Harper's Ferry Investigation

[JohnTaylor]

Originally Posted by ole

Unionblue posts:
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

Ole, your post shows an interesting view of chronology. Secession was not a forgone conclusion until December 20th, 1860 (or perhaps November 7th 1860). Secession was the result of people making choices, based on the facts at hand.
I believe that, absent anti-slavery violence in Kansas and Harper's Ferry, absent Republican protection of Harper's Ferry perpetrators, and Northern public approval of the convicted murderers of Harper's Ferry and endorsement of their acts, secessionists had a hard time convincing the people of the South to seceded. They had tried before to stir up Southern secessionism, and to subdue the considerable reservoir of Southern Unionism in 1832, 1850 and 1856. Each time the latent Southern Unionism held and secessionists were left to wail against public opinion. But in 1860, after anti-slavery violence had shown itself in such a dramatic and apparently pervasive manner, Southern Unionism collapsed, and secessionists won the day.
If the Southern people were really all secessionists and had been looking for some excuse to secede, there had been ample opportunities before November 1860. Yet, each time, they allowed these opportunities to pass them by. Why?

[ole]

Thank you for your post, John Taylor.

No. Secession was not a foregone conclusion, but it was very much in the forefront of many southern minds. As you said, there wasn't much other interest in it until the Kansas fracas and John Brown's ill-advised raid. They added enough ammunition to start picking up steam.

Of what ample opportunities do you speak? South Carolina could have seceded all by itself a number of times, but held back because, alone, she couldn't sustain it. Apparently, the other opportunities didn't stir the masses enough to make secession a viable option.
Ole

[unionblue]

John Taylor,

In response to your post #20, I gather from your first paragraph you are indicating that it took Harpers Ferry (and the Northern reaction to it) to bring about the Civil War. While you concede there were attempts at secession in the years prior to John Brown's raid, but are you contending that this one, single event was in effect, THE back-breaker for the entire South? In my opinion, the event was used as an excuse to further the cause of secession, but it was not the cause. Frankly, I wonder if the majority of the South wanted to secede right up until the election of Lincoln. I even have doubts about the exact proportion of those favoring secession right up until the firing on Ft. Sumter.

Let me ask you a question. Why didn't the South secede immediately after Harpers Ferry? Why did it wait until after the election of 1860?

Yes, I brought up Yancey, because he freely admits to laying the groundwork for secession, trying for years to split up the Union. And he was known for 'stretching the blanket' when arguing his case for it. He even described himself "as a disunionist, twenty-seven feet high, weighing three thousand pounds and eating a little ni gger broiled every morning for breakfast and a roasted Union man for dinner." While I admit the man was having a bit of tongue in cheek fun about himself, no one could deny he was working to break up the Union long before Harpers Ferry.

In 1847, he coauthored a series of resolutions known as the Alabama Platform which in effect, expressly forbade Congress from preventing the expansion of slavery into the territories. He helped break up the Democratic convention in 1860, splitting the party, engineering the election of Lincoln and thus ensuring secession. He stood less by the Constitution of the United States and more for rebellion and the expansion of slavery, the one right he held above all else.

Again, to try and state it more plainly, Dr. McGuire falls within that time period where many of the South were trying to rewrite the history of the war and its causes. I personally find it hard to take any statements of a former Confederate concerning what he thinks or felt was the cause of the war during this period because of the effort to preesent the South in a more favorable light during the time he gave his speech.

I would be just as suspicious of a Union veteran giving a speech in front of a gathering of a GAR convention if he said he was glad he joined up to fight against the evils of slavery, as we both know, almost all Union soldiers did not join up over the issue of slavery, but to preserve the Union.

As for the rest of your questions at the end of your post, I believe you are reading something that isn't there. I simply do not know why you would read that I am 'embarrassed' by the embracement of the violence by anti-slavery zealots. If you mean Brown's actions in taking over Harpers Ferry, no. I believe Brown broke the law and deserved to be punished, much as Lincoln did.

