The irrelevance of Sumter & slavery

[thea_447]

Bill: "Rob makes an interesting point about the inherent cultural differences between the two regions. As I have asked before, can anyone point to a period of peacetime between 1776 and 1861 when North and South weren’t pulling in opposite directions? To what extent was this ever really a single country before secession? And does this cultural diversity, amounting effectively (one might argue) to separate nationhood, weaken the case for the enforcement of the Union?"I believe the two sides were arguing from the moment they put pen and ink to the Declaration of Independence.
They were united only in their animosity to English rule. After that, for a number of years, all the states viewed themselves as equally independent. Exactly when the change came about, where the Southern states, although still viewing themselves as independent, began to realize that their strength lay in a Southern bond, I don't know. I believe the same thing was happening in the New England states. The animosities increased as the sectional differences became more and more apparent and the North became more vocal in its condescending attitude toward the South.

Wow, Bill, the denouement of the J.D. Imboden letter and his becoming a Confederate Brigadier General brought a huge smile to my face! Neil, were you thinking about flamingos or just dropping acid and listening to Pink Floyd when you didn't quite finish the letter? I can just picture you now, settled in your Lazy Boy in the Lincoln/Sherman shrine room..........what a trip!

As to your questioning my reasons for thinking that secession was wanted by more than just a few of those nasty slaveholders (and possibly that I lead with my heart rather than with facts) I will offer this.

"The vote for secession would have shown anybody who wanted to look that it was not just a few slave-holders who wanted out; and certainly Lincoln, the politician, would have studied the voting results carefully. Alabama's legislature voted 61 to 39 for secession, recording the greatest number of "no" votes. Florida voted 62 to 7; Georgia 208 to 89; Louisiana 113 to 17; Texas 166 to 7, followed by a popular vote of 3 to 1. After Lincoln's call for troops, Virginia voted 88 to 55 and confirmed it with a popular vote of 4 to 1; Arkansas 69 to 1, and Tennessee by popular vote of 2 and one fourth to 1. " ( World Almanac; North Carolina figures not given. War for What?, Francis W. Springer, Nippert Publishing, Springfield, Tn., 2nd printing 1997, p.193)

Confederate leadership has been criticized for attacking Ft. Sumter, thus giving Lincoln the excuse for launching his invasion, but the attack wasn't ordered impulsively or for frivolous reasons. All efforts for talks and discussions of peace had been rebuffed and efforts to pry a declaration of policy out of Lincoln had failed, thus confirming Southern opinion of his intentions. Then, his sudden order for relief of the fort made it abundantly clear that his policy was war. In war, Ft. Sumter would be far too important a strategic point in Southern defenses to be allowed to remain in enemy hands. And it was also clear to Southern officials that if this incident didn't light the fuse, another one would be arranged! "Poor old unsuspecting Abe" had threatened in his inaugural about collecting his taxes. The warships accompanying the provisions could only mean one thing. And of course Anderson moving his men into the fort by stealth of night didn't endear the Yanks to the Southerners.

Fort Sumter was just the fuse waiting to be lit. The war was going to start, one way or another.

Another point I'd like to make here is that the Southern states, especially South Carolina, have been criticized for seceding in the face of overwhelming odds. Jefferson Davis has been called an "extremist", as though he induced all of them to secede. The record plainly shows that Davis did his best to bring about a mutual understanding between the two sections. He opposed secession until, while serving in the U.S. Senate, he saw his own state secede.

Although I don't agree that "the man and the hour have met" should be his mantle, I do believe he would have made a much better military man than a politician.

As to your latest post to Dawna, we have been down this road before. Tommy and I have both pointed out to you repeatedly that the South had already lost its political clout, yet you persist in these oft repeated phrases about the South forcing the majority to do their bidding. Why can't you simply accept that the South wanted no part of a Union that was injurious to them?


You speak of the South breaking faith with the North simply because they wanted to leave the company of a people who hated them! I could quote Thaddeus Stevens or any of his ilk to give a general idea of how the Northerners viewed their Southern brethren but I'm sure you have read it all before.

You look to Lincoln as an idol, a man who single-handedly did more to destroy the Constitution while he held the Union in a dictatorship and think nothing of his wrongdoings. He spoke up when he heard of the Negroes being mistreated under his generals but like Pilate, who wanted to wash his hands of the blood, he allowed Elmira and other places like it to exist while Southern men died there. He clapped his hands when presented with Savannah and elevated men like Turchin who should have been hung! And of course how could he not love Sherman and Sheridan!

