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.
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:...
Neil, I don't see anything here that supports your contention that those Northern newspapers against secession outnumbered those for it.
In fact, in Perkins' research of Northern newspaper editorials, he contrarily finds that, "During the weeks following the [1860] election, editors of all parties assumed that secession as a constitutional right was not in question.... On the contrary, the southern claim to a right of peaceable withdrawal was countenanced out of a reverence for the natural law principle of government by consent of the governed."
I just showed several quotes that actually gave editorials claiming that a majority of Northern newspapers and northern residents were not against the right of the Southern States to secede, but actually favored allowing the Southerners to secede.
I was hoping maybe you had some that claimed the opposite, since I have never seen any of those.
This would tend to refute your personal finding that most Northern newspapers were against secession prior to Sumter.
Here is most of a post I made on another thread, which bears on this discussion:
Chapter IV [of Perkins' book] is titled, "SECESSION: RIGHT OR REVOLUTION?" and deals with editorials specifically discussing whether or not secession is a right. There are nineteen editorials in this chapter.
Here's what they tell us:
1. CAN A STATE CONSTITUTIONALLY SECEDE? Dubuque Herald, November 11, 1860:
"A Government is not a corporation whose existence is limited by a fixed period of time, nor does it provide a means for its own dissolution. The Constitution of the United States provides that it may be amended, and prescribes how this may be done, but it does not, as it exists now, contemplate its own destruction, nor a dissolution of the Government of which it is the living evidence. Constitutionally, there can be no such thing as secession of a State from the Union."
2. PEACEABLE SECESSION AN ABSURDITY New York Evening Post, November 12, 1860:
"A more monstrous and absurd doctrine than that of the right of any state at its pleasure to secede from the Union has never been put forth."
3. SECESSION Bangor Daily Union, November 13, 1860:
"The Union of Maine with South Carolina rests and depends for its continuance on the free consent and will of the sovereign people of each. When that consent and will is withdrawn on either part, their Union is gone, and no power exterior to the withdrawing can ever restore it. A sovereign state may be conquered and held as a subject province; but no aggregation of power can ever force or compel it to be a co-sovereign and co-equal member of the American Union."
4. THE COMMOTION AT THE SOUTH Brooklyn Daily Eagle, November 13, 1860:
"While we see no real cause for secession on the part of the South, should any states attempt it there is nothing to be done but let them go. To hold any state by force of arms and compel it to remain attached to a confederacy it ceased to respect or trust in and obey a government it despised, would be to convert our government into a sanguinary and odious despotism."
5. THE RIGHT OF SECESSION Cincinnati Daily Commercial, November 14, 1860:
"This extreme doctrine of Mr. CALHOUN has hitherto found little favor among American statesmen or parties. The test to which it came near being subjected, in 1832, rather served to strengthen the opposite doctrine of Federal supremacy, than to give weight to the nullification side. ... While three-fourths of the States are required to amend the Constitution in the smallest particular, the government which it founds may be dissolved, and the Constitution in effect abolished by the act of the smallest member. The right of secession, like the right of nullification, implies that each State has a veto upon all the others. What kind of a confederacy is that, in which a single member rules the majority, under penalty of dissolving the concern? How can treaties be made with foreign powers be valid, if each State has the right to reject, or refuse to be bound by them? On this hypothesis, foreign governments would have to negotiate with each of the United States separately. In short, the doctrine of secession not only violates the majority principle, on which our whole institutions rest, but it is incompatible with the existence of any national government whatever. If the right of secession exists, a federal government having any of the attributes of sovereignty, does not exist, and vice versa."
6. THE RIGHT OF SECESSION Daily Boston Traveller, November 16, 1860:
"No state can legally leave the Union. What is called 'the right of secession' has no existence."
7. THE RIGHT OF STATES TO SECEDE New York Daily News, November 16, 1860:
"No decree of a Court can dissolve the States as it can a Corporation. The only power is with the States themselves, and a State once a member of the Confederacy cannot secede without the consent of the others--the majority must rule. If there was any other power to decree the dissolution of the Union, it should be left to that power; but there is none. The General Government cannot coerce a Territory to become a member of the Confederacy. But once having signed the compact and become a member of the Union, it cannot withdraw without the consent of the other members.
