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 think everyone is making good points.I find myself agreeing with Ole on most points,John Tayloron also on some points, and also Matthew.I think Yancey and Rhett certainly exaggertared this to heed their call of secession.I truly think Rose made a great point about the imporatnce of newspapers and the effect it had on public opninion.I truly believe this made ordinary poeple both North and South dislike and distrust poeple from the other portions of our country when basically they were the same.I don't think even 20 percent of the citizens of the Northern states cared about slavery one way or another.More than that probably thought their has to be a better way,but advocating violence or servile insurrection I don't see it.From my reading over the year's the main racial concern of Northerners was that all the freed slaves(if that ever happened)didn't end up there.But most Southerners took the incidents that John Taylor mentioned and took it as total insult and saw it as a proof of this Northern disregard for government and Southerners etch...I assume what we are trying to figure out is why did this misinformation occur.Who stood to gain by it?I can buy the diehard secessionist gaining from this.But the few diehard abolitionist that existed provided those few diehard secessionist with the all the ammunition they needed.The newspapers also really heated thing up more than anything else.Without these crazy abolitionist(though I don't blame everything on them)I don't think that the Southern majority would've been whipped up into supporting secession.But I think the whole abolitionist movement was minor news that somehow became central to Southern thinking.That somes up my feelings on the matter clearer than anything else.Anyway that's just my humble opinion everyone.Of course towns were packed out in those days to see a minor politician.Poeple took government much more seriously back than most Americans do today.Most poeple take interest in the election of the President,but few think our government will ever actually be truly accountable to the poeple again(like government spending).That to me is the tragedy of the South losing the war.Of course the Confederacy of today could possibly have had the highly centralized bureacracy we have today.Our government isn't all bad by any means,but it just seems like things could've been better.Sorry to get off subject.
__________________ "The sword is mighty, but principles laugh at swords. Overwhelming force may crush truth to earth but, crushed or not the truth is still the truth." Regards, Ashley
Did Southerners now think that Brown type raids were going to happen again and again, and therefore opt for secession? I don't buy that completely, because the feeling for secession was strongest in areas least likely to be affected.
However let's ask ourselves the question: had war not broken out, would the abolitionist movement, or a splinter of it, turned towards violence? What kind of violence would it have been? What would the reaction been among other abolitionists, Northerners in general, and the Republicans in particular?
Matthew.
Interesting possibility and questions. I can't deny the possibility nor, perhaps, the probability that some radical groups would turn to stronger methods. That said, however, I think that such actions would be vigorously prosecuted with the sincere cooperation of northerners, including abolitionists.
The abolitionists, as a group, weren't that much different than Green Peace, the Sierra Club, NOW, NAACP, CORE, the Aryan Nation -- dedicated to a cause and pressing persuasive means to sway opinion (with the inevitable nut cases hanging on in the shadows). All want nothing to do with actions that push them into the terrorist camp. Nobody approves of violence. Nobody did.
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
Did Southerners now think that Brown type raids were going to happen again and again, and therefore opt for secession? I don't buy that completely, because the feeling for secession was strongest in areas least likely to be affected.
Quote:
Originally Posted by matthew mckeon
However let's ask ourselves the question: had war not broken out, would the abolitionist movement, or a splinter of it, turned towards violence? What kind of violence would it have been? What would the reaction been among other abolitionists, Northerners in general, and the Republicans in particular?
I assume your question asks what would have happened if the south had not seceded and war had not broken out. More radical abolitionists already had turned to violence to achieve their ends. If Lincoln was elected and the South remained in the Union, would Northern moderates have been able to calm down the more radical of Northerners in the hope of accomplishing something through more peaceful means? Who can say? I have taken the liberty of culling out some quotes from Southern newspapers of the period to illustrate what some Southerners (and one Northerner) thought:
In the Charleston Mercury, in a letter signed “A SOUTHERN MERCHANT,” the author said: "Common sense dictates the protection of our wives and children, from the insidious raids of Northern barbarians – demands preparation – union – action. ... The time for reason and argument between the North and the South has passed." (Mercury, August 28th 1860, pg. 1. col. 4)
Col. Smart, Democratic candidate for Governor of Maine said: "The Burlingames, the Hales, the Wilsons and their associates ... are at this moment stirring up by the bitterness of their speeches, new John Brown raids. ... 1832 ought to have quenched their thirst for sanguinary operation. The killing of a family, embracing ten children – the killing of a citizen, and the deliberate shooting of his wife, ought to have satisfied them." (Richmond Enquirer, September 11th, 1860, pg. 2 col. 1.)