You speak of a great American tragedy and you're right about that; but I put a different turn on it. There was no need for a Sumter or any other device Lincoln could have used to bring the South to strike the first blow. He didn't have to threaten with his inaugural, he didn't have to send warships, he didn't have to send 200 soldiers hidden away in warships. He did all those things for one purpose only...to invite war and that's exactly what he got.

Till we meet again,

[unionblue]

Dear Thea,

Yes, we have been down this road, countless times before, but I never tire of walking with you, as you always seem to find a new twist, a new turn, a new view of the road.

Pink Flamingos and drugs not withstanding.

The part of the letter from J.D. Imboden to his friend John McCue was quoted in that part from the book, Beyond The Battlefield, Edited by David Madden. It did not contain the rest of the letter Bill provided, but I was aware Imboden enlisted for the Confederacy when the war came.

Imoden, like Lee, Davis, Stephens and many others were Union men and tried to keep the nation together in the face of Southern fire-eaters and the stirred up passions for disunion. They only followed their states when they actually left the Union, much like a person would get involved in a fist fight with a brother in a bar when he's had to much to drink. You personally don't see the reason for the fight or don't want to fight, but he is your brother after all. I have had members of my family involved in disputes I thought were stupid or wrong, but blood is thicker than water and when the fists started flying, for real or in court, I was there to support them. Imboden's letter tells the same, tragic story, of being led down a path he did not want to follow, but felt compelled to do so because of the love of his state. It's just too bad the leaders of secession didn't wish to find another path, but rushed down the one to bloody war.

As to your contention that the colonies were united in their views against England, no argument there. But Washington called for national unity, even then, so that the newly formed nation could survive in a hostile world. He knew that sectionalism, carried to extremes, was the one of the nation's greatest dangers. And even then, many knew what the main threat to the new nation would be, hence Jefferson's warning against that 'firebell in the night' or some such, slavery and its devisive nature.

I am glad that you have led with statistics instead of your heart this time, but please, never forget to bring your heart out every once in a while and grace us with its passion. We will all be, and have been the richer for it.

But I wish to ask, the number of legislators who voted for secession in the states you mention; how many were slaveowners? What were the franchise requirements to be a member of the legislature at the time in the particular states you list? Why did Sam Houston, the most popular leader of Texas politics, refuse to call a secession convention?

As to knowing Lincoln's intentions, again I ask, what did the South want? Egg in its beer? Lincoln and Republicans had time and time again, before the election and during the election, stated that slavery would not be touched where it existed. John Hunt Morgan and others of the South said after the election and before the man took office, that there was little the man could do to harm the South as the Supreme Court was still Southern in its makeup and the Congress and Senate could still block Republican legislation.

Tommy has never convinced me that the votes were there in the Congress to do the South any real harm. He spoke of committee chairs and such and how legislation was brought to the floor of the Congress but he never reconciled how two branches of government were at the complete mercy of one branch headed up by a new party and a new president. So, no, I have not been shown with any certainty this had ANY reason for so drastic a measure as rebellion and disunion.

As for those oft-repeated phrases you mention, they only report historical fact. For over seventy years, the South had it's way; in the Congress, the Supreme Court and the White House. It had it's way when picking officials, custom agents, judges, cabinet posts, government jobs and positions, even West Point applications. I see the South having it's way for years, right up until the election of Lincoln, by its exercising that power in the Congress, the White House and the Court. You can recall the three fifths provision in the Constitution, the Gag Order in Congress, the Missiour Compromise, Dred Scott, Kansas Act, Fugitive Slave Laws, the defeat of the Homestead Act, censorship, etc. If the South had no political power before the Civil War, they surely didn't act like it.

What the South lost was the power to have everything their own way without serious opposition. It's called losing an election. Political causes and parties do that every once in a while, but they don't get angry enough to stir up an unlawful act of rebellion in the face of a majority who don't want a rebellion, simply because another cause and party have won a legal election. I seem to remember the New England States being upset at many actions of the South, but no one convincing them to rebel and leave the Union, not to the extent others on this board seems to think they did.