As for the question does resorting to violence lend legitimacy to secession, no, it does not, because it falls into the same catagory as Brown's attempt, an illegal and unlawful attempt at rebellion. As to the idea that anti-slavery violence robs Unconditional Unionism of some of its moral legitmacy, is Brown's attempt the only incident to which you refer? Or do you have other incidents that I am not aware of? In any case, I am of the opinion whenever a violent few attempt to force the majority to their point of view by means of violence, they lose legal and moral legitmacy in my view.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[unionblue]

John Taylor,

A few more web sites on John Brown:

John Brown Home Page.

http://www3.iath.virginia.edu/jbrown/master.html

Re-evaluating John Brown's Raid at Harpers Ferry.

http://www.wvculture.org/history/jb11.html

Secession Era Editorials Project: John Brown's Raid at Harpers Ferry.

http://history.furman.edu/~benson/docs/jbmenu.htm

Enjoy,
Unionblue

[JohnTaylor]

Neil,
Thanks for posting the web sites. I had seen the first two. I had not seen the editorial pages on the Furman site before.
Respectfully,
John Taylor

[JohnTaylor]

Originally Posted by unionblue

(snip) …are you contending that this one, single event was in effect, THE back-breaker for the entire South?

I would not characterize it as THE back-breaker, but it contributed to the overall effect of convincing the majority of the South to embrace secession as the best solution for the South. Heck, Robert Barnwell Rhett came across his backbreaker (whatever that was) in 1838. Rhett advocated secession from then on. Others joined him in this conclusion in 1850, with the Clay Compromise measures. Still others came over to secession in 1859-60. These secessionists presumably continued to hold that position after joining that group. But it wasn't until November 1860, that secessionism became a majority position.

Originally Posted by unionblue

In my opinion, the event was used as an excuse to further the cause of secession, but it was not the cause. (snip)

Then you are left to explain why secession wasn’t embraced before in 1832, 1850, or 1856. Thoughts?

Originally Posted by unionblue

Let me ask you a question. Why didn't the South secede immediately after Harpers Ferry? Why did it wait until after the election of 1860?

Good question. I would guess that the majority of Southerners wanted to believe that Harper’s Ferry was an anomaly, and that the love of the Union as it was and the good sense of the North would cause Northerners to reject violent Abolitionism and Republicanism. The North celebrations of John Brown’s crimes, Republican protection of Harper’s Ferry perpetrators, obstruction of Congressional inquiry, all these happened over time, not immediately after Harper’s Ferry. It took a while to bring home the impression that Harper’s Ferry was not just a crime committed by a few nutcases. It was endorsed, or at least excused, by a significant number of Northern Republicans. In addition, there were other issues that came up that spring and summer that weakened Southern Unionism (see below). Another one was the passage in the House of the Morrill Tariff in May.

Originally Posted by unionblue

Yes, I brought up Yancey, … no one could deny he was working to break up the Union long before Harpers Ferry.

Working unsuccessfully up to that point. But I would assert that you are mischaracterizing Yancey’s goal. It was not disunion per se, but disunion if what he believed were Southern rights were not respected in the Union.

As for McGuire, I will let it rest. But let the record show that you haven’t presented anything from the period 1859-1865 that would indicate that what he said in 1899 truly expressed his 1859 feelings. You merely distrust his speech because of the audience to whom he was speaking.

Originally Posted by unionblue

As for the rest of your questions at the end of your post, I believe you are reading something that isn't there. I simply do not know why you would read that I am 'embarrassed' by the embracement of the violence by anti-slavery zealots. If you mean Brown's actions in taking over Harpers Ferry, no. I believe Brown broke the law and deserved to be punished, much as Lincoln did.

As for the question does resorting to violence lend legitimacy to secession, no, it does not, because it falls into the same catagory as Brown's attempt, an illegal and unlawful attempt at rebellion.

Just out of curiosity (and I realize this is a bolt out of the blue) when the North Carolina convention met in 1788 and refused to ratify the Constitution, was North Carolina committing an act of rebellion?

Originally Posted by unionblue

As to the idea that anti-slavery violence robs Unconditional Unionism of some of its moral legitmacy, is Brown's attempt the only incident to which you refer? Or do you have other incidents that I am not aware of? In any case, I am of the opinion whenever a violent few attempt to force the majority to their point of view by means of violence, they lose legal and moral legitmacy in my view.

