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.
Yes, those are pretty standard American beliefs. I fail to see the clash you are describing. Please detail it.
If the people of a portion of a political society feel that continued membership in that polictical society would endanger their "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness," and thus, they withdraw their consent, then the ideals clash.
But not entirely, since Lincoln and other northerners declared that, if they would return to their allegiance to the Union, they could keep their slaves in peace (and thus, these Northerners declared the primacy of loyalty to the Union over any philosophical commitment to the idea that "all men are created equal.")
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
So? Some of them wanted only to live in peace. Some of them wanted to trade with the South. Some of them just didn't care about the whole mess. Who are you to select only a few of the whole to count?
Living in peace and trade could have been easily achieved. All it would have taken was meeting with the commissioners from South Carolina or the Confederate States, and discussing the settlement of difficulties involved in the separation.
Unfortunately, maintaining the Union (which is certainly a goal with a certain jingoistic air) was more important than peace, or even self-government.
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've often considered the 'why" of Secession in the 1860's instead of earlier. It would seem to me that any real chance at Secession would have had a better chance if conducted in the decade prior... upon further review it seems as though Brown was the obvious flash point; however the Nat Tanner slave Rebellion also seemed to have had a similar effect upon the slaveowner psyche... but there was no secession fever... am I onto something or am I missing something obvious?
For the CS; Brown was the flashpoint & Ft Sumter the Union flashpoint... Yet the more I look at things I see more & more possible flashpoints. As though the soon to be CS was looking for that point of no return and at the same time the Union seemed to be bending over backward to compromise... until Ft Sumter. Again my reading is less than complete on the subject.
I have been reading Buchanan's Secession & Gordons Secession, State & Liberty I just returned Lences work on Calhoun do any of you have any further works to suggest on the subject?
__________________ 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
I've often considered the 'why" of Secession in the 1860's instead of earlier. It would seem to me that any real chance at Secession would have had a better chance if conducted in the decade prior... upon further review it seems as though Brown was the obvious flash point; however the Nat Tanner slave Rebellion also seemed to have had a similar effect upon the slaveowner psyche... but there was no secession fever... am I onto something or am I missing something obvious?
Quote:
Originally Posted by johan_steele
For the CS; Brown was the flashpoint & Ft Sumter the Union flashpoint... Yet the more I look at things I see more & more possible flashpoints. As though the soon to be CS was looking for that point of no return and at the same time the Union seemed to be bending over backward to compromise... until Ft Sumter. Again my reading is less than complete on the subject.
I have been reading Buchanan's Secession & Gordons Secession, State & Liberty I just returned Lences work on Calhoun do any of you have any further works to suggest on the subject?
Johan, good question, but let me wrestle with it a bit. "Successful" secession could be defined as succeeding in getting the majority of the people of a State or States to support the idea of independence. I would argue that gaining popular approval of the idea before Harper's Ferry and associated events was not possible. The latent Unionism of the South wouldn't allow it. People in the South still had faith that the controversies could be worked out. The introduction of violence (and, to a lesser extent, the pending changes to the US tariff structure) were necessary to get the majority of the people to support independence. What was missing in 1831 was overt official and widespread Northern support for Nat Turner. Some of the more radical Southerners tried to tie Nat Turner’s revolt to nascent Northern Abolitionism (i.e. the publication of the Liberator), but most Northerners in 1831 considered Garrison to be something of a kook, and there was no evidence that I have seen that any Northerner had aided and abetted Turner. Turner’s was an indigenous Southern movement, born of the brutality of the system. If by "real chance at Secession," you mean making it stand, you are probably right. The decade of the 1850's strengthened the Northern States vis-à-vis the South and gave the Northern States relatively greater power (in terms of population, industrial capacity, etc.) to defeat a Southern independence movement, once it was tried in 1860. On the other hand, waiting a decade more, might have seen a more industrialized South. Also, if the Southern States were smart in planning ahead, then the Southern States would have been in a better position to make it stick if tried. They could have done this by engaging in a decade of disciplined non-intercourse with the North. This might have