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.
On Lincoln encouraging furloughs, a communication from Lincoln to Sherman. Note the reference to Indiana soldiers not being able to vote in the field, presumably due to Indiana law. The part about their not having to remain in Indiana for the presidential election seems odd -- unless Lincoln was by then confident of victory:
"Executive Mansion, Washington, September 19, 1864
"To General W. T. Sherman.
"Major-General Sherman:
"The State election of Indiana occurs on the 11th of October, and the loss of it, to the friends of the Government would go far toward losing the whole Union cause. The bad effect upon the November election, and especially the giving the State government to those who will oppose the war in every possible way, are too much to risk if it can be avoided. The draft proceeds, not withstanding its strong tendency to lose us the State. Indiana is the only important State voting in October whose soldiers cannot vote in the field. Anything you can safely do to let her soldiers, or any part of them, go home and vote at the State election will be greatly in point. They need not remain for the Presidential election, but may return to you at once. This is in no sense an order, but is merely intended to impress you with the importance to the Army itself of your doing all you safely can, yourself being the judge of what you can safely do.
I have read countless times about Lincoln's runaway win in the 1864 election.Ater Gettysburg,Vicksburg, and Atlanta had fallen it seemed to me that Union victory was all but guaranteed.I was browsing through an old college notebook where I had jotted down some figures from that 1864 election.I was startled today to compare the numbers.The numbers more or less speak for themselves.
Lincoln lost the states of New Jersey,Deleware, and Kentucky in the election.
New York 368,726 for Lincoln and 361,986 against(even with Butler's shenanigans)
Pennsylvania 296,389 for Lincoln and 276,308 against
Ohio 265,154 for Lincoln and 205,568 against
Indiana 150,142 for Lincoln and 130,233 against
Illinois 189,487 for Lincoln and 158,349 against
Wisconsin 79,564 for Lincoln and 63,875 against
Hampshire 36,595 for Lincoln and 33,034 against
Connecticut 44,693 for Lincoln and 42,208 against
These results at the poll seem to indicate that much of the Northern populace didn't support Lincoln's war even with victory pretty much assured.The vote was fairly tight if you examine the figures.I always wondered how the vast majority of the Northern population in a democratic society could support using violence to stop the Confederate states from their right to self-government.Apparently many Northerners felt the same way 140 years ago as I do now.It seems many Northerners alive at the time of this conflict didn't share the same opinion on the justice of this war as the esteemed Yankees on this forum do today.
That's a very superficial conjecture. I hesitate to call it an analysis. McClellan renounced the peace platform of the Democratic Party, and the assumption that anyone who voted other than for Lincoln opposed the war cannot be sustained. Certainly there were some who did oppose the war. Some had always opposed the war. But there are so many valid alternative explanations for anti-Lincoln votes that your conclusion just doesn't hold water unless you can provide solid evidence that all those votes for McClellan, who had vowed to continue the war, were votes against the war itself rather than registering disapproval of the strategy being used to that point.
Here's an interesting notice advertising a political rally for the democrats.
"DEMOCRATS ONCE MORE TO THE BREACH!
Grand Rally at Bushnell, Friday, November 4th, 1864.
Hon. L. W. Ross, Major S. P. Commings, T. E. Morgan, Joseph C. Thompson will address the people on the above occasion, and disclose to them the whole truth of the matter.
WHITE MEN OF McDONOUGH,
Who prize the Constitution of our Fathers; who love the Union formed by their wisdom and compromise;
Brave men who hate the Rebellion of Abraham Lincoln, and are determined to destroy it;
Noble women who do not want their husbands and sons dragged to the Valley of Death by a remorseless tyrant;
Rally out to this meeting in your strength and numbers.
I always wondered how the vast majority of the Northern population in a democratic society could support using violence to stop the Confederate states from their right to self-government.
I thought it was your opinion that secession was a constitutionally illegal act?
Mobileboy, you have got to let me know who opposed Jeff Davis and his run for CS President what was his platform what were his views? Do you have the vote numbers handy?
I'm not trying to be rude but simply pointing out that Davis and his entire cabinet were apointed by a select few. What say in the matter did the average farmer in middle TN have on the matter? His vote certainly wasn't count. With only one choice on a ballot... gives excellent returns usually around 100%. But the only self determination it shows is the self-determination of the men who did the appointment. When I look at things from that slant I have to ask myself who was representing those opposed to Secession in the 1st place and those who were lukewarm on the matter? It looks to me like they weren't asked or represented at all. In short it shoots down the whole CS self determination argument. And shows the whole argument that the CS was a democratic nation interested in the "self determination" & equal representation as so much Lost Cause propoganda.
The one thing I think more than anything that showed the US spirit and the intent for real "self determination" was the presidential election in the middle of a civil war. And the numbers prove a joke the assertion by some that the election was fixed.
I have seen the posted returns in Iowa Newspapers for the Lincoln election and see that he pretty much ran away with the election in the Army with his problems being from Regiments raised in strongly Democratic areas & from newly raised troops. The Veterans of the AoT at least were so strongly pro Lincoln as to make one wonder if perhaps there wasn't some sort of shenanigans going on. What shocked me was finding out that many who opposed Lincoln in the AoT were the officers and recent recruits... the Veterans went for Lincoln.
Glatthaar has a break down of the vote of Shermans Army in one of this books; though I can't recall which off hand.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
Cedarstripper,
It is my opinion that secession was illegal under the Constutution,and I expext that will always be my stance on the matter.I don't see how that relates to the Union army
fighting so that the South couldn't have self-government.
Ashley
Mobileboy,
If you hold that secession was an illegal act, then doesn't it follow in your mind that it was an unconstitutional rebellion? Or not?
If so, then wasn't there a Federal responsibility to see constitutional government restored, as well as a responsibility to not recognize the rebel government?
I'm going to stick my oar in this:
Cedar stripper: The argument of the constitutionality of secession has been argued exhaustively on other threads. The phrase "unconstitutional rebellion" is redundant. How can there be a constitutional rebellion? The question is: is it a justifiable rebellion? Is the bloodshed justified?
And as Bill Torrens would ask; is a constitution enforced by a majority on a minority by bayonets just?
The argument here is the degree of dissatisfaction with Lincoln and the Republican policy with the war among Northerners, expressed by the vote of 1864.
Of course elections in a democracy, which include debate, criticism and dissent, is not a sign of weakness, but normalcy.
Johan:
I don't know enough to comment about how democratic the Confederacy was. I remember from "Why the South Lost the War" that the Confederacy supposedly died from too much democracy.
Matthew,
I was not trying to open a discussion on the justification of rebellion, but attempting to probe a part of the conclusion made by Mobileboy in his beginning of this thread - his wonderment that a majority of Northerners could support using violence to stop the Confederate states from their right to self-government. I apologize for the redundancy, but I thought it better to specify illegal and unconstitutional to stress the pre-determined consideration of secession.
Quote:
The question is: is it a justifiable rebellion? Is the bloodshed justified?
That was not my question here.
Quote:
And as Bill Torrens would ask; is a constitution enforced by a majority on a minority by bayonets just?
It wasn't a question regarding the enforcements of constitutions. It merely pertained to Ashley's remark about the Union not peacefully leaving the confederate states to pursue self-government and the simultaneous opinion that the confederacy was the result of an illegal act against the Union. Ashley is welcome to his opinions. I was only asking about something that strikes me odd.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
