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.
I've seen this mentioned before. I'm just now reading Johnny Reb's War: Battlefield and Homefront by David Williams.
In this work it is claimed that "before the Confederacy came into being .... More than half of the South's white population, most of whom owned no slaves, opposed immediate secession." That state conventions dominated by slaveholders took their states out of the Union.
He uses Georgia for an example. "Of Georgia's one million residents, nearly half were slaves. The great majority of the state's white inhabitants engaged directly in Agriculture, but only half owned three or more acres of land. Many of the rest were tenant farmers, sharecroppers, or day laborers, all working land owned by someone else. A majority of landowners also owned slaves, but two-thirds held fewer than ten. Most of these small slaveholders worked the fields along with their slaves .... Only the planters (men who owned twenty slaves or more) and their families benefited significantly from an economic system based primarily on landholding, cotton, and slavery. This group made up just three percent of the population."
In an election on January 2, 1861, "The popular vote was close, with a slight majority of 42,744 to 41,717 opposing immediate secession."
At the secession convention the resolution for secession was passed. "While only a third of Georgia's electorate owned slaves, 86 percent of the convention delegates were slaveholders."
Food for thought! What do you all think?
__________________ -
"It was a very peculiar time." - Franklin D. Cossitt
Ancestors in USA Army: 6th IA Inf, 11th IL Cav, 1st AL Cav; 122nd NY Inf; 6th MI Cav; 35th MA Inf; 100th IL Inf; 1st CO Inf/Cav; 22nd IN Inf
That pretty much tells the story, sam. The slaveholding aristocracy was the power of the land, and of course, uinderstood and represented their own interests. However they conveniently spoke for the 'South', and in a manner of speaking that was true- they ran the South. Stil, their interests were not necessarily the interests of their neighbors and fellow citizens.
Too, the secession of Georgia was no landslide; though a victory for the fire-eaters and Southern nationalists, the convention vote was close: 166- 130. So not near all of those slave owning aristocrats were in favor of Southern independence from the Union. The Unionists had a great champion of course in the political giant, Alec Stephens, who spoke vociferously for patience and Union. Both the convention and popular vote show how deeply ties to the Union remained in Georgia at the time.
And no, despite what Southern neonationalists might think, none of this information comes from abolitionist pamphlets. But I do suppose there are Skinhead websites where such things can be found. 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'
Gentlemen:
I've long been convinced that there was considerable hanky-panky in the voting. There as been no good proof, however, of how widespread it was or if, in fact, it did more than add a few points to the secession side. It would be interesting if someone far more inquisitive and gutsy would analyze the votes -- state by state, county by county, precinct by precinct; crosschecked with the census, eligibility laws, etc.
A definitive look may never be done -- there are too many variables: slave population for one. I would suspect that in districts where slaves outnumbered the white population (no matter how many were slaveowners), even non-slaveowners would be easily frightened by talk of freedmen. I also suppose that, had a secret ballot been the norm, there would have been fewer secession votes.
Oh yes. The deck was stacked. Whether that made THE difference is a question I'd like to see answered.
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
I've seen this mentioned before. I'm just now reading Johnny Reb's War: Battlefield and Homefront by David Williams.
In this work it is claimed that "before the Confederacy came into being .... More than half of the South's white population, most of whom owned no slaves, opposed immediate secession." That state conventions dominated by slaveholders took their states out of the Union.
He uses Georgia for an example. "Of Georgia's one million residents, nearly half were slaves. The great majority of the state's white inhabitants engaged directly in Agriculture, but only half owned three or more acres of land. Many of the rest were tenant farmers, sharecroppers, or day laborers, all working land owned by someone else. A majority of landowners also owned slaves, but two-thirds held fewer than ten. Most of these small slaveholders worked the fields along with their slaves .... Only the planters (men who owned twenty slaves or more) and their families benefited significantly from an economic system based primarily on landholding, cotton, and slavery. This group made up just three percent of the population."
In an election on January 2, 1861, "The popular vote was close, with a slight majority of 42,744 to 41,717 opposing immediate secession."
At the secession convention the resolution for secession was passed. "While only a third of Georgia's electorate owned slaves, 86 percent of the convention delegates were slaveholders."
Food for thought! What do you all think?
Sam, the key phrase is "immediate secession." On January 2nd, many were opposed to secession at that point in time. Many of the moderate leaders wanted time to allow for some form of compromise to patch the Union up again. If no suitable compromise was forthcoming, then some of these men would favor secession, in that eventuality. Others insisted that for secession to be viable, multiple States had to secede together (what I call "hold hands as you leap" secessionists). But, these groups were not opposed to secession in any and every eventuality, just not as of January 2nd. The number of unconditional unionists in the South was, I would say, very small, yet Dr. Williams implies that secessionism was a minority.
Dr. Williams arrives at his surprising statistic by lumping everybody but immediate secessionists into one group and pitting them against immediate secessionists. There were, however, numerous shades of gray.
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
John, this is true. However, as of 2 January, '61, the provocation- that is, the election of a 'Black Republican' president- had been done. So it was time for the Southern States to decide what to do. Though there were many shades of gray, there was but one clear cut question demanding but one answer- Do we leave the Union or stay?
Some, such as the crazies in South Carolina, could answer this immediately; others, like Alexander Stephens, would say no, mean no, but only go along when it's state decided so. Others would never. Unionism was very strong, Southern nationalist feeling was as well. Sometimes it was hand in hand. At this point, shades of gray were coming to definition. It is interesting to think of what could have happened if more time had elapsed before Ft Sumter forced the hard decision on everyone.
