Harper's Ferry Investigation

[JohnTaylor]

Originally Posted by unionblue

JohnTaylor,

You are saying Davis was much like a moderate in the same way Lincoln was viewed as a moderate on slavery when he was put forth as an alternate for President instead of Chase or Seward in the 1860 election.

It's just a shame those in the South did not have the same viewpoint on Lincoln. Just as it was a shame those in the North did not view Davis as a moderate anything when he led one third of the nation into rebellion.

I guess what I am trying to say is calling a man a moderate depends on your point of view.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

Neil,
If you look at the man's career up to that point, and not at his subsequent actions, Davis was a Southern moderate. You are looking at him with twenty-first century eyes.

On a related note, I found an article by Dr. Hunter McGuire this weekend that is relevant to how Southerners saw Harper's Ferry and the Northern reaction to it.
“We know that Brown and those who sent him here, aiding him to buy pikes, etc., purposed war, intending that his fort should be the headquarters of an insurrection of the negroes, and purposed that his pikes should be driven into the breasts of Virginia men and women. All of us remember the platform and pulpit denunciations of our people, the parading, the bell-tolling, and other clamorous manifestations of approval and sympathy which went through the North and convinced the people of Virginia that the long-threatened was of the North against the South had at last begun. In this sense, perhaps, it was not of the causes of war; it was the war. I myself saw the demonstration of the Northern people on that occasion. Happening to be at that time living in Philadelphia, it was instantly plain to me that I was in an enemy’s country. The southern students around me saw it as plainly as I did. It took but a dozen sentences to open the eyes of the least intelligent. It was only to say, ‘Come on, boys! Let’s go!’ and three hundred of us marched over on our side of the line. The war for us was on, and I know that the State of Virginia knew that was what the North meant.”
Hunter McGuire
Report to the Grand Camp of Virginia Confederate Veterans
October 12th, 1899.

[unionblue]

JohnTaylor,

I submit it is hard not to look at Davis's subsequent actions, as if he had remained moderate in his views, he would scarcely be mentioned in subsequent history. No, I do not consider him a fire-eater, but a consistant states rights man, even at the expense of his country.

And of course I look at him with 21st century eyes. No offense, but how else can you, I or any of us of this period in time view history except through those?

I only have the two and must do the best I can with them.

As for Mr. Martin's letter, It is hard for me to separate with what he says happened with what he is trying to justify in his later years to a camp of former Southern soldiers.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[JohnTaylor]

Originally Posted by unionblue

JohnTaylor,

I submit it is hard not to look at Davis's subsequent actions, as if he had remained moderate in his views, he would scarcely be mentioned in subsequent history. No, I do not consider him a fire-eater, but a consistant states rights man, even at the expense of his country.

And of course I look at him with 21st century eyes. No offense, but how else can you, I or any of us of this period in time view history except through those?

I only have the two and must do the best I can with them.

As for Mr. Martin's letter, It is hard for me to separate with what he says happened with what he is trying to justify in his later years to a camp of former Southern soldiers.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

Neil, I guess we are having some communications difficulties.
I was not suggesting that it is illegitimate to view Davis and his career with twenty-first century eyes, just that, at the point of his selection for the Mason Committee, the features of his career that associate him with radical policies were largely still in the future. In January 1860, Davis was seen by his peers as something of a moderate Democrat, which is why he was selected for the Mason Committee.

I agree that Dr. Hunter McGuire's report should be viewed in context. But he was in the North when Harper's Ferry happened. Don't you think that what he saw happening around him in Philadelphia, the visible Northern reaction to Harper's Ferry (in 1859), influenced his future actions (i.e. in 1861)?
Respectfully,
John Taylor

[unionblue]

JohnTaylor,

I submit not all of Davis's peers viewed him as a moderate Democrat, certainly not those of the Republican view. I also submit that Davis did not go from being a moderate Democrat of the United States Senate to President of the Confederacy overnight. There is enough to suggest the man had some firm views on slavery, States Rights and the Republican party and that he would carry these views to the committee.

Davis had made statements, along with other Southern Democrats, prior to Harper's Ferry that due to Black Republican views on the subject, the natural and necessary result of such antislavery teachings would be civil strife and bloodshed, if such a sectional party prevailed in the North.

