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.
Friend there is just no way the already seceded states were going to come back to the Union.You're dreaming.
No, Ashley, I'm reading what they were saying at the time. There were a number of southerners already, this early in the game, who were disaffected and were longing to return to the old Union. It was just a matter of time before that feeling grew.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
I'm from Mobile,Alabama and I've read old newspapers but I haven't heard of the MobileMercury.Cash was that paper from here or what city was it from?I'm curious.I know of only one Mobile and I'm almost positive there was no Mobile Mercury ever in existence.
----------------------
It just says "Mobile Mercury," Ashley, no identification of the state. It's also in this book by John A. Logan called The Great Conspiracy:
...Unless of course the blood-thirsty Confederates were serious about independence, and refused to pay duties to the US government or wouldn't allow them to hold military installations within their borders. Then invasion was to be expected, as the good president declared in his inaugural.
Except that he never attempted to collect the revenue, which was miniscule anyway compared to what was collected in Northern ports. He was on record as saying there would be no war unless the confederates themselves were the aggressors. Time was on Lincoln's side. He had only to maintain the status quo.
Cash- about President Davis- no, the war starts no matter, the only way there is no war is if there is no secession. I agree that the responsibility for starting the war rests with President Davis and the Confederate authorities. He didn't want war, but was the Confederacy coming back to the Union peacably? I don't see any possibility of that happening.
As the excerpts I provided showed, it was already happening.
Sorry, I must have missed something here. I have been greatly entertained by the proposition that some (all?) of the Confederate States wished to rejoin the join the Union in 1861. But I don’t recall anyone providing contemporary documentary evidence of the same. Which states are we talking about? What steps had the legislatures in question taken to revoke the ordinances of secession? Where were the people taking to the streets to demand the same? Where were soldiers throwing off their Confederate uniforms and demanding three cheers for Old Abe?
I feel humbled that all this has passed me by. I used to think that I had acquired a moderately competent knowledge of the subject, but I now learn that the people of the South were actually campaigning to get back into the Union as quickly as they could, only to find their path blocked by the demonic Jeff D. So it was all his personal fault, after all. Whoda thunk it?
This is the flakiest Civil War fantasy I have ever encountered. It isn’t merely mistaken. It is head-swivelling, eyeball-rotating madness. Somebody fetch the silver bullets.
The confederate populace was already becoming nostalgic for the old Union. Lincoln's strategy of steering the middle course was working.
Regards,
Cash
"Middle course?" Nostalgia? I guess its in the eye of the beholder?
New York Tribune, March 9, 1861 From Virginia: Effect of the Inaugural(page 6, column 4)
The inaugural of Mr. Lincoln is received here with much disfavor. When the first few telegraphic installments of it appeared on the bulletin boards and shortly after upon narrow slips of paper, headed "Extra," the most intense curiosity was manifested by all classes to learn what had fallen from the lips of the man who was about to assume the Presidential chair--to read and know the authoritative announcement of the policy of the incoming Administration, so obnoxious to the South. I have heard but one construction of Mr. Lincoln's declaration of his intention to "hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government, and to collect the duty and imposts." It is regarded, if not as a declaration of war, as at least the expression of a determination to coerce the seceding States into compliance with the demands of the Federal Government. There is no wisdom in attempting to disguise the fact that any effort to carry out this policy will meet with the stern and unyielding resistance of Virginia. This is what the State has unceasingly remonstrated and counseled against, and what her Union-loving men have fondly hoped would not be attempted. The Secessionists now point the finger and tauntingly say to them, "We told you so."
Robert E. Lee “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.”
The Richmond Enquirer, The Declaration of War, March 5, 1861.
(page 2, column 1) Mr. Lincoln's Inaugural Address is before our readers -- couched in the cool, unimpassioned, deliberate language of the fanatic, with the purpose of pursuing the promptings of fanaticism even to the dismemberment of the Government with the horrors of civil war. Virginia has long looked for and promised peace offering before her -- and she has more, she has the denial of all hope of peace. Civil war must now come. Sectional war, declared by Mr. Lincoln, awaits only this signal gun from the insulted Southern Confederacy, to light its horrid fires all along the borders of Virginia.