'A Planter' wrote, “Mr. Douglas calling himself a friend of the South, tells her sons that if Lincoln is elected President, whose followers avow that they are anxious for 'a general insurrection of their slaves;' who seek 'secret entrance to the Southern States and there aid the slaves in the work of organizing and preparing insurrection;' who are doing their utmost to 'stir up new John Brown raids' - and if she complains or refuses to submit to such outrages, he, Douglas, the so-called Democrat, the friend of the South, 'the national candidate of the Democracy, will stand by and do all in his power to aid Lincoln in forcing her to submit to the rule of the John Wentworths, the Hales, the Wilsons, and the Burlingames." (Ibid.)
“The Abolitionist newspapers constantly inform us, with the utmost sang froid, that there are thousands of men at the North ready and eager at any moment to enact John brown raids and forays, of poisoning and arson similar to that which was lately consummated in Texas; and that these men are only restrained from present outrage by the existence of a conservative and national Administration willing and able to employ the arms of the Federal Government to repress insurrection and repel invasion. … The name Wide Awake was the designation by which John Brown’s company was known in Kansas, and was adopted in compliment to that ‘martyred hero.’ Several months ago the New York Tribune informed us that already more than 100,000 able bodied men were enrolled in the Wide Awake clubs. From all accounts, the number has greatly increased since this announcement was made." (Texas State Gazette, October 27th 1860, pg. 1, col. 4.)
“Under the conservative Administration of James Buchanan, armed fanatics invaded the State of Virginia. Under the same administration, efforts have been made from the same fanatical motives to lay waste the fairest portion of Texas, and to expel or murder its present inhabitants. In partial execution of this fiendish conspiracy, several towns have been burned, and millions of property destroyed. If such outrages can be perpetrated under such a President, would not every home in the South stand in constant danger from the abolition incendiary under the Government of Lincoln? Would our wives and little ones enjoy the sweet comfort of peace and the blessed repose of security? Submission to Lincoln would give us no peace, but would subject us to a reign of terror more terrible than any war. We can get peace, but not from the mercy of fanaticism. We can protect ourselves by asserting our independence and by arming ourselves. ... The people of the North are not a military people. … They cannot afford to bankrupt themselves in order to subjugate a warlike and indomnitable (sic) race like the people of the South. If, however, war should ensue between the sections, such a conflict with all its evils would be infinitely better than to leave every Southern home in constant danger from vagabond emmissaries (sic). It is better to drive fanaticism to a head and destroy its venom by crushing our its life than to allow it to spread over the whole space of society.” (Texas State Gazette, November 24th 1860, pg. 2, col. 2-3.)
“I hope and pray that there is no backing down on the part of the South. … If there is, … you may look for John Brown raids, on a more extended scale from Maryland to Texas. Henry Wilson boasts that he has got his heel upon the neck of the South.” (Charleston Mercury, November 28th 1860, pg. 1, col. 4.
Evidently, some Southerners thought that Lincoln would be unwilling or unable to control the more radical elements of the North. At any rate, Southerners collectively, seemed unwilling to take the chance.
__________________ "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
Ole, some did approve of antislavery violence, in their own words:
In Milwaukee, a public meeting approved a series of resolutions that included the statement that “Brown is the John the Baptist of the new dispensation of freedom.” (Carpenter, The Logic of History, pg. 66.)
