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.
And just what were President Lincoln's options, Hal? Here is a man charged by the Constitution to a certain course of action. Short of letting the states in rebellion go their way, what were his options in your opinion?
Please, let us not bring up Lincoln and the Constitution, which he so frequently ignored.
As for his options, he could have done any of a number of things. The best one, of course, being to let them go their own way in peace. Speaking of which, I am reminded of a New Englander's vision of a separate confederation's relations with the USA:
"The principles of our Revolution point to the remedy -- a separation. That this can be accomplished, and without spilling one drop of blood, I have little doubt....
I do not believe in the practicability of a long-continued Union. A Northern Confederation would unite congenial characters and present a fairer prospect of public happiness; while the Southern States, having a similarity of habits, may be left to manage their own affairs in their own way. If a separation were to take place, our mutual wants would render a friendly and commercial intercourse inevitable. The Southern States would require the naval protection of the Northern States, and the products of the former would be important to the navigation and commerce of the latter.<font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font> [the separation] must begin in Massachusetts. The proposition would be welcomed in Connecticut; and could we doubt of New Hampshire? But New York must be associated, and how is her concurrence to be obtained? She must be made the center of the Confederacy. Vermont and New Jersey would follow, of course, and Rhode Island of necessity." (Colonel Timothy Pickering, Officer of the War of the Revolution; Postmaster General, Secretary of War and Secretary of State in George Washington's cabinet; and Senator of Massachusetts in a letter to former Massachusetts Senator, George Cabot, Jan. 29, 1804)
While thus contemplating the only means of maintaining our ancient institutions in morals and religion, and our equal rights, we wish no ill to the Southern States and those naturally connected with them. The public debts might be equitably apportioned between the new confederacies, and a separation somewhere about the line above suggested would divide the different characters of the existing Union. The manners of the Eastern portion of the States would be sufficiently congenial to form a Union, and their interests are alike intimately connected with agriculture and commerce. A friendly and commercial intercourse would be maintained with the States in the Southern Confederacy as at present. Thus all the advantages which have for a few years depending on the general Union would be continued to its respective portions, without the jealo8sies and enmities which now afflict both, and which peculiarly embitter the condition of that of the North. It is not unusual for two friends, when disagreeing about the mode of conducting a common concern, to separate and mange, each in his own way, his separate interest and thereby preserve a useful friendship, which without such separation would infallibly be destroyed. (Pickering to Theodore Lyman, Feb. 1804)
Hal, the facts remain. Ft Sumter was attacked 12 April. Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to suppress the Rebellion on 15 April. US Arsenals were seized PRIOR to the Lincoln inauguration on 4 March. US ships were seized, US Regulars forcefully disarmed and even two hanged prior to the firing on Ft Sumter. One apparently because he cast his vote against Secession.
It seems to me that both sides were hankering for a fight. When the stare down came down to it the South blinked and fired on Ft Sumter.
No Federal troops fired on anything Southern prior to Ft Sumter, no matter how it's put the South fired first and initiated a war that lasted four long and bloody years. They sowed the whirlwind and when the time came to reap the whirlwind. They didn't fare too well.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
__________________ Shane Christen
American Legion Post 352
SUVCW Camp Abernethy# 48
Lifetime NRA member
3rd MN VI
For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. Eccl 1:18
Why not bring up Lincoln and the Constitution? What did the man ignore concerning that document?
As for your wonderful references to Timothy Pickering, I find it very amusing as to the reason WHY New England considered a 'seperation' from the Southern States. I am in the process of reading the book, Negro President, Jefferson and the Slave Power, by Garry Wills. The book gives the major reason that Pickering and his companions wanted to leave was because of the unfair advantage held by the South in relation to the three-fifths clause in the Constitution giving the South such a huge, unfair advantage in the national government.
From the Papers of Timothy Pickering, volume 14, page 101.
"Without a separation, can those [New England] states ever rid themselves of Negro Presidents and Negro Congresses, and regain their just weight in the political balance? At this moment, the slaves of the middle and southern states have fifteen representatives in Congress, and they will appoint that number of electors of the next president and vice president; and the number of slaves is continuously increasing."
Mr. Pickering is referring to the advantage that non-voting slaves gave the South. The three fifths rule was the starting point for seizing and solidifying positions of influence in the national government. It gave the South a permanent head start for all its political activities. So the South and its almost fanatic desire to defend and protect slavery was causing problems even this early in the history of the United States.
And I again remind you, that in spite of all these problems, the North stayed in the Union.