"If one State has a right to withdraw, all may withdraw; and we should have loss of name, loss of national existence, civil war, servile war, loss of liberty, and, ultimately, the subjugation and overthrow of the most glorious Republic which ever existed. ... The compact of these States is binding upon all, and the man who attempts to violate it will be responsible to future generations for the misery which his acts produce."
8. THE RIGHT TO SECEDE Davenport Democrat and News, November 17, 1860:
"We are yet of the opinion that there will be secession on the part of some of the Southern States, but we cannot yet clearly discover how that 'peaceable se[ce]ssion' which is so much talked of, can be accomplished. It will be difficult to secede without nullification, and with it civil war must ensue. Others view the matter differently, but we can see nothing but union or fight, and we fear the latter will be the ruinous alternative."
9. STATE RIGHTS AND THE CONSTITUTION Providence Evening Press, November 17, 1860:
"It may be an unpopular proceeding to maintain that right, at a time when it is invoked to support a grievous wrong; but this shall not deter us from upholding the principle at the moment that its attempted perversion, by withdrawing it from its abstract position, gives it especial interest. We conceive that by manifesting our loyalty to the right so far as it exists, we give emphasis to our condemnation of the gross offences committed under its cloak."
10. THE SECESSION THEORY Madison Wisconsin Daily State Journal, November 17, 1860:
"The particular point which is now most discussed, is the right of a State to withdraw from the Union without the consent of the other States, and to set up as an independent nation. It might in some cases be just and politic to permit such a secession. But this is not the question.--It is whether, upon some alleged grievance, or on account of some fancied good to be obtained, a State has the right to dissolve the bonds of the Union.
"The great majority of the Northern press take ground against this right. Madison, who was better entitled, perhaps, to the name of the Father of the Constitution than any other man, denied it in the most explicit language. Such was Webster's interpretation. Such is the view taken by President Jackson in his proclamation already alluded to. ... We believe it is alike without foundation in the Constitution or in common sense and we have no doubt but it will find in ABRAHAM LINCOLN as prompt and as decided an opponent as it found in ANDREW JACKSON."
11. THE PEOPLE, THE STATES, AND THE UNION Providence Daily Post, November 19, 1860:
"Such being the relation which the States bear to the Union, what utter folly is it to talk of the right of any State to secede! No one State has even the right of revolution. That right belongs to the people of the whole nation. A State or the people of a State may rebel against the government of the United States, but when such rebellion takes place, it will be the duty of the general government to crush such rebellion with all the power given to it by the Constitution. It is to be hoped that no attempt at rebellion will be made by any considerable portion of the people of this country; but there can be no doubt in the mind of any intelligent person as to the manner in which any such attempt should be treated. Our fathers declared their purpose to be 'to form a more perfect union.' If any State can secede at pleasure, our government is but a rope of sand. A successful rebellion or secession a few States now, will be followed by a new rebellion or secession a few years hence, when the States remaining after the first secession shall adopt a line of policy towards some portion of the country, which shall be deemed a cause or made a pretext for a new declaration of independence or an alliance with some foreign power."
12. THE INDISSOLUBLE UNION Philadelphia North American and United States Gazette:
"The principle for which the secessionists open their case is thus an impossibility while this government stands. To admit their first claim is to upset the whole body of our national theory of government. Complaint on the part of any State is, or may be reasonable, and remonstrance, urgent representation by deputation, and possibly in extreme cases temporary resistance to oppressive laws, may be tolerable and necessary. But all this is conformable to the principles of our system, as well as according to reason and to law. Secession is the very antithesis of this, and almost as much a burlesque of legality as it is absurd in respect of sense."
13. THE RIGHT OF PEACEABLE SECESSION Cincinnati Daily Press, November 21, 1860:
"We believe that the right of any member of this Confederacy to dissolve its political relations with the others and assume an independent position is absolute--that, in other words, if South Carolina wants to go out of the Union, she has the right to do so, and no party or power may justly say her nay."