I would assert that Southerners saw Harper’s Ferry not as “a violent few attempt to force the majority to their point of view by means of violence,” events over that winter and summer convinced a majority of Deep South voters that such acts, were a reflection the Northern majority view.
As for other acts of violence during that time frame, the newspapers that summer were full of reports of a widespread conspiracy in Texas in the summer of 1860. Downtown Dallas was burned on July 9th. Numerous fires broke out in more than twenty towns that summer. In some cases, slaves admitted that Northern white men had put them up to it and that there was a plot to cause a general uprising on election day August 6th, 1860, at which the slaves were to kill the women and children while the men were at the polls, burn the houses, and kill the men when they returned. The fires in July were intended to destroy militia supplies and cause economic dislocation.
Listing of reported fires.
July 8th: Dallas, Denton, Pilot Point, Ladonia, ****ord, Honey Grove, Black Jack Grove, Millwood (steam engine), Waxahatchie (caught in time) Eakins and Leonard homes outside Dallas (New York Times, August 3, 1860, pg. 2.), Belknap, Fort Worth (New York Times, July 30th, 1860, pg. 1.).
July 9th: Jefferson, (New York Times, July 30th, 1860, pg. 1.; Texas State Gazette, July 28th, 1860, pg. 2, col. 3.)
July 16th: Kaufman, Navarro (Charleston Mercury, July 31st, 1860, pg. 4, col. 3.)
July 18th: Tyler (Texas State Gazette, July 28th, 1860, pg. 2, col. 3.)
July 24th: Austin (New York Times, August 9th, 1860, pg. 3.)
July 26th: Austin (again) (New York Times, August 3, 1860, pg. 5.),
Henderson (New York Times, September 1, 1860, pg. 4.),
Mount Vernon (New York Times, September 1, 1860, pg. 4.),
August 4th: Belleview, Dangerfield (New York Times, August 27th, 1860, pg. 8.)
August: Round Top. (Charleston Mercury, August 21, 1860, pg. 2, col. 1.)

The confessions came from interrogations that sometimes included the use of torture, so they must be taken with caution. The sheer number of fires that summer was unusual. Given how Northerners were reluctant to respond to the criminal investigation of the Harper’s Ferry insurrection, and that some Republicans were willing to use their public office to protect those wanted for murder, the fact that nobody stepped forward to admit conspiring to cause a slave insurrection in Texas that summer was hardly comforting to Southerners. John Brown’s captured correspondence had proven extremely embarrassing to certain Northern Abolitionists. The radicals of the North seemed to have learned that circumspection in correspondence and practicing good security procedures was key to staying alive if their violent acts came to light. Were there a suspicious number of fires in Texas that summer? Undoubtedly. Was there a conspiracy in Texas that summer? I can’t honestly say. Did Northern acts to protect perpetrators of antislavery violence and endorse their acts make a conspiracy more believable? Absolutely. Were Southerners wrong to believe the worst and act on that fear? Was the Union still a safe political arrangement for those who lived in a State that permitted slavery? I think it is difficult for someone not living in that environment can judge them.
Respectfully,
John Taylor

[JohnTaylor]

Professor John Burgess of Columbia University wrote of Harper’s Ferry:
“If the whole thing both as to time, methods, and results, had been planned by his Satanic Majesty himself, it could not have succeeded better in setting the sound conservative movements of the age a naught, and in creating a state of feeling which offered the most capital opportunities for the triumph of political insincerity, radicalism, and rascality over their opposites. No man who is acquainted with the change of feeling which occurred in the South between the 16th of October 1859 and the 16th day of November of the same year can regard the Harper’s Ferry villainy as any other than the chiefest crimes of our history. It established and re-established the control of the great radical slaveholders over the non-slaveholders, - the little slaveholders, and the little slaveholders, and the more liberal of the large slaveholders, which had already begun to be loosened.”
Burgess, The Civil War and the Constitution, vol. 1, pg. 36

[JohnTaylor]

Originally Posted by unionblue

Again, to try and state it more plainly, Dr. McGuire falls within that time period where many of the South were trying to rewrite the history of the war and its causes. I personally find it hard to take any statements of a former Confederate concerning what he thinks or felt was the cause of the war during this period because of the effort to preesent the South in a more favorable light during the time he gave his speech.

