of April, 1861, and in the 85th year of the Commonwealth.
JOHN LETCHER.

[hawglips]

Happy Lee-Jackson Day everyone!

Hal


*****************************************
Certificate of Recognition

By virtue of the authority vested by the Constitution in the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, there is hereby officially recognized:

LEE-JACKSON DAY

WHEREAS, Generals Robert E. Lee and Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson are native Virginians, born in the Old Dominion and serving our great nation and Commonwealth as educators, leaders and military strategists; and

WHEREAS, Lee served in the United States Army for more than three decades until he left his position to serve as Commander in Chief of Virginia's military forces and as Commander of the Army of Northern Virginia; and

WHEREAS, Jackson taught philosophy and military tactics as a professor at the Virginia Military Institute in Lexington for nearly a decade before serving briefly in the United States Army and later joining the Confederate Army to fight for his native Virginia; and

WHEREAS, Lee dedicated his life after the Civil War to reforming higher education in the South by serving as President of Washington College, now Washington & Lee University, in Lexington, Virginia, and he greatly increased the school's funding and expanded the curriculum to create an atmosphere most conducive to learning for you men of both Southern and Northern heritage; and

WHEREAS, Jackson's leadership and bravery led his troops to several improbable victories against opposition forces much larger than his own, and Jackson's inspired "Stonewall Brigade" fought alongside General Lee's troops toward another victory even after their leader was fatally wounded on the second day of the Battle of Chancellorsville; and

WHEREAS, it is fitting to recognize Generals Lee and Jackson as two of our nation's most notable militiary strategists, as beloved leaders among their troops, as pioneers in the fields of higher education and as faithful and dedicated Virginians;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Mark R. Warner, do hereby recognize January 14, 2005, as LEE-JACKSON DAY in the COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, and I call this observance to the attention of all our citizens.
(Signed)
Mark R. Warner
Governor

(Signed)
Anita A. Rimler
Secretary of the Commonwealth

[ole]

Hal:

I join with you in honoring Lee-Jackson Day. I will commemorate the event by scraping the walls in my hall and thinking of the venerated heroes of the Confederacy.

Seriously.
Ole