As for Lincoln and the Constitution, I have another book you may want to consider reading, Lincoln's Constitution, by Daniel Farber. In the Afterward of his book, Mr. Farber makes the following observations;
"As we have seen, most of what Lincoln did, then and later, was in fact constitutional. He was correct that secession was unconstitutional, a revolutionary act rather than a legitimate exercise of state sovereignty. He was also correct that, in actual areas of war or insurrection, he had emergency power to suspend habeas and impose martial law. This is not to say that everything he did was constitutional. Military jurisdiction was extended beyond constitutional bounds in the North; money was spent and the military expanded without the necessary authority from Congress; and freedom of speech was sometimes infringed. Not a perfect record, but a creditable one, under incredibly trying circumstances."
"Viewing Lincoln's actions, it is tempting to take the wrong lessons. Lincoln's presidency does not stand for the proposition that on great occasions, great men rise above the law. Lincoln did not claim that public necessity gave him any immunity from the demands of the law. He felt compelled to act without congressional authority. But he did not deny that this put him at risk if Congress failed to back him up. His actions, even if taken without specific congressional authority, were rarely contrary to the will of Congress. Instead, he primarily acted in the gray area of congressional silence, where the modern Supreme Court has usually recognized the legitimacy of presidential initiative. His unilateral response to Fort Sumter also does not stand for a general presidential power to take the nation to war without congressional approval. Large parts of the country were already under the control of a hostile power which had initiated the conflict by firing on the US Military. Lincoln's response fell within the acknowledged power of the president to respond to sudden attack, and did not require him to claim a broader power to initiate hostilities at will."
The book makes for interesting reading.
As for your post of Friday, December 26, 2003 - 11:10 am, what a brilliant move to use Northern newspapers as a conspiracy theory on Lincoln getting the South to fire on Ft. Sumter! It's just too bad the South won't go along with it as it had been decided by Jeff Davis and the Confederate government on April 9th what action it would take, that of firing and taking the fort before ANY type of Union aid could reach it, to include the relief force.
Until that time,
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
As for your wonderful references to Timothy Pickering, I find it very amusing as to the reason WHY New England considered a 'seperation' from the Southern States. I am in the process of reading the book, Negro President, Jefferson and the Slave Power, by Garry Wills. The book gives the major reason that Pickering and his companions wanted to leave was because of the unfair advantage held by the South in relation to the three-fifths clause in the Constitution giving the South such a huge, unfair advantage in the national government.
Neil, did you catch what you just said about why they were considering secession? I am trying hard to suppress the hope for you that is welling up in my heart right now!
Please, think about what you just wrote for a minute. Then also think about the secessionist threats related to the War of 1812, those threats surrounding the admission of Texas to the Union, and what was happening in the fight over slavery in the territories.
What do you see as the common theme?
Why not bring up Lincoln and the Constitution? What did the man ignore concerning that document?
Is there some part of it he didn't ignore?
Farber: "As we have seen, most of what Lincoln did, then and later, was in fact constitutional. He was correct that secession was unconstitutional, a revolutionary act rather than a legitimate exercise of state sovereignty. He was also correct that, in actual areas of war or insurrection, he had emergency power to suspend habeas and impose martial law. This is not to say that everything he did was constitutional.
Farber seems conflicted. But to his credit, at least he admits the obvious fact concerning Lincoln's unconstitutional acts.
As for your post of Friday, December 26, 2003 - 11:10 am, what a brilliant move to use Northern newspapers as a conspiracy theory on Lincoln getting the South to fire on Ft. Sumter! It's just too bad the South won't go along with it as it had been decided by Jeff Davis and the Confederate government on April 9th what action it would take, that of firing and taking the fort before ANY type of Union aid could reach it, to include the relief force.
Your statement raises concerns in my mind about your understanding of the southern side's perspective on Sumter, and what events got the crisis to that point.
But either way, the newspapers had figured out the administration's plan quite nicely. It was not lost on SC or the CSA government either.
Note my post of 26 December. I think it isn't too difficult to understand the South's actions. They wanted a fight, they were pushing for it from the time Lincoln won the election, they got it. There is no doubt who fired the first shot, who caused the first casualties, who first seized govt armories, ships, equipments & even troops. They didn't hit hard enough for a knock out blow and they underestimated the intestinal fortitude of their opponent.
The Union didn't fold after 1st Bull Run, 2nd Bull Run, Chanclorsville or other debilitating losses... I suppose the CSA set the standard for the US military, they won some battles but lost the war. The CSA couldn't protect itself nor succesfully bringthe war north to those who would suppress their rebellion.
