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 have always believed that the crucial element was the electoral triumph of a purely regional political party, rather than the personality of its leader.
I see nothing in the historical record to suggest that the reaction would have been any different if Chase, Seward or any other individual had been elected President.
Whatever the defects of the Democratic Party of the 1850s, it did at least aspire to represent the interests of the entire country. The Republican Party existed, by definition, to further the interests of the North & Northwest alone.
My hunch is that would have made no difference. Lincoln was, if anything, the least offensive of the Republican candidates.
The southern ultras particularly detested Seward. They regarded him as the evil genius who had coopted Zachary Taylor during Taylor's presidency. In addition, during the Compromise of 1850 debates, Seward gave a speech in the Senate that the southern ultras regarded as utterly infamous because he invoked "a higher law than the Constitution" to justify blocking the extension of slavery into the territories
Re-read cedarstripper's post #34 in the "Quotes" thread -- diary of GT Strong -- particularly the last paragraph. And Thea's followup by A. Craven. Neither apply directly to Sam's original question, but they give some excellent background and thoughtful influences of the time.
Bill posted earlier that the Republicans represented a purely sectional party. I can see that it was perceived as such. I can take exception, however, in that the Republicans, like any other party, sought as broad a base as they could achieve -- the platform supports that contention. That the Democratic Party split into two separate factions rather than uniting behind a strong opposition candidate can hardly be attributed to the party of Lincoln.
For the most part, Lincoln was chosen as the presidential candidate for the Republican Party because of his more moderate stance on slavery and, hence, a possibly better chance with slaveholding Unionists. That they were denied to right to a free choice can hardly be laid at the door of the Republican Party.
Was it because of Lincoln's Election? It it gave some of the more insistent secessionists a reason to bring to a boil the cauldron they were stirring. But, I think it true that virtually anyone Republican or Northern Democrat would have had the same effect.
Hey Guys,
I'm in agreement that it wasn't Lincoln personally but that he was elected by the Republican party that caused all of the uproar.I never really thought about the situation in that context before this thread.I don't think Lincoln would've been popular in the South were he a quote Indepedent, but any Republican would've been disliked.
Ole
I don't think a Northern Democrat would have arroused nearly the fuss that Lincoln did.I think Bill hit it right on the head with the Reublican Party being a truly sectional party.I would agree that some Southern hotheads were just looking for an excuse to break away from the Union.Whether the masses would've supported secession is debatable.Lincoln's call to troops brought the upper South in,but on this count(this will probably never happen again)I'll sord've defend Lincoln.He had two choices call for troops or let the South go.His party would have had his head if he simply let the South go.Other than that he would be remembered for all of posterity as the President who watched the country fall apart.This is probably a stupid question but do you think the way Lincoln looked had anything to do with his perception?You always see references where Southeners say he looked like an ugly ape etch...He could have looked like Brad Pitt in my opinion and as a Republican still been disliked.Lincoln wasn't exactly an established powerful politician either.It's not like he was a long term member of Congress or House majority leader etch... Just some thoughts.
Ashley
I don't find Brad Pitt to be particularly good looking.
The comments on his looks were just part of the time. You don't like him, you call him an ape or baboon; you do like him, you talk about his mental attributes. If I recall correctly, the Richmond papers during the war spent a little time in calling Davis names. And it wasn't just southerners who mocked him. Most influential figures of the day did not compare favorably to Tom Selleck.
My statement stands: the Republican Party was perceived be and was portrayed as a hateful sectional party by the same people who guaranteed that party's success by dividing themselves into quarreling groups. Where in the Party Platform do you see policies excluding southern voters?
Ole,
My wife wishes she was married to Brad Pitt as does every woman in my family, and really most women I've ever met.Jennifer Anniston then Angelina Jollie, how could one man be so lucky.
Excellent point about the comment on his looks being just krap basically.I'm not sure what you mean by excluding Southern voters.I didn't make that statement to my knowledge.But for discussion sake here goes.The Republican Party Platform indicated a adjustment or raise of the tarrif.That certainly wouldn't appeal to Southerners.The things mentioned about slavery etch.. in the platform obviously wouldn't appeal to most Southerners either.Since many Southern politicians owned slaves that part of the Republican platform ticked off the wrong poeple.Government aid of railroad as well as liberal citizenship of foreigners granted could all have caused Southern animosity to some degree.I'm not saying Southeners were right but what exactly in the Republican platform offered any benefits to Southerners?Really nothing in the platform seemed designed to benefit Southeners or gain their support.Southeners were already resentful of abolitionist of which a couple were Republican Congressman.I think a secret conspiracy aimed at secession could very well have been the idea of some Southern politicians when they split the Democratic party.I think it was in my opinion.But I think the Republicans gave them the ammunition in their gun so to speak.Also the South was losing power in Congress as more free states steadily were added to the Union with more on the way.The nation was growing and Southeners fear the rest of the country could impose its will on them was exagerrated but somewhat justified in my opinion.
Ashley
Ashley:
It's getting late, but not so late I can't get started.
----------------
"I'm not sure what you mean by excluding Southern voters.I didn't make that statement to my knowledge."
----------------
The Republican Party Presidential candidates were not presented on most southern ballots; thus depriving the voters of those states of an opportunity to choose candidate under democratic process. That has nothing to do with the platform per se, but it does plainly show an attitude towards voter rights.
-----------------
"The Republican Party Platform indicated a adjustment or raise of the tarrif. That certainly wouldn't appeal to Southerners."
-----------------
On the contrary, many protective tariffs were certainly welcomed by Southerners. You did notice that the proposed adjustments were to be for benefit of the whole? All industrialiest, not just the northern ones?
-----------------
"The things mentioned about slavery etc. in the platform obviously wouldn't appeal to most Southerners either.Since many Southern politicians owned slaves that part of the Republican platform ticked off the wrong people."
-----------------
What was said about slavery in the platform was no more than what the Republicans had been saying since the party started: The institution would not be interfered with where it existed; that its expansion would be fought, and that importation of slaves would not be permitted.
-----------------
"Government aid of railroad as well as liberal citizenship of foreigners granted could all have caused Southern animosity to some degree.I'm not saying Southeners were right but what exactly in the Republican platform offered any benefits to Southerners?Really nothing in the platform seemed designed to benefit Southeners or gain their support."
------------------
Seems that these have been addressed in other posts. I will accept that the platform and Lincoln's did not offer specific concessions. An amendment abolishing slavery was offered and passed both houses.
I think you've capped it off well by noting "Southern fear." That pretty much takes out of the Republican/Lincoln ballpark -- they stood on their heads to promise that slavery wouldn't be abolished. It also lames the idea of expansion since secession eliminated that opportunity.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? 
Linear Mode