Republican Vindicator, March 15, 1861
Lincoln's War Policy The Washington correspondent of the Richmond Examiner says:
In Southern circles here little doubt is entertained as to the policy and purpose of the Inaugural address. It is believed Mr. Lincoln will proceed, without delay, to adopt hostile measures against the South. A collision in less than a week is quite possible. This may grow out of an attempt to collect revenue at the South, to reinforce Forts Sumter [sic] and Pickens, or to retake other places. The words, "hold, occupy and possess," in reference to the forts and other coast points in the South, coupled with the special reservations made as to interior places where residents cannot be induced to hold offices, are full of meaning.
Sorry, I must have missed something here. I have been greatly entertained by the proposition that some (all?) of the Confederate States wished to rejoin the join the Union in 1861. But I don’t recall anyone providing contemporary documentary evidence of
That's a mischaracterization. I was very clear that it was confederate people who were feeling nostalgic for the Old Union, which I supported with contemporary accounts, and that the confederate leadership, in the person of Davis, felt the need to unify the southern populace.
From the forward of the book, Disloyalty In The Confederacy, by Georgia Lee Tatum:
"Even before the Confederacy's birth, there were signs that a Southern republic might have difficulty maintaining popular support, not to mention an effective fighting force. More than half the South's white population, three fourths of whom owned no slaves, opposed immediate secession. Nevertheless, state conventions across the South, all of them dominated by slaveholders, threw caution to the wind and took their states out of the Union. One Texas politician conceded that ambitious colleagues had engineered secession without strong backing from "the mass of the people." A staunch South Carolina secessionist admitted the same: "But whoever waited for the common people when a great move was to be made--We must make the move and force them to follow."
From the section, Opposition to Secession:
"A brief survey of the secession movement at the beginning of the war reveals the fact that there was considerable opposition to secession in most southern states in 1861, and that the sections which opposed withdrawal from the Union at that time were the sections in which the most powerful and dangerous disloyal bands and treasonable peace societies flourished.
In general, those that opposed leaving the Union in 1861 were old-line Whigs, who were either outspoken unionists or unionists at heart, the up-country element, the foreign element, and many others who hoped for an ultimate peaceful settlement of the questions causing trouble. Much of the opposition to secession was due to an intense sectionalism, which had arisen out of the different social and economic structures resulting from geographical environment. Although many of the up-country dwellers hoped someday to own slaves, they had relatively few at that time, and therefore they had little to lose by emancipation. This sectionalism had manifested itself, all the way from Maryland to Texas, in an unjust distribution of representation and had engendered a bitter feeling against the small group of slaveowners who kept the political power in their own hands and often abused it.
The only state in which was not, in 1861, considerable opposition to with drawal from the Union was South Carolina, the first state to withdraw. In Virginia, Tennessee, Alabama, Arkansas, and Georgia, opposition came mainly from the up-country element, the unionists, and those who hoped for an ultimate peaceful settlement."
I submit, Bill and Hal, there is evidence to the contrary. If the South had not fired on Ft. Sumter and provoked a response by the Federal government, there was a good chance secession might have burned out from lack of support.
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
He was on record as saying there would be no war unless the confederates themselves were the aggressors. Regards,
Cash
Classic Lincolnesque double speak. He declared justification for invasion while telling his countrymen that the South would be the aggressors if he did it. He was a talented man.
But this was very clear to those that were apt to be on the receiving end of his "power" which would be employed as "necessary" for his stated "objects":
The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion -- no using of force against or among the people anywhere. - Lincoln's declaration of war, er, uh, First Inaugural
Sumter was but a convenient opening for his object of forcing the South back to the Union. Irrelevant. As was slavery.
And here I thought we were never going to share a tall glass of papaya again...back to the blender.
"The 7 cotton states all seceded prior to Lincoln's taking office. James Buchanan also refused to recognize the legality of secession. If Lincoln's refusal to accept secession caused the war, how come it didn't start the moment Lincoln took office? How come it didn't start when Buchanan refused to accept secession?"
