Newspapers, Lincoln, Opinions, Oh My!

[elektratig]

I recently read "American Scoundrel", about Dan Sickels, and was struck by his rapid change of opinion in the months immediately before the War. In a matter of just a few months, he went from a fairly strident "let 'em go" Democrat to being vehemently outraged by the South's position. As usual with Sickles, this does not seem to have been a rational process. Rather, it seems to have been emotional reaction to dismemberment of the Union and seizure of Northern property. It was one thing to contemplate secession in the abstract, but when the reality loomed, that was something else.

I'm not sure that it's possible to take Dan Sickles as typical of anything, but the scenario has the ring of truth to me. Oftentimes, positions one takes on theoretical issues give way when one is confronted with the stark reality staring you in the face. For some, it may have been the fact that the Union was no longer going to be the Union. For others, it may have been reports of the seizure of Union property and forts. For yet others, it may have been the thought of rebels actually firing on the flag. There was probably also an element of "these people have been pushing us around for years, and we've been bending over backwards to accommodate them, but enough is enough" (which also seems to have been part of Sickles's reaction).

I assume there were no public opinion polls back in 1860-61, but I'd guess there was a fairly significant shift in public reaction in the North to secession as the reality loomed larger and larger.

[unionblue]

Dear Bill,

I am suggesting nothing, merely reporting the information that I have found.

No mention of a 'temporary invasion' was mentioned in my post, just that if the opportunity presented itself that invasion of the North was part of the strategy of the Confederate leadership, both military and civilian, and that the newspapers and general population of the South supported the idea.

And Bill, concerning Kentucky and Missouri, these states resolved to stay in the Union and they were invaded by the South with the intention of keeping the territory they invaded, did they not? Was not Union territory in the West invaded by Confederate forces during the war with the intention of keeping said territory?

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[unionblue]

The War And Slavery

(New-York Daily Tribune, may 14, 1861)

Many persons seem anxious to complicate the struggle now making for and against the integrity of the Union with questions concerning the perpetuation of Slavery. Some require the War for the Union to be a War for the extinction of Slavery; while others would have pledges given by Unionists that Slavery shall in no case suffer from our triumphs. Each of the demands is in our eyes untimely and unreasonable. The War is in truth a War for the preservation of the Union, not for the destruction of Slavery; and it would alienate many ardent Unionists to pervert it into a War against Slavery. And, on the other hand, no pledges can be given that slavery shall receive no damage from a Union triumph, because (among other reason) no one can forsee how the Slaveholding interest will behave itself. Our own judgment confirms the testimony of cool observers that the conspiracy against the life of the Nation is rather that of the political aspirants than the slaveholders of the South--that, as a general rule, the slaveholders have been but reluctant backers of Secession, nine-tenths of whose noisiest champions are as destitute of slaves as of loyalty or patriotism. If the slaveholders as a class would only speak and act as they think and feel, we should have the head conspirators before Grand Juries within three months. That the South, and especially the slaveholders, whose property is visible and tangible, are destined to be ruined by Secession, is plain. This rebellion found good field-hands worth $1,000 to $1,200 each; they can now be bought for half the money; and will be sold for a fourth of it before the war is ended. If the slaveholders do not interpose to stop the strife, the day predicted by John Randolph, when the masters would run away from the slaves to escape ruin, may be much nearer than is imagined.

Hitherto the armies of the Union have observed, and are disposed to observe, a scrupulous respect for all rights of property as defined by law. As yet, every soliciation that negroes should be allowed to engage in the War for the Union, has been unhesitatingly rejected. As yet, every fugitive slave who has run for protection to the Federal troops, whether in Florida or Maryland, has been returned to his legal master. On the other side, money has been squeezed out of negroes to fill the ever-yawning treasury of Secession, and we are threatened in various quarters with the arming of negroes to fight against the Union.

We believe the general inclination of the Unionists is to let Slavery alone provided it lets them alone. We believe that Slavery has nothing to fear from a Union triumph unless it should throw itself across the way of that triumph. But if Slavery should insist on making up an issue between itself and the Union, then we are sure it would do so to its own peril. Whenever the issue shall be-- "Shall the American Republic, be destroyed or shall Slavery perish?" -- we believe the overwhelming response of the patriots--Democrats quite as generally and heartliy as Republicans--will be, "The Republic must live, even though Slavery should have to die!" It rests with the Slaveholders--especially those of them who are rich and powerful--to say whether that question shall be so raised and so pressed to a decision.