As for hatred, I have found that in order to hate someone or something, a person or people must really work at it, giving it huge amounts of time and energy in their daily lives and thoughts. Men like Yancy and Rhett, Sumner and Stephens might have been in positions to generate this hate in the halls of Congress where the issues of contention were debated, fought over and picked at every day of a session. But you cannot say that of the majority of the people of any section. There is simply too much evidence to the contrary.

If such hate had been the case, then Davis would not have to plead for two thirds of the Confederate army to come back to the ranks and their desertions forgiven. If that had been the case, then there would have been no Peace Society's nor secret organizations with thousands involved, working actively to bring down the Confederate government. If that had been true, hundreds of thousands of Southern men would not have served with the Union. If that had been true, no men would have been elected to the second round of Confederate congressional elections who had an agenda of proUnion sentitment and peace by the rejoining of the Union as part of that agenda.

Yes, I look to Lincoln as an idol of mine, but not that of a false God or imagined dictator. I remember Lee saying that he surrendered as much to Lincoln's goodness as he did Grant's armies. I remember Davis telling his guards to be quiet when they broke out in cheers at the news of Lincoln's death. I remember Frederick Douglass speaking at how Lincoln was the right man at the right time for the cause of the slave.

I do not deny that Elmira and Andersonville existed and that they are stains on the honor of both the North and the South. Just as Davis could not be everywhere and everything to everyone, neither could Lincoln. Its that simple of a reason. Other less powerful, more mortal men were trusted with and failed at being more humane to their captive fellow human beings.

But as to the destruction of the Constitution and the idea that the majority should rule, I look to the Southern leadership as trying to put a match to that document and crush that sentiment by its enshrinement of slavery in its own Constitution, its look to the premanence for the enslavement of men. Lincoln stopped that with his main purpose of preserving the Union and the last best hope of men. The rebellion was the attempt of the few to rule the many, not an experiment in democracy, but an attempt to hold back the social and historical clock, to keep the common man in his place and to keep others in permanent darkness. No loss there.

We agree there was a great American tragedy and there was no real need for Sumter. But where you view a threat in Lincoln's inaugral address, I see mainly an outstretched hand.

And the South got the 'sprinkeling of blood' its leaders wanted.

Until that next heartfelt trip down the road...

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[dawna]

Originally Posted by unionblue

I take exception to your continued insistance that when the 'Northern people' governed themselves, they enjoyed self-government. You mean when the people of the United States governed themselves, they enjoyed self-government. Before secession, representatives from both the North and the South, East and the West, were in the Federal government.

Neil:

I'm always loathe to rattle your nerves, especially when you still might have pink flamingos dancing in your head, but in this case I fear I have no choice. I agree that the United States of America enjoyed self-government until a group of frustrated and dispirited U.S. citizens decided to establish a new and better administration. Lincoln had long claimed that he would never allow the South to secede - trying again at the 'ballot box' would have been no different than waiting till hell froze over.

An excerpt again from Lincoln's Galena, Illinois speech, 1856:

"We, the majority, would not strive to dissolve the Union; and if any attempt is made it must be by you, who so loudly stigmatize us as disunionists. But the Union, in any event, won't be dissolved. We don't want to dissolve it, and if you attempt it, we won't let you. With the purse and sword, the army and navy and treasury in our hands and at our command, you couldn't do it. This Government would be very weak, indeed, if a majority, with a disciplined army and navy, and a well-filled treasury, could not preserve itself, when attacked by an unarmed, undisciplined, unorganized minority. All this talk about the dissolution of the Union is humbug---nothing but folly. We ``WON'T'' dissolve the Union, and you SHAN'T."

And again, Mr. Hamilton's feelings on the subject at the Constitutional Convention:

"To coerce the States is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised. Can any reasonable man be well disposed toward a government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself – a government that can only exist by the sword?

And Mr. Lee's:

“Lincoln denounced the doctrine of the right of secession from the Union as unconstitutional, and declared his firm purpose to hold, occupy, and possess the places and property in the South belonging to the Fed. Government. This announcement was received in the South as equivalent to a declaration of war.”

"I have a hard time reaching the conclusion that somehow the concept of honor was any less of a factor in the Northern part of the United States simply because a relocation from another part of the Mother country. I cannot accept the idea of honor was 'rediculated' by the North, except perhaps in the extreme application of what some in the South considered 'their honor."

