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.
Note: The following is taken from "the Warrior Generals" by Thomas Buell. This book came out about 1996 or so. Buell chronicles the Civil War through the careers of six generals: Lee & Grant, Hood & Thomas, Gordon & Barlow. This excerpt is taken from one of the chapters on John B. Gordon.
Before the war, Gordon was a young, up-and-coming Fire-Eater down along the GA-AL line. During the war, he bacame a successful Confederate general, commanding the last attack of Lee's ANV at Petersburg. After the war, he was eventually elected to Congress.
==============
'Figures like William L. Yancey, the most prominent Democrat in Alabama and an ardent, influential advocate of secession and slavery, shaped Gordon's political thinking. On July 18, 1860, Gordon spoke as Yancey's surrogate during commencement at Ogelthorpe University near Milledgeville. His speech, entitled "Progress of Civil Liberty," was delivered before the university's literary societies. "African slavery," said Gordon, "is the mightiest engine in the universe for the civilization, elevation and refinement of mankind -- the surest guarantee of the continuance of liberty among ourselves. Then let us do our duty, protect our liberties and leave the consequences with God, who alone can control them."
'Gordon had a dream. "Do this and the day is not far distant," he said, "when the Southern flag shall be omnipotent from the Gulf of Panama to the coast of Delaware; when Cuba shall be ours; when the western breeze shall kiss our flag, as it floats in triumph from the gilded turrets of Mexico's capital; when the well clad, well fed, Southern Christian slave shall beat his tamborine and banjo amid the orange-bowered groves of Central America; and when a pro-slavery legislature shall meet in council in the Halls of Montezuma. And our foreign population, too, shall be encouraged by a successful resistance, on our part, to the aggressions of these Northern agrresssors."
This was Gordon's credo: white liberty was dependent upon black slavery in perpetuity. The Southern Recorder accorded his speech a measure of attention. "Mr. Gordon was for protection to our slave property in its broadest sense, and was for expansion and extension. ... He was an unadulterated 'filibuster' ... A distinguished friend in commenting upon it, said that it commenced with an eulogy upon liberty, but wound up with an eulogy on slavery. But, upon the whole, we liked the speech."
'During the presidential campaign Gordon went on the stump in Georgia and Alabama for John C. Breckenridge, the proslavery Democratic candidate, occassionally sharing the platform with Yancey. When Lincoln won, secession was certain. A special convention convened in Montgomery, Alabama, on January 11, 1861, and voted to secede. Crowds hurrahed, cannons roared, and church bells pealed. Orators, Yancey among them, whipped the crowds into delerium. Gordon too came before them. The act of secession was repeated eight days later in Milledgeville amid rejoicing. Gordon harangued the shrieking Georgia crowd."
======================
So there you have it in his own words, the vision of the future of a Southern Confederacy by one of the Fire-Eaters of Alabama and Georgia. A vision of apparent conquest and enslavement of other people for the greater glory of the South, and of secession from the United States. I note this is in July, 1860. That is four months before Lincoln's election and nine months before Ft. Sumter.
Not everyone in the South accepted that vision, although it was commonly spoken about. Jefferson Davis, not considered a Fire-Eater, also wanted Cuba and said so openly. Davis was asked to command a filibustering expedition to Cuba in the 1850s; after some thought he turned it down. He recommended the organizers contact Robert E. Lee, and Lee also turned it down. But when the expedition failed and the resulting public uproar was going on, Davis gave a speech down in Mississippi where he said "I want Cuba, and I intend to have her" (from memory; may not be exact).
Davis himself, while down in Montgomery in early 1861, newly appointed President of a hopefully new nation, actually refused to see an ambassador from Mexico. That was very strange, because the Confederacy desperately needed foreign recognition, and the ambassador was sent there to talk about it. But Davis stood on his honor. He thought it would be embarassing to treat with the Mexican government for recognition when he might be invading them shortly.
Lee, OTOH, would have found the idea of such conquest wrong. I am sure his view would have been such, because he felt the Mexican War of 15 years earlier was immoral, and said so (much like the young Abraham Lincoln thought that war wrong). But I note that he took his duty as a soldier seriously, and went off to serve in the Mexican War after writing his letter, so he probably would have done the same if he had decided to serve the Confederacy. Many other officers seem to have felt the same about that war -- such as young U. S. Grant -- and gone to fight bravely and well in accord with their duty as they saw it.
