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.
No, you have never said anything in the defense of slavery, and that was not my point. How can You assume to take my log-on name, Unionblue, and somehow determine my thoughts and my stand on John Brown, secession, etc., while I not therefore able to infer something by the log-on name you use here? Because, in my opinion, it would be pretty silly to do so. We should both take each others presentations as we debate the facts and not assume anything simply by our log-on IDs. That was the point I was trying to make, not to insult you or claim you supported slavery.
I also believe I am not begging the question about previous attempts at secession and their failure to take form. What I am saying is that those who wanted secession, after each failed attempt, built up their arguments, organizations, newspapers and other organs of misinformation and that it took some time to do so.
I also am not sure if Southern Unionism was overwhelmed from the year 1856 to 1860, just under represented at the secession conventions held at that critical election year.
I am also of the opinion that the fires in Texas were real, and I have no doubt enormous damage took place, but the do not point to any conclusive, historical evidence that they were set by raving abolitionists. I contend these fires were blown out of proportion by those seeking any excuse to provide incidents and excuses for secession.
It was also routine for Northern papers to pick up stories 'on the wire' so I am not surprised the stories were carried by them. But as we both know, newspapers of the times were wont to inflate news events and carry rumor and speculation. The sites I have provided seem to indicate as much, at least to my satisfaction.
And no, John, I am not cherry-picking, I am simply taking for the truth the following by Mr. Keitt said at the South Carolina Secession Declaration Debate: "But the Tariff is not the question which brought the people up to their present attitude. We are to give a summary of our causes to the world, but mainly to the other Southern States, whose co-action we wish, and we must not make a fight on the Tariff question." A bit later, Keitt says, "Our people have come to this on the question of slavery. I am willing, in that address to rest it uppon that question." As to what Yancy said in Washington and what he said and wrote to others, it seems to me to be a matter of timing along with where and when and what particular rights he wanted to protect under the Constitution, the right to preserve and expand slavery.
And yes, John, my statement does appear to be pretty close-minded on the subject of McGuire. You have me pretty much pegged on that one.
I am certain that a northern professor of a northern universtity wrote what he thought was true on the subject, but that does not make him right, just that he thinks he is right. Why he would say such a thing, I have no idea, except to assume that he feels he is right. I also have a right to disagree with him.
I agree with you that one should not embrace Northern views wholely simply because they are from Northern sources. You should be glad that I reject a Northern source about John Brown since this proves that I do not automatically accept all Northern sources simply because of that point on the compass. I agree with you that one should examine all the facts and weigh them and then come to a conclusion based on that examination.
Respectfully,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
Neil, I was looking at your posts, and then you log-on, and putting one and one together. If I presumed too much, I apologize.
Quote:
Originally Posted by unionblue
I also believe I am not begging the question about previous attempts at secession and their failure to take form. What I am saying is that those who wanted secession, after each failed attempt, built up their arguments, organizations, newspapers and other organs of misinformation and that it took some time to do so.
But, and this is the key point, those that opposed secession in earlier crises, eventually came to accept secession as the remedy. By 1861, this position represented the majority in the Deep South States. I see a difference between radical secessionists (the Rhett’s and Yanceys on 1838 & 1850), and the majority of the population of the Deep South States. I don’t think you can explain Southern behavior unless you make note of that distinction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by unionblue
I also am not sure if Southern Unionism was overwhelmed from the year 1856 to 1860, just under represented at the secession conventions held at that critical election year.
I believe that the elections for the State Conventions in 1860-1861 were very representative. I believe that I explained this elsewhere on this board, but, once a State decided to hold a Convention, local figures would nominate a candidate for the Convention, based, normally, on his views. Frequently, local newspapers would list those people who had agreed to serve as delegates to the Convention, and, also frequently, the candidates would declare their positions on the issues of the day, sometimes as a result of open letters published in the local newspaper. For example, one person (or group) would ask candidate X whether he was in favor of immediate secession as the solution to the sectional problems of the day, or whether he was in favor of coöperative secession (i.e. States banding together before secession), or was in favor of waiting for some “overt act” by the Federal government under Republican administration (derisively called submissionists by the radical secessionists), and others felt that secession was unacceptable under any circumstances. The candidate would frequently respond publicly to the query, so voters would know what they were voting for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by unionblue
I am also of the opinion that the fires in Texas were real, and I have no doubt enormous damage took place, but the do not point to any conclusive, historical evidence that they were set by raving abolitionists. I contend these fires were blown out of proportion by those seeking any excuse to provide incidents and excuses for secession.
