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.
I'd have to say that that election did touch off the final decision for secession, but it wasn't the fault of the North.
If the Democrats hadn't split, and there was no Bell involved, there might have been a coalition formed to elect either Douglas or Breckenridge to defeat Lincoln.
But if, as one says, Douglas was unacceptable, then it was only the breakup of the Democrat party that assured a Republican winner.
I will submit that one of the most important causes of the war was the breakup of the Democrats.
But no, the secessionists couldn't wait to see how Douglas would work out, for them it HAD to be a Southerner or else.
__________________ -
"It was a very peculiar time." - Franklin D. Cossitt
Ancestors in USA Army: 6th IA Inf, 11th IL Cav, 1st AL Cav; 122nd NY Inf; 6th MI Cav; 35th MA Inf; 100th IL Inf; 1st CO Inf/Cav; 22nd IN Inf
I'm leaning toward the idea that it didn't matter how the election turned out. The seceders had gotten up a head of steam and they were going to secede!
Now, their motivation for that is up for grabs. Quite a number of slaveholders felt that their property was much more assured in the union than out. Quite a number of secessionists knew that separation would lead to war with a vastly superior force. But they instigated a war anyway. I don't want to label that stupid, but I'm at a loss to consider otherwise. Wishful thinking? Self delusion? A conviction that their movement wouldn't be contested? Doesn't make much sense, does it?
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Quite a number of secessionists knew that separation would lead to war with a vastly superior force. But they instigated a war anyway. I don't want to label that stupid, but I'm at a loss to consider otherwise. Wishful thinking? Self delusion? A conviction that their movement wouldn't be contested? Doesn't make much sense, does it?
Ole
It doesn't make much sense, unless one considers that the deep South was not willing to be dominated by a northern section with interests perceived to conflict with and be hostile to those of their own.
It's a matter of priorities. The 13 Colonies were stupid to go to war with England, but felt that up-side was worth the risk, and saw no alternative without forfeiting their desire for independence. The plains Indians were stupid to go to war against the vastly superior US, but preferred that to being ruled by the white man and giving up their way of life. The South didn't want war, but were not willing to allow what was perceived as a hostile North to rule them, and if the North was unwilling to let them go peacefully, they would fight them like their forefathers did the British.
And by the way, the North instigated the war, not the South.
And by the way, the North instigated the war, not the South.
Hal, you are at least consistent and persistent.
Perceptions, I suppose, are as good as reality, but I am repelled by the idea that perceptions can cost 620,000 lives. (Yes. Casualties would be more accurate, but the dead were the lucky ones.)
Good to see you back.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Hal- In regards to the South seceding with Douglas as president, i have to think that the fireeaters would have tried to make it happen. It wasn't going to be quite the same as with a Black Republican- that was a very easy thing to stir the pot with, but the attempt would be made i am rather sure about. It would have been a tough go, Douglas being after all a Democrat, and I'm not at all sure this 'go' would have gotten very far, at least until Douglas had done something actually egregious (like looking cross eyed) against the South. However, this is a man no longer willing to kowtow to Southern demands; his stand was firm on popular soveriegnty and the limitations of slaveholders rights, and he was going to back down from no Southerner, Buchananite, or contrary Black Republican. The problem as i see it is that with the Republican election, Southern ire was sufficiently high to get the secession ball moving almost at once; this i believe a necessary ingredient to getting the Southern independent nation going with any hint at success- getting through secession and organizing before any effective Federal resistance could be brought to bear. In this case, the secessionists had the advantage of a new administration coming to Washington, and an outgoing adminiistration loathe to act. However with Douglas and Democrats holding the reins of government, any delay on the part of the Southern leaders could well have proved fatal.
I am certain i am not misleading you, Hal, to say that the Southern leaders knew their man (Douglas) and would know that he would not give them the assurances they were now requiring on slavery in the territories, and that Douglas was by now in no mood to grant any concessions to the Southerners. I still see the winter of '60- '61 as the do or die time for Southern independence and i believe enough Southerners saw it this way as well to be an important factor in how things would turn out, President Douglas or President Lincoln.
__________________ 'It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag'
I still see the winter of '60- '61 as the do or die time for Southern independence and i believe enough Southerners saw it this way as well to be an important factor in how things would turn out, President Douglas or President Lincoln.
I agree with that to an extent.
But looking at the south as a whole, there was no real comparison between the dislike for Lincoln and that of Douglas. While threats to secede should Lincoln be elected are easy to find, I am not aware of any threats to secede should Douglas be elected. (And I would be very interested to see one if anyone is aware of any.)
Let's look at the slave state by slave state comparison of election percentages, to make my point.
Alabama: Lincoln not on ballot; Douglas 15.1% of the vote
Arkansas: Lincoln not on ballot; Douglas 9.9% of the vote
Florida: Lincoln not on ballot; Douglas 1.7% of the vote
Kentucky: Lincoln 0.9%; Douglas 17.5% of the vote
Georgia: Lincoln not on ballot; Douglas 10.9% of the vote
Louisiana: Lincoln not on ballot; Douglas 15.1% of the vote
Mississippi: Lincoln not on ballot; Douglas 4.7% of the vote
Missouri: Lincoln 10.3%; Douglas 35.5% of the vote
Maryland: Lincoln 2.5%; Douglas 6.4% of the vote
North Carolina: Lincoln not on ballot; Douglas 2.8% of the vote
South Carolina:
Virginia: Lincoln 1.1%; Douglas 9.7% of the vote
Tennessee: Lincoln not on ballot; Douglas 7.7% of the vote
Texas: Lincoln not on ballot; Douglas 8 total votes
Right you are, Hal. The thing is that the Southern Leadership knew that Douglas was trenchant whereas the people could easily identify Lincoln as a gonif for party affiliation if for no other reason. Like I say, it would be a hard sell, given public perceptions, but sooner or later, Douglas would have shown the whole South what its leaders already knew, and by that time....
__________________ 'It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag'
I think we're singing from the same page. If not Breckenridge, no one.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Ole- We are. I understand Hal's point. Lincoln and the Republicans were readily identifiable to the Southern citizen as representing Northern interests and not their own, whereas Douglas is not so readily identifiable and conceivably to the masses, less objectionable, as witness his gaining an appreciable number of Southern votes in the election. The masses were easily stirred by Lincoln and the Republicans in the White House, almost to the point of it being an easy step from there to secession. With a Douglas presidency, the big shots already knew where things stood, and the masses would have to be stirred afresh for action along the lines of independence. At this point, though, it looks like the masses were rather volatile and easily stirred so i see the thing (secession with Douglas) as a safe bet. Hal sees little of the agitation seen with the Lincoln candidacy and I'll wager will take that bet. Again, to me, once Southern indignation focused on Douglas, no longer distracted by Lincoln or a Black Republican presidency, i don't think it would take much to rattle the hornet's nest. And where Lincoln tried to stay quiet and not provoke tensions after the election, Douglas had already been campaigning South and not pulling punches. He would not have been so demur as Lincoln, and very quickly, push would have come to shove.
One other factor I hadn't touched on before for it broadens the scope of the question is Douglas's policies once in office. He's on the outs with the Southern nationalists and ready to shoot Buchanan Democrats on sight, does he align with Republicans in Congress as a power base as he had done previously over the Lecompton crisis? That puts the Southerner leadership on the outs had they stuck around to tussle with Douglas in Washington. Again, though I see Hal's point, I don't think they wait and let outrage come to the people before they act. I think they do their best to focus and outrage them on Douglas before it would come to that.
__________________ 'It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag'
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
