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.
While it is said that the Civil War began at Fort Sumter in South Carolina in 1861, as that is when the shooting started between the forces of the Union and those of the seceding states.
One might make the argument that the war really started in Kansas with the "Wakarusa War" in November, 1855, when the shooting started between pro-slavery-expansionists and anti-slavery-expansionists (free-soilers).
It is also said that it was Lincoln's 90 minute speech at the Cooper Union Hall in February of 1860, that put Lincoln on the map as to his views on slavery.
I think it is interesting to look at his 3 hour Peoria Speech in October of 1854, concerning the Kansas-Nebraska Act (and it's nullification of the Missouri Compromise) to see his first real argument on the issue of slavery.
"Slavery is founded in the selfishness of man's nature; opposition to it, in his love of justice. These principles are an eternal antagonism; and when brought into collision so fiercely as slavery extension brings them, shocks, throes, and convulsions must ceaselessly follow."
I find it odd, that the slavery card is always thrown as the cause of the "War of Northern Aggression" when there were slave owners in the North, as well as the South. Slavery has always been a bone of contention even among the "Founding Fathers" in the late 1700's. Slavery was a teritery issue but did not become a major issue until later in the war to garner support to "Honest Abe".
My 2 Cents
__________________ TU NE CEDE MALIS, SED CONTRA AUDENTIOR ITO
Last edited by Missouri Guerrilla; 12-14-2007 at 11:01 PM.
Welcome to the board and thank you for sharing your opinion.
'Slavery card.' I always find it a bit perplexing that anyone uses such a 'throw-away' phrase to describe the primary reason why the South left the Union, to protect and defend the institution of slavery.
The reason I find it so hard is the vast paper trail left by the South itself just before and during the Civil War or the "War of Southern Aggression" as I like to sometimes call it. Or even better, it's official name, "The War of the Rebellion."
But the simple fact of the matter is, slavery was not a 'card' to be thrown into a modern, 21st century debate on an electronic forum. Slavery was, and still is, an undeniable historical fact, and the one overwhelming issue that led the South to rebellion.
At least, that what the Southerners of the time said, loud and clear, for anyone who cares to listen.
In my own opinion.
I look forward to seeing your views on the topic.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
I find it odd, that the slavery card is always thrown as the cause of the "War of Northern Aggression" when there were slave owners in the North, as well as the South. Slavery has always been a bone of contention even among the "Founding Fathers" in the late 1700's. Slavery was a teritery issue but did not become a major issue until later in the war to garner support to "Honest Abe".
My 2 Cents
Hello, Missouri Guerrilla. Welcome to the forum.
"Northerners" weren't the ones who seceded, nor were they the ones who started the war by firing on Fort Sumter. That was done by the secessionists, who very clearly, in their writings and in their speeches, told us they were doing so in order to protect the institution of slavery. Four states left declarations giving their reasons for seceding. They all said they were seceding to protect slavery. The deep south states sent commissioners to other slave states to persuade those states to secede as well. We have their letters and speeches. They all, to a man, said the reason secession was warranted was to protect slavery. The confederacy's own Vice President, Alexander Stephens, said that slavery and white supremacy were the "cornerstone" of the confederacy. In his first message to the confederate congress, Jefferson Davis identified slavery as the reason for secession. Protection of slavery was the reason for secession, and was the reason why the confederacy fought for its independence from the United States. It was the major issue for the confederates from the beginning through to the end.
As to slaveholders in the North, by 1860 only 15 states in the United States had slavery. They were all southern states. Four of those states remained loyal to the United States and fought for the Union, but they were still southern.
"Northerners" weren't the ones who seceded, nor were they the ones who started the war by firing on Fort Sumter. That was done by the secessionists, who very clearly, in their writings and in their speeches, told us they were doing so in order to protect the institution of slavery.
Regards,
Cash
Stop, Cash, this is not about secession. It is about when pro-slavery and anti-slavery folks started shooting at each other. This was the beginning of the Civil War.
