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 cannot see the ninth post on any page, for some software reason. Could someone tell me what settings I need to change to allow this?
__________________ "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 cannot see the ninth post on any page, for some software reason. Could someone tell me what settings I need to change to allow this?
You'll have o contact Mike aka civilwartalk. I've not heard of that one.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
On June 8th 1861, Tennessee voted 104,913 to 47,238 in favour of secession, so 47,000 Tennesseans voted not to secede despite anything that Isham Harris might have done to prejudice the decision. (On the other hand, you could just as well make a case that Abraham Lincoln had prejudiced the referendum by calling out troops to force the seceded States back into the Union.) I do not see any evidence that more anti-secession voters were intimidated in pro-secession districts than pro-secession voters were intimidated in anti-secession districts. Do you have any evidence that this was the case? If so, I’d love to see it. (Note that I am not saying that voter intimidation didn’t happen anywhere, just that it was likely to have happened as much in the former cases as the latter; the net effect would be to polarize voting in strongly pro-secession and anti-secession districts.) In the absence of such evidence, I would say that the vote reflects the general sentiments of the people of that state at that time.
You might say it, but would it be true?
At the time the second referendum was held, Governor Harris had already offered troops to the Confederacy, joined in a military alliance with the Confederacy, and dispatched troops outside the borders of Tennessee to serve under the Confederacy. On April 25, Confederate Secretary of War Walker was already writing to the Governor of North Carolina to try to obtain arms for the 3 regiments from Tennessee and the 1 from Arkansas scheduled to rendezvous in Lynchburg, VA (along with four others from Alabama and Mississippi). Please note that neither of these states had seceded at that time and so such actions would be illegal by both state and US law.
In Tennessee itself, military force was present at the polling places in the disputed sections -- and strangely enough, the portion of the Tennessee forces called up for that duty voted 100% for secession, not a single dissenting vote. Doesn't that seem a bit odd to you, since the state was so deeply and clearly divided on the issue? Perhaps the Governor had made sure he did not call up any militia that might be opposed to secession, and then used them to intimidate voters. That's how it appears to me and many others.
You have large, organized, protests of the governor's actions here, which have come down to us through history. We have records of many editorials and speeches urging the intimidation of voters, the presenting of ballots open instead of folded so that your neighbors could see how you voted -- thus implying that anyone who actually voted with a folded ballot was one of those disloyal pro-Union people. Immediately after the referendum, the Governor moved troops into the disaffected areas to ensure control of them by intimidation, and force if necessary.
You can say that all the pro-Confederate actions, the participation in their war effort against the US, etc. were dependent upon the final referendum -- but can you say it with a straight face? Do you think the dispatch of troops to face the US, the integration with the Confederate Army, the attempts to integrate with their government was something that you could simply say "Oh, well, that didn't happen" about if the voters turned you down? Or do you understand that all of this is an attempt by the governor and his partisans to bias the electorate and determine the cause of the election? Do you suspect that Harris would have welcomed a small shooting skirmish in Virginia with Tennessee troops involved as a way to ensure the election went the way he wanted it to?
If you think not, please explain why the governor did not simply wait for the people to vote before taking any such action.
BTW, while I have seen definite evidence of intimidation of pro-Union voters (particularly in Middle Tennessee, where the vote changed so drastically from one referendum to the next) and have presented such to you in the past, I have never come across any evidence of such intimidation against pro-secession voters nor seen you present any that I recall. You say the evidence is equal. I am dying to see it. Please present any evidence you have of attempts to intimidate pro-secession voters in Tennesse for this election so that we can judge it. Or, if you have none, simply say so and acknowledge that you must change your opinion here.
John:
Yes, the remarkable similiarity of the two votes could easily lead one to conclude that they were the same voters, and they probably were.
