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.
That's a question I've long been asking now and then, but I've not expressed it quite so well.
The only answer I can come up with is that certain powers wanted to govern (I really mean rule). When they couldn't achieve ascendence through the ballot-box (I have great faith in the ultimate good sense of the unseen, silent, common people), they determined to take it. It wasn't really slavery they had in mind, but they used it skillfully to make a division and create a country of their own, ruled by an aristocracy with themselves and their families as the nobility. They considered themselves superior and therefore in the right. They rejected the idea of the rule of law and the cooperation of a body of diverse peoples to the benefit of all.
Yes. Overly simplistic. But I've seen nothing yet that provides a different answer.
Ole
The secessionists had been trying to get their way for a long time. Rhett, the Fire-Eater leader, had been involved since the 1830s, with Calhoun's Nullification effort, again in the 1840s with another attempt, again in 1851 with an attempt over the Missouri Compromise. In all those, the other slave states had refused to support SC.
During the 1850s, as the pressure and the rhetoric spiraled ever higher, the secessionists took to using secession as a threat to try to influence voting in the North and West: "Elect so-and-so and we'll secede!" That started well before the 1856 election, maybe back to 1854.
In 1858, the secessionists decided that the actual election of a Republican was a good thing for them, and could be the catalyst for realizing their dreams. There is a record of letters between Rhett of SC and Pollard of VA over this, but it was also commonly debated and discussed in public.
For example, there was an annual event called the Southern Commercial Convention, originally designed to bring together business interests, but becoming a political event by the middle of the decade. Following the Panic of 1857, the price of cotton fell but the price of slaves continued to rise. The Deep South wanted the Atlantic Slave Trade reopened. The Upper South was against it (largely because they were making a tidy profit selling slaves down into the Deep South, Virginia being a net exporter of slaves). The 1858 SCC voted to repeal all laws against slave imports.
The 1858 event is important for another thing as well. The Deep South Fire-Eaters insisted secession was already a justified and overdue remedy for Northern acts; the Upper South generally said it had not reached that level yet. Yancy of Alabama spoke fervently on this, but a young rising Fire-Eater from Virginia rose to counter him, Roger A. Pryor of VA. It was a famous debate at the time, and "made" Pryor on the national stage of the Fire-Eaters. Finally, Yancy posed the question: what would convince Pryor the time for secession had come? The election of a Republican President would do it, Pryor said.
From that point on, the Fire-Eaters set themselves to that goal. Rhett and Yancy set out to divide the party deliberately at the Charleston Democratic convention of 1860. To them, any Republican would do (and Lincoln was a dark horse; they assumed Seward might be the man). Had they striven with the same might to unite the party in opposition to the Republicans, they might well have taken the 1860 Presidency. But that would not lead to Fire-Eater goals of secession, independence, and filibustering adventures in conquest and expansion.
In effect, these men deliberately threw the 1860 election to the Republicans, in the hope they could then stampede the Upper South into secession to form a new Confederacy with them. They were good at it, and deliberately created hysteria and fear for the purpose. (Mind, there were Northerners using the issues in somewhat the same way for their own purposes, but if you look at the scale and the effort involved, the Fire-Eaters did far more and they did it in the hope of deliberately breaking up the Union.)
So when Lincoln was elected, the Fire-Eaters rejoiced. The time had come! Secession, IMHO, is merely a case of their striking while the iron was hot. Since their design was based on strong emotion and fear, calm time to carefully consider the situation, to allow the voters to see that it wasn't all that bad, was counter-indicated. So they harrangued the crowds and rushed to act.
To their distaste, seven states seceded and the others seemed inclined to sit on the fence. Jefferson Davis, the biggest politician in the South after Calhoun's death, believed the Deep South could not create a viable Confederacy by themselves: they needed the Upper South, and particularly the numbers and industry of VA. So when Lincoln's inauguration did not create the required reaction -- worse still, seemed to be leading to that which the Fire-Eaters dreaded, a quiet time to work things out -- they ratcheted up the pressure again and deliberately chose to attack Ft. Sumter. As noted, the reactions to that event gave them what they wanted, the Upper South. Unfortunately, it also got them into a war they had miscalculated.
That's my feeling. The only reason for such rapid action was to carry out the political equivalent of a coup. There was no proximate threat that required such action, but they had political reasons they wanted to act.
Many of these men had personal reasons they wanted to advance. For example, Rhett deeply desired to become the first Governor of an independent SC -- and was deeply disappointed when his fellow South Carolinians decided they wanted someone else. It's not unusual to find that in any kind of politics, but you always need to know who would benefit by what to evaluate these things.