Lincoln's 'Peoria Speech' all but predicted it.
It was his argument against the expansion of slavery that I meant to highlight.
-
__________________ -
"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
Stop, Cash, this is not about secession. It is about when pro-slavery and anti-slavery folks started shooting at each other. This was the beginning of the Civil War.
Lincoln's 'Peoria Speech' all but predicted it.
It was his argument against the expansion of slavery that I meant to highlight.
-
Sam,
I was responding directly to Missouri Guerrilla's points.
I have no problem with anyone picking a particular "time." Personally, I have tried to find specific points where "flashes" occurred.
The following is not meant to diminish your thoughts on the subject. I don't consider this a point quite like yours. I only point this out as to how many points of conflict there are in this chain.... and how many people had the foresight to predict upcoming events - sometimes many years before they happen.
The following is a piece from John Quincy Adams’s Journal in 1820, after speeches made on the Missouri Question (to be the Missouri Compromise).
Background: Adams was Secretary of State during the Monroe presidency. A man, whom he respected and worked closely with, John C. Calhoun (whom I assume we all know from later events) was Secretary of War in the same administration. They discussed the Missouri Question at length.
John Quincy Adams Journal, 1820:
I had some conversations with Calhoun on the slave question pending in Congress. He said he did not think it would produce a dissolution of the Union, but if it should, the South would be from necessity compelled to form an alliance, offensive and defensive, with Great Britain. I said that would be returning to the colonial state. He said, yes, pretty much, but it would be forced upon them.
I asked whether he thought, if by the effect of this alliance, offensive and defensive, the population of the north should be cut off from its natural outlet upon the ocean [by the British], it would fall back upon its rocks, bound hand and foot to starve, or whether it would not retain its powers of locomotion by land. Then, he said, they would find it necessary to make their communities all military. [In other words, the South would fight the North if northerners forced their way south seeking relief from a British blockade].
I pressed the conversation no further: but if the dissolution of the Union should result from the slave question, it is as obvious as anything that can be seen by futurity, that it most shortly afterwards would be followed by the universal emancipation of the slaves [presumably because of the military action to follow]. A more remote but perhaps not less certain consequence would be the extirpation of the African race on this continent, by the gradually bleaching process of intermixture, where the white portion is already so predominant, and by the destructive progress of emancipation which, like all great religious and political reformations, is terrible in its means though happy and glorious in its end.
Stop, Cash, this is not about secession. It is about when pro-slavery and anti-slavery folks started shooting at each other. This was the beginning of the Civil War.
-
No, it wasn't. If that was the beginning of the war, what do you call 1858-1861?
IMO, The first shots fired in anger in direct confrontations between pro and anti slave supporters was during the "Bleeding Kansas"phase of the Kansas-Nebraska Debates. Where the issue unequivocally about the expansion of slavery.
Lincoln was drawn back into the public arena over slavery and, ironically, Douglas' Presidential ambitions were sacrificed by attempting to currying favor with southern slave holders.
As all of Lincoln's major political speeches, his Peoria Address was tightly reasoned and closely argued. Leaving no doubt to the listeners and later readers of that speech, that the issue of slavery was paramount in the present crisis and that the crisis could only grow as long as the southern leadership pushed the issue of slavery down the throats of the majority of American Citizens.
...crisis could only grow as long as the southern leadership pushed the issue of slavery down the throats of the majority of American Citizens.
Wish I could remember where I read it, but a reasonably respected author made almost the same observation. Something like, "the south might have survived with slavery if they'd have tacked the other way. But they did an "in your face" act and attacked the north's probable acquiescence by prosecuting for better enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Laws and for elimination of the restriction on expansion of slavery into the territories.
Obviously, this is paraphrased heavily, but I did want to note that the "south" pressed the issue beyond an equivalent response to the abolitionist noise.
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
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Lincoln's Peoria Speech 
Linear Mode
