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.
This should be a good thread, Matthew -- myth-busting and enlightening at the same time.
There is no doubt that abolitionist agitation disturbed and alarmed large parts of the politically influential south.That gives rise to several follow-up questions, the exploration of which would be interesting, to say the least.
E.g.: How "real" was the effect of that agitation? Was it used to promote southern agendas? Or were they as alarmed as they claimed to be.
Did the "average" southerner react the same way to the abolitionists? Or were they more influenced by the editorial and political speeches of their leaders?
How powerful were the abolitionists (keeping in mind that their activities and power were not static over the roughly 40 years of their ascendency)?
Will follow this thread with relish.
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
How about this one: Who were the abolitionists? Who was likely to become an abolitionist?
Theories I've heard:
a. displaced elites:
According to this, the abolitionists were men who were traditional leaders, but because of economic and social changes, were no longer powerful, therefore sought new areas in which to exercise influence.
b. Extremists:
According to this, they were fanatics who distorted the political discourse to the extend that violence was inevitable.
c. Religious:
Motivated by strong religious feelings, like the Quakers.
Ole,
I like your remark about the average Southerner not being influenced by abolitionists, as opposed to being "influenced by the editorial and political speeches of their leaders." The average Southerner probably thought abolition was a bad idea, but did he ever meet an actual abolitionist?
I equate the abolitionists with the same kind of activism we are treated with today: some very thoughtful, concerned voices crying in the wilderness ranging to the wild-eyed fanatics whose motive cannot be readily discerned.
I strongly suspect that the majority were sincere and moderate. Comprising this majority were the religion-based with a significant minority of that majority who strongly believed in the "all men are created equal" clause in the D of I. (And endless combinations of the two.)
Complicating the mix are the likes of William Lloyd Garrison who began his abolitionist crusade hoping to persuade slave owners to his way of thinking. And, as the years rolled by, nurtured vitriol until he became quite radical and extreme in his views.
Then you can add people like Lincoln who strongly believed that slavery was a great wrong, but couldn't come up with a good way to get rid of it. Many in the south felt that same way.
None of this answers your original question (but, with hope, fleshes out that question), who were the abolitionists and what was their actual influence (perceived and otherwise)?
I have difficulty in believing that a class (region, area, state) could become so exorcised over sticks and stones. But that is a monday-morning view of something I've never quite understood -- the eager willingness to risk great bodily harm or death to visit the same on someone who has merely called you a bad name.
It does appear, 'though, that some if not many in the south took such talk as either threatening, insulting, or both. Without being faced with a real threat, they, in effect, challenged the abolitionist north and its republican party to a duel. We're all aware of the result.
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
Garrison and others called for the free states to secede from the Union on the grounds that the Union was hopelessly corrupted by slavery. Personally, I think this was a rhetorical flourish on his part, rather than a serious, practical proposal.
I think that goes back to your statement of not seeing any realistic way of abolishing slavery, given how entrenched it was in the 1840s and 50s.
I equate the abolitionists with the same kind of activism we are treated with today: some very thoughtful, concerned voices crying in the wilderness ranging to the wild-eyed fanatics whose motive cannot be readily discerned.
I strongly suspect that the majority were sincere and moderate. Comprising this majority were the religion-based with a significant minority of that majority who strongly believed in the "all men are created equal" clause in the D of I. (And endless combinations of the two.)
Complicating the mix are the likes of William Lloyd Garrison who began his abolitionist crusade hoping to persuade slave owners to his way of thinking. And, as the years rolled by, nurtured vitriol until he became quite radical and extreme in his views.
Then you can add people like Lincoln who strongly believed that slavery was a great wrong, but couldn't come up with a good way to get rid of it. Many in the south felt that same way.
None of this answers your original question (but, with hope, fleshes out that question), who were the abolitionists and what was their actual influence (perceived and otherwise)?