14. SECESSION Circleville (Ohio) Watchman, November 23, 1860:
"But we are quite free to say that, our ideas of true Democracy, of the natural and inalienable rights of man, lead us to the opinion that any State of the confederation has, or at least ought to have, a perfect and undoubted right to withdraw from the Union and to change her form of government whenever a majority of her people shall be of opinion that their rights are being encroached [sic] upon and impaired by the other States."
15. SECESSION--HOW CAN IT BE ACCOMPLISHED? Washington (D.C.) National Republican, November 26, 1860:
"No Republicans, we presume, and very few Northern men of any party, are ready to concede the right of a State to separate from the Union, and thus bring about its dissolution, at pleasure. ... In short, it is sheer nonsense to talk about permitting a State to secede from the Union. So long as the present Constitution stands, no State can get out of the Union, except by a forcible and successful revolution."
16. THE RIGHT OF SECESSION Trenton Daily State Gazette and Republican, December 6, 1860:
"We are of those who believe that no State has the right to secede."
17. SECESSION Burlington (Vt.) Weekly Sentinel, December 14, 1860:
"If one State has the right to go out from the Union, and thus to destroy the unity and integrity of the government, what State may not go out? And what portion within any State may not secede from the State? Why may not a man declare that his farm or his house, or his shop, in Burlington, is no longer under the constitution and laws of Vermont; that he will pay no taxes, obey no process, &c., in a word, inform the world in general, and the State of Vermont in particular, that he had seceded? The right of secession exists in and under a government, as the right of suicide exists in the individual, and in no other way or manner."
18. HOW TO SECEDE New York World, December 15, 1860:
"We therefore submit to the consideration of the country whether the time has not come for an amendment to the Constitution providing for the peaceable secession of states. These threats of dissolving the Union have been held over us about long enough. They have had great influence on the political action of the country, not because the naked fact of separation is anything very formidable, but because secession, as the Constitution now stands, would be the certain forerunner of civil war."
19. THE RIGHT OF SECESSION New York Daily Tribune, December 17, 1860:
"And, if it [the Declaration of Independence] justified the secession from the British Empire of Three Millions of colonists in 1776, we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861."
By my count that makes 6 in favor of unilateral secession being a right and 13 opposed to the proposition that unilateral secession is a right. Additionally, 3 of the editorials specifically contradicted the idea that most Northerners believed in a right of secession.
By my count that makes 6 in favor of unilateral secession being a right and 13 opposed to the proposition that unilateral secession is a right. Additionally, 3 of the editorials specifically contradicted the idea that most Northerners believed in a right of secession.
Regards,
Cash
I only count two, (#10 and #15 -- perhaps I overlooked the third) contradicting the five I had posted, but thanks, those are the first I've seen claiming a majority of Northern papers or people opposed secession prior to Sumter.
I noticed that both these were dated Nov. 1860. Here's a few editorials in chronological order. I don't know how meaningful it is, but three of the below actually refer to the growing sentiment in the North of letting the South go -- all dated a few months later. That being said the Davenport Democrat claims "the most influential papers" believed the States had the right.
Davenport (Iowa) Democrat and News 11/17/60: "The leading and most influential papers of the union believe that any State of the Union has a right to secede."--
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 South Carolina to remain in the Union. "The great principle embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration is...that governments derive 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 New York Times (March 21, 1861): "There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go."
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, April 15, 1861: "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
I have never read Perkins' book, but I wonder how this statement fits inn with the chapter you quote from: "During the weeks following the [1860] election, editors of all parties assumed that secession as a constitutional right was not in question.... On the contrary, the southern claim to a right of peaceable withdrawal was countenanced out of a reverence for the natural law principle of government by consent of the governed."
After Kentucky was invaded by Confederate forces, 100,000 men from that state enlisted in the Union army. 40,000 men enlisted in the Confederate army. Better than two-to-one by my reckoning. And Kentucky did stay in the Union in spite of Confederate efforts.