Submitted by Unionblue

[bill_torrens]

Neil,

Yes, you were reporting what you found. But you were presumably reporting it with the intention of creating an impression. And I understand that impression to be that there was a moral equivalence between the North’s invasion of the Confederacy, with the intention of conquering it, and the Confederacy’s occasional raids into U.S. territory.

I think you’re pushing things a bit by describing Kentucky as “a Union state”. At the time Polk’s troops crossed the border Kentucky was actually claiming a neutral stance. If it was, unequivocally, still part of the Union then a proclamation of neutrality would be treasonous. Wouldn’t it?

The main point about Kentucky and Missouri is that they were Southern states. And that makes it entirely understandable that – in principle - the Confederacy aspired to include them. That is quite, quite different from the notion that Richmond ever aspired to annex states inhabited by nasal nutmeg-sellers.

Bill

[unionblue]

Bill,

"Aspired to include them?" I never fail to marvel at the ability of the English language to give many names to disguise one, overt act. I also seem to remember that the majority of the population in both states mentioned were for the Union and did contribute more troops to the North than to the South.

But, as the South 'aspired' to include them, who is concerned with the idea of 'states rights' anyway in the face of such 'aspirations', eh?

And the main point about Kentucky and Missouri is that they were part of the United States and I disagree that if the South considered it an option to invade the North, even to the nasal nutmg-seller regions, I do not think they would be apt to cry offsides and return such regions to their former owners. To the American mindset, North or South, that just wouldn't seem cricket.

Unionblue

[unionblue]

Dear Thea,

Another Northern newspaper which somehow had the idea the South meant to invade the North by means of military arms.

The Inaugural Of "President" Davis

(Utica Morning Herald and Daily Gazette, February 20, 1861)

"Jefferson Davis is a disciple of "grim visaged war." He believes--or pretends to believe--that it is the chief end of man to cut his neighbor's throat. He looks upon the invention of gunpowder as a far greater beneficence to the world than the invention of the printing press. According to his notions, mankind are divided into two classes--those who kill and those who are to be killed. His soul revels in dreams of conflict--in visions of ensanguined fields, in fierce onslaughts and rude encounters, in bombardments and sieges, in torrents of blood flowing from towns put to the sword. He lives, breathes and has his being in an atmosphere of military ardor. He pants for glory as a toper pants for his morning dram. He longs for the time when he shall be able to doff the toga of the civilian, and don the harness of the warrior. He is "spilin'" for a fight. He is continually itching for a chance to pitch into so9mebody--to get into a row with somebody--to go to war with somebody--to restore the good old times when one may play the butcher to his heart's content without running the risk of an introduction to the gallows.

Hence, our knowledge of the man diminishes our suprise at the character of what he fancifully chooses to designate as his "Inaugural." He stands upon a military plane. He rides a military hobby. He looks through military eyes. He regards public questions through the crimson medium of warlike predelictions [sic]. He speaks less as a civilian than as a hero. He evidently believes that the great problem of negro-driving independence is to be solved by arms.--He believes that the Southern Confederacy must be baptized in blood before it can ever attain permanent vitality. He believes that the North is to be subdued by the strong arm. He told us, the other day, that our territories would be invaded and our cities sacked, in the event of war breaking out.

What shall we say of his Inaurgural? The literature of statesmanship has produced nothing like it. As an aesthetical performance it is quite unique. As a military pronunciamento it is worthy of a Mexican general. Its style is eminently Lippard-ian in intensity. It glows with red hot brimstone. It actually smells of gunpowder. It is eloquent, flippant, blasphemous, bombastic, nonsensical. It talks glibly about Southern Rights; quotes the Declaration of Independence (GOD save the mark!); rehearses the grievances under which the fire-eaters have so long and so patiently suffered; recommends the building of a navy for purposes of defense or aggression; modestly urges the annihilation of Northern commerce in the event of war;--and piously relies upon the "justice of our cause" for a final and decisive victory over the weak and distracted North..."

Submitted by Unionblue

[bill_torrens]

Neil,

A republic of Southern states would, theoretically speaking, be the natural home of any state mainly populated by Southerners. And so the Confederate government would never have closed the door to the idea of welcoming them to the fold. And that is what the word "aspire" was meant to convey. In the same way that the West German government always aspired to reabsorb the eastern part of the country but never actually proposed making war on the GDR.