Neil, given your nom de plume you have an obvious pro-Union agenda, or at least a perspective. I have an obvious constitutional agenda or perspective. Does that mean that anything you or I say is a lie? Of course not. What is said should be evaluated in light of that perceived agenda and compared to other contextual elements. Maybe we are in violent agreement on this point.
Respectfully,
John Taylor

[unionblue]

John Taylor,

Sorry for taking so long to reply to your above posts, but I wanted to give a great deal of thought to my reply.

Starting with your post#26, it is my opinion there was no attempts at secession in the years you indicate for any lack of trying, just as you yourself sumise, the support for breaking up the Union was not there amongst the general population of the South. But, this merely indicates that those previous years were simply a learning experience for those dedicated to breaking up the Union. All the time leading up to Harpers Ferry was used to build up secession, hoping for a time when the rest of the country could be convinced that the only solution to their 'problems' would be to leave the Union. I submit if not Harpers Ferry and John Brown, another incident, a piece of legislation, or the election of a Republican president would serve just as well.

In my research, I noticed that there were organized events, newspaper articles in the North, even declarations in Congress that supported the South, agreed that John Brown should have been hung, etc., but it was not enough.

Instead, wild rumors, to include the newspaper articles you have provided, claimed that other plots were about to start a slave insurrection in far-away Texas, yet the stories in the Southern press do not name names nor are they verified. They are much like the stories the one hears from a friend who heard from another friend who claims to have gotten a letter from a friend who heard it from a guy who read an article somewhere at sometime. Could it not be that the Southern newspapers used these 'stories' to further inflame, to incite, to move forward their long delayed plans at disunion?

Some web sites I found on the 'Texas Troubles' of 1860 concerning the fires there at that time.

Texas Troubles.

http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/.../TT/vetbr.html

Dallas Hanged 3 Slaves in Civil War Hysteria.

http://www.labordallas.org/hist/hist1865.htm

White Metropolis (SCROLL DOWN TO PARAGRAPH 27 OF THIS ARTICLE TO VIEW ITS COMMENTS ON THE TEXAS FIRES).

http://www.utexas.edu/utpress/excerpts/exphiwhi.html

As for the Morril Tariff, I have explained my views on it many times before and agree with the South Carolina convention that slavery, not the tariff, was the reason the South favored secession. And I must say that Yancy asserted disunion over the same cause.

I have given my reasons for McGuire and his stated reasons for going to war. In this I agree with you totally in that I mistrust his speech. Nothing more, nothing less.

As for your bolt out of the blue, in 1788 North Carolina was not part of the Union because she had not joined, therefore she was not committing an act of rebellion, if I have my dates correct. Rhode Island had not joined either, is that not also correct?

As you have stated when I brought up an author and his book, on another thread, I will reply with the same with Proffessor John Burgess. It's nice that he has written something on the subject, but it is after all, his opinion in the end.

As to your last post concerning my nom de plume, Unionblue, I admit to being somewhat puzzeled. While I can see my dismissel of McGuire's speech gives you some discontent, I fail to see what my avatar and my log-on name has to do with what I personally believe. I have my log-on name as part of a joke when I first joined CWT when I was trying to decide what name to use. I picked it because it was as far as it could be in the other 'camp' as it were, as I was debating a dear friend of mine who had picked 'OldRebel' as his.

I admit, I lean to the North, my posts and arguments make that very plain as can be viewed by their content. I do not believe we are in any sort of violent disagreement on this point. It is simply I choose to accept some material as more factual than others, more worthy of serious consideration than other source material. In other words, I evaluate and decide and come to my own conclusions.

I would also inform you that I came to this method by experience, as I was of the view back in 1993 that the South had left the Union over the issues of States Rights, unfair tariff practices and interference from the federal government. I also believed that slavery was a very small matter and had nothing to do with the 'real' reasons the South left the Union. In other words, I took the advice of others instead of doing my own research. I no longer do so.