Trice- couldn't agree with you more regarding the fire-eaters. Not all of the planter class were fire-eaters however, not even a majority I would say. But by adamantly opposing any compromise on slavery and dealings with the Republicans, as well as sabotaging Douglas's bid to the Democratic nomination, they did in fact set their shoulders to the stone of secession. And so they were essentially led to rebellion as easily as a circus bear with a ring in his nose is led to the arena. And so led by the extremists, they themselves led the South. A painting by Brueggels comes to mind, a procession of the blind falling into a ditch. regards, ed
__________________ 'It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag'
Like I said: They wanted out and worked opportunistically on whatever means presented itself. The hurry was as Ed and Tim posted -- there would never be a better time.
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
... just what was the justification for the extreme rush with which the Southern states seceded? What had Lincoln done that caused these acts?
Regards,
Tim
If you want my opinion on why the the people of the Deep South States seceded, I would guess that a majority of them came to be worried about what a Republican administration would do to protect them from anti-slavery violence (among other issues). Here are a few samples from the thinking of the period:
"A ruling party - in the hireling States, have resolved to use brute force to trample upon our constitutional rights, to wrest from us our property, destroy our social system, and force upon us another social system - one that is distasteful to us, and destructive to the moral and material interests of the whole country. What ought the South to do? We believe that there is but one efficient and safe action, … and that safe action is the immediate withdrawal of the slaveholding States. … If we await another Presidential election, it will be too late! … Honor and safety alike demand of us an immediate and absolute withdrawal from a union with our relentless and ruthless foes. … To butcher our citizens, murder innocent women and children for the love of God and freedom, may sound softly and sweetly as music to abolitionists ears. ... This present Union ... smells of blood, it thirsts for blood, and blood it will have, and our blood unless we smite it with a deadly blow. Fanaticism knows no halting, takes no step backward, but creeps and crawls along with its serpent eye fixed on its prey while its sibilant tongue utters glozing words of 0D aid and comfort ... and declare it to be 'the right and duty of slaves to resist their masters; and the right and duty of the North to incite them to resistance, and to aid them in it.' ... What wait we for, my friends and brethren of the South? Do we intend to tempt fate by letting the authority of law, the army and navy, the prestige and revenues of these United States pass into felon hands, under control of thieves, robbers and assassins who are whetting their knives to butcher our women and children? ... Force, immediate force, is the only rock of our political salvation. ... The soil of Virginia has been reddened by the blood of her slaughtered citizens - the North has rejoiced in their murder and attempts to exalt the midnight robber and assassin who invaded our soil and slaughtered our unoffending citizens not a hero, and would set him above Jesus Christ. Some say, if Seward is elected, it will be time to act. Why risk his election? Why go into an election in which, if we are successful, we claim submission, and if we are beaten, mean to refuse it? ... Let us act calmly, promptly, and resolutely. We have no day nor hour to spare. The evil is upon us and we must yield or fight." Signed: "B" Richmond Enquirer, 20 January 1860, pg. 1, col. 7-8.
Of note, "B" says don't even go into an election if you won't abide by the result. Apparently, folks decided to wait for signs of Northerners backing away from Harper's Ferry. This letter was written before Northern republican Governors had used their offices to protect Harper's Ferry murderers, Harper's ferry conspirators refused to appear before the Congressional Committee, beforeare prowling about this whole country, knowing that they are protected?” Speech of William Lowndes Yancey in the city of Washington, printed in the Richmond Enquirer, September 25th, 1860, pg. 2, col. 4-6
“The Approaching Election”: “It will be determined whether the deadly enemy of the institution of slavery, the wicked sympathizer of John Brown, the apostle of murder, arson and servile war, the chosen chief of associated traitors, shall wield the high powers of the executive branch of the federal Government, shall control its vast patronage and command the Army and Navy of this Confederacy. Shall the compact of the Union be violated, and the principles of liberty and equality be trampled upon? Shall an administration, hostile in feeling and in purpose to a large portion of the Union be instituted? Shall the Southern States be degraded from the proud position of equals in the Confederacy to that of contemned and oppressed provinces? Shall the day arrive when Southern birth – no longer an honorable inheritance – will become a token of inferiority and a brand of reproach? Shall the graves of our illustrious dead be disturbed by the insulting tramp of exulting fanatics? Will the abolition poisoner and the incendiary be protected in our midst by the entire power of the federal Government?" Texas State Gazette, 6 November 1860, pg. 2, col. 2
__________________ "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
__________________ "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 secessionists had been trying to get their way for a long time. Rhett, the Fire-Eater leader, had been involved since the 1830s, with Calhoun's Nullification effort, again in the 1840s with another attempt, again in 1851 with an attempt over the Missouri Compromise.
