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.
A most fascinating discussion, gentlemen, please continue.
An elevated sense of personal honor on both sides certainly seems to have played a significant part in fomenting the violence that was to be. I wonder how much of it was sincere and how much of it was simply using the Southern concept as a mask for baser goals?
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
A most fascinating discussion, gentlemen, please continue.
An elevated sense of personal honor on both sides certainly seems to have played a significant part in fomenting the violence that was to be. I wonder how much of it was sincere and how much of it was simply using the Southern concept as a mask for baser goals?
IMHO, most of the Southerners strongly believed in this concept of personal honor, where a man had to be ready to resent public opposition to his statements or revenge any perceived insult to his "honor". It seems to have been normal to expect a man to be ready at any time to risk his life or limbs for that concept. The "equality" concept that all men could perform any task seems to have gone along with it (leading to much derision of the worth of West Pointers and experienced soldiers in the war).
While this general attitude of high self-worth and combativeness can generally be seen in America at the time, it seems more obvious, more prevalent, and more violent in the South and the frontier West.
It is also a lot more difficult to maintain that attitude in societies with less population pressure. A gentleman as sensitive to insult in New York or Boston or Baltimore or Philadelphia as some were in the Deep South would have spent his whole life on the dueling field, so practicality may have had something to do with the difference.
BTW, I've seen Sumner described as a brilliant orator with an acerbic tongue and absolutely no sense of humor at all. Also as a stereo-typical New England Puritan prig, rigid and absolutist in his sense of his own rightness. Mix that in with this Southern sensitivity to "disrespect" and it is almost a wonder the explosion didn't come sooner.
It must have been difficult for the southern gentleman to avoid insult, given the contemporarily prevalent practice of orators and editors to insult, calumniate, and otherwise fulminate about doggone near everything. I suppose it had to do with what each individual considered personal.
So how did personal insult/disrespect enter into the dispute? I can see where the Garrison-tyoes were nettlesome; I haven't divined the personal affront.
I'm leaning a bit on the side of a code of honor trampled, but I do have to believe that the movers and shakers for secession were just a tiny bit more intelligent than that. In other words, I can accept a code of honor as a part of ultimate secession, I consider it deserving only an honorable mention in the pantheon of causes. Which also means I'm looking for venal self-interest -- total lack of concern for any cooperative endeavor that might benefit the community, state or nation -- on the part of the secessionist leadership.
Some of them -- Rhett, Jr. and Sr., Yancey, Wigfall, et alii -- seem to have been supremely self-interested and, quite frankly, power mad. This is not part of a code of honor. I really do understand Preston Brooks' need to avenge a perceived, personal insult. That's who he was and the way it was. The rest of the are more puzzling.
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 also think it is silly to believe that Southerners generally feared that Lincoln would abolish slavery.Most full well knew that Southerners could block that in the Senate.It is just convenient for those wishing to exonerate the North of any guilt in the conflict to pretend that slavery was all Southerners cared about and makes for a simple explanation.Without slavery there probably wouldn't have been the major differences in society North and South and in that sense it was clearly the most important but not the only factor.
MB,
I just want to be as precise as I can here. At the moment, I do think that southern perceptions of the meaning of republicanism, freedom and equality were major factors in the decision of the lower south to secede. I also believe that the existence of chattel slavery profoundly influenced and underlay southern understanding of the concepts of republicanism, freedom and inequality. In that sense, I believe that the existence of chattel slavery was crucially important.
At the same time, individuals usually act from more than one motive; and societies composed of many individuals almost always do. The fact that many, perhaps most, southerners may have supported secession because they believed that Republicans were, in effect, about to enslave them does not by any means eliminate the possibility (I would say probability) that some, perhaps many, supported secession, in whole or in part, because they feared (for example) that through patronage and other means the Republicans would, somehow or other, emancipate the slaves or incite a race war. Advocates of secession made all of these arguments. Presumably, they weren't sure which ones would work, or rather they correctly expected that different arguments would be persuasive to varying degrees with different audience members.