Now, am I to assume, that your choice of John Taylor was picked by you because you admire him and his works concerning the US Constitution? That you admire his stance on States Rights and his support of the farmer? His long, honorable service as an officer in the Revolution, his time in the US Senate?

Or am I to assume that you admire that he was a large plantation owner with 145 slaves, who had no idea about the common farmer, seeing that he never worked his farm but merely supervised what he termed his 'animal labor' in the running of his plantation? Based on what has been said about the man, I could make either choice, but how does that help me in deciding who you are and what you believe?

I am willing to simply wait and see how you present your ideas and arguments more than I am to prejudge you on your choice of log-on identification. I do not assume that you lie or present falsehoods. You are presenting your reasons and justifications to support your views. Nothing more, nothing less.

Until next time,
Unionblue

[JohnTaylor]

Originally Posted by unionblue

Starting with your post#26, it is my opinion there was no attempts at secession in the years you indicate for any lack of trying, just as you yourself sumise, the support for breaking up the Union was not there amongst the general population of the South. But, this merely indicates that those previous years were simply a learning experience for those dedicated to breaking up the Union. All the time leading up to Harpers Ferry was used to build up secession, hoping for a time when the rest of the country could be convinced that the only solution to their 'problems' would be to leave the Union.

You are sort of begging the question. Why was secessionism embraced by the majority of the people in 1860-1, yet not embraced by the majority in any State in 1850 or 1856? You are correct that secessionists wanted secession at earlier dates, and would use any pretext to see it enacted, but why didn’t the majority in any State join them until 1860-61?

Originally Posted by unionblue

I submit if not Harpers Ferry and John Brown, another incident, a piece of legislation, or the election of a Republican president would serve just as well.

As I have pointed out already, Henry Wise called for a meeting of all Southern Governors during the run-up to the 1856 Presidential to consider what to do if Fremont was elected. Yet only two Governors showed up, and they couldn’t agree to anything. Why were the majority of the people of the Southern States apathetic about a Republican in 1856? I believe you are seriously underestimating Southern unionism. It took a lot to overwhelm that. I believe that justice and moderation on the part of the North would have held the Union together after Lincoln’s election. Instead, a significant number of Northerners embraced radicalism and violence.

Originally Posted by unionblue

In my research, I noticed that there were organized events, newspaper articles in the North, even declarations in Congress that supported the South, agreed that John Brown should have been hung, etc., but it was not enough.

Instead, wild rumors, to include the newspaper articles you have provided, claimed that other plots were about to start a slave insurrection in far-away Texas, yet the stories in the Southern press do not name names nor are they verified.

Having read the articles, I can tell you that the names of the places were indeed named. In many cases, dollar amounts of damages from the fires were also listed. Shall we go down the list of places with suspicious fires and see whether a fire happened or not? Are you asserting that there was no fire in Dallas? Charles Pryor, who lived in Dallas, wrote a letter dates July 9th which described the fire in downtown. The fire started in Peak’s drug store, and swept most of downtown Dallas. Damaged were estimated at $500,000. Do you doubt whether this fire actually happened?

Originally Posted by unionblue

Could it not be that the Southern newspapers used these 'stories' to further inflame, to incite, to move forward their long delayed plans at disunion?

Eight of the citations I provided are from the New York Times, four are from Southern newspapers. Are you saying that the New York Times was part of some secessionist conspiracy to incite the people to embrace secession?

Originally Posted by unionblue

As for the Morril Tariff, I have explained my views on it many times before and agree with the South Carolina convention that slavery, not the tariff, was the reason the South favored secession.

You are cherry-picking here. South Carolina did indeed say that what she felt was unfair taxation was a reason for secession. The Address of the People of South Carolina asserted “one great principle, self-government, and self-taxation the criterion of self-government.” Economic exploitation is addressed elsewhere in the document.

Originally Posted by unionblue

And I must say that Yancy asserted disunion over the same cause.