Henry David Thoreau, on the evening of Brown’s execution, said “Some eighteen hundred years ago Christ was crucified; this morning, perchance, Captain Brown was hung. These are the two ends of a chain which is not without its links. He is not Old Brown any longer; he is an angel of light.” (Thoreau, Walden and Other Writings, edited by Atkinson, pg. 706.)
William Lloyd Garrison compared Brown to Christ and publicly wished “success to every slave insurrection at the South.” (Mayer, All On Fire, pg. 502.)
In Boston, at a meeting to commemorate Brown’s actions, a Reverend Wheelock said that Harper’s Ferry inaugurated “a new era of the anti-slavery cause,” in which “to moral agitation will be added physical, to argument action! For other devoted men will follow in the wake of John Brown, and carry on to its full results the work he has begun.” (Carpenter, Logic of History, pg. 71.)
John Andrew, Massachusetts Republican, declared, “This is the eternal and heaven sustained nature of the irrepressible conflict.” (ibid.) (emphasis added) and "John Brown was right." (Texas State Gazette, September 29th 1860, pg. 2, col. 3.) (As an aside, why would Andrew characterize Harper's Ferry as an example of the nature of the irrepressible conflict? What were Southerners supposed to make of that characterization?)
Ralph Waldo Emerson called Brown “the new saint awaiting his martyrdom, who … will make the gallows more glorious than the cross.” (Reneham, The Secret Six, pg. 216) and “If any citizen of that State is summoned as a witness to Virginia, the process of law must be resisted by force, if habeas corpus will not do, that becomes a nuisance and the citizens must rely on the substance not the empty form – in other words, we must go back to the original right of resistance and revolution, and nullify the Constitution, and the laws! For such an object … pecuniary and other aid will be wanted. (Carpenter, Logic of History, pg. 72.)
Abraham Lincoln, to his credit, explicitly disapproved of Harper's Ferry, but there were others who were not so statesmanlike.
__________________ "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
"Nobody" was intentional hyperbole. Given that I had acknowledged a nut-case fringe, I didn't think I needed to modify the statement. "The overwhelming, law-abiding, majority" now replaces it.
There is no doubt that some otherwise moderate people of influence said kind things about John Brown's raid -- it must have been viewed as a positive, however horrible, indication of a turn towards the abolition of slavery.
I will note that the same kinds of things as you quoted above were said by similar southern moderate people of influence about the border ruffians and Lawrence.
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
John:
I will note that the same kinds of things as you quoted above were said by similar southern moderate people of influence about the border ruffians and Lawrence.
Ole
Ole, I don't remember anybody condoning Quantrill's actions or applauding what happened in Lawrence, much less making Quantrill a martyr. There may have been a handful of bitter people that believed the South should give the North a dose of their own medicine, but if so, it was only a few.
I believe John Taylor has shown that there was a movement stirring in the North to emulate John Brown's actions in the South. I equate Brown's actions to the rash of abortion clinic bombings in the '90's as well as the murders of abortion doctors and employees and the terrorizing of women that sought out the services of the clinics. I don't believe you could disregard those actions with a wave of the hand and claim, "it must have been viewed as a positive, however horrible, indication of a turn towards the end of abortion". It wasn't about pro or anti-abortion. It was about crime and criminals just as John Brown's actions wasn't about pro or anti-slavery. It too, was about criminal actions. Southern people couldn't understand the North's reaction to the incident.
Regards,
Rose
__________________ "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names".--J.F.K.
The War Between the States established... This principle that the Federal Government is, through its courts, this final judge of its own powers.
-- Woodrow Wilson
Rose, I must not have been clear (not an uncommon occurence).
Quote:
Ole, I don't remember anybody condoning Quantrill's actions or applauding what happened in Lawrence, much less making Quantrill a martyr. There may have been a handful of bitter people that believed the South should give the North a dose of their own medicine, but if so, it was only a few.
But I do. And in saying that, I am required to quote a source, which I am loathe to do, so let's just say I didn't say it. By the way, I don't believe there is much consideration of Quantrill as a martyr, and Lawrence predated Harpers Ferry.