slowed the relative economic growth of the North, by not buying Northern goods, and thus slowing the relative population growth of the North, compared to the South, as more immigrants moved to the South in pursuit of jobs. Also, and the States could have spent real money on building up the military means (i.e. States purchasing more weapons of a more modern make), and by serious revamping of the militia system in the Southern States. Southerners had half-heartedly tried to patronize Southern businesses and not patronize Northern, but the efforts lacked conviction and discipline. Some Southerners, in the wake of Harper’s Ferry, were talking about non-intercourse again. If it had been serious and disciplined for a decade, it might have given the South a better position if secession had been tried a few years later than 1860. But, then we are back to question one: what would have caused the majority of Southerners to embrace independence in, say, 1870? If there had been no antislavery violence (no Anthony Burns, no Bleeding Kansas, no Harper’s Ferry, no protection of antislavery murderers, no Helper book advocating slitting slaveowners throats, no affirmations that Northerners had a moral obligation to aid slave insurrections), and a Republican had been elected and served his term in office and the sky didn’t fall, then Southerners might have seen that there was no reason to panic. The works you mentioned are probably the best in the topic. I would suggest that you read William C. Davis’ book A Fire-eater Remembers. It explores what Rhett was writing and saying before secession (and after). 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
If the people of a portion of a political society feel that continued membership in that polictical society would endanger their "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness," and thus, they withdraw their consent, then the ideals clash.
So any minority can, at any time, decide they are going to opt out? Just because they "feel" like it?
This is Anarchy, not a republican form of government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
But not entirely, since Lincoln and other northerners declared that, if they would return to their allegiance to the Union, they could keep their slaves in peace (and thus, these Northerners declared the primacy of loyalty to the Union over any philosophical commitment to the idea that "all men are created equal.")
What is your point here? Lincoln said throughout 1861 that he was trying to maintain the Union. The rest of the country had made no attempt to legally emancipate slaves in existing slave states. The North went to war to maintain the Union, in response to violent assault by the secessionists -- not to emancipate slaves. Lincoln's declared view was to control the expansion of slavery into new territory, trusting that the larger situation would be resolved in the long term.
There is no doubt at all about this, it is well known -- and you act as if you have just pulled some rabbit out of the hat with your answer. The action of Lincoln and others is simply what should be expected. It was the South that went to war over slavery -- not the North.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
Living in peace and trade could have been easily achieved. All it would have taken was meeting with the commissioners from South Carolina or the Confederate States, and discussing the settlement of difficulties involved in the separation.
Come on, now. The above is just like all secessionist rhetoric, whether by Southerners or any of the other groups that talked about it through the history of the country. This one is based on the assumption that nothing the Southern secessionists did should be examined critically, that all their claims and actions were perfect, and that all others must bow down and abase themselves to secessionist desires.
Before you get to this point, you will have to explain all the various violent and abusive acts -- illegal even under the laws of the states themselves -- that the secessionists participated in from December to March. "All it would have taken" was a Confederacy that was willing to forsake hubris and violence, to act legally to attain what they claimed was a legal right. But they did not, and thus the fault lies with them.
Why would any President meet with the representatives of groups that were currently beseiging his people, had seized US property and revenue, had threatened them with armed force, were actively attempting to subborn other parts of his people and raising large forces to attack him?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
Unfortunately, maintaining the Union (which is certainly a goal with a certain jingoistic air) was more important than peace, or even self-government.
More talk of the apologists for secession, who are unwilling to ever look critically at bad Southern behavior, IMHO. You seem to feel anything the Southerners wanted was OK, no matter what, and anyone who did not agree with them was evil simply because they did not knuckle under to Southern demands. If you want to toss around terms like "jingoistic", you will find plenty of that in the actions and rhetoric of the Fire-Eaters long before Lincoln came to Washington in 1861. I am sure you know this; you just appear to follow the policy of ignoring what you do not wish to acknowledge.