In short, motivation, like causation, is almost always a somewhat uncertain phenomenon. This does not mean that motivation is unknowable. But it does mean that when speaking of motivation were should always acknowledge that some lack of clarity exists.
As for "guilt in the conflict", I carefully limited what I said to the question why the lower south seceded -- not why the north chose to react as it did -- precisely because I wanted to avoid getting into the blame game of who was "guilty" or "to blame" for the war. It seems to me that the question why the north reacted as it did is a fascinating question, but I just didn't want to get into it here. Down the road, another thread may well be in order.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trice
All these claims that the election of Republicans threatened the freedom of the South seem way overblown to me. Even if you take them at face value, they paint the people of the South as intensely insecure and fearful individuals, manic about getting their own way. What had the Republicans actually done to them? Isn't the answer "not much" or "nothing yet"? If so, what excuse do the Southerners have for their radical actions?
Trice,
Just to be clear, I am not saying that the election of a Republican president was in fact going to enslave white southerners. But I do believe those fears were real.
It is important, however, to address your assertion that those fears were, in effect, delusional. What is so fascinating about the early republic is how so much of politics, north and south, was based on perceptions that we would now (most of us!) think of as crazy. To cite the most famous examples, do we now think that Alexander Hamilton or John Adams or John Quincy Adams was a tyrant about to cast the country in chains? Do we think that the Second Bank was a monster sucking the life blood out of the country? Do we think that even state-chartered banks or state-chartered railroads were conspiratorial combinations designed to oppress and destroy republican government?
In many ways, the mindset of the first half of the 19th Century is so alien that it's hard to understand how alien it in fact was. I go back to something I referred to in my opening post. Through 1850, there were no banks in Alabama -- on purpose, because the populace saw to it that their representatives permitted none. As a result, there was virtually no money. A typical small Alabama farmer grew most of his grain and meat, and a small "cash" crop (typically a bale or two of cotton). He'd "sell" the cash crop to a local crossroads store, and then use the resulting credit balance to buy miscellaneous necessities and luxuries during the course of the year -- nails, a Sunday dress for the missus, whiskey, whatever. THAT WAS IT! (Lacy Ford does a great job describing small farmer domestic economy, by the way.) And to us, what's even weirder is, THAT'S WHAT HE WANTED. He'd voted against banks and money and improved transportation every time those issues came up.
When you think how different that farmer's "lifestyle" was from ours, just try to translate that into how different his assumptions, perceptions and values must have been from ours! It's really hard to imagine.
Finally, on the good Mr. Brooks, two points. First, the most interesting thing is that he did not challenge Sumner to a duel. If he had done so, the event would not have earned the notoriety it did. Second, no matter how great the provocation was or wasn't, the caning was a tremendous mistake, because it gave the still-struggling Republicans a martyr and "proof" of the violent and agressive tendencies of the "Slave Power". In America in 1857, Kenneth Stampp quotes an old Whig as lamenting about the incident, "Nothing was ever so unlucky. Providence itself seems to be on the side of the republican party."
It must have been difficult for the southern gentleman to avoid insult, given the contemporarily prevalent practice of orators and editors to insult, calumniate, and otherwise fulminate about doggone near everything. I suppose it had to do with what each individual considered personal.
So how did personal insult/disrespect enter into the dispute? I can see where the Garrison-tyoes were nettlesome; I haven't divined the personal affront.
Being an editor was sometimes very dangerous. Many were involved in duels. Roger Pryor was one who was in several in the 1850s.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ole
I'm leaning a bit on the side of a code of honor trampled, but I do have to believe that the movers and shakers for secession were just a tiny bit more intelligent than that. In other words, I can accept a code of honor as a part of ultimate secession, I consider it deserving only an honorable mention in the pantheon of causes. Which also means I'm looking for venal self-interest -- total lack of concern for any cooperative endeavor that might benefit the community, state or nation -- on the part of the secessionist leadership.