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
Originally Posted by trice If you want to look at Texas, well, there simply was no legal election of delegates to the secession convention, because the legislature never voted for such an election and the governor never signed any such bill. Many secessionist delegates were simply elected by voice votes in small groups, while many Unionists boycotted an election that was not called for by the governor and legislature. Not all areas of the state sent delegates to the convention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
People in several counties assembled at the county court house, and selected delegates to a State Convention if held. I would suggest that if some delegations were improperly selected, that opponents of the selected delegation would hold a proper election, and then present their delegation at the Convention, and contest the elections of the original delegation from that county. I am unaware of any contested delegations at the Texas State Convention.
John, "improperly selected" doesn't even begin to cover it. There was no election called to select them with. If you are unaware of problems with the Texas Convention selection, you have not researched this enough and need to do a little reading before presenting your opinion. Any serious attempt to look at this issue will reveal the problems to you.
In Texas, the election would have to be voted by the state legislature. The legislature was not in session and so could not vote. The governor refused to call a special session, figuring this was an issue that would best be served by letting time pass so that hot-heads might cool and reason prosper. (Yes, Sam Houston was also not in favor of secession.)
Yet the secessionists selected delegates anyway, many by voice votes in small groups. Unionists generally did not participate. Some areas of Texas sent no delegates at all. This is a travesty, not an election. The entire process was illegal and biased. We also have evidence of suppression of those who felt like staying in the Union in Texas, and actions to rush the state into conflict in advance of a referendum.
Texas might easily have voted for secession anyway if they had been allowed to, but to say that this was a fair and unbiased election would be simply wrong. Acknowledging that the secessionists deliberately attempted to manipulate the process is merely to face the truth about the history here, nothing more or less.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
In Texas and Tennessee, I would wager that the advocates of secession felt enough concern over the legitimacy of secession, that (probably at the behest of moderates) they agreed to refer the issue to the people of the State, just so no one could say that they State had been stampeded out of the Union.
Then please explain why they took all these actions to prejudice the vote. Are you trying to say they were two-faced, mouthing p********s while acting illegally/unethically here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
In Texas, there were 46,129 votes for secession, and 14,697 votes against or 60,826 total (source, Journal of the Secession Convention, pg. 88-90). This level of participation is not wildly different from the voting in the Presidential election; Breckinridge – 47,548, Bell – 15,438 or 62,986 total votes (Source: Texas Secretary of State). This means that 96.5% of those who voted in the Presidential election also voted in the referendum.
And you don't think that the fact that the state of Texas had already used force against Federal troops and seized Federal property might have had an impact on the vote? You don't think the fact that Texas was admitted into the Confederacy before the votes from the referendum were counted might indicate a "stampede" was taking place here?
As I said, Texas might easily have voted itself out, but no one can deny that the process was tainted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
Certainly nothing that occurred in any (eventual) Confederate compares with the travesty which occurred in Maryland in which the army arrested (on orders from the President) State legislators because of how they might vote.
No? At that point in time Federal forces had been attacked by Maryland citizens, Maryland troops were serving with the nation's enemies, and Maryland citizens had conspired to obtain arms from the Confederacy and prevent US forces from arriving in the nation's capital. During the war, the Confederacy would also suspend the writ of habeas corpus and take similar actions against Unionists in areas like East Tennesse.
But John, this is disingenuous on your part, trying to excuse actions the secessionists took in early 1861 by Union actions that took place later. I am sure you know well the fallacy of that argument, so why attempt it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
Of course, they did. In South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, local assemblies put forward candidates for delegate to the Convention. Delegates declared their positions, people voted for them based on those positions, then they went to the State Conventions, and generally voted as they said they would. Texas may have been the exception, but the procedures in the other States were imminently proper (unless one is opposed to the principle of self-government). And in Texas, just to be sure, the Convention directed the election, so no one could later say that the decision to leave the Union was not a popular one.
Uhm, John, you are saying that the illegally elected secession convention directed a legal election, after illegally using force against US forces, confiscating Federal property, and joining the Confederacy. I am sure you understand that is an unworkable logical argument.