I've often considered the 'why" of Secession in the 1860's instead of earlier. It would seem to me that any real chance at Secession would have had a better chance if conducted in the decade prior... upon further review it seems as though Brown was the obvious flash point; however the Nat Tanner slave Rebellion also seemed to have had a similar effect upon the slaveowner psyche... but there was no secession fever... am I onto something or am I missing something obvious?
For the CS; Brown was the flashpoint & Ft Sumter the Union flashpoint... Yet the more I look at things I see more & more possible flashpoints. As though the soon to be CS was looking for that point of no return and at the same time the Union seemed to be bending over backward to compromise... until Ft Sumter. Again my reading is less than complete on the subject.
I don't think Harpers Ferry was the flashpoint for the South. It was certainly a major incident, and it was the subject of much propaganda on both sides. But the Fire-Eaters had debated this the year before, and had come to the conclusion that the election of a Republican Senator would be the flashpoint that would allow them to secede.
As to what actually happened, the Federal government sent armed force to arrest the John Brown group and then turned them over to Virginia for trial and execution. They did not have to turn them over. What you have here is clear proof of the Federal government fullfilling responsibilities.
Lincoln on John Brown:
"John Brown's effort was peculiar. It was not a slave insurrection. It was an attempt by white men to get up a revolt among slaves, in which the slaves refused to participate. In fact, it was so absurd that the slaves with all their ignorance saw plainly enough that it could not succeed. That affair in its philosophy corresponds with the many attempts related in history at the assassination of kings and emperors. An enthusiast broods over the oppression of the people until he fancies himself commissioned by heaven to liberate them. He ventures the attempt which ends in little else than his own execution. Orsini's attempt on Louis Napoleon, and John Brown's attempt at Harper's Ferry were, in their philosophy, precisely the same. The eagerness to cast blame on old England in the one case and on New England in the other, does not disprove the sameness of the two things." February 27, 1860 Cooper Union Address
Many Republican figures across the North repudiated Brown's violence while also avowing their support for an end to slavery. The Governor in Iowa that John Taylor refers to in connection with the extradition of Coppoc was one who did both.
Hermann Melville (an obscure writer at the time) saw Brown not as a cause of the war, but as a sign it was coming. The imagery is of Brown being hung with a hood, his beard streaming out from underneath it.
The Portent by Herman Melville, 1859
Hanging from the beam,
Slowing swaying (such the law),
Gaunt the shadow on your green,
Shenandoah!
The cut is on the crown
(Lo, John Brown),
And the stabs shall heal no more.
Hidden in the cap
Is the anguish none can draw;
So your future veils its face,
Shenandoah!
But the streaming beard is shown
(Weird John Brown),
The meteor of the war.
Johan, good question, but let me wrestle with it a bit. "Successful" secession could be defined as succeeding in getting the majority of the people of a State or States to support the idea of independence. ...
John, There are a number of reasons that what you outline would become more difficult, not less.
The natural dwindling of slavery was going to continue in some places. For example, DE already had more free blacks than slaves in one of its 3 counties (Wilmington) and slavery there was on its last legs. In MD, the number of slaves in the state had declined in every single census since 1790; there were 25000 free blacks in Baltimore; and MD was a net exporter of slaves, making a nice profit but following a trend towards extinction.
Economic patterns were also changing drastically. Where KY was a very Southern state in 1850, it was very different in 1860. The reasons were the new settlers coming down the Ohio from the East and Europe, as well as the new railheads at the towns on the north bank of the Ohio. Where Ohio Valley trade used to go downriver to New Orleans to get to NY, it was now much cheaper and quicker to send it across the Ohio and thence by RR or canal to NYC. Connections and attitudes were shifting rapidly.
Also, costs of slaves continued to rise. A gulf was developing between rich and poor whites, which I am sure you can see by reading Rhett. He was corresponding with Pollard about this in 1858, at least. One of his goals in reopening the Atlantic slave trade was to increase the supply and bring the price down, thereby creating more slave owners to avoid the class conflict that was developing. Of course, states like VA and MD were opposed to this, because they were making money selling slaves to the Deep South.