Tim, good info; I knew Gordon to be a fire eater... didn't know how much. Thanks
There were definitely people who shared Gordon's opinion on expansionism.
On the other hand, there were northern Reublicans who would express an opinion like this.
John Wentworth, Illinois Republican and editor of the pro-Lincoln Chicago Democrat wrote, "The only thing that prevents a general insurrection at this moment among the slaves of the border States is their belief that in such an event, the whole power of the Federal government would be brought to bear against them, and crush them to pieces. Once let this fear be removed, - once let it be known by the slaves that in a contest for freedom, they would only have to fight their masters, and nothing could prevent an instant revolution. ...[if the South secedes] there are men in the North who would find secret entrance to the Southern States, and there aid the slaves in the work of organizing and preparing for insurrection." Charleston Mercury, 6 September 1860, pg. 4, col. 1.
What effect do your suppose that this editorial might have on a Southernerfence-sitter, who was not yet decided on whether to support secession in the event of Abraham Lincoln's election?
__________________ "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
John Taylor, appreciate the post; shows that both sides were eagerly feading the fire w/ poinsonous rhetoric. Shows politicains haven't changed all that much over the last 140+ years.
__________________
Shane Christen
American Legion Post 352
SUVCW Camp Abernethy# 48
Lifetime NRA member
3rd MN VI
For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. Eccl 1:18
There were definitely people who shared Gordon's opinion on expansionism.
There certainly were.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
On the other hand, there were northern Reublicans who would express an opinion like this.
John Wentworth, Illinois Republican and editor of the pro-Lincoln Chicago Democrat wrote, "The only thing that prevents a general insurrection at this moment among the slaves of the border States is their belief that in such an event, the whole power of the Federal government would be brought to bear against them, and crush them to pieces. Once let this fear be removed, - once let it be known by the slaves that in a contest for freedom, they would only have to fight their masters, and nothing could prevent an instant revolution. ...[if the South secedes] there are men in the North who would find secret entrance to the Southern States, and there aid the slaves in the work of organizing and preparing for insurrection." Charleston Mercury, 6 September 1860, pg. 4, col. 1.
Curious that you give quotes from Northerners by citing Southern papers ... and that the one you are using here, the Charleston Mercury of Mr. Rhett, was probably the leading Fire-Eater paper of them all. It seems likely that this paper would have been deliberately selecting inflamatory passages to fan the flames of secession. Is there some difficulty finding quotes from Northerners in Northern newspapers? Do you think you will see a fair cross-section of Northern opinion by reading the most radical papers of the South?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
What effect do your suppose that this editorial might have on a Southernerfence-sitter, who was not yet decided on whether to support secession in the event of Abraham Lincoln's election?
I suspect Rhett was looking for things to inflame the masses, and that is why he chose to publish this particular opinion. I doubt very much that a man whose personal ambition was to be the first Governor of an independent South Carolina, who had worked towards that goal for 25 years or more, would be trying to present a fair and balanced view of Northern conditions and cool the flames of secession.
No one doubts that there were Northerners with extreme opinions; examples exist and are often cited. The difference between the radicals of North and South is that Northern radicals had never achieved the power needed to accomplish their aims -- which is why nothing had been done to the South to justify their actions, I suppose. However, the Fire-Eaters and other radicals of the South DID get enough power to take action, they DID institute a policy of violence, and they DID force the pace that brought us to war -- either because they wanted the war itself, or because they were sure the North would back down from their abuse, or perhaps simply because they foolishly miscalculated the reaction to their aggressions.
What I would like to know is why the actual acts of these Southerners must be swept under the rug, and the theoretical future acts of Northerners must be villified and presented as the excuse for bad Southern behavior.
What I would like to know is why the actual acts of these Southerners must be swept under the rug, and the theoretical future acts of Northerners must be villified and presented as the excuse for bad Southern behavior.
Tim, I am not suggesting that Southern acts be swept under the carpet (although acts to secure public property once the people of a State have spoken in favor of secession is only prudent, in my opinion, and evidently in the opinion of many Southerners).
And I do insist that actual, pre-secession acts by Northerners be considered. That is why I have brought up acts like Northern Republican Governors using their offices to protect anti-slavery murderers, the northern refusal to honor Congressional subpoenas to testify before the Mason Committee, and the Personal Liberty Laws, which were not designed to protect an innocent northern black man from being dragged south as a slave, but were designed to nullify a Federal statute.