I also submit that the atmosphere in Congress and the Senate was hardly one of compromise and understanding from the late 1850's until 1860. And I doubt very much in forming the committee to investigate Harper's Ferry was done with simply the qualification of being a moderate Democrat. The main thrust of this committee was to find Black Republican involvement to discredit them and reduce their influence. There more than likely were other partisan political goals as well.

Again, as for Dr. McGuire' report, it is difficult to determine what the man was thinking from a speech made to support Southern reasoning to rebel given to Southerners wanting to hear those reasons on Harper's Ferry. It would hardly be what I would consider untainted.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[JohnTaylor]

Originally Posted by unionblue

Again, as for Dr. McGuire' report, it is difficult to determine what the man was thinking from a speech made to support Southern reasoning to rebel given to Southerners wanting to hear those reasons on Harper's Ferry. It would hardly be what I would consider untainted.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

Neil, thanks for the response. You response is interesting in a way. In 1899, Dr. Hunter McGuire said, that in 1859, he was in Pennsylvania and witnessed the reaction of his Northern neighbors to the events at Harper's Ferry. He left the North and returned to his native Virginia. He enlisted, and then served on Stonewall Jackson's staff.
You state that this 1899 statement is "tainted." You seem to be implying that McGuire was being less than honest. Do you have some reason to believe that McGuire was unconcerned about Harper's Ferry in 1859, and yet said in 1899 that he had been concerned about it? Why would he do this? To pander to a group of Confederate veterans and curry favor with them? Wouldn't his service with Stonewall Jackson in the war be sufficient?
Do you have some evidence that, in 1859, McGuire was unconcerned about the Northern reaction to Harper's Ferry? Or do you wish (for some reason) that that was the case? Why would you wish this was the case? And does what we want the historical record to say have any impact on what it actually does say?
In closing, it seems that in 1899 the man made a statement about his views in 1859. The record of his actions in 1859-1865 supports the assertion. Nothing in the historical record contradicts the assertion. This seems pretty clear to me.
Respectfully,
John Taylor

[unionblue]

JohnTaylor,

Sorry about the delay in answering your post above.

What I am saying, if I can be very clear on this, Dr. McGuire said what he said, at a time and place, that I would consider hardly free of bias. From the 1870s until very early 20th century, the UCV and other organizations of Confederate veterans, were trying very hard to present the late, great rebellion in such a light as to be a bit more presentable to history. What I wish is hardly the matter, but it is my belief that a speech given to such an audience is not what I would consider unbiased historical fact.

I have not said that Dr. McGuire was unaffected by the events of Harper's Ferry nor the Northern reaction to it. But it is my own belief that the South seceded not over Harper's Ferry but over the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[ole]

Unionblue posts:

I have not said that Dr. McGuire was unaffected by the events of Harper's Ferry nor the Northern reaction to it. But it is my own belief that the South seceded not over Harper's Ferry but over the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860.

Harpers Ferry (note: no apostrophe) was a catalyst. South Carolina was going to use any pretext at all to leave the union. Harpers Ferry was a convenient hook to hang the hat on. Haven't figured out yet why the seeds of disunion were planted in that state, particularly, but that is where they fell and that is were they grew and blossomed. Had it not been for South Carolina, there would have been no secession. It led the way and, somehow, persuaded others to follow. Great orators? You go first?

Just some questions.
Ole

[JohnTaylor]

Originally Posted by unionblue

[snip] What I am saying, if I can be very clear on this, Dr. McGuire said what he said, at a time and place, that I would consider hardly free of bias. From the 1870s until very early 20th century, the UCV and other organizations of Confederate veterans, were trying very hard to present the late, great rebellion in such a light as to be a bit more presentable to history. What I wish is hardly the matter, but it is my belief that a speech given to such an audience is not what I would consider unbiased historical fact. I have not said that Dr. McGuire was unaffected by the events of Harper's Ferry nor the Northern reaction to it.

Neill, if McGuire's rhetoric and actions in 1859-1865 had contradicted what he said in 1899, then you'd have a case. But they didn't. McGuire acted and spoke exactly as he would have if his 1899 thoughts were the same as his 1859 thoughts.
McGuire was living in Philadelphia in 1859 and saw the Northern reaction to John Brown's funeral procession. He left Phillie, and returned to the South. When Virginia seceded, he enlisted in the Confederate Army. Forty years later, he said that what he saw in Phillie in 1859 led him down that path. There is nothing inconsistent in this.

Originally Posted by unionblue

But it is my own belief that the South seceded not over Harper's Ferry but over the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860.

