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.
The suspension of the writ of habeus corpus and Lincoln's supposed trampling of the Constitution have often been brought up as proof of the despotism of the federal government in comparison to the Confederate government as a champion of civil liberties. Lincoln suspended the writ in an attempt to control the border states where feelings of identification with the Confederacy ran high. The charges of aiding and abetting the enemy were often leveled in such cases with varying degrees of accuracy. The balance between civil liberties and national security is a shifting one. In times of war, especially when the war is in occurring in the immediate vicinity, civil liberties historically have taken a back seat to national security concerns. Lincoln's government is but one example of this tendency. Davis' government is another.
On the very day that union forces surrendered at Fort Sumter, General Braxton Bragg arrested a newspaper reporter in Pensacola, Florida for printing an article about a common rumor that a gun placement was to be added at Santa Rosa Island. Over the loud protests of the reporter in question, Lawrence H. Matthews, who claimed to be a Confederate loyalist, the reporter was taken prisoner, accused of treason and sent to Richmond as the first political prisoner of the Confederacy.
The governor of Arkansas reported to the War Department in Richmond that it had become neccessary to institute martial law in much of the state and by late 1861 some 266 civilian prisoners had been taken on charges of "disloyalty and treason".
On May 3, 1862 General Beauregard ordered the Confederate quartermaster in Arkansas, W. Warren Johnson, to "burn all cotton within probable reach of the enemy- You are vested with authority to destroy cotton". General Thomas C. Hindman issued the following order to carry out the directive:
"You will proceed immediately up Arkansas river as far as practicable, destroying all cotton on the stream, its tributaries, or the country beyond which the enemy can reach, without respect to persons or places. Johnson will appoint such agents as he may deem necessary, with powers equal to his own. And he or they will summon such assistance of citizens as may be required to effect he purpose, arresting as traitors to the Confederacy all persons resisting the execution of this order......Receipts shall be given."
In February of 1862 The Confederate Congress authorized Jefferson Davis to suspend the writ of habeus corpus in cases of emergency. That same day he sent a telegram placing Norfolk and Portsmouth Virginian under martial law and suspending the writ. On March 1, 1862 he issued the following proclamation:
"I, Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America, do proclaim that martial law is hereby extended over the city of Richmond and the adjoining and surrounding country to the distance of ten miles; and I do proclaim the suspension of all civil jurisdiction (with the exception of the mayor of the city) and the suspension of the privelege of the writ of habeus corpus within the said city and surrounding country to the distance aforesaid."
A week later a similar order was made for the city of Petersburg.
Interestingly, the Confederate government had set up a system for dealing with its political prisoners as early as September of 1861. Secretary of War Leroy Pope Walker had commissioned J. Randolph Tucker, James Lyons, and Sydney S. Baxter to "pass upon the cases of persons who have been arrested under suspicion of disloyalty to the cause of the Confederate States." The commissioners numbering from 3 -6 throughout the war, with separate districts of responsibility, held absolute power to examine prisoners and make reports to the Secretary of War on whether the prisoners were to be released or held for trial. The Secretary of War could then release them, bring them to trial, or hold them in lieu of further evidence. The Habeus Corpus Commissioners virtually held the power of freedom or indefinite imprisonment without the consultation of a judge or jury and seved in this capacity until the Habeus Corpus act expired on August 1, 1864. Interestingly, the War Department continued their service as "special commissioners empowered to complete their investigations of persons remaining in military prisons within their areas."
In 1863 Congressman John B. Baldwin arose on the floor of the House of Representatives to enquire of one of the commissioners about a list of some 300 containing many of his constituents from Rockingham County, Virginia. Baldwin objected to the fact that the War Departments own documentation listed these prisoners being held as "union men" or even "no charges preferred". Baldwin stated; " I do not understand how these men are retained in custody in view of your instructions 'to discharge those against whom no well grounded cause fo suspicion exists of having violated a law or done an act hostile or injurious to to the confederate states' or of the rule declared by you that 'none are retained unless there be a cause of suspicion, supported by testimony rendering it probable that the discharge of the prisoners would be prejudicial to the public interest."
Baxter replied, "A large portion of Virginia is in possession of the enemy, and therefore the Authority of the laws and constitutions of both Virginia and the Confederate States, is, for a time suspended. Many crimes are committed against our citizens in that region," Baxter added, "which for want of evidence cannot be tried elsewhere, even if there were legal jurisdiction to try the offenders elsewhere.......Criminals from that region whose release would be dangerous to the security of our friends, must be held......especially.....those who refuse to take the oath."
Prisoners were routinely arrested and held for "seditious speech".
