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.
I would like to post an article from the Augusta County Virginia newspaper, The Staunton Spectator, which was run on October 23, 1860. Who started the Civil War? Let's see what the article has to say:
NOTHING TO DREAD FROM LINCOLN.
"Even though Lincoln should be elected, and should be disposed to commit some aggression upon the rights of the South, he could not do it. The Supreme Court is against the theories of his party. The Senate is against them and the Congress will be against them. There are 287 members of the House-Oregan and California send three against him, Ohio ten, Indiana four, Illinois five, Pennsylvania five, and the South eighty-nine, 116 in all. We have but to elect THREE other anti-Lincoln members and ALL IS SAFE. New York City alone will elect six. There cannot in any event then be danger of present aggression against the South, and if conservation and a UNION spirit shall prevail in the border Southern States, we may prevent any of the other States, by reason and argument, from seceding, if Lincoln should be elected. To break up the Government under these circumstances, simply because Lincoln should be elected, would be adding madness to TREASON. THE DANGER IS IN THE COTTON STATES, AND NOT IN THE NORTH. THE SPIRIT OF DISUNION, AS REPRESENTED BY YANCEY AND OTHER EXTREMISTS OF THE SOUTH MAY BE POTENTIAL FOR INDESCRIBABLE EVILS."
Odd, don't you think, that a Southern newspaper would fear more of her sister states than the election of Lincoln or any of the states in the North? And to Ron, this is where I base my statement the South still had an 'out' to keep things under her control, the Court, the Senate, and with 3 more delegates, the House too. I'm sure you understand the reference about New York's 'will elect six' as New York would do anything not to disrupt trade and business with the South.
The South started the war, in my humble opinion, by being too proud and just too sure of itself it getting it's own way, even if it meant going to war.
__________________ "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
Neil, once again you are guilty of using a single quote source to present a discussion.
The Staunton Spectator was a notoriously Union supporting paper during this period of time, and it did not change its position until AFTER Virginia seceded. The initial owner and publisher was from Chambersburg PA. Not exactly a native son of virginia and obviously not a supporter of the Confederate point of view.
The Staunton Spectator, established in 1823 by Kenton Harper (interestingly, a native of Chambersburg, Pennsylvaniaa and the son of one of the Franklin Repository's early editors), was published each Tuesday. The paper normally consisted of four pages (occasionally, such as just prior to a presidential election, the editor inserted two extra pages dealing with the positions of national political parties and their candidates), with each page reading seven columns across. Members of the Waddell family (Lyttleton, Joseph, and Lyttleton, Jr.) published the Spectator from 1848 to 1856. Prominent in town affairs and having long-standing ties to the Scotch-Irish descendants of Augusta County's original settlers, the Waddells served on many town committees, especially those related to local Whig party politics.
In January 1857, the Waddells were joined as publishers of the Spectator by Richard Mauzy, then the editor of the True American, a local nativist publication. In May 1857, the Spectator absorbed the True American altogether, and in June, 1860, Mauzy bought out the Waddells and took exclusive control of the Spectator. A supporter of the Whig party through 1864, the paper's office was destroyed by the Union army in June of that year. When it resumed publication after the war, the Spectator promoted a Conservative (Democratic) political position.
In 1860, the Spectator was sold only by subscription, for $2.50 annually. A per issue price does not appear on any issue of the Spectator because the paper was not available for daily purchase. Advertisements were sold to appear in a minimum of three issues, with significant discounts given for larger ads and those that ran more than three months. Some of the big-city dailies such as the New York Herald were beginning to refuse an ad for a run of any longer than one day, in an effort to trump their competition by ensuring an entirely different paper each day. The Spectator, however, less concerned with trouncing the competition, maintained a policy reflecting its primary business concern--staying afloat financially.
