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.
First, my appologies for the typing mistake. That is the Compromise of 1850, not the Missouri Compromise.
I suspected as much. That is why I asked the question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
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.[snip]
I acknowledge all that you posted. Secessionists tried in 1850-52 and failed to garner popular support for secession.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
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.
I know about the 1856 statements. But you had said 1854. I have not seen any reference to secession tied to the 1854 elections.
In 1856, Henry Wise asked all the Southern governors to meet to discuss what to do if Fremont was elected. The Governors of SC and NC showed up, and they adjourned without having done anything.
What do these two periods (1850-1852 and 1856) have in common that might help explain why secessionism was not (yet) popular? They both preceded Harper's Ferry and associated events. And the 1850-52 preceded Bleeding Kansas in its entirety, while 1856 preceded most of the Kansas violence. Thus, violence was not yet the hallmark of the discourse of the radicals (on both sides, I must admit).
I believe, from reading the words of the people at the time, that the threat of anti-slavery violence (and the northern reaction to it) helped render secessionism into a majority position by 1860-61.
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
It is obvious they were worried, and that slavery is at the bottom of everything they were worried about.
Tim, that is not true, but that is also a separate debate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
But your post does not address my question in any way.
I suggest you go back and read again the materials I presented. The passing of the army, navy and federal level police into the control of a President, of a party whose office-holding members (not just some radical fringe) had already sworn they would not enforce the law, and would indeed use their office to thwart the enforcement of the law, was what made Lincoln's election the last straw. The Union, under such a party, was unsafe, for Southern slaveholders and nonslaveholders. That is what finally bridged the gap between these two groups. Folks like Rhett and Yancey had been in favor of secession for years. But they could win the support of the majority of the Southern yeomen until the events of October 1859 to November 1860. If a State secedes before the inauguration of a Republican, the chances that it might be peaceful were greater. Once a Republican was commander in chief, the chances of peace went down substantially, as events proved.
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
I know about the 1856 statements. But you had said 1854. I have not seen any reference to secession tied to the 1854 elections.
In 1854, the Republican Party was first organized. I am unsure at what point the secessionists started applying this threat to them specifically, which is why I put the 1854 date in parentheses with a question mark. They may have started that early, or in 1855, but they were definitely doing so in the election of 1856 as noted. They had been using it against various Whig, Free-soil, and other elements that ended up being amalgamated into the Republican Party at this time, and the threat may have just flowed from one to the other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
In 1856, Henry Wise asked all the Southern governors to meet to discuss what to do if Fremont was elected. The Governors of SC and NC showed up, and they adjourned without having done anything.
Wise was not noted as a secessionist at that time, and was spending his campaign efforts for governor on crushing the Know Nothings, which he did quite effectively in VA. NC was also not strongly secessionist, and might well not have gone out in 1860 if VA had stayed in. SC, of course, was strongly (we might almost say maniacly) secessionist and was not regarded as emotionaly stable on the issue by other states in the early 1850s. Doing nothing is what you would expect from those three in 1856.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
What do these two periods (1850-1852 and 1856) have in common that might help explain why secessionism was not (yet) popular? They both preceded Harper's Ferry and associated events. And the 1850-52 preceded Bleeding Kansas in its entirety, while 1856 preceded most of the Kansas violence. Thus, violence was not yet the hallmark of the discourse of the radicals (on both sides, I must admit).
I believe, from reading the words of the people at the time, that the threat of anti-slavery violence (and the northern reaction to it) helped render secessionism into a majority position by 1860-61.
I think you are putting the cart before the horse here. The threats of violence from the secessionists -- as well as the propaganda designed to play upon fears of Abolitionists -- ratcheted up in reaction to other events.
The major event here is the political turmoil and the creation of the Republican Party. The Whigs were falling apart by the 1852 national elections, and the Know Nothings had their brief rise and flameout (largely an anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic issue party). The 1856 election marked the sudden and surprising rise to power of the new Republican Party and the end of the impetus of the Know Nothings. IIRR, the Republicans had about 92 of some 235 seats in Congress. This is a massive achievement for a party only two years old.