I understand that President Buchanan denied the legal right of the states to secede, but he also maintained that the federal government could not legally prevent them from doing so. President Lincoln's election on November 6, 1860 was all that was needed for South Carolina to secede on December 20th; given the President's prior views on secession.
"Unfortunately, that's a disingenuous statement. They most certainly imposed their will on the Federal Government prior to secession, and they attempted to impose their will with and after secession. That the rest of the country finally got fed up with their arrogance, their childishness, and their dissembling and refused to allow them to do so again is not evidence they imposed their will on no one.!
I see. The South consisted of arrogant, petulant, and beclouded children who imposed their will by invading a foreign country, destroying it's homes and lands, and killing innocent civilians along the way. Are we comparing this to political imposition?
"They started the war. No sense in them whining about the results of a war they themselves started in order to perpetuate one of the worst institutions known to man."
I'd have to say that's not very neighbourly Cash. Do you really believe that thousands of innocent civilians were deserving of the suffering and death inflicted upon them because of a handful of politicians, regardless whom you think started the Civil War? Why bother introducing the Leiber Code of Conduct, if that's the case? And in the aftermath of the devastation to the South, it's disheartening and alarming to me that the artless sorrow of Southern people, is little more than the whining of two year olds to you; who of course so richly deserved what they got.
I think we would all agree that slavery is "one of the worst institutions known to mankind." But with respect to slavery and self determination, your argument is very much one dimensional. How is it that the North was fighting to free a race of people, when four of the Northern states were slave states, and some would not allow blacks to live within their boundaries? What of the Northern factories that supported their own particular brand of slavery, and mistreatment of immigrants? And again, for killing their own brethern who only sought their right to independence?
"Sorry, but that's another disinenguous statement. Fort Sumter didn't have to be a threat to the security of the United States per se. The idea that anyone could fire on a fort garrisoned by US troops with impunity is a threat to US security. The idea that any state could, on their own, for whatever reason they wished, simply secede from the United States is a threat to US Security, as outlined by Thomas Jefferson and the authors of the Federalist Papers."
It's not such a disingenuous statement if you believe as I sincerely do that the South was exercising their right to liberty and self-determination.
"It's not true in the case of the Civil War. That statement is a cop-out by supporters of the confederacy who are upset their deceptions have not been believed by actual historians."
It sounds as if those Southerners still haven't grown up, and that the United States has yet to produce an authentic historian who has not been duped by the Southern cause.
I am constantly amazed at how many can know just what Lincoln was up to, what his real motives were in saying and doing what he did, even from way up here in the 21st century.
I am further amazed at just how poorly the Southern people were served by their own leadership. Could not these men plainly see what Lincoln was up to? All the talented and crafty moves, forcing that leadership to fire on Ft. Sumter? Could they not tell how they were being manuvered and manipulated into coming out looking like the bad guys in this Lincoln charade?
Or did the Southern leadership care one whit about the results of their own manuvering, such as forcing a response from the Federal government which forced more Southern states, hoping for a peaceful resolution, into their camp? With the knowledge this talented move would provide more Southern men to the military meatgrinder to come. That Davis and his cabinet knew that without more Southern states involved in their cause and their agenda, that the few states that had left the Union, stood no real chance without their talented efforts to coerice more states into their revolution.
Or were they just stupid?
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
Classic Lincolnesque double speak. He declared justification for invasion while telling his countrymen that the South would be the aggressors if he did it. He was a talented man.
But this was very clear to those that were apt to be on the receiving end of his "power" which would be employed as "necessary" for his stated "objects":
The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion -- no using of force against or among the people anywhere. - Lincoln's declaration of war, er, uh, First Inaugural
Sumter was but a convenient opening for his object of forcing the South back to the Union. Irrelevant. As was slavery.
Hal
Classic mischaracterization of Lincoln's speech.
Note that he never sought to possess any Federal structure in the seceded states except Forts Sumter and Pickens. Note also he never sought to collect duties and imposts from the seceded states. He never called up troops until after the confederates started the war at Fort Sumter.
"In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to 'preserve, protect, and defend it.'
"I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