I am very curious about the motivations of pro-secessionists. Since slaveholding families were in the minority in every Southern State (http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/colle...?year=V1860#11), I am curious how secession came to be the majority position in seven States in the Union. I believe that statements like Wentworth's above played a part. That is why I provide the quote from the Mercury, and not the Democrat. What Wentworth said is not as important in determining secessionist motivations as what Southerners knew about what he said. This Mercury quote fills both needs. If Wentworth had said that, but nobody in the South knew of it, it could not have been a motivation for secession.
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
Last edited by JohnTaylor : 05-15-2006 at 02:55 AM.
Tim, I am not suggesting that Southern acts be swept under the carpet (although acts to secure public property once the people of a State have spoken in favor of secession is only prudent, in my opinion, and evidently in the opinion of many Southerners).
I agree that it is very "prudent" to seize the arms and forts and revenue if you intend to fight a war or start a revolution. They are however, aggressive and illegal if your intent is to negotiate a peaceful ending of an agreement. I might have acted as the leaders of the South did if I was in charge of the rebellion. I simply would not bother with all this puffery about it being the other side's fault that they reacted to my striking them first.
That said, it is clear that the acts of the Southern states (many violating their own laws and constitutions, let alone the US Constitution) and often in advance of any act of secession by a legally constituted body even if a "right of secession" existed must be considered the proximate cause for the war.
If there was no "right of secession", the seizures, threats and acts of violence by the seceding states/confederacy were insurrection as Lincoln said. If there were a "right of secession", they would be considered acts of war by any nation on earth with the power to defend itself, and Lincoln was completely right to act to defend the nation's interests. In either case, the burden for starting the Civil War (or the War of the Rebellion, or whatever other title you would prefer) lies squarely on the South. There is no escape from it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
And I do insist that actual, pre-secession acts by Northerners be considered. That is why I have brought up acts like Northern Republican Governors using their offices to protect anti-slavery murderers, the northern refusal to honor Congressional subpoenas to testify before the Mason Committee, and the Personal Liberty Laws, which were not designed to protect an innocent northern black man from being dragged south as a slave, but were designed to nullify a Federal statute.
Of all the laws passed before the Civil War, the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 is probably the greatest infringement of states' rights. It imposed upon and set aside the state courts, gave special licenses to men to hunt slaves wherever they might go, and paid the judge more to find a man a slave than to find him a free man. Throw in forbiding the accused to speak for himself, and it is not hard to see why a free society should take offense at such an act. The Personal Liberty Laws (assuming here you are talking about the 1850s) were largely a reaction to that, generally guaranteed the writ of habeas corpus, the right to a jury trial and other procedural devices, but made it difficult for slave owners to prove their case in court, and also made it costly for them to do so.
Personal Liberty Laws in one form or another had existed back to 1780. In Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842) the Supreme Court overturned the state law and most states passed new laws after that to try to be constitutional. In general, they were written to avoid nullification, but to make things difficult for those trying to enforce the Federal law. Federal authorities generally did enforce the law such as in the 1854 case of the capture and extradition of a slave named Anthony Burns. A mob attempted rescue, a guard was killed, and Burns was returned to Virginia by a heavy armed Federal force. The Massachusetts Personal Liberty Act was passed in 1855 as a result.
Obviously there was opposition to slavery in the North, and sometimes violent opposition. Obviously there were those unwilling to co-operate with the slave-catchers, or willing to help the escaping slaves. But what we find when we actually examine the facts is that whether it is the Burns case in 1854, or Dred Scott in 1858, or John Brown in 1859 the forces of the Federal government routinely sided with the law on the issue of slavery, and were quite willing to enforce it when necessary. What we do not find is any act by the Federal government to justify secessionist belief that their rights would not be honored.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
I am very curious about the motivations of pro-secessionists.
Motivations? There were many. But if you wish to look at the leaders of pro-secessionists in the 1850s you will find several common threads:
- the economics and society of slavery where it was
- the expansion of slavery into new areas
- political power and control for Southerners, combined with fear and resentment at rising political power outside the South
- fear of the unknown (i.e., what would happen if things changed)
- personal agrandizement (or the agrandizement of the South as they believed in it). You can say hubris if you want, and a desire to have their own way, or Manifest Destiny as some called it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
Since slaveholding families were in the minority in every Southern State (http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/colle...?year=V1860#11), I am curious how secession came to be the majority position in seven States in the Union.