The Democrats had run their usual "dough-faced man" candidate, a Northerner to front for a party dominated by the South. Buchanan, closely associated with Southern issues (he is one of the 3 ambassadors involved in that embarassing incident, the Ostend Manifesto, for example), got them the Presidency and held this rising party at bay. The Know Nothings were clearly on the decline after this -- made particularly obvious by the campaign of Henry A. Wise in VA -- and it was obvious the future held a 2 party system again.
If you look at the 1856 election and break out results, you'll see the Democrats lose if you reverse PA and IL. Buchanan was from PA. For 1860, he was not a candidate, and his popularity had waned over many of the controversial issues of his time. The Republicans selected Lincoln and worked hard on both those states. Democrats saw that this was likely, and it became more obvious with the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858. Even if they could win the Presidency could win in 1860, the margin would be very, very close.
There was a specific difference between Deep South and Upper South Fire-Eaters. Men like Rhett of SC and Yancy of AL and Wigfall of TX (also known as the "third Senator from South Carolina" during his brief time in Washington) were ready to secede at any time. Their great difficulty was to get the rest of the states to go with them. When a rising young Fire-Eater like Pryor of VA could stand up to Yancy in open debate in 1858, Yancy asked what would make Virginia (and Pryor) agree the time had come. The election of a Republican President, said Pryor.
So what do you do if you are Rhett or Yancy or one of their followers? You would feel you had been told where the key to the door of secession was. From 1858 on, there is a definite and deliberate attempt to split the Democratic Party and throw the election to the Republicans by at least some Fire-Eaters. Pollard of VA, who would edit the Richmond Examiner during the war and write the bible of the Lost Cause argument after it, corresponded with Rhett of Charleston about it in 1858. (They also wrote of the need to reopen the Atlantic Slave Trade to drive slave prices down and create more slave owners, thus avoiding the creation of a Northern style free labor class in the South, if it matters.) When the Charleston Democratic Convention comes in 1860, they fracture the party, rendering it into something that could not possibly win the election. How happy they seem to have been!
The threats and scare tactics increased, but they did not suddenly appear. What you are seeing is the determined effort of a relative few to get the majority in the South to go the way they wished. Rather than working for a peaceful solution, they sought a radical breakup of the Union that they saw as benefitting their goals.
Actually, Fire-Eaters like Rhett spoke up in the SC Convention on secession to insist there was absolutely no problem on the tariff, that every member of the SC congressional delegation had voted for it,
"every member of the SC congressional delegation had voted for it"
Where on earth did you get this?
The vote of Representatives...of future Confederate States...was 39 to One against the tariff (Morrill Tariff, 1860).
The One was from Tennessee.
You got hold of some bum information.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Over in GA, future Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens rose to address the secession convention there on the tariff. He insisted it was a non-issue, that the current tariff was absolutely as low as the South had wanted it to be.
Yes, key word- current tariff.
I was speaking of the one on the horizon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
And since the Republicans did not control either house of Congress after the 1860 election, how was any objectionable tariff going to get passed?
It passed the House by a 104-64 margin with some help from Northern Democrats.
Northern Demos being split on the issue.
The anti-tariff faction in the Senate won by only a 25-23 margin (June 1860).
30-28 if you count "paired-off" votes.
~~~
Key changes in the Senate due to 1860 election and other misc. reasons-
Gains for Pro-Tariff faction:
Oregon
Baker (Republican) takes seat October 1860 (voted for tariff Feb. 1861)
Indiana
Fitch (Democrat) who voted against the tariff...
...loses election to Lane (Republican)
Lane seated 4 March 1861.
Ohio
Pugh (Democrat) who voted against the tariff...
...loses election to Chase (Republican) who is appointed to Lincoln's cabinet and
in turn replaced by Sherman (Republican) March 1861.
Kansas
...seats Two Republican Senators April 1861
Illinois
Douglas (Democrat) dies in office June 1861...
...replaced by Browning (Republican)
President of Senate (in case tie-breaking vote needed)
Breckinridge (Democrat) replaced by...
...Hamlin (Republican)
Gains of Anti-Tariff faction:
Kentucky
Crittenden (Third Party) who did not vote on the issue...
...loses election to Breckinridge (Democrat)
Breckinridge seated 4 March 1861.
With this trend how would the South continue to win on the subject?