Some of them -- Rhett, Jr. and Sr., Yancey, Wigfall, et alii -- seem to have been supremely self-interested and, quite frankly, power mad. This is not part of a code of honor. I really do understand Preston Brooks' need to avenge a perceived, personal insult. That's who he was and the way it was. The rest of the are more puzzling.
Ole
I think, sometimes, it was the image of the gentleman being defended by someone who might have scant claim to the use of the title. Rhett Jr. seems to have been one of those. But just as wealth can make a slave trader acceptable, a reputation for being a deadly shot can keep some people from challenging you.
Just to be clear, I am not saying that the election of a Republican president was in fact going to enslave white southerners. But I do believe those fears were real.
I think the fears were real. That does not mean they had a sound basis in fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elektratig
It is important, however, to address your assertion that those fears were, in effect, delusional.
Not delusional perhaps. Overblown and unrealistic, or about something not looming in the near future, I think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elektratig
What is so fascinating about the early republic is how so much of politics, north and south, was based on perceptions that we would now (most of us!) think of as crazy. To cite the most famous examples, do we now think that Alexander Hamilton or John Adams or John Quincy Adams was a tyrant about to cast the country in chains? Do we think that the Second Bank was a monster sucking the life blood out of the country? Do we think that even state-chartered banks or state-chartered railroads were conspiratorial combinations designed to oppress and destroy republican government?
But politics is often (some would say always) so. Some of the rhetoric is unjustifed, many of the claims are flat-out wrong. But it is also true that the actions taken affect the result. An uproar over an issue can cause those thinking of an outrage to back off from it. Sometimes it mobilizes the public to intervene: laws are passed, acts are rolled back, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elektratig
In many ways, the mindset of the first half of the 19th Century is so alien that it's hard to understand how alien it in fact was. I go back to something I referred to in my opening post. Through 1850, there were no banks in Alabama -- on purpose, because the populace saw to it that their representatives permitted none. As a result, there was virtually no money. A typical small Alabama farmer grew most of his grain and meat, and a small "cash" crop (typically a bale or two of cotton). He'd "sell" the cash crop to a local crossroads store, and then use the resulting credit balance to buy miscellaneous necessities and luxuries during the course of the year -- nails, a Sunday dress for the missus, whiskey, whatever. THAT WAS IT! (Lacy Ford does a great job describing small farmer domestic economy, by the way.) And to us, what's even weirder is, THAT'S WHAT HE WANTED. He'd voted against banks and money and improved transportation every time those issues came up.
Stunning, isn't it? But I think we always find bizarre differences in thinking if we look at various groups and times. I find it hard to imagine that there was a real attempt at a coup in this country in 1932-33, but some reputable people claimed there was one. Cattlemen hated sheepherders. Nazis believed strongly in all sorts of nutty theories. Soviet science produced some real doozies (as well as some brilliant stuff). People go on funny pilgrimages and crusades over the decades.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elektratig
When you think how different that farmer's "lifestyle" was from ours, just try to translate that into how different his assumptions, perceptions and values must have been from ours! It's really hard to imagine.
Yes, it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elektratig
Finally, on the good Mr. Brooks, two points. First, the most interesting thing is that he did not challenge Sumner to a duel. If he had done so, the event would not have earned the notoriety it did. Second, no matter how great the provocation was or wasn't, the caning was a tremendous mistake, because it gave the still-struggling Republicans a martyr and "proof" of the violent and agressive tendencies of the "Slave Power". In America in 1857, Kenneth Stampp quotes an old Whig as lamenting about the incident, "Nothing was ever so unlucky. Providence itself seems to be on the side of the republican party."
At the same time, it was apowerful rallying point for the slave-power and secessionists. All these things have two or more sides, and often the end judgement of whether or not something was a mistake is made on what happened after the event, not what happened before.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