On his you may be right. I have looked into them as far as I think I can, and I have found little to confirm the existence of any conspiracy. I’m not saying there wasn’t one, just that its existence has not been confirmed. Of course, the efforts by Republicans to squash investigation of Harper’s Ferry made this lack of evidence in Texas less than convincing. One thing is beyond a doubt: there were a lot of fires in Texas that summer. There are flaws in the theories put forward to explain this. Don Reynolds says that the summer of 1860 was unusually hot, and a drought was in effect. I ran across the US Army records of high temperatures in Texas that summer, and far and away the month with the highest max temperature was June. The July max temp was lower than June, and August (when the most fires occurred) was cooler than July. On would think that if heat and dryness explained the fires, the extreme max temps would be the opposite of what they were. Also, some of the fires occurred at night, which was not the hottest time of day. Texas Whig (or “Opposition” or Houston) papers accused Democrats of playing up the extent of the crisis for political effect, but the Texas State Gazette countered that no Opposition party members were suspected, and Democrats had nothing to gain by increasing the menace of a secret Abolitionists conspiracy. Also, getting slaves to confess to arson and conspiracy, and then hanging them for their crimes was hardly a good way to protect the institution in Texas. That is a pretty self-defeating and expensive program (even if one ignores the morality of it for a moment).
Quote:
Originally Posted by unionblue
And no, John, I am not cherry-picking, I am simply taking for the truth the following by Mr. Keitt said at the South Carolina Secession Declaration Debate: "But the Tariff is not the question which brought the people up to their present attitude. …“ (snip)
As I said earlier, Keitt was one delegate, but not the only one. And Keitt undoubtedly felt that Abolitionists agitation was what had led his brother’s slave to slit Keitt’s brother’s throat in his bed. In one of the two South Carolina declarations, economic exploitation was clearly one of the issues that led the people of South Carolina to embrace secession. Comparing one delegate’s declaration, and a declaration of the body as a whole, which is more authoritative?
Quote:
Originally Posted by unionblue
And yes, John, my statement does appear to be pretty close-minded on the subject of McGuire. You have me pretty much pegged on that one.
Well, that is a candid response.
Quote:
Originally Posted by unionblue
I am certain that a northern professor of a northern universtity wrote what he thought was true on the subject, but that does not make him right, just that he thinks he is right. Why he would say such a thing, I have no idea, except to assume that he feels he is right. I also have a right to disagree with him.
You have a right to disagree with him, but do you have an objective reason to do so?
Quote:
Originally Posted by unionblue
I agree with you that one should not embrace Northern views wholely simply because they are from Northern sources. You should be glad that I reject a Northern source about John Brown since this proves that I do not automatically accept all Northern sources simply because of that point on the compass. I agree with you that one should examine all the facts and weigh them and then come to a conclusion based on that examination.
I presented Burgess quote for two reasons: first, he states the effect of Harper’s Ferry pretty clearly and eloquently. Second, he, being a Northerner at a Northern university, would have no apparent reason to exonerate Southerners for secession, except the truth. Yet, you reject him, not for where he come from, but for what he says (without offering objective historical evidence to substantiate that rejection).
Respectfully,
John Taylor
__________________ "In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
Interesting that you pointed out Freehling. I have never come across an historian with a more obvious contempt for his subject matter. In Secessionists at Bay, he frequently calls Southerners "dirt-eaters," only without quotes; the word is Freehling's own. As for the article, I fundamentally disagree with his premise that secession was not a popular policy in South Carolina. He builds his case on two rather weak points: first, A. P. Aldrich chose not to publish an anti-secession open letter written by James Hammond (whom Freehling acknowledge's as his "anti-friend", as if Freehling's emotions have anything to do with what Hammond said and did in his life a century and a half ago). Also, the militia paraded in South Carolina at that time (while secession was being publicly debated, which would seem to bring into question Freehling's assertion), and that made open popular choice impossible. One wonders how Freehling feels about the presidentially-directed arrest in 1861 of Maryland State Legislators before they had a chance to vote in favor of the "wrong" position (in favor of holding a State Convention to debate secession or not), or the wartime use of the Union army to prevent voters from approaching the polls unless that had the correct (Union) color-coded ballot in hand. ("In one district the military officer took his stand at the polls before they were opened, declaring that none but the “yellow [Union] ticket should be voted,” and excluded all others throughout the day.") Compared with these abuses of democracy, the South Carolina militia parading in the streets seems a little tame, yet Freehling would have us believe that a fair debate on whether to secede or not in South Carolina was impossible under such circumstances. Balderdash. South Carolinians, as a group, were made of sterner stuff, and anyone who opposed secession could say so, and some did. By December 1860, however, most favored the policy. Respectfully, John Taylor
__________________ "In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
Compared with these abuses of democracy, the South Carolina militia parading in the streets seems a little tame, yet Freehling would have us believe that a fair debate on whether to secede or not in South Carolina was impossible under such circumstances. Balderdash. South Carolinians, as a group, were made of sterner stuff, and anyone who opposed secession could say so, and some did. By December 1860, however, most favored the policy.
