Newspapers, Lincoln, Opinions, Oh My!

[thea_447]

It's been said on these boards by various Northern posters that the North went to war after Sumter was fired on and that, in my humble opinion, translates as "The North went to war because the South fired on the U.S. flag." After all, the South had been taking forts, munitions, etc. for many months, with no consequences.

It is hard, from my point of view, to think that this is the reason. Of course later it would be said that they fought to free the slaves.

In the months leading up to war though, it is apparent to me that Northern public opinion was saying "Let them go!" I came to this conclusion by looking at their own words, the newspapers. If this is not the way the population felt, I'm sure some of you will help me on this issue.

Taking this a step further, I suggest that Lincoln had always been a "bankers dream" and it would be in their, the bankers, interest for the South to stay in the Union, AT ANY COST.

Here's a sampling of what Northern newspapers were saying. Naturally I have many more of these:

"Any violation of the constitution by the general government, deliberately persisted in would relieve the state or states injured by such violation from all legal and moral obligations to remain in the union or yield obedience to the federal government....let them (the Southern states) go." --Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 11/13/60

"Southern states should be permitted to "work out their salvation or destruction in their own way" rather than to "attempt, through forcible coercion, to save them in spite of themselves."--Cincinnati Daily Commercial, 11/14/60

"The leading and most influential papers of the union believe that any State of the Union has a right to secede."--Davenport (Iowa) Democrat and News 11/17/60

Sovereignty "necessarily includes what we call the 'right of secession.' This right must be maintained" lest we establish a "colossal despotism" against which the founding fathers "uttered their solemn warnings."--Providence Evening News 11/17/60

"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."--Cincinnati Daily Press 11/21/60

If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then "we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861."--New York Tribune 12/17/60

Secession is "the very germ of liberty...the right of secession inheres to the people of every sovereign state."--Kenosha (Wisconsin) Democrat 1/11/61

Opposing secession changes the nature of government "from a voluntary one, in which the people are sovereigns, to a despotism where one part of the people are slaves."--New York Journal of Commerce 1/12/61

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."--New York Tribune 2/5/61

"There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf states go."--New York Times 3/21/61

There's a very big "What If" here. If Lincoln hadn't sent warships to Sumter, if the Southerners had not fired......

I don't believe that Lincoln would have allowed a peaceable secession--too much money involved among other things. But it's really wild to contemplate what might have happened in the next 6 months to a year.

Tell me what you think.

Till we meet again, I remain YMOS,

[unionblue]

Dear Thea,

What Money? Where was it coming from and how much did the North lose by the South leaving the Union? No pigs in a poke please, but figures would be appreciated.

And Thea, since I have bought the two volume set, Northern Editorials On Secession, by Peter Simth, I too, have a lot more headlines and could match yours one-for-one, if desired. You are indeed correct in your headlines above when BEFORE the firing on Ft. Sumter, some newspaper editors were inclined to 'let' the South go.

It is remarkable that AFTER the firing on Ft. Sumter, just how radical the change is in tone and content of some of the very same newspapers you quote above. Even Democratic papers that supported Douglas, Breckinridge and Bell for President, all seem to gather together under the Union 'label' after that act of violence by the South.

To further illustrate my point, I will try and see if I can come up with editorials from the period newspapers and see if the tone and content have changed somewhat after the firing on Ft. Sumter.

Until that time,
Unionblue

[unionblue]

Thea,

I have read some of the editorials you refer to above and have found that some of the statements might be being taken out of context with the entire editorial. Example:

You list a line from the 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."

But this very same editorial goes on to say, "This doctrine may be right--but we cannot see it in that light. There should be in every government some control[l]ing instinct for self preservation, and we have yet to believe that there is none in this republic of ours, though after all, it may be that Congress will have to convene and pass an act similar to the force bill of '34 before any step can be taken by the Executive."


The rest of the editorial is very negative on the idea of secession in spite of its first line that you give above. I submit the line is taken out of context when lifted out of the entire article.

As for the statements of the Providence Evening News, Cincinnati Daily Press and the New York Tribune editorials, they do support the theme of letting the South go or that the right of secession is a power reserved to the States. I still have not finished checking on the other editorials you have listed, but will get back to you when I have.


I also noticed that in most cases in the book, Northern Editorials On Secession where one editorial comes out in support of the idea of letting the South 'go,' it seems the very next editorial comes out against secession or the idea that such a right even exisits. In fact, from my count the editorials against secession seem to be running two to one against. I guess it really depended on what newspaper you got and if the editor was a Bell Unionist, Douglas Democrat or Breckinridge Democrat or a Lincoln Republican.

In other words, I think I will be able to show that after the South firing on Ft. Sumter, you will see adramatic shift in the views of the editorials in the North. Bring on your editorials, dear Thea, I too, have many more.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[unionblue]

Thea,

How about this editorial to put things a bit more in perspective.