I have difficulty in believing that a class (region, area, state) could become so exorcised over sticks and stones. But that is a monday-morning view of something I've never quite understood -- the eager willingness to risk great bodily harm or death to visit the same on someone who has merely called you a bad name.
It does appear, 'though, that some if not many in the south took such talk as either threatening, insulting, or both. Without being faced with a real threat, they, in effect, challenged the abolitionist north and its republican party to a duel. We're all aware of the result.
Ole
Good post Ole. Hard to find a flaw in it, tho I'm sure several will do.
I'd have to add that I think that the 'John Brown' type were an aberration, and not the norm. However his actions certainly were a great boon to those in the South who wished to stir up the pot.
My only caveat to that would be the violent extremists, on both sides of the issue, in Missouri/Kansas. That stuff may have been more the thing that struck the match than John Brown's nutty action at Harper's Ferry.
I'll leave it there.
__________________ -
"It was a very peculiar time." - Franklin D. Cossitt
Ancestors in USA Army: 6th IA Inf, 11th IL Cav, 1st AL Cav; 122nd NY Inf; 6th MI Cav; 35th MA Inf; 100th IL Inf; 1st CO Inf/Cav; 22nd IN Inf
My only caveat to that would be the violent extremists, on both sides of the issue, in Missouri/Kansas. That stuff may have been more the thing that struck the match than John Brown's nutty action at Harper's Ferry.
Sam: That's almost another matter, but not quite. It was a reaction to abolitionist agitation while throwing fuel on the abolitionist fire. The Border conflicts and John Brown's indiscretion both were the beginning of the end. I'd be hard put to rank them against each other as causes of the conflict.
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
Matthew,
I think this thread is an excellent one as well.I think the key here is to remember that perception is often much more real than reality.I think the abolitionist contributed greatly to the hostile feelings of sectionalism.Think about if you honestly thought Northerners supported John Brown and his antics as a majority of course Southerners would be offended and insulted.Ah how much trouble has been caused by misinformation throughout history.I suspect the average Southerner didn't know any abolitionist personally and that their view of them was shaped by newspaper editorials and the like.I think many Southerners honestly believed many Northerners were abolitionist and were radical ones at that.We know better today but I don't think southerners of the antebellum area were aware of that fact.Many poeple I know in Alabama today view most Middle Easterners as terrorist despite the fact that most clearly aren't.I imagine that a good portion of antebellum Southerners viewed abolitionist/Northerners in a similar inaccurate light.Of course the Southern politicians were well travelled and knew better but they didn't let that cat out of the bag did they?
__________________ "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
Of course the Southern politicians were well travelled and knew better but they didn't let that cat out of the bag did they?
And this, Ashley, is what I'd like to find out. I'm not ready to say that the average southerner was intentionally fed disinformation by the governing elite. I suspect there was some of that, but how much escapes me if, in fact, there was any. Maybe the abolitionists rubbed everyone the wrong way.
Logically, I'd assume that only the slave-owners were offended, but the results don't bear out that assumption. So. Please continue posting as we explore this interesting subject Matthew has introduced.
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
I think the key here is to remember that perception is often much more real than reality.
I believe you are right about perception. No matter what the truth is, it's the perception of truth that must be dealt with. There is a wide gap between Abolitionists, who were actively working for the abolition of slavery and those individuals who were simply "anti-slavery" in their sentiments and this varied by degrees. The latter included the vast majority of Northern people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
Of course the Southern politicians were well travelled and knew better but they didn't let that cat out of the bag did they?
I think the Southern people were influenced by what they read in editorials and newspaper articles but they also read the Abolitionist's writings and sometimes those were so radical and inflaming that the impression they made was larger than life.
Also, consider that it was only with the election of the anti-slavery, pro-protectionist, Republican president that the Southern states finally seceded after years of dealing with Abolitionists.
I submit that Abolitionists had little to do with the secession of the South and the ensuing war other than to make Southerners feel even further disenfranchised from the Union.
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
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
The Abolitionists 
Linear Mode