I notice that you side-stepped the point about Kentuckian neutrality.

I greatly enjoyed the extract from the Utica Morning Herald, and hope you won't think it rude of me to comment on it, even though you addressed it to Thea. I marvel at the fact that you consider such rank "yellow journalism" to be evidence of anything at all. Out of interest, can you trace the words in bold type back to anything which Jeff D. actually said?

Bill

[hawglips]

Originally Posted by unionblue

In fact, from my count the editorials against secession seem to be running two to one against.

Here are a few studies and editorials that say the opposite of what your count is.

I'm wondering if you know of any editorials or studies that claim most Northern papers were against secession prior to Sumter?

Hal

"In a study of Pennsylvania newspapers before Fort Sumter, 17 of the 23 Democratic newspapers examined "supported some sort of secession." Out of the 31 Republican papers, eight also supported the South's right to leave the union.[2] The Harrisburg Patriot and Union on April 9, 1861, summed up a feeling echoed from many presses: "If this administration wickedly plunges the country into civil war, it will be a war between the Republican party and the Southern States." . William C. Wright, The Secession Movement in the Middle Atlantic States, Cranbury, N.J.: Associated Universities Presses, 1973.

"The American press was as querulous about the government in 1861 as it is now, and the attitudes of editors did not always agree with that of the administration. Only five of New York City's 17 daily newspapers were firmly behind the Lincoln Administration's war effort." Abrams, Ray H., "The Jeffersonian, Copperhead Newspaper," Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 57 (1933), p.260.
Harper, Douglas R., "If Thee Must Fight:" A Civil War History of Chester County, Pa. West Chester, Pa.: Chester County Historical Society, 1990.
------------------, West Chester to 1865: That Elegant & Notorious Place. West Chester, Pa.: Chester County Historical Society, 1999.

Hartford Daily Courant, 4/12/61: "Public opinion in the North seems to be gradually settling down in favor of recognition of the New Confederacy by the Federal Government."

New York Tribune, 2/5/61: Lincoln's latest speech contained "the arguments of the tyrant -- force, compulsion and power." "Nine out of ten people of the North" are opposed to forcing SC to remain in the Union. "The great principle embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration is ... that governments derived their just power from the consent of the governed." Therefore, if the southern states want to secede, "they have a clear right to do so."

"The day before Sumter was surrendered two-thirds of the newspapers in the North opposed coercion in any shape or form, and sympathized with the South. These papers were the South's allies and champions. Three-fifths of the entire American people sympathized with the South. Over 200,000 voters opposed coercion, and believed the South had the right to secede."---Horace Greeley, New York Tribune, April 15, 1861.

[unionblue]

Bill,

I like your theory on what the word 'aspire' means by way of Southern conquest of territory. It sort of reminds me of a gun being described as a 'defensive' weapon or an 'offensive' weapon. But in effect, it really only depends on which side of the gun barrel you are on.

And no, my dear sir, I did not side-step the point about Kentuckian neutrality, the South did that when it invaded the state, wouldn't you agree? And would not that act be considered an invasion of a state by Confederate forces with the intent of holding, aspiring, conquering said state against the majority of its citizens wishes?

I am glad you enjoyed the extract from the Utica Morning Herald, and no I do not think it rude of you to comment on it. It IS rank "yellow journalism" and I do not consider it evidence of anything other than my original intent to show Thea that there were Northern newspapers that had printed stories with their conern that the South might attempt an invasion of the North.

I will go back and find Jefferson Davis's inaugural speech and see if any of the newspapers comments, to include those I highlighted, will come even close to its conclusions, but it basically strikes me as the same type of hystrical prose as the Southern papers made of Lincoln's inaugural speech.

Hal, welcome back and here is my first counter:

In the two volume work, Northern Editorials on Secession, edited by Dr. Howard Perkins, copyright 1964, it reproduces 495 editorials culled from a representative sample of 195 newspapers out of 800 consulted. Dr. Perkins states in his introduction:

"The editorials in these volumes express the sentiments of northern editors during what were perhaps the most crucial ten months since the winning of American independence. In that brief time, events moved rapidly. September, 1860, opened the active phase of the presidential campaigh, and editors wrote of secession and the preservation of the Union and perhaps of coercion, just as they had in 1852 and 1856, but nobody in the North brought a gun or refused a southern order for goods. By the following June all was different. From the confusion of counsel emerged the resolution to impose the northern will by force of arms. The rapidity of the transition left some editors dismayed, other prayerful, still others buoyant, but none speechless. As one of them remarked, 'We have lived a century in six months.' June closed with a rising clamor for 'traitors' blood.' Within three weeks the northern press coerced the administration into the Battle of Bull Run." [Howard C. Perkins, Northern Editorials on Secession, Vol. 1, p. 4]