They lost... and people are still griping about it a century and a half later.
__________________ Shane Christen
American Legion Post 352
SUVCW Camp Abernethy# 48
Lifetime NRA member
3rd MN VI
For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. Eccl 1:18
What I find as a common theme every time the North considered 'seperation' was that they considered it treason, unnecessary, harmful to the nation and decided to follow the Constitution and the rule of law. In spite of all the South's unfair advantage in regard to the 3/5 rule, in spite of the South having power in the White House, Congress, Supreme Court and judicial appointments for years leading up to the 1860 election, the North stayed true to the law and the Constitution. It was the South who twisted and bent and blocked at almost every opportunity when it felt its power and the institution of slavery threatened. I have already thought long and hard about those reasons and found my answers, which are there for anyone to find. Please, Hal, save your heart and cause no strain upon it in this regard.
Those who led the South in the end did not believe in democracy, the rule of law and were fearful of losing political power to the 'mobocracies' as Calhoun called the majority of the citizens of the United States. The South brought war upon this country because it feared the loss of the institution of slavery and through fair means or foul, decided to keep it at all costs. This is a pattern the region had since the Revolution and the Constitutional convention so it comes as no surprise to me the resulting Civil War. There is the 'common theme' that I see when it comes to the sorry excuse for the 'theory' of secession and the modern day spin to suppress the real reason behind it.
Lincoln and the Constitution is a real 'bra-burner' (an interesting spectacle, but has no real impact on anything important) in my research also. If you get a chance read Mr. Farber's book and you'll see that this is a dead-end reason to somehow hold Lincoln accountable for the Constitutional violations the South incurred (rebellion, treason, etc.). But I find it amazing that you can dismiss this entire line of argument in a short sentence.
As for your comments that you are concerned about my understanding of the southern sides perspective on Sumter, newspapers are entitled to their opinions, their views and their spin on a subject or event. Here is another view on the cause of the crisis from a publication of the time, which I happen to agree with:
From the Atlantic Monthly, VII (1861), pp. 120-21.
"We do not underestimate the gravity of the present crisis, and we agree that nothing should be done to exasperate it; but if the people of the Free States have been taught anything by the repeated lessons of bitter experience, it has been that submission is not the seed of conciliation, but of contempt and encroachent...It is quite time that is should be understood that freedom is also an institution deserving some attention in a Model Republic, that a decline in stocks is more tolerable and more transient that one in public spirit, and that material prosperity was never known to abide long in a country that had lost its political morality. The fault of the Free States in the eyes of the South is not one that can be atoned for by any yielding of special points here and there. Their offence is that they are free, and that their habits and prepossessions are those of Freedom. Their crime is the census of 1860. Their increase in number, wealth, and power is a standing aggression. It would not be enough to please the Southern States that we should stop asking them to abolish slavery,--what they demand of us is nothing less than that we should abolish the spirit of the age. Our very thoughts are a menace. It is not the North, but the South, that forever agitates the question of Slavery. The seeming prosperity of the cotton-growing states is based on a great mistake and a great wrong; and it is no wonder that they are irritable and scent accusation in the very air. It is the stars in their courses that fight against their system..."
"It is time that the South should learn, if they do not begin to suspect it already, that the difficulty of the Slavery question is Slavery itself,--nothing more, nothing less. It is time that the North should learn that is has nothing left to compromise but the rest of its self-respect. Nothing will satisfy the extremists at the South short of a reduction of the Free States to a mere police for the protection of an institution whose danger increases at an equal pace with its wealth."
And Hal, it is also my opinion, for what it is worth, that the CSA government had made up its mind to fire on and take Fort Sumter WAY before any newspaper in the South or North had advanced its theories. Let us see, all your newspaper articles concerning the various theories on Ft. Sumter are dated from March 6, 1861 through April 17, 1861. I give you part of a letter below:
"...we feel that our honor and safety require that Ft. Sumter should be in our possession at the very earliest moment."
Gov. Pickens of South Carolina to President Jefferson Davis, dated February 27, 1861.
Until that time,
Unionblue
(Message edited by unionblue on January 06, 2004)
(Message edited by unionblue on January 06, 2004)
__________________ "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, alas, the hope I was suppressing is being replaced with disappointment, which I seem unable to suppress.
It seems apparent that you are at this time determined to repel at all costs any advance that may appear to undermine your entrenched defense of the virtue of forcing union and the slavery as the cause mythology.