The Spectator's main editorial appeared immediately below the date in column 1. Here, the editor was at his most partisan. While the editor might choose to discuss local, state, or international affairs, national politics was the typical subject matter. Conservative in its politics, the Spectator followed the positions of the Whig, or as it was known in the South in the late 1850s, the Opposition party. In the election of 1860, the paper proudly endorsed the Constitutional Union party ticket of John Bell and Edward Everett (the Constitutional Union party, dedicated to saving the Union from sectional strife, received much of its support from Southern Whigs), believing that a victory by either the Democrats or the Republicans could only exacerbate sectionalism. On January 31, for example, under the heading "State of the Country," the Spectator's lead editorial discussed a letter written to John C. Breckinridge, vice-president under James Buchanan (and later the presidential nominee of the Southern Democrats), by his uncle in Kentucky. The Spectator praised the politician's relative for urging Breckinridge to keep a cool head on the issue of expansion of slavery into the territories, rather than participate in escalating sectional tension.
Ron, among all the smoke that you created with you last two posts, did you answer my question?
OK, the editor was from PA, and he leaned towards the Whigs and then came out and supported the Constitutional Union Party.
Is it true or not that the South had little to fear from Lincoln due to the make-up of the Supreme Court, Senate and the House of Representatives? You may not like the messenger, but did the message have any truth to it?
And as for me using a single quote source or article to present a discussion, I tend to just bring up one thing at a time. It's kind of like shooting one arrow at a time. But don't worry Ron, I got a lot of arrows left in my quiver.
Until that time.
__________________ "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
As a matter of fact, yes the south did have much to fear from "that man" should he become President.
From 1848, Lincoln spoke often and long on abolition, the freeing of the slave. In addition, he stated often that the country could not endure the practice of slavery. Granted, he also often said, either one way or the other, however, if you were placed in such a position that you could with a single swipe of the pen eliminate any possible rule or law that might expand that you stood four-square against, seems to me that the "power" you speak of in the Supreme Court (only has the power to rule on issues brought before them, such as the constituionality of secession), or Congress (can't pass a law if it is vetoed without a 2/3 majority vote and the south did not control 2/3 of the congress) was pretty much negated by the power of the pen of the president.
"That man" was a serious hazard to the South's "peculiar institution."
I don't get where Lincoln spoke on 'abolition' just mainly that slavery should stay where it was and not expand into the territories. Again, I am curious to know the make-up of the Congress at the time of the 1860 elections. I know the Supreme Court had 5 southern judges out of the nine that were sitting at the time. I just want to know how much of an "overwhelming" power Lincoln had when he took office, the numbers of southern leaning Congressmen, etc.
I still think if the South had NOT seceded from the Union, Lincoln would have been playing pretty much all by himself. I just don't think there was enough of a Northern consensus to abolish slavery where it was, but there was a ground swell to keep it from spreading.
I'll check out some sites and get back to you with some figures.
(TWANG!)
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
Starting in 1849 when Representative Abraham Lincoln attempted to pass a Bill in Congress to dissolve slavery in the District of Columbia. This resolution was defeated by the efforts of John C. Calhoun.
Fragment on slavery circa 1854:
"If A. can prove, however conclusively, that he may, of right, enslave B.—why may not B. snatch the same argument, and prove equally, that he may enslave A?
You say A. is white, and B. is black. It is color, then; the lighter having the right to enslave the darker? Take care. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with a fairer skin than your own.
You do not mean color exactly?—You mean the whites are intellectually the superior of blacks, and, therefore, have the right to enslave them? Take care again. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with an intellect superior to your own.
But, say you, it is a question of interest; and, if you can make it your interest, you have the right to enslave another. Very well. And if he can make it his interest, he has the right to enslave you."
Speech on the Kansas-Nebraska Act 1854:
"Thus, with the author of the declaration of Independence, the policy of prohibiting slavery in new territory originated. Thus, away back of the constitution, in the pure, fresh, free breath of the revolution, the State of Virginia, and the National congress put that policy in practice. Thus through sixty odd of the best years of the republic did that policy steadily work to its great and beneficent end. And thus, in those five states, and five millions of free, enterprising people, we have before us the rich fruits of this policy. But now new light breaks upon us. Now congress declares this ought never to have been; and the like of it, must never be again. The sacred right of self government is grossly violated by it! We even find some men, who drew their first breath, and every other breath of their lives, under this restriction, now live in dread of absolute suffocation, if they should be restricted in the "sacred right" of taking slaves to Nebraska. That perfect liberty they sigh for--the liberty of making slaves of other people--Jefferson never thought of; their own father never thought of; they never thought of themselves, a year ago. How fortunate for them, they did not sooner become sensible of their great misery! Oh, how difficult it is to treat with respect, such assaults upon all we have ever really held sacred."