What exactly happened with regard to the Missouri Compromise in 1851?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
During the 1850s, as the pressure and the rhetoric spiraled ever higher, the secessionists took to using secession as a threat to try to influence voting in the North and West: "Elect so-and-so and we'll secede!" That started well before the 1856 election, maybe back to 1854.
Maybe? Who exactly said what you put in quotes in 1854 (or 1856 for that matter), and what came of it?
__________________ "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
What exactly happened with regard to the Missouri Compromise in 1851?
First, my appologies for the typing mistake. That is the Compromise of 1850, not the Missouri Compromise.
Second, one result of that crisis was that SC tried to secede again. This time they wanted to arrange support from other states in advance, and so the growing Fire-Eater movement pushed for secession in Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi and elsewhere. Elections for conventions on this were called between November of 1850 on.
The GA election in December was a smashing defeat for secession: 46,963 to 25,253. Cobb, Stephens, and Toombs all stumped for the unionist side. In TN, the 2nd meeting of the Nashville Convention failed when the unionists simply refused to attend. The Mississippi and SC conventions finally met in 1852 and acknowledged defeat by dissolving immediately. There's more to that, of course, that would include what was called the Georgia Platform", but essentially GA was strongly against secession as things were.
In the 1851 elections, the secessionists were generally called the States Rights Party, which ran in MS, GA and AL. Their opponents were generally called the Constitutional Union Party. By the end of 1850 it was apparent that the public didn't like "disunionism", so the States Rights platform was based on the theoretical "right of secession". SC was a one-party state, but the Democrats there split between the Calhoun branch and the Co-operationists. The difference was that Fire-Eaters like Rhett in the Calhoun faction were for SC to act alone and the Co-operationists would only secede in conjunction with other states.
They were knocked flat. The SC Co-operationists won in a landslide. In Mississippi, Jefferson Davis and the states rights successor to Calhoun, ran for governor and lost. Mississippi Unionists generally were at about 60% of the vote. Cobb was elected governor of GA. It was an embarassing failure and rejection of the Fire-eater and secessionist view. It was also the last triumph for the Whigs and Unionists in the South.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
Maybe? Who exactly said what you put in quotes in 1854 (or 1856 for that matter), and what came of it?
This is all very well known stuff, John. I am not where I have a large collection of books available to me, but it is in every acount of the 1856 election you will find, I imagine, and it was particularly directed at John C. Fremont, the Republican candidate in that year. It was a common tactic used in the elections of the time, and you can probably find it used over a 40 year period. You will find, for example, that Grant tells you in his memoirs that he voted for Buchanan because of these threats, hoping that the election of a Democrat would give the country 4 years to calm down.
If you want my opinion on why the the people of the Deep South States seceded, I would guess that a majority of them came to be worried about what a Republican administration would do to protect them from anti-slavery violence (among other issues). ...
It is obvious they were worried, and that slavery is at the bottom of everything they were worried about. No one has doubted that, and I have several times acknowledged they "felt" that way. So what? That is not a justification for their actions, only an explanation of their mindset.
But your post does not address my question in any way. Why does the election of a Republican President (and a fairly moderate one at that as Republicans went) cause SC to secede three months before he even reaches office? Six other states to go before Lincoln even reached Washington? As I noted, the Republicans would be a minority in both houses of the Congress in 1861-62, and the Supreme Court was knotted up evenly (and had consistently supported Southern slave property rights).
I do not wish to see talk of what the South imagined or feared or was led to hysteria about. Get down to reality. What, if anything, had been DONE by these Republicans they were so afraid of that actually justifies such an act as secession, followed by the use of seizure through threat, use of force, and finally the use of violence?
If nothing, then what justifies the extreme haste of these states to declare secession, and their refusal to follow normal, legal, peaceful means to their goal?
Trice- couldn't agree with you more regarding the fire-eaters. Not all of the planter class were fire-eaters however, not even a majority I would say. But by adamantly opposing any compromise on slavery and dealings with the Republicans, as well as sabotaging Douglas's bid to the Democratic nomination, they did in fact set their shoulders to the stone of secession. And so they were essentially led to rebellion as easily as a circus bear with a ring in his nose is led to the arena. And so led by the extremists, they themselves led the South. A painting by Brueggels comes to mind, a procession of the blind falling into a ditch. regards, ed
Not quite blind. You can find many Southerners, particularly in the upper South, who felt like Lee that there was absolutely no "right of secession", that it was treason, that it was revolution, etc. The idea of the Fire-Eaters, apparently, was that their idea didn't matter. They would arrange a situation where choices were so stark that other considerations would lead to what they wanted. So they arranged a war, although they clearly did not expect the result they got.
Very clever, these fire-eaters. And the abolitionists and political opponents played right into their hands.
Quote:
So they arranged a war, although they clearly did not expect the result they got.
Can you spell aristocratic arrogance?
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. 
Linear Mode