__________________ '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'
It is interesting to think of what could have happened if more time had elapsed before Ft Sumter forced the hard decision on everyone.
Hey, Ed. It is also interesting to speculate on Davis's thought processes at the time.
"There is no better time than now to take the fort. We'll risk war, but we'll have Virginia and, of course, North Carolina. And this before the US congress assembles and Lincoln is still busy with creating an administration. Besides, taking the fort will demonstrate our resolve to our friends in Europe and gain their support."
Kinda like what Lee must have thought before invading Pennsylvania. This is the last, best chance we have. Roll the dice!
But I digress. I'm of the opinion that Sumter upset the applecart. Without that clearly outrageous act of war, the states remaining in the Union would have dithered and Lincoln wouldn't have had the support to "coerce" the seceding states back into the union. He'd have been forced to negotiate for apportionment of national debt and recompense for federal property siezed. The payment exacted of each state would have resulted in some fairly heavy levies on the people of each state -- and can we expect the citizens to roll over for that?
First, the other four states would not (or probably not) joined the confederacy. Second, the iffier states would eventually reconsider their decisions to leave. (The start-up administration and legislature were very definitely aimed for self-destruction from day one.) Finally, the Confederacy was shakey from the get-go. It couldn't function as a body in war time -- how much worse would it have been when there wasn't the common focus of an enemy?
Nope. The Confederacy was a bad idea made worse by its implementation. We have, to this day, complaints about the results of that decision. Hey. If it don't stink, don't stir it. "It" was stirred and it stunk beyond all expectation. So be it.
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
John, this is true. However, as of 2 January, '61, the provocation- that is, the election of a 'Black Republican' president- had been done. So it was time for the Southern States to decide what to do. Though there were many shades of gray, there was but one clear cut question demanding but one answer- Do we leave the Union or stay?
Some, such as the crazies in South Carolina, could answer this immediately; others, like Alexander Stephens, would say no, mean no, but only go along when it's state decided so. Others would never. Unionism was very strong, Southern nationalist feeling was as well. Sometimes it was hand in hand. At this point, shades of gray were coming to definition. It is interesting to think of what could have happened if more time had elapsed before Ft Sumter forced the hard decision on everyone.
ewc, I generally agree. Just to echo, the attitudes continued to evolve from November 7th 1860 to early May 1861. Virginia voted not to secede on April 4th. By April 17th, the Virginia Convention reversed itself, and opted convincingly for secession. The Lincoln administration's policy was key in that reversal.
In the earlier cases (e.g. Georgia) the changes was gradual. The guidance from Springfield not to compromise on anything, the failures of the Committee of 33, the Crittenden Compromise measures etc. all undermined the position of the Co-operationists, and Unionists in the Deep South. If a Unionist or Co-operationist advocated waiting until a compromise had been worked out, and the word from Washington was that Republicans were insisting that they had nothing to compromise on, then the moderate (i.e. Unionist) position was be seen as increasingly untenable, and over time lost both supporters and advocates.
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
John- As I understand it, the Republicans and the administration meant to toe the line on slavery extension into the territories, but that all other issues were basically open to discussion. Still, that was the leverage used by the fire-eaters and extremists to pry the Southern States lose from the Union.
As to the Virginia Convention, by 17 April, Ft Sumter's surrender had occurred, and the delegates had reacted to that and Lincoln's call for troops. It goes to your point of conditional Unionism, however these couple days forced that hard decision down everyone's throat. The fire-eaters were trying like anything to get a driving point like Ft Sumter before the people, that is why they pushed so hard for it. They were fairly confident that once the issue of war was raised- and before too much time elapsed, Southern folks would look Southward, to their kindred spirits. It goes to show that the longer the issue remained undecided, the longer the latent Unionism of the Southern people could endure and grow stronger. Secession was an emotional point- emotion would be needed to carry the day for the extremists.
Ft Sumter was the wedge, and that wedge struck Virginia hard. It is true that Virginia voted decidedly for secession over Sumter. But not equally throughout the state- Tidewater went for secession overwhelmingly, but the western mountainous areas reacted entirely the other way. In fact, this wedge ended up cracking Virginia like the secessionists had cracked the Union. Out went the western counties, to stay with the Union, and never looked back. Of course this could occur because West Virginia was juxtaposed to the Northern States and could receive immediate protection, unlike the Unionist Texans and mountain peoples of Tennessee, North Carolina, and Arkansas.
And yet, the mystical union with the South was not strong enough to induce all the slaveholding states to join the Confederacy. Four never left the Union, and Virginia was cleft in twain. But for Ft Sumter, could be that that secessionist feeling may have had time to ran its' course and recede a bit, giving southern Unionism a chance to settle in a bit and grow stronger.
__________________ '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'
ewc, I generally agree with you. One thing you didn't mention was how the issue of taxation within the Commonwealth helped split the Union. Virginia raised most of its money by taxing property. Tools were taxed as property, but slaves under 12 were exempt. This shifted the burden of taxation from the east, to the west. On March 18, 1861, the Westerners started talking about taxing young slaves (younger than 12) as other property. Willey of Monongalia County, Clemens of Ohio County, and Brown of Preston opened that can of worms. When easterners balked, westerners became more strident. There was even talk of a quid pro quo, in which westerners would vote for secession if easterners would agree to tax slaves at birth. The westerners demanded tax relief, and eventually, when Sumter happened, the Commonwealth split as much along tax relief lines as slavery lines. 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
John- thanks for the enlightenment. When it comes to taxation, all I know is that I am adamantly, unhesitatingly, and unqualifiedly against it!!
__________________ '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'
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Southern Unionists or Anti-Secession Southerners? 
regards, ed
Linear Mode