"Families were also very careful to maintain their honorable status at all costs and never let it be tarnished. In a letter to his two sons, Louis and Charles, who were attending Yale University at the time, Charles Manigault of Charleston, South Carolina stresses the importance of their being careful in their dress, conversation, and deportment. He reminds them that if they make a mistake, he will be to blame and he does not want his reputation to be tarnished in any way.

He closes the letter with a plea for them to behave like “well informed well bred Gentlemen. So look out sharp lest you Cast any slur on any of us.” This letter is just a brief view of how important honor and family name were in antebellum southern society. One might now wonder why it was so important to them. It was important because one’s name represented one’s place in a complex network of patriarchal authority and any tarnish of one’s name could mean the loss of connections and the lowering of one’s status in society."
("Planters And Patriarchy: Charleston, 1800-1860," Journal of Southern History 46 (February 1980) 49)

"Whereas I am inclined to go with your assesment of the South holding on to tradition and stability, too much stability in a persons life could be an indication of stagnation, lack of inovation and death. Societies, like people, must change, adapet, or die. Modernization was a concept that was not looked down upon by the entire South.

But shouldn't that society 'change' at it's own pace, and of it's own free will? Who has the right to determine what is more beneficial to another society? I'd rather die stagnating to death by choice, than have another culture 'liberate me to death.'

The purpose of the South was not an experiment in democracy, far from it. It was an attempt by a few to subvert democracy, to end it, by keeping their traditions and culture for a few, by a few, against the wishes of the many.

Again Neil, I disagree. And I leave you with the the intent and purpose of the Confederacy, in the words of President Davis:

"Gentlemen of the Congress of the Confederate States of America, Friends and Fellow-Citizens:

Called to the difficult and responsible station of Chief Executive of the Provisional Government which you have instituted, I approach the discharge of the duties assigned to me with an humble distrust of my abilities, but with a sustaining confidence in the wisdom of those who are to guide and aid me in the administration of public affairs, and an abiding faith in the virtue and patriotism of the people.

Looking forward to the speedy establishment of a permanent government to take the place of this, and which, by its greater moral and physical power, will be better able to combat with the many difficulties which arise from the conflicting interests of separate nations, I enter upon the duties of the office, to which I have been chosen, with the hope that the beginning of our career, as a Confederacy, may not be obstructed by hostile opposition to our enjoyment of the separate existence and independence which we have asserted, and, with the blessing of Providence, intend to maintain.

Our present condition, achieved in a manner unprecedented in the history of nations, illustrates the American idea that governments rest upon the consent of the governed, and that it is the right of the people to alter or abolish governments whenever they become destructive of the ends for which they were established. The declared purpose of the compact of union from which we have withdrawn, was "to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare;" and when in the judgment of the sovereign States now composing this Confederacy, it had been perverted from the purposes for which it was ordained, and had ceased to answer the ends for which it was established, a peaceful appeal to the ballot-box, declared that so far as they were concerned, the government created by that compact should cease to exist. In this they merely asserted a right which the Declaration of Independence of 1776 had defined to be inalienable.

Of the time and occasion for its exercise, they as sovereigns, were the final judges, each for itself. The impartial and enlightened verdict of mankind will vindicate the rectitude of our conduct, and he, who knows the hearts of men, will judge of the sincerity with which we labored to preserve the government of our fathers in it spirit. The right solemnly proclaimed at the birth of the States and which has been affirmed and re-affirmed in the bills of rights of States subsequently admitted into the Union of 1789, undeniably recognizes in the people the power to resume the authority delegated for the purposes of government. Thus the sovereign States, here represented, proceeded to form this Confederacy, and it is by abuse of language that their act has been denominated a revolution. They formed a new alliance, but within each State its government has remained, and the rights of person and property have not been disturbed. The agent, through whom they communicated with foreign nations, is changed; but this does not necessarily interrupt their international relations."

You would think Neil with all the negative adjectives that have been used to describe Southern people i.e. arrogant, lazy, childish, spoiled, selfish etc., that the North would have been glad to be rid of such a motley crew. And yet you elude to the fact that there was not "a major cultural difference between the North and the South." Which adjective (s) from the above would you then use to describe the North, since the regions weren't that different?

Oh gee, look at the time!

Dawna

[unionblue]

Dawna,

A wonderful post above that requires a bit of research on my part to do any reply to it justice.

But until I do answer your post in detail, may I leave you with one adjective that would describe all Americans, North or South?