Missouri had 110,000 men enlist in the Union army. 90,000 enlisted in the Confederate army. I admit, you have a bit better odds in this state, but it never was fully considered to be in the Confederate orbit or under its control during the entire war.
I know that these states at first were either neutral or against Lincoln's call for 75,000 men to put down the rebellion, but it is a fact that Kentucky was invaded by the South and was driven into the Union camp.
Missouri seemed a bit more divided, but never left the Union sphere of influence in spite of all its struggle there.
Timing is the key.
Sincerely,
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
In reference to your post #21 you state you showed several editorials that claimed that a majority of Northern newspapers and Northern residents were not against the right of Southern secession.
You were also hoping that I would have some that would have claimed the opposite, since you had never seen any of those.
Did you note the one editorial I gave from the New-York Daily Tribune, April 25, 1861, which is the same paper you use to support the claim that secession was alright with a majority of the people of the North (April 15, 1861 & Feb. 5, 1861) is edited by the same man, Horace Greely? You would admit his position and his paper's editorial has much changed, has it not?
Cash has provided other examples of editorials not subscribing to the idea that a majority of the North was in favor of letting the South go or believed in the idea of secession.
As I said, it comes down to the timing of the thing.
Sincerely,
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
Did you note the one editorial I gave from the New-York Daily Tribune, April 25, 1861, which is the same paper you use to support the claim that secession was alright with a majority of the people of the North (April 15, 1861 & Feb. 5, 1861) is edited by the same man, Horace Greely? You would admit his position and his paper's editorial has much changed, has it not?
...As I said, it comes down to the timing of the thing.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
After Sumter (the editorial you quoted was of that genre) there is no question that public opinion swung heavily anti-secession in the North. Lincoln was very successful in accomplishing his desires in that respect.
However, pre-Sumter was a different story altogether. Cash's references to public opinion being anti-secession are the first two I've seen to that effect.
I only count two, (#10 and #15 -- perhaps I overlooked the third) contradicting the five I had posted, but thanks, those are the first I've seen claiming a majority of Northern papers or people opposed secession prior to Sumter.
--------------
See #5 also: "This extreme doctrine of Mr. CALHOUN has hitherto found little favor among American statesmen or parties."
"Who else could have made them fight: could have struck them so aghast with fear and dread as to turn shoulder to shoulder and face one way and even stop talking for a while and even after two years of it keep them still so wrung with terror that some among them would seriously propose moving their very capital to a foreign country lest it be ravaged and pillaged by a people whose entire white male population would have little more than filled any one of their larger cities: except Jackson in the Valley and three separate armies trying to catch him and none of them ever knowing whether they were just retreating from a battle or just running into one and Stuart riding his whole command entirely around the biggest single armed force this continent ever saw in order to see what it looked like from behind and Morgan leading a cavalry charge against a stranded man-of-war. Who else could have declared a war against a power with ten times the area and a hundred times the men and a thousand times the resources, except men who could believe that all necessary to conduct a successful war was not acumen nor shrewdness nor politics nor diplomacy nor money nor even integrity and simple arithmetic but just love of land and courage."
-- William Faulker, from "The Bear"
in The Faulkner Reader
"I am a Southern States' Rights man; I am an African slave-trader. I am one of those Southern men who believe that slavery is right--morally, religiously, socially, and politically. I represent the African Slave-trade interest of that section. I am proud of the position I occupy in that respect. I believe the African Slave-trader is a true missionary and a true Christian." Mr. Gaulden, delegate from the First Congressional District of Georgia.
"I am satisfied that the mind of the South has undergone a change to this great extent, that it is now the almost universal belief in the South, not only that the condition of African slavery in their midst, is the best condition to which the African race has ever been subjected, but that it has the effect of ennobling both races, the white and the black." Senator James Mason of Virginia.
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
At a time when the minds of men are straying far from the lessons our fathers taught, it seems proper and well to recur to the original principles on which the system of government they devised was founded. The eternal truths which they announced, the rights which they declared “unalienable,” are the foundation-stones on which rests the vindication of the Confederate cause. -- J. Davis
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