The dominant newspapers in the North were Republican, followed by Douglas papers. Both Lincoln and Douglas denied any right to secession. Perkins tells us that Norhtern editors did discuss the possibility that secession might be a constitutional right, but as he says, at the end of about a six-week time, between the election and the secession of South Carolina, "they concluded by denying the right in toto." [Howard C. Perkins, Northern Editorials on Secession, Vol 1, p. 19]

"No state can legally leave the Union. What is called 'the right of secession' has no existence. It means the right of revolution, which belongs to every people...If the revolution succeeds, history justifies them; if they fail, it condemns them, even while not condemning their motives of action...If South Carolina should rebel,--and secession is rebellion, --and if other states should join her, it would be the duty of the general government to compel them to observe the law..." (Boston Daily Traveler, 1860.)

"There has been a good deal of discussion, since the Southern rebellion began, of the propriety of allowing the Slave States south of the Potomac and the Ohio, to separate themselves from the Union, and set up an independent Slave-holding Government for themselves. All the special friends and advocates of Slavery eagerly embraced this idea, while many on the other side, espeically those of a reflective and philosophic turn of mind, also adopted it. But in the face of the glorious, the sublime uprising of the unamimous and devoted people of the Fee States, this idea has become obsolete. It is now evident--and all men will do well to shape their calculations accordingly--that THE UNION CANNOT BE DISSOLVED." (New-York Daily Tribune, April 25, 1861.)

"The Republic must live, even though Slavery should have to die!" It rests with the Slaveholders--especially those of them who are rich and powerful--to say whether that question shall be so raised and so pressed to a decision." (New-York Daily Tribune, May 14, 1861.)

I guess, Hal, it really depends on the timing. I mean after all, just a few years prior to 1861, Southern newspapers were writting stuff like the following:

"No government could be supposed to contain a provision for, or to sanction as a right, its own destruction." (Alabama Tuscaloosa Independent Monitor, July 17, 1851.)

Secession "asserts the principle that the minority have the right to force the majority. There can be no government where such a principle is recognized." (Judge Garnet Andrews, Macon Georgia Journal and Messenger, Oct. 2, 1850.)

"If the doctrine of 'peaceable secession' is recognized, and the false pride or unreasonable whims of a State are deemed sufficient reasons for its exercise, no year would pass without some one of the States throwing the whole machinery of government into a score of weak but hostile communities." (Independent Monitor, May 1, 1851.)

"Southerners have a natural right to revolution but not a constitutional right of secession." (Lynchburg Virginian, Aug. 28, 1851.)

"[On] the perpetuity of [this government]...hangs the freedom of mankind." "[Secession] in my humble judgment, [is] repugnant to the Constitution, at war with the theory of our Government, and if established, will lead to the overthrow of our Republican system." (Vicksburg Weekly Whig, Oct. 15, 1851.)

"Then no government could stand for five years. It is the essence of anarchy." (Judge Andrews in Macon Georgia Journal and Messenger, Oct. 2, 1850.)

Timing is everything.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[hawglips]

Originally Posted by unionblue

Bill,

And the main point about Kentucky and Missouri is that they were part of the United States and I disagree that if the South considered it an option to invade the North, even to the nasal nutmg-seller regions, I do not think they would be apt to cry offsides and return such regions to their former owners. To the American mindset, North or South, that just wouldn't seem cricket.

Unionblue

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, Jefferson City, Mo., April 17, 1861.

Honorable SIMON CAMERON,
Secretary of War:

SIR: Your dispatch of the 15th instant, making a call on Missouri for four regiments of men for immediate service, has been received. There can be, I apprehend, no doubt but the men are intended to form a part of the President's army to make war upon the people of the seceded States.
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.

C. F. JACKSON,
Governor of Missouri.




FRANKFORT, KY., April 15, 1861.
Honorable SIMON CAMERON,

Secretary of War:

Your dispatch is received. In answer I say emphatically Kentucky will furnish no troops for the wicked purpose of subduing her sister Southern States.

B. MAGOFFIN,
Governor of Kentucky.