Tim, that is not true, but that is also a separate debate.
John, the apologists for secession, which you have declared yourself, always say this. It is a quibble. The SC secession statement makes this quite clear, as does the debate in their convention about it. Start your separate debate if you wish to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
I suggest you go back and read again the materials I presented. The passing of the army, navy and federal level police into the control of a President, of a party whose office-holding members (not just some radical fringe) had already sworn they would not enforce the law, and would indeed use their office to thwart the enforcement of the law, was what made Lincoln's election the last straw. The Union, under such a party, was unsafe, for Southern slaveholders and nonslaveholders. That is what finally bridged the gap between these two groups. Folks like Rhett and Yancey had been in favor of secession for years. But they could win the support of the majority of the Southern yeomen until the events of October 1859 to November 1860. If a State secedes before the inauguration of a Republican, the chances that it might be peaceful were greater. Once a Republican was commander in chief, the chances of peace went down substantially, as events proved.
John, this is simply an unsupported fiction. There is no evdience to present for it, and never has been. We know for *certain* that the choice the secessionists made led to war. Other courses *might* have led to a war as well, but it is also possible they might have led to a peaceful separation.
"Folks like Rhett and Yancey" had not just been "in favor of secession for years", they had been doing everything in their power for decades to bring it about. They were ecstatic that it had finally come, and they had worked to split the Democratic Party in the *hope* of getting a Republican President elected to get secession turned into a reality. You ignore this in all you present simply because you understand that it is true and do not wish to acknowledge it, IMHO.
"every member of the SC congressional delegation had voted for it"
Where on earth did you get this?
From the statements of Rhett, Keitt, and Meminger in the SC secession convention in December of 1860.
Also, Stephens, the soon-to-be-Confederate-VP addressed the GA legislature 11/14/1860 (after Lincoln's election):
[Mr. Stephens:]The next evil that my friend complained of, was the Tariff. Well, let us look at that for a moment. About the time I commenced noticing public matters, this question was agitating the country almost as fearfully as the Slave question now is. In 1832, when I was in college, South Carolina was ready to nullify or secede from the Union on this account. And what have we seen? The tariff no longer distracts the public councils. Reason has triumphed. The present tariff was voted for by Massachusetts and South Carolina. The lion and the lamb lay down together-- every man in the Senate and House from Massachusetts and South Carolina, I think, voted for it, as did my honorable friend himself. And if it be true, to use the figure of speech of my honorable friend, that every man in the North, that works in iron and brass and wood, has his muscle strengthened by the protection of the government, that stimulant was given by his vote, and I believe every other Southern man. So we ought not to complain of that.
[Mr. Toombs:] That tariff lessened the duties.
[Mr. Stephens:] Yes, and Massachusetts, with unanimity, voted with the South to lessen them, and they were made just as low as Southern men asked them to be, and those are the rates they are now at. If reason and argument, with experience, produced such changes in the sentiments of Massachusetts from 1832 to 1857, on the subject of the tariff, may not like changes be effected there by the same means, reason and argument, and appeals to patriotism on the present vexed question? And who can say that by 1875 or 1890, Massachusetts may not vote with South Carolina and Georgia upon all those questions that now distract the country and threaten its peace and existence? I believe in the power and efficiency of truth, in the omnipotence of truth, and its ultimate triumph when properly wielded. (Applause.)
Following this, you admit that the "current tariff" -- the one in existence in 1860, wasn't the problem and imply that something that *might* have passed into law in the future was a justification for secession.
That "current tariff" was the lowest in the world for a country like the US. It had been in effect since 1857. The proposed Morill Tariff had passed the House in 1860, but the Senate had deliberately delayed the vote until after the election of 1860. It passed the Senate on February 28, 1861, and was signed into law by President Buchanan. Do you think, just maybe, that the reason it passed the Senate might be the absence of senators from the seceding states? If they won't stay in the Union to vote against it, they really have a lot of gall to complain about it passing.
So once again we find that nothing had actually been done on an issue to aggrieve the South (and in fact Northern manufacturers were generally opposed to the Morill Tariff being considered - it was the iron interests of PA and the agricultural interests of the West that favored it). The appologists for secession generally present a "the sky is falling", chicken little view of what Southerners were like I find insulting to believe.