I have always considered SC to be the linchpin of proslavery/secessionist thought -- that she had the smallest proportion of unionists of all the slaveholding states. It would follow that antislavery/prounion sentiment arguments were, at best, barren and, at worst, dangerous.
John has made an excellent point in dismissing Freehling's statement, but isn't the statement substantially correct despite its weaknesses? Was there ever even a glimmer of a chance for unionists to bring any weight to their side of the debate?
Just a thought.
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
Again, I apologize for taking so long to come back to this thread, but events have mandated that I can only view this board for brief periods for the near future.
Yes, it is interesting that I quote Freehling and even more interesting is your response to him. I have the book you mention by him and I do not remember him calling Southerners 'dirt eaters' but I do remember him saying that poor yeomen farmers had to eat clay for some reason.
It is Freehling's contention that the South did not secede over Haprers Ferry, a statement I tend to agree with. From the date of John Brown's attempt to take over Harpers Ferry until the election of a Black Republican in 1860, there appears to be quite a period of time, especially if one thinks the South had it in their minds this was all the work of a Abolishionist cabal in the North. The South seemed pretty willing to wait and see how the election would turn out and THEN began secession over the election results.
I also still have my doubts concerning how well the people of the South were represented in the various secession conventions. A while ago I came upon an article that refuted the idea that Georgia had voted for secession, and it fact, by a very slim margin, rejected secession. I will try and find the web site for you as soon as I am able.
Frankly, the more I consider it, the less I am inclined to go with the idea that Harpers Ferry was a cause of secession. I am more inclined to believe it was simply an excuse, an incident in a long continuing campaign to bring about secession by those who were determined to break up the Union to further their own agenda.
Until next time,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
Ole,
I think you are mixing the two possible meanings of the phrase "did not have a chance." In one sense, the phrase means that, even though a contest is open and the rules applied fairly, one outcome is all but a foregone conclusion. If my high school football team played the Pittsburg Steelers, we would not have had a chance, even if the rules were fairly applied. Walter Mondale never had a chance against Ronald Reagan, and Bob Dole never had a chance against Bill Clinton, even though neither Reagan nor Clinton cheated in any way.
In another sense, one side can not have a chance, because the rules are unfairly applied, as in the Maryland cases I presented. People in South Carolina could very easily have voted for unconditional Unionist candidates, submissionist candidates, cooperationist candidates, or immediate secessionist candidates. That they chose mostly latter does not in any way mean that they could not vote for the former. Indeed, in Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia, there were significant minorities in favor of varying degrees of opinion vis-à-vis secession (from cooperationism to outright unconditional unionism).
Freehling's opinion on this point is simply incorrect. There was a free and open debate on whether South Carolina should leave the Union or not, and most Carolinians decided in favor of immediate secessionism, regardless of what Freehling wishes the case to be.
Respectfully,
John Taylor
__________________ "In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
Yes, it is interesting that I quote Freehling and even more interesting is your response to him. I have the book you mention by him and I do not remember him calling Southerners 'dirt eaters' but I do remember him saying that poor yeomen farmers had to eat clay for some reason.
About the third time Freehling used the word "mud-eaters" or "dirt-eaters," I dropped the book and moved on. He was not quoting someone else; those were his own words. I find that about as offensive as an "historian" who uses the "n-word" in his text, when not quoting someone else. I have a hard time taking someone like that seriously.
Respectfully,
JT
__________________ "In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
I also still have my doubts concerning how well the people of the South were represented in the various secession conventions. A while ago I came upon an article that refuted the idea that Georgia had voted for secession, and it fact, by a very slim margin, rejected secession. I will try and find the web site for you as soon as I am able.
Neil, I have seen the web page you are talking about. They counted cooperationist candidates as anti-secessionist candidates, which, as we have discussed, is an incorrect view of cooperationism. Cooperationists still endorsed secession, they just believed in cooperative secession (i.e. several states cooperating in secession). Anti-secessionists were labelled "submissionists" because they believed in staying in the Union, regardless of what happened.
If you still have doubts as to how well the people of the South were represented in the State Conventions, do you have any information from the historical record of the period to support your doubts? Or do these doubts come from some place other than the historical record?
Respectfully,
JT
__________________ "In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
I am about to begin my scheduled vacation and I will be gone for about two weeks. I do not want this thread to die from any lack of my participation, so do not fret if I do not answer for a time.
I will try and refind the source material I had on Southern Conventions, and by the way, we may have discussed what a cooperationist was, but I am not sure we totally agreed on that point.
But I will do my utmost to honor your request for historical sources.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
I agree with you that one should examine all the facts and weigh them and then come to a conclusion based on that examination.
Linear Mode