I, too, believe John Taylor has offered an extremely well-stated case, and I have no disagreement with the facts he has presented. I thought I'd also equated John Brown with the lunatic fringe, including clinic bombers. However, I also equate Lawrence, Kansas with Harpers Ferry -- lunatic fringe. There were legitimate activists on both sides; and there were nut-cases in both. Is this not what we are talking about?
Quote:
It was about crime and criminals just as John Brown's actions wasn't about pro or anti-slavery. It too, was about criminal actions.
I will disagree. Anti-abortion and crime in support of that belief is the same as anti-slavery and crime in support of that belief.
Quote:
Southern people couldn't understand the North's reaction to the incident.
No more than Northern people could understand the South's reaction to the Kansas unpleasantness (about which I am relying upon some regulars to re-post the references so I don't have to spend a day or two looking them up).
The "south" was justifiably outraged at John Brown's Raid and the "reported" northern reaction to it. Nut-case. The "north" was justifiably outraged at the Lawrence massacre and the "reported" southern reaction to it. Sounds like a draw in these two examples doesn't it?
I'm inclined to believe the fire-eaters had a field day with John Brown and spun Kansas judiciously as a defense of "our rights and culture." It's not a matter of right or wrong, only of what might be considered overly political treatment.
Whatever. ****ed dog awoke me early and I'm not making sense. I'll try again tomorrow.
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
JohnTaylor is arguing that Brown's raid was crucial to secession(no raid, no war, at least not in 1860). If I understand correctly, he feels the South's concern that Brown type raids would occur again was legitimate, with a Republican adminstration not responding effectively to abolitionist violence, as evidenced by the ineffectual way the government pursued the Secret Six, and members of the raiding party that survived.
My feeling is that leaders, already advocating secession seized on Brown's raid to rouse mass support for secession, but their concern was not legitimate, since Brown was uncharacteristic of the abolitionists and their tactics. A Republican administration, even the more "radical" leaders like Seward and Chase, would use the legal means to restrict slavery(as indeed, during the war, they would).
Rose brings up that the raid and its aftermath were "insulting" to the South, which I wonder might be the more accurate term. Southerners didn't exactly fear raids, as much as resented them as an affront.
Ole writes that the positive reaction(to the raid) of some Northerners marked a "turn towards the abolition of slavery." He finds Southern anger at abolitionist aggression hypocritical since slaveowners had been aggressive in Kansas and elsewhere. He is also annoyed at his dog.
My Question is...
Abolitionists sometimes quoted a "higher law" to justify aiding escaping slaves and noncooperation with the Fugitive Slave Act, both federal crimes. Do they have a reasonable case to make morally? What are the consequences?
Abolitionists sometimes quoted a "higher law" to justify aiding escaping slaves and noncooperation with the Fugitive Slave Act, both federal crimes. Do they have a reasonable case to make morally? What are the consequences?
Great questions Matt, and an excellent summary. The justification of a "higher law" to aid and abet the slaves in their quest for freedom, including the noncooperation with the Fugitive Slave Act, IMO, is acceptable, and even commendable. The consequences could be prison time, and another drawback would be the continued annoyance and anger felt by the slave -owning aristocracy of the South, when slaves were not returned as required by law.
I think the moral consequences of not providing aid to the slaves, if one had an opportunity to do so, would be more detrimental to ones immortal soul than the consequences derived from the former. I believe one has a duty to help someone else in trouble, if one has the means to do so. Why the hell else are we here on the planet, if not to help each other get through this life? The acquisition of material possessions? Fame? Notoriety?
As for murder,I draw the line at violence. However justified John Brown felt he was in murder, IMO he was not. History has shown that when civil disobedience dissolves into violence, things always become worse. When he raised his hand to kill, he minimized to a very significant degree any good he had done up to that point.
Terry
__________________ "In this great struggle, this form of Government and every form of human right is endangered if our enemies succeed. There is more involved in this contest than is realized by every one." Abraham Lincoln - August 18, 1864 Speech to the 164th Ohio Regiment
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