Proud.

Or pehaps Magnificent?

Stubborn maybe?

Restless?

Brave?

Determined?

You know, Dawna, even this may be a little tougher than I first thought. They are just so many good adjectives I could use to describe the citizens of the United States.

Until that time...beware the spread of pink flamingos!
Unionblue

[unionblue]

Dawna,

Sorry that it took a bit, but I feel that I can reply to your excellent post #123 above.

I have no problem with your first paragraph as I feel you accurately describe the situation that took place in the United States at the election of Lincoln except...

where you state the view that few disgruntled citizens want to 'establish a new and better administration'. Please read the Confederate constitution for a more detailed look at what would have been a 'new and better aministration. Almost all of it was copied from the 'old' US constitution, except for a few areas, primarily those of perpetual slavery and such. No way does this make for a new and better administration.

I have no problem with your partial quote of Lincoln's Galena speech of 1856. But I do think you give it the wrong emphasis. If I may?

"We, the majority, would not strive to dissolve the Union;"

I think that is the part of the speech you tend to downplay in your mind and in your argument when you use it so.

As to your quote by Mr. Hamilton, I refer you to another quote of his:

"The local interest of a State ought in every case to give way to the interests of the Union. For when a sacrifice of one or the other is necessary, the former becomes only an apparent, partial interest, and should yield, on the principle that the smaller good ought never to oppose the greater good." June, 1788.

I also like this other quote from Hamilton:

"The passions of a revolution are apt to hurry even good men into excess." August 12, 1795.

But most of all, I love this quote by the man put forth as having as little government as possible by Southerners. It's a beaut.

"When any one State in the American Union refuses obedience to the Confederation by which they have bound themselves, the rest have a natural right to compel obedience." Thomas Jefferson, Writings, Vol.XVII.

Shades of pink flamingos, Dawna! There's that pesky 'rights' thing again!

And as to the quote by Robert E. Lee, it is correct and I have no dispute with it. But remember what else he said:

"I am one of those dull creatures that cannot see the good of secession."

As to change, Dawna, I don't mind you stagnating to death by your own choice, but let me and others not be dragged down by 'your' choice, while ignoring ours. Forcing me and four million others to stagnate right along with you is not a good thing.

Your posting of Jefferson Davis's speech is a good. But how about what his Vice-President, Alexander Stephens, said?

"This step, secession, once taken, can never be recalled. We and our posterity shall see our lovely South desolated by the demon of war." January 18, 1861.

Or how about one of his later quotes?

"We shall be in one of the bloodiest civil wars that history has recorded."

As for Davis himself, well let one who knew him speak of him:

"We have made a great mistake in the choice of President." Robert Smith, Confederate congressman from Alabama, December 1861.

I like Lincoln's quote much better as I feel it fairly describes the entire situation:

"We have just carried an election on principles fairly stated to the people. Now we are told in advance, the government shall be broken up, unless we surrender to those we have beaten...If we surrender, it is the end of us."

No, I think a more recent quote should be heard. One that cuts to the heart of the matter.

"I yield to no one precedence in love for the South. But because I love the South, I rejoice in the failure of the Confederacy." Woodrow Wilson, as a law student at UVA, 1880.

Until our next post,
Unionblue

[Alabaman]

Neil:

Just relax and repeat; "Gen. Imboden C.S. Army, get thy hence behind me in the name of the U.S. Constitution." :-)
I 'm sorry. I couldn't resist either. Bad Reb...bad, bad.;-)
************************************************** *********
In response to how the North & South held great cultural dispairity, you have only to look at "foreign observers" who toured both sections. A 'generic' man from Britain, in visiting North Carolina and Massachusetts couldn't have found TWO more DISSIMILAR peoples on earth. Both spoke the same "English" language but that ended it. EVERY OTHER mode of culture was different: education, congeniality & hospitality, 'natural' habits, interpretation of governmental power, business proper & its conduction, even southern accents, a dislike and disdainment for each other and each & every one of these diferences remain to this day.

The secret to all these dissimilarities culturally, can be directly, in my opinion, traced to Natural Instincts of each section brought by them from their prospective origin to the colony of whch they settled. Neil, if we were to personally meet, would a person from Europe observe ANY distinctness in human nature and habits, from the two of us? Or per our 'commentary' via CWT?

************************************************** **********
Allow me to add a comment or two from both sides of the issue of slavery. A good theory, perhaps fact will be my followup.

