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'll open a new thread: Slave Breeding; Fact or Fiction. I'd move selected posts over there, but then I'd lose them and we'd have to start over.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
I'll open a new thread: Slave Breeding; Fact or Fiction. I'd move selected posts over there, but then I'd lose them and we'd have to start over.
ole
Thank you, Ole
Hope the discussion will continue in the new thread.
---
OK. Back to monsieur Calhoun.
We have talked about the "slavery- positive good" aspect of the famous speech of February 6, 1837. But I'd like to discuss also the political issues included in the text.
Reading the Calhoun speech , it strikes me how accurate Calhoun was in anticipating future disunion. Or was it a case of a self-fulfilling prophecy?
Almost a quarter of a century before the secession he said: "As widely as this incendiary spirit [abolition] has spread, it has not yet infected this body, or the great mass of the intelligent and business portion of the North; but unless it be speedily stopped, it will spread and work upwards till it brings the two great sections of the Union into deadly conflict". How true.
"However sound the great body of the non—slaveholding States are at present, in the course of a few years they will be succeeded by those who will have been taught to hate the people and institutions of nearly one-half of this Union, with a hatred more deadly than one hostile nation ever entertained towards another. It is easy to see the end. By the necessary course of events, if left to themselves, we must become, finally, two people". Here I have an impression that it didn't go as far, or maybe it progressed much slower than he predicted. Most northerners didn't care about the institution before the war and there wasn't such hatred between sections, or was there?
"The conflicting elements would burst the Union asunder, powerful as are the links which hold it together". True, but "the conflicting elements" he described turned out to be the fire-eaters, not abolitionists. Or both?
How do you think, did the Cast-Iron Man predict or "sow" the disunion?
"However sound the great body of the non—slaveholding States are at present, in the course of a few years they will be succeeded by those who will have been taught to hate the people and institutions of nearly one-half of this Union, with a hatred more deadly than one hostile nation ever entertained towards another. It is easy to see the end. By the necessary course of events, if left to themselves, we must become, finally, two people". Here I have an impression that it didn't go as far, or maybe it progressed much slower than he predicted. Most northerners didn't care about the institution before the war and there wasn't such hatred between sections, or was there?
Events unfolded pretty much as he predicted. Ultras on both sides steadly poisoned the minds of the masses, giving rise to the speculation that increasing sectionalism was a cause for secession. But they weren't the only forces in work -- reasonable people on both sides contributed in other ways: the need for more slave states and territory; the need to confine slavery to where it existed. The loss and preservation of political power also figured heavily in the toxic fodder fed to the voter.
"... there wasn't much hatred ..." There was a lot more I had suspected. In this, Calhoun was spot on.
"The conflicting elements would burst the Union asunder, powerful as are the links which hold it together". True, but "the conflicting elements" he described turned out to be the fire-eaters, not abolitionists. Or both?
Primarily. But I think he may have also been referring to other "conflicting elements" as well: diverging cultures, political interests, et alii. Both the abolitionists and the fire-eaters did their part in dividing the nation and feeding the fire when it was fading. Maury, in "Days of Defiance," refers to both as ultras, and incorporates a few other confliicting elements in the designation.
How do you think, did the Cast-Iron Man predict or "sow" the disunion?
Calhoun also wrote the Bible on the right of separation -- not all of it based on his prediction of impending doom.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
It Seems Calhun's interest (as his Presidential prospects receded) steadily turned to protecting the interests of the south. Moving, as noted, from Nationalism to Sectionalism.
The question concerning Calhoun, that always intrigues me, is whether, his path to Sectionalism was the result of the thwarting of his Presidential ambitions or did he sacrifice those ambitions in the interests of his section of America? , i.e., the South?
To me, the above mentioned speech, indicates, that sectionalism, was already in place and growing, and Calhoun's policies were designed to protect the interests of one of those sections, even at the expense of national unity.
His prophesy's were more likely the result of a knowledge of history and logically projecting the results of a single union dedicated to freedom, within which exists a large section with a diametrically opposed sense of dedication. As long as as two opposing sections exists, the threat of disunion exists, and if an equilibrium of power shifts over time to one side or the other, disunion can almost be guaranteed.
IMO, the problem with Calhoun is that he recogonizes the danger of sectionalism, but does not realize that his policies will be more likely to increase sectionalism than not.
You mean that hatred existed not only between the abolitionists and the fire-eaters? Did it spread beyond those groups?
"Existed" is not the exact word. As Calhoun predicted, it grew until there was palpable hatred between the sections. I still believe that, at the final moment, there was a majority on both sides who wanted nothing more than to be left alone, there was a significant minority that harbored hatred in their sectional hearts.
Lest that become too simplistic, the northwesterners disliked the north and south equally. It wasn't quite a north/south thing.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
....but does not realize that his policies will be more likely to increase sectionalism than not.
Amen. Leave it to Opn, to note the shortcomings in my reasoning.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
I have no doubt that given the prevalent racism of the time, some actually believed that by bringing the Africans to America they were saving them from barbary and savagery. Perhaps some even believed the pious platitudes that they were "preparing the Negro to govern himself" or raising him up to the level of civilized nations.
Actually, I don't believe Calhoun or any political supporter of slavery actually believed Africans were physically and materially better off as American slaves. It was merely a convenient rationalization that had sprouted religious roots long before the 1850s.
Defending slavery as a benevolent overseer was simply a handy last resort that played on America's divine destiny and had little to do with any American understanding of African culture prior to the slave trade. Politicians had no idea what Africa was really like, but the idea could sell.
It was simply white cultural and religious conceit, still common in the 19th century. It was part of the "Manifest Destiny" of ordained superior Anglo rule. "We were put here to be the caretakers" - kind of attitude. The Rosseau philosophical concept of "natural man" died along with the 18th century enlightenment values prevalent before the turn of the century. By 1860, many people, north and south, had rationalized slavery by presuming that ownership was in the best interest of all.
It had the added benefit of pumping up the white race as class owners. It played to white vanity.
It was merely a convenient rationalization that had sprouted religious roots long before the 1850s.
Awesome observation, jpeter! I mean the entire post, not just the quoted line.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
To me Calhoun is simply a reflection of his constituents. His transformation from being a Federalist to THE advocate of state's rights.....his a political survivor.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