Lincoln, in his House Divided speech:
"Such a decision is all that slavery now lacks of being alike lawful in all the States. Welcome, or unwelcome, such decision is probably coming, and will soon be upon us, unless the power of the present political dynasty shall be met and overthrown. We shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that the people of Missouri. are on the verge of making their State free, and we shall awake to the reality instead, that the Supreme Court has made Illinois a slave State. To meet and overthrow the power of that dynasty is the work now before all those who would prevent that consummation. This is what we have to do. How can we best do it ?"
From the Cooper Union address, Sept. 1860, in which Mr. Lincoln addresses the 39 framers of the Constitution and what they thought about the "spread of slavery to the territories". An interesting point of view, putting yourself in the head of a man long dead. Kind of what some folks do today, I ken.
"It is this: Does the proper division of local from federal authority, or anything in the Constitution, forbid our Federal Government to control as to slavery in our Federal Territories?
Upon this, Senator Douglas holds the affirmative, and Republicans the negative. This affirmation and denial form an issue; and this issue - this question - is precisely what the text declares our fathers understood "better than we.""
and from the Platform of the Republican Party, 1860, which Lincoln endorsed by being its party candidate for President:
"5. That the present Democratic Administration has far exceeded our worst apprehensions, in its measureless subserviency to the exactions of a sectional interest, as especially evinced in its desperate exertions to force the infamous Lecompton Constitution upon the protesting people of Kansas; in construing the personal relation between master and servant to involve an unqualified property in persons; in its attempted enforcement, everywhere, on land and sea, through the intervention of Congress and of the Federal Courts of the extreme pretensions of a purely local interest; and in its general and unvarying abuse of the power intrusted to it by a confiding people.
6. That the people justly view with alarm the reckless extravagance which pervades every department of the Federal Government; that a return to rigid economy and accountability is indispensible to arrest the systematic plunder of the public treasury by favored partisans, while the recent startling developments of frauds and corruptions at the Federal metropolis, show that an entire change of administration is imperatively demanded.
7. That the new dogma, that the Constitution, of its own force, carries Slavery into any or all of the Territories of the United States, is a dangerous political heresy, at variance with the explicit provisions of that instrument itself, with contemporaneous exposition, and with legislative and judicial precedent; is revolutionary in its tendency, and subversive of the peace and harmony of the country.
8. That the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom; That as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished Slavery in all our national territory, ordained that "no person should be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," it becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation is necessary, to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it; and we deny the authority of Congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to Slavery in any Territory of the United States.
9. That we brand the recent re-opening of the African slave-trade, under the cover of our national flag, aided by perversions of judicial power, as a crime against humanity and a burning shame to our country and age; and we call upon Congress to take prompt and efficient measures for the total and final suppression of that execrable traffic.
10. That in the recent vetoes, by their Federal Governors, of the acts of the Legislatures of Kansas and Nebraska, prohibiting Slavery in those Territories, we find a practical illustration of the boasted Democratic principle of Non- Intervention and Popular Sovereignty, embodied in the Kansas-Nebraska bill, and a demonstration of the deception and fraud involved therein."
So, you see, dear friend Neil, it is pretty easy to see why the South feared Lincoln. He had made it very clear, from more than 2 decades before that he did not stand for Slavery, that if elected he would do his ****dest to eliminate slavery, that he would not allow or tolerate the expansion of slavery.
Mr. Lincoln welcomed Frederick Douglass into his home (the White House) before his second inauguration speech. He welcomed the spectre of abolition into his heart many years before.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
And dear sir you are an intelligent man with a level head
Linear Mode