Senator Benton of Ohio, in an 1828 speech to the U.S. Senate: (an un-biased opinion, a man from the North, says)

"I feel for the sad changes, which have taken place in the South, during the last fifty years. Before the Revolution, it was the seat of wealth, as well as hospitality. Money and all it commanded, abandoned there. But how is it now? All this is reversed. Wealth has fled from the South, and settled in regions north of the Potomac; and this in the face of the fact, that the South, in four staples alone, has exported produce, since the Revolution, to the value of eight hundred millions of dollars; and the North has exported comparatively nothing. Such an export would indicate unparalleled wealth, but what is the fact? In the place of wealth, a universal pressure for money was felt--not enough for current expenses--the price of all property down--the country drooping, and languishig--towns and cities decaying-and the frugal habits of the people pushed to the verge of universal self-denial, for the preservation of their family estates. Such a result is a strange, and wonderful phenomenom. It calls upon statesman, to inquire into the cause. Under Federal legislation, the exports of the South have been the basis of the Federal revenue.
Virginia, the two Carolinas, and Georgia, may be said to defray three-fourths, of the annual expense of supporting the Federal Government; and of this great sum, annually furnished by them, nothing, or next to nothing is returned to them, in the shape of Government expenditures. That expenditure flows in an opposite direction--it flows northwardly, in one uniform, uninterrupted, and perennial stream. This is the reason why wealth disappears from the SOUTH AND RISES UP IN THE north. fEDERAL LEGISLATION DOES ALL THIS. It does it by the simple process of eternally taking from the South, and returning nothing to it. If it returned to the South the whole, or even a good part, of what it exacted, the four States south of the Potomac might stand the action of the system, but the South must be exhausted of its money and its property, by a course of legislation, which is forever taking away, and never returning anything. Every new tariff increases the force of this action. No tariff has ever yet included Virginia, the two Carolianas, and Georgia, except to increase the burdens imposed upon them."
************************************************** **********
Neil, if this Northern Senator gives us this thought, and before the war the New England states exported very little, yet continued to prosper greatly, how was this fair AND how does this present the North as an unbiased friend and fellow countrymen in the eyes of the South, pre-war wise?
************************************************** **********

In essence, while the South held majority in the government, it did not take advantage of the power. When the North gained the upper-hand with a majority, it DID act. The North became very agressive; arrogant in fact. True Southern people disdain arrogance. We desired no further participation in this type relationship and begged our leave through secession.

Slavery was not a "moral" issue with the North, it was an issue of economics. Chattel slavery was finally bringing late wealth to Southern society and the Southern image portrayed to England & other powers was impressive. Slavery was 'in the way' of the North's ideal to become THE world power.That Northern faction, the Repuiblicans, would not stand for this, arrogant as they were, to allow themseles to look bad. Chattel slavery became a rallying point, a cry for "justice," not from a just and moral standpoint but an economic one. President Lincoln was a slick man, a lawyer if you will, and he derived some brilliant labels for some unscrupulous ideals. This unscrupulous acivity, via labels, to mask an issue, is plainly and frequently utilized by todays modern Press.

With Slavery upon heavy "moralistic" attack per the 'many' of--'I could care less North', the first attempt of the powerful North was thrust forth to end this 'un-Godly' peculiar institution and a set-up followed suit with Sumter. A 'Sumter' could have taken place anywhere. But 'it' would do fine in S.C. with A. Lincoln.

Slavery was VERY irrelevant in the REAL causations in the war and ECONOMICS and PLAIN DISLIKE and MISTRUST for each section through jealousy and differen ideals, caused the war 'coming out of the gate' upon the A. Revolution or perhaps even before, 1776.


The North "lucked-out" on a lot of things, won the war, abolished slavery and started its pre-conceived imperialistic approach with a knock upon Europe's doors.

My Two Pennyworth,
Alabaman (Rob Adams)

[ole]

Rob:

I've been looking for the text of that speech most of the day. Where did you find it?

It sounds a bit odd from Benton. It sounds like he his blaming export tariffs for the revenue imbalance. Henry L. Benning made a case for draining of southern wealth in a November 19, 1860 speech in Milledgeville, GA, but it became so convoluted, I had to put it aside to look at fresh another day.