Daily Chicago Times, June 13, 1861. "It is true that, to the common mind, the North seemed apathetic--undemonstrative--inclined to compromise the sectional difficulties--if possible, to preserve the peace. But these are indications of devotion to the government--of a spirit which, when aroused, is self-sacrificing, resolute, irresistible. Mr. Davis and his fellow-conspirators should have understood this. Great men, great leaders, always understand these things, and, to a certain extent, he seemed to comprehend them. It is too obvious that the time for preparation is while the enemy are unsuspicious, unaroused. He seized the opportunity for preparation, but not for decisive action. Instead of carrying Washington, as subsequent events have proved he might have done, by a bold and sudden movement, he allowed Mr. Lincoln--an Illinois lawyer, not a military chieftain--to entrap him into an attack upon Fort Sumter; really to shape his policy, and make him do that which, above all things, he ought not to have done--strike the first blow at an insignificant point.

Up to this time northern sentiment was divided--not in devotion to the national institutions, but as to the purposes of the secession movements and the method of adjusting the sectional difficulties. Hundreds of thousands of conservatives doubted that human folly and wickedness would go so far as to attempt to dismember the government and to overthrow the constitution. The attack on Sumter dispelled this delusion. It did what Mr. Lincoln hoped it would do--what Mr. Davis ought to have endeavored to prevent,--it gave to the loyal States a rallying point--produced that majestic outburst of patriotism which astonished the world, and has placed the security of the Union beyond a doubt. By this one rash act he lost the advantages of the situation. The dream of sacking northern cities and devastating northern fields was dispelled forever. The vision of northern men in arms, marching with southern armies to the destruction of the government, vanished in an instant. The months of preparation which, through the treachery of Floyd (Buchanan's Secretary of War) and other great political and military criminals, the revolted States had enjoyed, were lost--wasted. They could no longer choose their own battlefields--no longer hope to extend their limits or dictate terms. Their leader had been outwitted--had been driven into an attack upon an unimportant fortress, containing a handful of men, the reduction of which was at his entire discretion. He found the Union sentitment comfortably asleep--unsuspicious of the real enormity of his designs, and he ordered General Beauregard to wake it up, so that it might gather in united power to hem him in and crush out his rebellion."

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[thea_447]

Neil,
With this statement you have taken me quite aback. You state:
"The dream of sacking northern cities and devastating northern fields was dispelled forever. The vision of northern men in arms, marching with southern armies to the destruction of the government, vanished in an instant. "

Certainly I don't need to tell you that I have never read anything remotely of the sort being said by the leaders of the South. Their battle cry was always "Let us go in peace, we just want out of the Union."

Can you site me many passages by credible leaders of the South that I might check
who made these remarks, or said something similar? I will settle for three or four.

As to that second sentence, do you mean to imply that somehow Jefferson Davis wanted Northern men to join Southern men to overthrow the government of the United States? I must admit I have never read anything to indicate even one leader thought in these terms. Again, all I have read has been concerning the South being allowed to leave the Union, to form their own nation, the CSA. They were willing to pay for everything they had taken, they just wanted to separate.

Another thought on your statement: could this have been propoganda fed to Northern troops by their leaders to increase their animosity towards the South?

I await your reply and remain YMOS,

[unionblue]

Dear Thea,

Let's be sure we understand who stated what. I did not state anything, I merely typed what the Daily Chicago Times, June 13, 1861, had printed in it's editorial for that day.

And I respectfully submit, my dear friend, if you have not ever read anything but the leaders of the South saying, "Let us go in peace, we just want out of the Union," I submit you need to expand your reading of period newspaper articles and speeches given by certain Souther leaders of the time.

I recall some statements made in the debates in the Senate before Ft. Sumter was fired on, before Southern Senators had left to go home, something to the effect that Southern armies would march north to Boston and occuppy Faniaul Hall. And Gov. Pickens of South Carolina also stated he would send troops to invade Washington D.C. prior to Ft. Sumter being attacked. There were also calls in the Southern press to invade the North before and after Sumter. I will try and find the exact quotes and sources for you.

As to the second sentence, I imply nothing, again, all I have done is simply transcribe the editorial given in the newspaper of the time. The editor writing the piece certainly felt that Davis had planned on northern men helping southern armies march north to overthrow the government, burn cities and cause other mischief.

As to your last comment, I do believe that editors and newspapers on both sides, north and south, used inflamatory statements and heated rethoric to add to their own personal views. One can see that from just reading the editorials of the time and taking what is claimed as fact with a grain of salt.

I'll get back to you soon,
Unionblue

[unionblue]

Thea,

Most of my material in which I think the statements about attacking the North, etc., by Southern leaders is at home and I must wait until I am there to check on them.

In the meantime, I thought you might like to read extracts from another Northern editorial concerning the true intentions of the South, at least, according to this editor's mind:

Our Country's Crisis And Danger
Chicago Daily Journal, April 17, 1861.