...
With this trend how would the South continue to win on the subject?
...
Now here, I think, lies the core fallacy of all the secession debate, yours as well as that of the secessionists of 1860. Why the heck should the South have to "continue to win on the subject"?
This, my friend, is America. We attempt to govern by consensus. The secessionists demanded that only their way could exist and rejected that concept of government by the people.
But I see once again when we boil down the answer given: the secessionists were like a kid saying he's taking his ball and going home when the game isn't going the way he wants. What is it parents normally say to the spoiled child then? Play nice?
...the secessionists were like a kid saying he's taking his ball and going home when the game isn't going the way he wants.
Minor correction: "he's taking your ball and going home..."
Sorry. Couldn't resist.
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
Four delegates from SC voted against the tariff. Two did not vote or were not present to cast a vote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Following this, you admit that the "current tariff" -- the one in existence in 1860, wasn't the problem and imply that something that *might* have passed into law in the future was a justification for secession.
The South did not like any tariff...
...but, generally, considered the current one to be "liveable."
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Do you think, just maybe, that the reason it passed the Senate might be the absence of senators from the seceding states?
Certainly, that's why its proponents brought it up again.
Whether it was that situation...
...or if there was no secession and the Senators of Southern states were present...
...the advocates of the new tariff would bring it up again whenever they felt they had the votes to win.
(See my previous post about changes in the Senate.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
So once again we find that nothing had actually been done on an issue to aggrieve the South
Tim
The new (Morrill) tariff is specifically mentioned in Georgia's Declaration of Secession.
Here is the South Carolina delegation to the House of Representatives (36th Congress, 1859)-
John McQueen
William Porcher Miles
Lawrence Keitt
Milledge L. Bonham
John D. Ashmore
William W. Boyce
(bottom of third column) http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage...1.db&recNum=78
Rhett and Memimger are not there.
They must be talking about the previous vote on the tariff (1856). The one currently in effect.
As I said. In December of 1860, at the SC Convention on secession, Mr. Keitt rejected the contention that the tariff was a cause for secession, saying that every member of the SC delegation had voted for it. Mr. Rhett, leader of the Fire-Eaters, affirmed his statement. Mr. Meminger, who was actually authoring the secession document, affirmed them both.
Quote:
Originally Posted by battalion
The South did not like any tariff...
...but, generally, considered the current one to be "liveable."
Not true. Southerners generally wanted tariffs to be low, and they wanted them to be even across the board, with no differing rates across the range of affected products. But if you want to imagine they truly wanted no tariffs at all, you will have to explain where they intended to get the money to run the government from.
Note also that the imposition of a tariff was one of the first things the Confederate government did, and Montgomery was swarmed with lobbyists in early 1861 as it was working its' way through the Confederate Congress. Of course, they were then faced with the question of how they were going to pay for their own government, so tariffs seemed a pretty good idea. Particularly the immediate new tariff they imposed on goods from the United States.
Quote:
Originally Posted by battalion
Certainly, that's why its proponents brought it up again.
Whether it was that situation...
...or if there was no secession and the Senators of Southern states were present...
...the advocates of the new tariff would bring it up again whenever they felt they had the votes to win.
(See my previous post about changes in the Senate.)
Yeah. That is the way a representative form of government works. Your point being what, exactly? That you prefer some other form of government?
Oh, yeah -- the proponents didn't bring it up again. Senator R. M. T. Hunter of Virginia had deliberately stalled it off into the lame duck session in 1860 through legislative maneuver. Apparently his idea was to make it an election issue, since "Run Mad Tom" was a secessionist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by battalion
The new (Morrill) tariff is specifically mentioned in Georgia's Declaration of Secession.
Quite a trick. The Georgia Declaration of Secession is dated 1/29/1861. The Morill tariff passed the Senate 2/28/1861. President Buchanan then signed it into law before Lincoln's inauguration. I'd be interested in seeing exactly where you say they specifically mentioned the "The new (Morrill) tariff".
But you are proving my point for me. As I keep saying, the secessionists seceded over what *might* happen, even as they tried to make sure those things they objected to *would* happen. Why? Because the climate of fear and distrust they were creating to get their desires required it. Pretty shabby tactics.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