But perhaps, if you will review your own words dressed in familiar Yankee blue, you can drop your defenses and allow them to breech your line of defense, and reinforce the position already there in the rear, which position was put there by your own impressive research and thoughtful analysis:
"It seems to me secession only became in vogue with the South when it felt it could no longer hold onto political power, as the region had opposed secession when Northern States had threatened it in the past before the war." (Neil Posted on Saturday, December 06, 2003 - 12:13 am)
"I am in the process of reading the book, Negro President, Jefferson and the Slave Power, by Garry Wills. The book gives the major reason that Pickering and his companions wanted to leave was because of the unfair advantage held by the South in relation to the three-fifths clause in the Constitution giving the South such a huge, unfair advantage in the national government." (Posted on Saturday, December 27, 2003 - 12:26 am)
Neil, you have provided us with these two thought provoking statements - showing you are indeed aware of and have perhaps come to a conclusion regarding the theme I seek to join with you in joyful discussion. There is no need to be defensive, but rather let us expose our hearts to each other, and share them in the spirit of brotherhood and commonality. And let us together raise our swords in defense of truth, unfurl a common ensign to the people, and boldly stand side by side in battle for a common cause.
I am afraid I have reached this conclusion of slavery as my personal 'cause mythology' and have dug this trench of defense with my own two hands of research and debate. I am sorry if this has caused you disappointment, but feel no need to suppress said feeling and please consider not to give up hope in your heart to convince me otherwise.
I admit that I will not readily give up my reasoning that slavery was the root cause of the War of the Rebellion nor easily drop my defenses, even to a supposed breech in the rear. I do not view it as such, but feel free to parade your reasoning to the front of my lines and let me observe and contemplate said formations as they may force me to abandon my trenches or retire altogether. Some friends here on the board will inform you that once in a great while, I will admit to some truths that I had not recognized before.
Even though we may not agree, we can agree to disagree agreeably, can we not? In that climate we can both share in the joy of discovery and be united in our quest for that greatest of causes, the history of our country based on truth and understanding.
I await your assault with eager anticipation.
YMOS,
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
Even though we may not agree, we can agree to disagree agreeably, can we not? In that climate we can both share in the joy of discovery and be united in our quest for that greatest of causes, the history of our country based on truth and understanding.
But Neil, I am of the mind to believe we do agree.
You see, your words betray an understanding that you seem loathe to admit.
How else can you explain these words:
"It seems to me secession only became in vogue with the South when it felt it could no longer hold onto political power, as the region had opposed secession when Northern States had threatened it in the past before the war." (Neil Posted on Saturday, December 06, 2003 - 12:13 am)
"I am in the process of reading the book, Negro President, Jefferson and the Slave Power, by Garry Wills. The book gives the major reason that Pickering and his companions wanted to leave was because of the unfair advantage held by the South in relation to the three-fifths clause in the Constitution giving the South such a huge, unfair advantage in the national government." (Posted on Saturday, December 27, 2003 - 12:26 am)
I stand at attention, ready to engage truth's foe alongside the first sargent,
I am afraid that my poor ability to express myself is giving you false impressions on my loathing to admit feelings and conclusions I do not have. I fear that I am about to cause you further disappointment and dispair because of my inability to lead you to what I am trying to make you see. We will begin with the above statements you have seen as approbriate into revealing my loathing to admit certain conclusions. I will attempt to expound further on those two statements.
The first, The South considered secession only when it felt it would lose political power to protect, preserve and expand slavery. The North, whenever it contemplated separation or secession, was over the unfair use of political power the South had when it invoked or used the 3/5ths rule which it had because of its institution of, wait for it, slavery. The political power the South so desperately tried to maintain and garner over the rest of the nation at the expense of democracy, freedom of speech and law, was to maintain slavery.
I would not falsely lead you to conclude in my poor attempts to provide bits and pieces of historical fact or research that I stand on the simple precept that slavery was the single cause of the South leaving the Union, that slavery was the single issue at the beginning of this nation's history that was the one thing, the one evil that would eventually tear it apart. Not the tariff, not 'state's rights', nor any other excuse to ease the collective memory and embarrassment of this nation's historical past.
The attempt to do otherwise is understandable to a degree, but criminal and wistful thinking if this nation is to learn from its past to avoid future mistakes. I hope this helps you with your understanding my position and my learned views on the cause of the Civil War. I would not wish to in any way to lead you false on the matter. It simply would not be fair to you or to me to reach any other conclusion.
And with that, my dear sir, I await our journey together in our attempt to learn from one another. Lead on.
YMOS,
Unionblue
(Message edited by Unionblue on January 07, 2004)
__________________ "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
