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.
Who was it that said South Carolina was "too small to be a country and too big to be an insane asylum"?
ole
"South Carolina is too small for a republic and too large to be an insane asylum." - James L. Pettigru - South Carolina lawyer
__________________ "There must be more historians of the Civil War than there were generals figthing in it... Of the two groups, the historians are the more belligerent." David Donald, Lincoln Reconsidered (1961)
I ain't going to follow this thread too far cause .......
But Gen. Gordon was from Georgia, you all.
Yes, John B. Gordon was from Georgia; his father's property in the 1840s was about where the Battle of Chickamauga was fought. In later years he lived in Atlanta and then Milledgeville.
But when secession came, John B. Gordon was living in Jackson County, Alabama. The family was running coal mines along the state line, and he was actually receiving his mail in Tennessee. In the election of 1860, he was closely associated with Yancy of Alabama, and during the voting for secession harrangued crowds outside the halls in both Georgia and Alabama.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
This is an excellent post. Thanks to all for the input. But I would take issue with one point.
The early reference to the expansionist desire of the southern fire-eaters....Is it really that different from the whole idea of manifest destiny?
David
The term "manifest destiny" was coined in the 1840s. In its most aggressive usage, it referred to a belief that the United States was destined to expand to fill the North American continent from sea to sea by whatever means were necessary.
From the time of the Mexican War to the start of the American Civil War, the extremists of "manifest destiny" (i.e., those who were willing to do it by conquest) tended to be Southerners. Jefferson Davis ("I want Cuba, and I intend to have her!" in a speech after one of the filibustering expeditions against Cuba failed) was one of the advocates in those days. That part of the movement was also heavily tied to those who wanted to expand slavery into the conquered territories.
Most Americans believed in "manifest destiny" to some extent, I would say. But many did not believe in the extremes that took us to war with Mexico and sought to annex by force Cuba, the rest of Mexico, and Central America. There was a strong opposition to it in the North particularly (even though you could find those there who saw opportunity in the Carribean and the Gulf). Abraham Lincoln, for example, became a 1-term Congressman because he opposed the War with Mexico. Even professional soldiers such as Lee and Grant were on record as calling that an unjust war.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
I get manifest destiny. But how is it different from your characterization of the "fire-eaters" as being hungry for more real estate. In my view it was wrong in both cases, but lets not cast stones at just the fire-eaters.
I get manifest destiny. But how is it different from your characterization of the "fire-eaters" as being hungry for more real estate. In my view it was wrong in both cases, but lets not cast stones at just the fire-eaters.
David
Yes, yes...the North wanted those territories for their own purposes: Territories > States > Senators/Rep's > Political Power
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
I get manifest destiny. But how is it different from your characterization of the "fire-eaters" as being hungry for more real estate. In my view it was wrong in both cases, but lets not cast stones at just the fire-eaters.
David
Generally speaking, the Mexican War, the filibustering expeditions into Central America and Cuba, etc. were all associated heavily with Southerners, and particularly people who formed the extremist edge of the Fire-Eaters. There were people who were willing to have the US wage wars of foreign conquest against Spain, Mexico, Nicaraugua, etc. to get what they wanted.
Now if you want to find similar sentiments among Northerners, you would look to the Canadian border for the most part. The interest there was obvious at various times: during and after the American revolution, for example, and in the War of 1812, or the border war that almost happened in Maine, or the "Fifty-Four Forty or Fight!" election slogan.
But if we are talking about the 15 years or so before the Civil War, there is relatively little evidence the nation wanted to invade Canada (i.e., after the border was settled with Great Britain along the 49th parallel). This was resolved by the Oregon Treaty, ratified June 18, 1846. After that, there really isn't a "manifest destiny" initiative in the North.
In fact, the entire "Fifty-four Forty or Fight!" thing is seen by many historians as a reaction to the pursuit of expansion at the expense of Mexico by President Polk, an instance of Northern sentiment demanding something in return for this cow-towing to Southern demands. That's probably an overstatement, but it is also obvious that many people of the day regarded it that way. One leading exponent, Senator William Allen, resigned his chairmanship of the Foreign Relations committee in the belief he had been betrayed by Polk in the negotiations with the British.
By contrast, Southerners had repeatedly shown they were willing to risk war to acquire or conquer what they wanted. Texas and Mexico were already done. Southerners applauded filibustering expeditions into other countries in the Gulf and the Carribean as the Civil War approached. Davis turned down an offer to command the expedition into Cuba himself, but recommended Robert E. Lee as a worthy candidate (Lee also declined the offer). When the expedition failed, Davis made the "I want Cuba and I intend to have her!" speech I mentioned before.
This is not a case of good northerners/bad Southerners. It is mere fact. The outlets available to the North could be pursued without the same need for conflict with foreign enemies, unless you wanted war with Britain over Canada. Southerners seeking the opportunity to expand looked South (Arizona/New Mexico really weren't that appetizing in Southern eyes). So for them, foreign conquest became a hot-button issue.
In addition, the real extremists never achieved the kind of power in the North they did in the South before the Civil War. The Fire-Eaters (who espoused things like re-opening the Atlantic Slave Trade as well as all these foreign conquests) did.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