Alexander H. Stephens, in a November 14 speech to the same body:

"The next event that my friend [Toombs] complained of was the tariff. Well let us look at that for a moment. About the time I commenced noticing public matters this question was agitating the country almost as fearfully as the Slave question new is. In 1832, when I was in college, South Carolina was ready to nullify or secede from the Union on this account. And what have we seen? The tariff no longer distracts the public councils. Reason has triumphed. The present tariff was vas voted for by Massachusetts and South Carolina [1857] The lion and the lamb lay down together, -- every man in the Senate and House from Massachusetts and South Carolina, I think, voted for it, as did my honorable friend himself. And if it be true, to use the figure of speech of my honorable friend, that every man in the North that works in iron and brass and wood has his muscle strengthened by the protection of the Government, that stimulant was given by his vote, and I believe that of every other Southern man. So we ought not to complain of that.

(Toombs: "That tariff lessened the duties.")

"Yes, and Massachusetts, with unanimity, voted with the South to lessen them, and they were made just as low as Southern men asked them to be, and those are the rates they are now at. If reason and argument with experience produced such changes in the sentiments from 1832 to 1854 on the subject of the tariff, may not like changes be effected there by the same means, reason and argument, and appeals to patriotism on the present vexed question? (snip)"

"Secession Debated." Freehling and Simpson, editors.

[Alabaman]

Ole,
I think the speech came from an old History book that I bought years ago at a flea market. It had several famous speeches of the time-frame and the Benton letter really stood-out as an example from a Northerner. I had xeroxed it and stuck it in a notebook which I looked though lately. I can't tell if it was the entire speech or just a portion; probably just a section. I saw the speech in another book within the last few years and will try to remember it's title (or find the book.)
Regards,
Rob

[unionblue]

Alabaman,

An excellent post above, I only hope that I can give it the reply it deserves.

In reply to your view of the great dissimilar differences between the North and the South based on their origins from England, Europe, etc., I offer the following in return:

Some proslavery proponents (of the 1850's and 60's) drew a distinction between southern yeoman and northern workers or farmers. Southerners were superior because they lived in a slave society. Yankees were perhaps fit only to be slaves. To explain this, southerners invented a genealogy that portrayed Yankees as descendants of the medieval Anglo-Saxons and southerners as descendants of their Norman conquerors. These divergent bloodlines had coursed through the veins of the Puritans who settled New England and the Cavaliers who colonized Virginia. "The Southern people," concluded an article in the Southern Literary Messenger, "come of that race...recognized as Cavaliers...directly descended from the Norman Barons of William the Conqueror, a race distinguished in it's earliest history for it's warlike and fearless character, a race in all times since renowned for it's gallantry, chivalry, honor, gentleness, and intellect."

Of course the above is all horse-hocky. I am very willing to bet that when the British were fighting to stop the Revolution of 1776, one American, be he from the North or South, looked pretty much like the last American that was trying to kill him from behind a tree or a rock. I have also noted one think in all my travels for the US Army and in all the countries I have been assigned to. The things in common with every human being on this planet. All people everywhere want to put food on their families table, a roof over their heads and they want their children to be better off than they are. And these are people with really different cultures and customs than any I have read about that Americans had in the Civil War.

I'm sorry Rob, but frankly, it's a bunch of baloney that a farmer in Ohio and a farmer in Alabama were so different from one another that they should be considered as being from 'different cultures'. They both spoke English, they both were more than likely Protestants, they both looked to and hoped for good weather and they both hoped to support their families. They both had the same history of their country, they had both fought side-by-side in the War of 1812, various Indian Wars, and the War with Mexico. They experienced the same financial depressions and recessions that struck the entire nation, (except in one instance, which I will address in my second reply concerning Senator Benton of Ohio and his 1828 speech).

As to the idea that those differences remain to this day and they make any real impact on our everyday life, I have the following questions to ask you. Do you have a TV? What are your favorite programs? Do you have a car? A computer? Do you pay high prices for gasoline? Do you have a job? Do you vote? Pay taxes, Watch the news, use the inter net, etc? And do you think an Al-Queda terrorist will give a good God-*** if you claim that you are a Southern American vs a Northern one? That the differences will be so obvious to him? There are differences and then there are DIFFERENCES and I submit Rob, there ain't that many DIFERENCES between North and South anymore just because some would like to think so.