“All, then, that the South asks in this contest is that you shall observe the constitutional checks and balances with reference to her. – She is not willing that her rights shall be submitted to the will of mere numerical majorities. For our fathers, for our ancestors, and the great patriots of the North agreed that it should be otherwise. It was the written compact of our fathers that the minority should receive protection from the Constitution against the mere selfish and avaricious will of a preponderant majority. Parties divided themselves originally in this country upon that great principle. One desired that the majority should rule in all things, while the other – the State-rights party of the country – desired it should be different. This latter party carried the day in the formation of the Constitution, and placed checks upon the advancement of the majority. And this written Constitution was the compact by which majorities should restrain themselves with reference to the rights of the minorities. Majorities need no protection save their own power. Hence it is easy for the North to cry out for the Union at all hazards and under all circumstances. It is easy for the North, with its majority of millions, to say they are for this Union any how. No matter who may be elected, no matter what may be done, still they will stand to the Union as the great cause of their prosperity. Why? Because with no Constitution at all, the North can protect themselves with the predominant vote in the country. But how is it with the South? How is it with the minority of the country – the minority States of the Government? If they leave it to the mere will of the preponderant majorities in Congress, the North, as in all other cases, will seek its advancement of power, will seek its own selfish aggrandizement, and will distribute the money of the Government among themselves, raise as much as they please, and do all for their own advancement at the expense of minorities. Minorities, gentlemen, are the true friends of our Constitution because that Constitution is their shield and their protection against the unchecked and unlicensed will of the majority. Hence it is that my section of the South stands by that Constitution. You do not hear so much said there with such flippant tongues about the Union as you do at the North, but you hear much said there about the Constitution; about its strict construction; about the rigid enforcement of its checks, and its balances in favor of these minorities, because to them it is a thing of life and death. Within this government that Constitution must prevail, or the minority will be placed as a “lamb that is led to the slaughter.” But let that Constitution be observed, and the rights of all sections under the Constitution be preserved, and the South is content to abide its fate under the workings of that instrument.” (Yancey’s speech in Washington, September 21st 1860.) Doesn’t sound like a secession-at-all-costs position to me.

Originally Posted by unionblue

I have given my reasons for McGuire and his stated reasons for going to war. In this I agree with you totally in that I mistrust his speech. Nothing more, nothing less.

That strikes me as a pretty close-minded position.

Originally Posted by unionblue

As for your bolt out of the blue, in 1788 North Carolina was not part of the Union because she had not joined, therefore she was not committing an act of rebellion, if I have my dates correct. Rhode Island had not joined either, is that not also correct?

Thank you for that. Yes, you are correct. Neither Rhode Island nor North Carolina had joined the Union by the time that the new government under the Constitution had convened in March-April 1789. This is a point I shall return to later.

Originally Posted by unionblue

As you have stated when I brought up an author and his book, on another thread, I will reply with the same with Proffessor John Burgess. It's nice that he has written something on the subject, but it is after all, his opinion in the end.

Why would a northern professor at a northern University write this if he did not believe it was true? And why would he believe it was true?

Originally Posted by unionblue

(snip) I admit, I lean to the North, my posts and arguments make that very plain as can be viewed by their content. I do not believe we are in any sort of violent disagreement on this point. It is simply I choose to accept some material as more factual than others, more worthy of serious consideration than other source material. In other words, I evaluate and decide and come to my own conclusions.

I would also inform you that I came to this method by experience, as I was of the view back in 1993 that the South had left the Union over the issues of States Rights, unfair tariff practices and interference from the federal government. I also believed that slavery was a very small matter and had nothing to do with the 'real' reasons the South left the Union. In other words, I took the advice of others instead of doing my own research. I no longer do so.

You are wise to not uncritically accept the Southern view. But at the same time, you should not uncritically accept the Northern view of events either. I believe the wisest path is to critically examine all the facts, wherever possible from original source materials, and come to conclusions, but always to retain an open mind.

Originally Posted by unionblue

(snip)
Or am I to assume that you admire that he was a large plantation owner with 145 slaves, who had no idea about the common farmer, seeing that he never worked his farm but merely supervised what he termed his 'animal labor' in the running of his plantation?

Neil, that is a cheap shot. It should be beneath you. I have never said anything in defense of slavery.

Thanks for the links.

Respectfully,
John Taylor