"A solemn crisis is at length upon us. The issue is not one merely of war or peace--union or disunion--the extension or restriction of slavery. It is one far more momentous and alarming than all these--the very existence of liberty itself--the continuance, or the disatrous overthrow, of the great principles of popular rights, Constitutional authority, and genuine liberty--for which our fathers bled on the battle field, and which have been the pride and glory of all American hearts....

The unscrupulous character of its (Southern) leaders, the bold and shameless suppression of all the rights of free men to the minority of their own citizens, the abolition of free speech and free suffrage--all show, in characters of light, that the real and ultimate aim is the total overthrow and annihilation of all republican liberty."

Unionblue

[yankeewoman]

Very well put, Neil.

[unionblue]

Thea,

At present, I have found three references to where important Southern figures condoned the idea of invading the North at various times before and during the Civil War.

My first reference is to a speech made by Senator Louis T. Wigfall of Texas, when he was in the US Senate during the ongoing debate over secession in late 1860. While I have not found the actual speech by Senator Wigfall, it was made reference to by Senator Wade of Ohio in a speech in reply. Senator Wade says the following in reference to Wigfall' threat of the South invading the North:

"The Senator from Texas (Wigfall) says he will force you to an ignominious treaty up in Faneuil Hall (Boston). Well, sir, you may. We know you are brave; we understand your prowess; we want no fight with you, but nevertheless, if you drive us to that necessity, we must use all the powers of this Government to maintain it intact in its integrity."

My second reference comes from when the 36th Congress was trying to elect a Speaker in December of 1859. Because of the John Sherman being put forth as a candidate for the post and his endorsement of the Hinton Helper, this set off an uproar that caused such tension that most congressmen armed themselves with knives and pistols for self-defense. One southerner reported that a good many slave-state congressmen expected and wanted a shootout on the House floor: they "are willing to fight the question out, and to settle it right there..."

The governor of South Carolina informed one of his state's congressmen on December 20, 1859: "If ... you upon consultation decide to make the issue of force in Washington, write or telegraph me, and I will have a regiment in or near Washington in the shortest possible time."

Last, but not least, I have the stated war strategy of President Jefferson Davis of the Confederate States of America. Davis at first wished to do as you stated in his quote, "...to be left alone." He at first wished to adopt the strategy of General George Washington in the Revolutionary War, that of defending the newly created CSA from invasion and conquest from the North. He envisioned trading space for time, fighting only where he could win in a series of battles of attrition--a strategy of winning by not losing, of wearing out a better equipped foe and compelling him to give up by prolonging the war and making it too costly.

But two main factors prevented Davis from carrying out such a strategy except in a limited, sporadic fashion. Both factors stemmed from political as well as military realities. The first was a demand by governors, congressmen, and the public for troops to defend every portion of the Confederacy from penetration by "Lincoln's abolition hordes." Thus in 1861, small armies were dispersed around the Confederate perimeter. Historians have criticized this "cordon defense" for dispersing manpower so thinly that Union forces were certain to break through somewhere, as they did at several points in 1862.

The second factor inhibiting a Washingtonian strategy of attrition was the temperament of the southern people. Believing that they could whip any number of Yankees, many southerners scorned the notion of "sitting down and waiting" for the Federals to attack. "The idea of waiting for blows, instead of inflicting them, is altogether unsuited to the genius of our people," declared the Richmond Examiner. "The aggressive policy is the truly defensive one. A column pushed forward into Ohio or Pennsylvania is worth more to us, as a defensive measure, than a whole tier of seacoast batteries from Norfolk to the Rio Grande." (Richmond Examiner, Spet. 27, 1861.) The Southern press clamored for an advance against Washington in the same tone that northern newspapers cried "On to Richmond." In fact, General Beauregard devised several bold plans for an offensive against Union General McDowell before the first battle of Bull Run. But the question became moot when Beauregard learned of McDowell's offensive against him.

The Confederates eventually synthesized these various strands of strategic theory and political reality into what Davis called an "offensive-defensive" strategy. This consisted of defending the Confederate homeland by using interior lines of communication to concentrate dispersed forces against an invading army and, if opportunity offered, to go over to the offensive, even to the extent of invading the North.

So, Thea, I think you will recognize the fact that if Southeren newspapers were 'screaming' for the North to be invaded, that Northern newspapers might have picked up on this and had voiced their concerns a few times. And, it was policy by President Davis to invade the North if the 'opportunity offered.'

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[bill_torrens]

Neil,

Surely there is a clear distinction between (1) temporary invasions of Northern territory carried out within the larger context of a war fought to persuade the Yankees to simply go away and (2) invasions of Northern territory carried out with the intention of conquering the United States and absorbing it into the fabric of the Confederate States?

Are you seriously suggesting that the latter was ever actually contemplated? As Southerners would have seen it, that would be like having a cancer removed from one's body and then going out of one's way to have it reinserted.

Bill