It was what the election of Abraham Lincoln meant in light of events from Harper's Ferry to the election that made most Southerners (at least Deep South Southerners) embrace secession. Lincoln's election, coming after Bleeding Kansas, Harper's Ferry, and the Texas Troubles, was what worried Southerners. The election of a Republican cannot be separated from these entecedents in examining Southern motivations in favor of secession.

Do you believe that the election of a Republican in 1856 would have precipitated secession?

[unionblue]

John Taylor,

Repeating what you have said before in previous posts about Dr. McGuire does not make it so in my own opinion. Again, we have Dr. McGuire's account and it is one of many accounts that make up the story of the Civil War.

Do I believe there would have been Southern secession over the election of a Republican in 1856? Long before Harpers Ferry, there were plenty of movements afoot to promote secession.

During the autumn of 1850, there were creations of southern rights associations who actively advocated secession. In 1851 William Yancey advocated that the "only issue" of importance was whether the South should quietly submit "to unconstitutional action[s] of Congress" or should resist "by separate State secession." He further stated "...beneath the banners of secession will as inevitably be rallied all that are true, to the institution of African slavery as a part of the fundamental basis of the social and political polity of the South, and all that shall prefer citizenship under separate State Sovereignty... "

And that is just one account of pre-Harpers Ferry desire for secession. Harpers Ferry was not the cause, merely the most convenient excuse to execute long thought out plans for secession. "No National Party can save us; No Sectional Party can do it. But if we could do so as our fathers did, organize committees of safety all over the cotton States...we shall fire the Southern heart--instruct the Southern mind--give courage to each other, and at the proper moment, by one organized, concerted action, we can precipitate the cotton States into a Revolution." That again from Yancy in a letter to James S. Slaughter, June 15, 1858.

There is more John, in letters and accounts, that leads me to believe that Harpers Ferry was just another twig in the fire secessionists had been stoking for a long time before John Brown.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[JohnTaylor]

Neill,
Thanks for an interesting response.
There were indeed those who advocated secession prior to Harper’s Ferry. Robert Barnwell Rhett had been advocating secession since 1838, I believe. William Lowndes Yancey advocated secession conditionally at an early date. But intellectual curiosity would lead one to ask why didn’t the South secede earlier? In 1832? In 1850? In 1856? In each of these cases, secession did not happen because the people of the States of the South did not want to secede. What changed secessionism from being a minority position before Harper’s Ferry into a majority position afterwards? You can present hundreds of pre-Harper’s Ferry quotes from secessionists, but that would not explain why the majority did not embrace secession before Harper’s Ferry, but did embrace it afterwards. It was Harper’s Ferry, and the Northern reaction to it that helped bring about that revolution of opinion in the Southern States.

Since you brought up William Lowndes Yancey, here the man states for himself what he means by disunionism: . “He is a true Union man who intends to stand by that Constitution with all its checks and balances. He is a disunion man who means to destroy one single letter of that sacred instrument. … I tell you, gentlemen, my disunionism consists in this: I stand by the Constitution. I intend that the provisions of that Constitution, which I look upon as the shield of the South in this Union, shall be carried out and enforced. If that Constitution is taken away from the South in this Union, and in the South is then to remain in the Union, I consider that we would then have no rights, for we would then be placed at the feet of a dominant sectional, abolition majority.” (Speech of William Lowndes Yancey, Washington, DC, September 21st, 1860)

And as for the genuineness of the McGuire quote, I hate to replow old ground, but I find you views on this topic fascinating. Surely, you would not assert that a Union veteran telling an 1899 GAR meeting that he fought to save the Union is automatically being mendacious. Surely, the context is key. If he said in 1861 that he was fighting to save the Union, and then went to war, then, forty years later said that he fought to save the Union, one would be naturally inclined to believe his 1899 pronouncement. If he said something contradictory in 1861, or refused to fight 1861-1865, then one would have reason to doubt his veracity in any 1899 speech. But checking his 1899 statement against his other statements and actions would establish the requisite context to evaluate the veracity of any 1899 statement.
Which brings us back once again to your describing McGuire’s 1899 pronouncement as not being “untainted.” Why would you describe it that way? Are you embarrassed in some way by the embracing of violence by anti-slavery zealots? Does resorting to violent means in some way lend legitimacy to secessionism. Conversely, does anti-slavery violence perhaps rob Unconditional Unionism of some of its moral legitimacy?
Respectfully,
JT