But were there differences then? Yes, serious social and political differences, but as to cultural, I submit that if you put a Yankee and a Southerner of the 1860s in downtown Paris or London or Cario, they would be called Americans, just as they would be today and given just as little serious consideration to the so-called differences as I do.

Now, to reply to Senator Benton's speech, unbiased as it was in 1828, it had little bearing on the financial situation 20 some years later, as evidenced in this unbiased, Souther's speech to the US Senate on March 4, 1858. Senator James Hammond of South Carolina said:

"When the abuse of credit had destroyed credit and annihilated confidence, when thousands of the strongest commercial houses in the world were coming down...when you came to a dead lock, and revolutions were threatened, what brought you up?...We have poured in upon you one million six hundred thousand bales of cotton just at the moment to save you from destruction...We have sold it for $65,000,000, and saved you."

The above segment came from Hammond's 'Cotton is King' speech in which he held the financial superiority of the South was evident in the financial panic of 1857, which put the North into a depression that hardly impacted the South at all. Check out the Federal census figures of 1860 and you will find that most Southern property had a higher value attached to it than simular property in the North. You will also find that incomes were higher in the South than in the North. I'm sorry, what was that Rob? That maybe the conditions in 1828 did not coincide with the conditions of 1858? Or even 1860? In truth, they did not.

And Rob, your statement that the South did not take advantage of the government when Southerner's were in power is just plain wrong. It constantly had its way when the majority of the people wanted something else opposite of what they desired. The Homestead Act, grants to the states for the establisment of agricultural and mechanical colleges, and the Pacific railroad act, just to name a few issues they came down hard against when they were in power.

Free land would have helped farmers wiped out in the Panic of '57 get a new start. Agricultural and mechanical colleges would have helped make education available to farmers and working men. Railroad construction would bring money in from the West, provided employment and help increase financial prosperity throughout the entire nation.

But as it would mainly benefit free men who had no use for slavery, most Southern congressmen took the view "That these territories should remain a waste, a howling wilderness, trod only by red hunters than to be so settled." And the Southern leadership at the time had no interest in using public lands for colleges as it would give ideas, dangerous ones to the common yeoman.

And what about the Gag Rule in Congress, implemented when the South had a majority in Congress? Freedom of Speech cut off so no one could even discuss or petition Congress about slavery? That's not taking advantage of power? Doesn't wash with me, Rob.

Chattel slavery was becoming an issue with the North, because it was THE issue with the South. The biggest issue of the 1860 election was not the tariff, not big government, but the expansion of slavery into the Federal territories. PERIOD. And yes, Rob, I agree it was becoming a moral issue, a huge one. But the Republicans and the North were willing to let it alone where it already existed. It was just that the South knew that it was losing support and votes in the Congress due to the increase in population in the North and it would lose the power it had held so long.

This is why it HAD to expand slavery, had to get it into the territories, or at least the right to do so. Heck, they even wanted it in the Free States of the North, who surely did not want it and even then tried to use their political power in the Supreme Court, the White House and the Senate to do that against the will of the majority. The Slave Code they wanted the government to enact would have been the largest expansion of federal police powers until FDR came to office.

Economics took a back seat to the central theme, the issue, of slavery. Sumter came to represent the resistance of the North to Southern wants. Slavery was the cause that made that one place relevant.

Here's your change, Rob.
Unionblue

[ole]

Rob:
Re: your statement ...

"The secret to all these dissimilarities culturally, can be directly, in my opinion, traced to Natural Instincts of each section brought by them from their prospective origin to the colony of whch they settled. Neil, if we were to personally meet, would a person from Europe observe ANY distinctness in human nature and habits, from the two of us? Or per our 'commentary' via CWT?"

In my opinion, natural instincts fall into the category of gut reactions -- animal behavior, as it were. We all have these instincts. You are equating these natural instincts to learned, cultural differences which present a separate series of questions.

In the middle-19th century, disregarding the flurry of immigration to the north, had the average northerner been on this continent? The southerner? 100 years? 200 years? It doesn't take all that long to lose the customs of your forefathers and develop your own. It's been a bit more than 150 years since my ggrandfather stepped foot on American soil. I can assure you that I have the same natural instincts he had, but that my customs and habits could not possibly be traced to him.

Any dissimilarities would therefore come, not from the part of England from which the colonists came, but from customs develped here in isolated communities, and later in dissimilar economic and social environments.

Have a good week.
Ole