In all of these arguments, what secessionists fear is clear and unheated examination of what they actually did. In Texas they acted badly. There is no doubt of it. Yet those who argue for secessionists, like yourself, cannot seem to get themselves to simply acknowledge the truth of this, as if admitting one fault somehow will disavow everything else you wish to argue for. This damages the credibility of your position, so why attempt it?
Why, do you think, the secessionists were in such a tearing hurry? Why do you think they had to take such drastic action, violating their own laws, to get this done? Since absolutely nothing had been done to them at this point, what is the excuse for what they did? Isn't it simply, as you try to imply about the Union, that the secessionists were afraid of how the people MIGHT vote? If so, shouldn't you simply acknowledge that they were afraid to wait and proceed in an orderly fashion? Isn't that rash series of secessionist actions what actually started the Civil War, by constantly striving to seize what they wanted to enhance their position?
Gentlemen, don't forget the geographic factor in Tennesse. Memphis is still around 600 miles from Mt. City, both physically and philosophically. The Cumberland plateau west of Knoxville greatly separted folks from Middle Tennesses. Several Union regiments were raised in the eastern third of the state and all served the entirety of the war getting much support from the citizens in those areas. Nashville was greatly separated from Knoxville and especially Bristol by time, distance and terrain. Middle Tennessee was Confederate to the end, although Uncle Sam visited here for a spell.
Tennessee illustrates the tragic sectionalism that developed between north and south. Partly Northern, partly Southern. Agriculturally, they were leaning north. Sentimentally, they were leaning south. Tennessee was caught in a cultural situation that would present only a lose-lose situation. Unfortunately, Isham Harris was governor. His secessionist leaning took the state from a confused bystander to an active proponent of secession. Tennessee owes him nothing.
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
Gentlemen, don't forget the geographic factor in Tennesse. Memphis is still around 600 miles from Mt. City, both physically and philosophically. The Cumberland plateau west of Knoxville greatly separted folks from Middle Tennesses. Several Union regiments were raised in the eastern third of the state and all served the entirety of the war getting much support from the citizens in those areas. Nashville was greatly separated from Knoxville and especially Bristol by time, distance and terrain. Middle Tennessee was Confederate to the end, although Uncle Sam visited here for a spell.
In the days before that vote. Nathan Bedford Forrest was strangely quiet. Although most of his property (he'd removed himself from slave-trading and gotten into being a planter) was in Mississippi, he did not secede when Mississippi went out. He considered himself a Tennessean and would do what Tennessee would do.
His unlikely quiet in the days before the election has led some researchers to the conclusion that Forrest was actually in favor of remaining in the Union.
The change between the two referendums is almost entirely in Middle Tennessee. It also seems to be here that the intimidation was taking place, for the most part.
I cannot see the ninth post on any page, for some software reason. Could someone tell me what settings I need to change to allow this?
John,
For quite some time I have not been able to scroll down to the last several posts at the bottom of many pages. It made it impossible to keep up with discussions. I'm not sure if this is the same viewing problem you are having.
I finally played around with the User Control Panel, and under Edit Options - Thread Display Options - Posts per Page - I lowered to 5, and then set the posts to Linear - Newest First.
"On one of his visits to the South, he found, in a little West Virginia valley, a graveyard of Confederate soldiers who had fallen in one of the battles in which he had taken a part, and he wrote of them - in a piece called A Bivouac with the Dead - with a tenderness that was very rare of him:
"They were honest and courageous foemen, having little in common with the madmen who persuaded them to their doom and the literary bearers of false witness in the aftertime. They did not live through the period of honorable strife into the period of vilification - did not pass from the iron age to the brazen - from the era of the sword to that of the tongue and pen. Among them is no member of the Southern Historical Society. Their valor was not the fury of the non-combatant; they have no voice in the thunder of the civilians and the shouting. Not by them are impaired the dignity and infinite pathos of the Lost Cause."
"he wrote to his friend "They found a Confederate soldier the other day with his rifle alongside. I'm going over to beg his pardon.""
from: Political Gore by Edmond Wilson
__________________ -
"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
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