A couple of examples:
Joel Mayhue of Pittsylvania County, Virginia was arrested in 1863 and imprisoned in Richmond for telling a neighbor "if the enemy....should come through this country he would join them as quick as to snap his fingers." Mayhue admitted making the statement but said that he did so just to exasperate the neighbor and was released some a month later under the recommendation of Habeus Corpus Commissioner Isaac H. Carrington who noted that Mayhue was "a good disciplinarian amongst negroes, except sometimes too passionate."
Dr. Charles a Thatcher of Greenbrier County wound up in military prison in Richmond in 1862 for being an "avowed unionist". It seems that according to affidavits gathered by the provost marshall in Lewisburg the doctor had predicted a dire future for the Confederacy. He had stated that he envisioned military defeat, with the enemy overrunning Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Kentucky. He said he supported southern independence but regarded the cause as hopeless.
Gabriel Cueto, a reporter for a Scottish newspaper covering the war in Richmond, was arrested for using "stern abolition language." Commissioner Baxter refused to release him with the following statement, " If Mr. Cueto is an active abolitionist I cannot see how he can be permitted to go at large in the south." Cueto was later deported with the cooperation of the British consul.
Daniel F. Dulaney of Fairfax County, Virginia was arrested in 1863 for making "disloyal statements." Dulaney apparently admitted to accepting an office in the Unionist Government of Virginia. Commissioner Carrington noted the following,"For this offence, under the precedents established in similar cases, the prisoner may be confined as a traitorous citizen- It is not an offence for which he may be tried." Dulaney was held under Carrington's recommendation as a "political prisoner."
The backlash against such policies were hampering Davis' ability to prosecute the war and by late 1863 he had dropped all pretenses of avoiding the loss of civil liberties which, as we have seen, had already effectively disappeared. In February of 1864 Davis again went before the Confederate Congress to ask for the official right to suspend civil liberties.
"It has been our cherished hope- and hitherto justified by the generous self-devotion of our citizens- that when the great struggle in which we are engaged was passed we might exhibit to the world the proud spectacle of a people unanimous in the assertion and defense of their rights and achieving their liberty and independence after the bloodiest war of modern times without the neccessity of a single sacrifice of civil right to miltitary neccessity. But it can no longer be doubted that the zeal with which the people sprang to arms at the beginning of the contest has, in some parts of the Confederacy, been impaired by the long continuance and magnitude of the struggle." Davis went on to say that "discontent, disaffection, and disloyalty" were abroad in the land. Civil rights would have to be sacrificed to military neccessity.
Davis further referred to "public meetings.....in some of which a treasonable design is masked by a pretense of devotion to State sovereignty"; it seems that even the cause of State's rights was to be sacrificed at the altar of neccessity. Davis further explained the need for supension as "a remedy plainly contemplated by the Constitution." He pointed out that all the powers of the Constitution, "extraordinary as well as ordinary," were intended to be used when required. " And," He added, "a supension of the writ when demanded by the public safety is as much a duty as to levy taxes for the support of the Government."
All in all, this is a rather remarkable statement for a couple of reasons. First, the writ had already been officially suspended in 1862 and 1863 in over a dozen cases by Davis himself. Second, the language is remarkably similar to Lincoln's own statements that Davis and the Confederate government had hammered at as proof of the "despotic rule" in the north. It seems that in matters of national security the Confederate Government and the United States Government neccessarily resorted to the supension of civil liberties when the need arose.
Black Irish,
You are right in your concluding statement, the Union and Confederate governments did resort to the suspension of civil liberties when need arose, but the important fact you are missing here, is this:
Lincoln never considered the US at WAR with the Confederacy, just an upleasant uprising. Davis on the other hand considered the Confederacy at war with the first invasions of Southern soil, in the Carolinas, Mississippi and Florida.
There is a difference.
Best regards,
Ron Goodwin
I don't know how many people might have caught last night's episode of "JAG," but in one of the courtroom scenes, the point was made that the war against Al-Qaeda is not an officially declared war, and in fact, neither was the Gulf War, the Vietnam War, or the Korean War. And, though they didn't bring it up during the TV show, neither did the US declare war on the Confederacy.
Still, you know the old saying about a duck - if it looks like a duck and it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Similarly, when it comes to war - if it looks like a war and (insert appropriate similes here), it's a war.
Although Lincoln might have refrained from officially referring to the US being at war with the Confederacy, I have to believe that, in his own mind, he was convinced that it was, indeed, a war. He took such actions as he believed necessary to give his side the best chance of winning that war, just as Davis did.
The fact of the matter is that Lincoln contradicted himself by his own actions on this subject. According to International Law, a blockade is only a legal tool against a warring nation. By ordering the blockade Lincoln in effect admitted that the United States was at war with another nation; otherwise the United States would fall into the absurdity of illegally blockading itself.
Lincoln had this pointed out to him by his own cabinet and had no reply. The blockade was arguably the most potent tool he had and he used it.