Roughly speaking, about 25% of families in slave states owned slaves in 1860 according to the director of the census that year. However, their influence was disproportionate to their percentage, as I am sure you already understand. For example, North Carolina families were just about on that 25% figure -- yet 100% of the members of the state legislature owned slaves.
The reasons were obvious enough. A slave was expensive, a piece of property under the law. Poor people tended not to have them. The rich and well-off tended to have them. Just as now, people with money tend to have more political influence -- and ways to express that influence -- than those who do not. They also tend to be the ones who control the newspapers (like Rhett with the Charleston Mercury) or who have the time to serve in political office. Poor farmers live too close to the edge to go off to Congress or the state legislature for long periods of time. In a place like South Carolina, elections were rigorously controlled by the wealthy (SC being the last state to have a tax-based voting requirement in 1860, and no popular vote for the President).
There is also, of course, the "mud sill" theory of the South and secessionists, most prominently expressed in the US Senate by James H. Hammond of South Carolina, March 4, 1858. From the knowledge you express in your posts, I assume you are aware of that (and probably as well of the despicable character of Mr. Hammond on other matters). Just as you must be aware of the recurrent fear of a slave insurrection in the South, fed by the bogeyman of Haiti's experience and the Nat Turner Rebellion. Just as you must be aware of the economic and social fears that turned on freeing the slaves, and the need for slaves to fullfill the economic desires of would-be new plantation owners.
So with the big money behind it, and the news media of the day behind it, and a common social fear behind it, why would it be hard to see how secessionist sentiments could be fanned by unscrupulous people to inflame passions and get what they wanted. Mind you, there was no secret about it. There was a long record of what they wanted and the steps they planned to get it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
I believe that statements like Wentworth's above played a part. That is why I provide the quote from the Mercury, and not the Democrat. What Wentworth said is not as important in determining secessionist motivations as what Southerners knew about what he said. This Mercury quote fills both needs. If Wentworth had said that, but nobody in the South knew of it, it could not have been a motivation for secession.
Certainly it did. Just as certainly, men like Rhett were making sure that this was what the people of the South saw, filtering and distorting the reporting the news to get what they wanted. I think you also need to acknowledge that Mr. Rhett (the former Mr. Smith) had advocated secession since the 1830s, used his paper as a propaganda piece, was the leader of the Fire-Eaters, deliberately led the effort to throw the 1860 election to the Republicans, and desired greatly to be the first Governor of an independent South Carolina that could only come about by secession.
Note also that Wentworth's opinion was in response to Southern threats of secession, often violent, designed to try to influence the vote of the rest of the nation, that had been ongoing for several years. Surely it is not surprising that those who are subjected to such a bombardment of invective respond in kind? And that among them are those who we can only call extremists? That both sides had them?
But when you actually come to the Civil War, what is inescapable is that the South allowed its extremists the power to act. While that might have happened in the North if things had gone on as they were in 1860, it had not happened yet. The South, accordingly, must accept responsibility for what they DID, while the North and the Federal government should only be criticized for what they might have done.
Just bringing this old thread up to the front for easy reference by others.
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.
Reading the above raised a question, if anyone knows.
Per the above, 25% of Southern families owned slaves. Clearly their economic power, however, was all out of proportion to their mere numbers. I would imagine this 25% held the vast majority of the weath and economic output of the southern slave states. Thus, that alone would magnify their political impact. In politics then, as today, money talks.
Now t the question: What were the voter laws like at the time? I do not believe there was universal male sufferage, was there? If there was a property requirement for voting, that clearly would affect the political power of the slave-holders.
Finally, I am sure that political machines existed in the south, just as in the North. With greater economic power in the various counties and the ability to apply economic pressure to merchants and small farmers, I am sure the slave-holders also magnified their political power considerably.
Disclaimer: Just guesses on my part.
__________________ "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)
Believe at least one state (possibly South Carolina) had a property requirement for voting, but nowhere near all of them.
The hedgemony enjoyed by the slaveowners was simply their money, their time, their education, and their interest.
The age of the professional politician was not yet complete, but it was getting there.
It was not that unusual then, as now, that the politician was from the wealthier side of society. In the south, it was the slaveholder. And in that the northern politicians differed from their southern counterparts: nearly every southern politician, Federal or state, shared a common interest -- slavery.
While each northern politician might have been touting a special interest, his own enrichment or (gasp) national concerns, each southern politician agreed with all his compatriots on at least one thing: slavery.
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
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
A Fire-Eater's view of the future 
Linear Mode