This gulf was obvious in the work of Helper, a North Carolinian. He had merely done economic analysis to support his contention that the planter class was dominating and oppressing the poorer classes of white, causing their land to be worth less, stultifying growth, etc. Since he was a Southerner, that was a heinous crime in the South. So they banned his book. But the record of NC on both sides indicates there was already a substantial divide in that state.
TN is another example. It clearly had strong Unionist elements, particularly in the East. Nashville, formerly as isolated as any major city in the country for months at a time by weather, was now connected to both North and South by RR. Where before 1850 I think they would have been securely Southern, they were not so much that in 1860, and in 1870 might have been less so.
MO was another state, like KY, showing more and more connection to the North. As further immigration developed, I think that trend would have continued, and slavery was not noticeably succesful in most of MO. In short, the interests of the Border States were already diverging from those further South.
On industry, the South was largely disadvantaged by resources of geography and attitude. Rivers were slow-moving, and population was scattered. Economic conditions did not support the RR connections that could exist in the North (where, for instance, it is said there was no point in Ohio in 1860 more than 25 miles from a RR).
In addition, Southerners chose not to invest capital in manufacturing for the most part. It did not go with their ideas, and they preferred to leave such tasks to those grubby Northerners. As a result, they did not have the skilled trades required, nor the capital to invest, nor experienced managers, nor the class of men who would work for wages -- an idea Southerners reviled.
Militarily, I have little doubt the Confederacy had a better chance in 1850 because of the rapidly changing environment. By 1870, I think the South would have stood worse against the developing North, because the gap was widening and technology making the use of Northern might easier was becoming more available.
Secession, I think, was an attempt to escape from change, to move backwards into a future that more resembled the past. It was probably doomed whether or not the Civil War happened.
Secession, I think, was an attempt to escape from change, to move backwards into a future that more resembled the past. It was probably doomed whether or not the Civil War happened.
Exactly sentiments, sir. Thank you.
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
So any minority can, at any time, decide they are going to opt out? Just because they "feel" like it?
No, but a State can. You see, the people of the States created the Federal government by ratifying the Constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
This is Anarchy, not a republican form of government.
Nope, it is called self-government. It happens all the time. You should check it out.
Of course, one could examine the reverse proposition. If the people of a State (or minority of States) feel that they are being oppressed, and that the oppression is intolerable, then according to your view, they can appeal to the majority to stop the oppression. But ultimately, if the majority insists on the oppressive behavior, the minority just have to tolerate the intolerable. That is a view the Founders would have found odd.
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
No, but a State can. You see, the people of the States created the Federal government by ratifying the Constitution.Nope, it is called self-government. It happens all the time. You should check it out.
?? Actually, here in the US we have decided that a state cannot. This was a de facto result of the Civil War the Southern attempt at secession caused, and apparently a de jure result of the legal decisions and such made in the wake of the Civil War. The most widely cited case being White v. Texas (also White v. other states) where the Chief Justice wrote the majority opinion and presented the view that the "more perfect Union" of the Constitution was necessarily the "perpetual Union" of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union" since it was the same United States in both cases.
Also, "self-government" does not mean "right of secession".
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
Of course, one could examine the reverse proposition. If the people of a State (or minority of States) feel that they are being oppressed, and that the oppression is intolerable, then according to your view, they can appeal to the majority to stop the oppression. But ultimately, if the majority insists on the oppressive behavior, the minority just have to tolerate the intolerable. That is a view the Founders would have found odd.
John, the Founders believed in the "natural right of revolution" as a remedy for such a condition. So do I. So did Abraham Lincoln. That is not the "right of secession". But the Confederates steadfastly maintained they were NOT using the "natural right of revolution" and insisted they had a Constitutional "right of secession" that had never existed before.
It is debatable whether or not they would have been found to have such a right. You are entitled to have an opinion on it, even a strong one. But legally that is fairly meaningless. Only the Supreme Court has the jurisdiction on this matter -- and that body ended up indicating Southern secession was unconstitutional and illegal.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