I think it is painfully obvious why he never officially acknowledged that the country was at war. To be at war you have to recognize your foe is a seperate nation and Lincoln would not and could not do this. Recognition by England or France of the Confederacy would have probably swung the balance in favor of the Confederacy and Lincoln knew it.
Lincoln did say publicly that the nation was in a civil war, right? So I believe that he did know that it was a war as everyone did... Just not between two nations.
The confederacy was on its way to becoming a nation. If they could have held out, either by themselves or by having France or England help out, they could have actually become a nation.
But I wanted to ask you a question, rick. You said in your last post, " Recognition by England or France of the Confederacy would have probably swung the balance in favor of the Confederacy and Lincoln knew it."
If England or France would have recognized the confederacy, you think that they would have helped out? Why? I had always thought that they would not have because of the Confederacy's acceptance of slavery as Both of those European nations had abolished slavery some time before. And I had thought that that is why Lincoln had issued the Emancipation Proclamation, or at least one stategy to issuing it. That that was the nail in the coffin, so to speak.
Hello everyone,
I do have a question and some comments of my own.
Did recognition by England and France (remember, France would recognize the Confederacy only if England did)mean that they were willing to send in troops to assist the rebels in actually fighting. If they did recognize them, were they going to 'finish breaking the blockade'for the Confederates and suppy them will all the material needed to wage the war.
IMHO, I don't even think Britian was going to recognize the Confederacy, ever, unless they Won the War completely, not just a battle or 2.
Few people realize, that at the start of the war
Western Europe was in a drought and crops failed everywhere. Guess who they were starting to buy food from. To help you out, Englands call for help was ignored by their allies in the East. Only 1 country stepped up and started sending grain and meat, the United States. Cotton was not a issue yet. England had reserve stocks that lasted a good part of the first couple years as the 1860 crop was very large and most of it was sold to England.
(I do have some of the cotton figures here somewhere if anyone wants them, and maybe the US export figures to England.)
Seems that England rode the fence for both sides, selling arms and material to both, ships for the South. And buying a large part of their food stuffs from the North. Want to bite the only hand feeding you?? Want to tell your citizens that they would have to starve a while just so some people could own slaves? I think not. And politically, in England, recognizing the South would have been a disaster for the present ruling party, as the Middle and lower classes, after just dumping slavery, wanted nothing to do with a 'country' that supported such a terrible way of life.
The US trade with England also sparked massive changes in the American transportation system. This trade was one of the big reasons railroads finally established a uniform guage,however it was also prompted by needing quicker transport for iron and iron ore to the east. And more Canals were build to move more material faster.
All this 'hidden' happenings during the CW makes for some interesting readings.
Just a few quick thoughs (and I hope not too confusing) from:
Chuck in Il.
Frank,
Sorry for being so long in responding. I seem to have overlooked your response.
I think the issue is largely a matter of timing. Lincoln kept a close eye on negotiations or attempts at such by the Confederacy with both England and France. At the beginning of the war I believe his refusal to recognize the Confederacy was a double edged sword. First, he did not believe the southern states had the legal right to secede and recognition of the Confederacy as a separate country would be a tacit admission of this right. Second, if he recognized the Confederacy as a separate country such an action would as a minimum make it easier for England or France to do so.
Yes, I agree with your assertion that the Emancipation Proclamation was, at least in part, a tool to keep England or France from this recognition. This was, however, at a later point in the war and not at the beginning. In the beginning I believe there was a fear within the administration that England or France might indeed become involved in the conflict.
England and France would probably NOT have sent troops into the US. They would have, as the US did in Korea, Vietnam, and the beginning of the Gulf War, probably sent advisors, If the Confederacy had asked for them.
I believe the only thing Lincoln feared was the actual recognition of the Confederacy as a Nation, making his actions of invading Southern soil seem the agressor, hence the villian, and thereby ruining his chances of reelection and a place in history as the Savior of the Union. And yes, I do believe the old log splitter was that vain-glorious.
regards, chaps,
Ron
aka OldReb
Wow! Lincoln was vain-glorious enough to fear his place in history as the Savior of the Union, even to the point that this was his primary fear the recognition of the South by foreign power? Ron, you been getting enough sleep at night?
I think that England & France would have sent troops, ships at least to break the blockade, in order to get rid of that silly idea that men might be able to govern themselves without kings or despots. The United States was a constant source of worry for all the kingdoms and empires of the period as it gave out the crazy notion that people, common people, did not need kings and despots to rule them for "their own good."
Get rid of that upstart country and things could get right back to normal, the divine right of kings over the masses. Thank God Lincoln did keep his eye on other nations recognition ideas and end it with the Emancipation Proclamation.
Or otherwise, there would be no 'last great hope of earth' the United States of America.
__________________ "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
