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 argue: Presidential leadership of the 1850's led to our Civil War in 1861.
Our nation was led by some of it poorest presidents in history during the 1850's. lets look at each one:
Fillmore: Appeasement describes the presidents time in office. All this man did along with Senator Douglas was appease the southern slave interest time and time again with the Compromise of 1850 to the Fugitive slave act.
Pierce: He brought us "popular sovereignty"and with this the Kansas Nebraska Act which led to Bleeding Kansas and open the west to slavery. He again sympathies with the South Slave interest.
Buchanan: He wanted to avoid the issue by conspiring with Chief Justice Taney on the Supreme Court to Appease the southern slave interest with the Dred Scott ruling open the west to slavery. He sat like Nero and watched our nation dissolve and did nothing to stop the south from seceding.
None the these presidents were from the south but all wanted to appease the southern slave interest and never learned from past presidents examples that when secession is threaten then a line must be draw in the sand.
These presidents appeasement behaviors embolden the secessionist moment in the 1850's which led to our Civil war in 1861.
We call the Compromise of 1850, Fugitive Slave Act, and the Kansas-Nebraska Act compromises but they were appeasements to the people who wealth came from slavery.
Every time the Southern leaders would never satisfied with these appeasement always whining for more.
Appeasement never works against vile behavior like slavery only drawing a line in the sand and making a stand on values works...
When our presidents are ranked by historians these three always ranked in the bottom ten...
Leadership does matter!!
__________________
"States Rights are about States Wrongs" - Jesse Jackson
These presidents appeasement behaviors embolden the secessionist moment in the 1850's which led to our Civil war in 1861
Perhaps, 5fish, but .... Appeasement can work ... sometimes ... now and then? Occasionally?
The first reaction of a a government, when faced with contrary goals of sections within it is to seek a compromise. That an offer of compromise might be considered appeasement is a risk run in order to achieve a compromise.
In our unique history, I don't recall when any one side has been able to ride roughshod over another and demand concessions. Close, maybe, but not without some give and take. Our most powerful presidents and Congressional leaders did have to resort to at least a little bit of trade-off to smooth the path to agreement. No one set scheme passes the people unscathed.
But then, I habitually figure the glass is half full -- but I know the bartender is skimming.
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 agree that the three occupiers of the White House prior to Lincoln did little to prevent the Civil War. They all should have listened to the prophetic words of their predecessor, Andrew Jackson. After the Nullification Crisis, which itself threatened the Union in 1831-1833, had subsided Jackson predicted that the Southerners were eventually going to form a confederacy. Too bad none of the three listened to Jackson's prediction.
From the link.
"The threat to the Union was over, and most Americans breathed a sigh of relief. Yet there were those who, like Jackson, had doubts that the new tariff would bring enduring sectional peace. In the spring of 1833, when some nullifiers denounced the new tariff and called for continued and unceasing efforts to protect the South and slavery from prejudicial legislation, Jackson predicted that the nullifiers, having failed to break up the Union on the tariff issue, would now grasp "the negro, or slavery question" as their "next pretext." Additional signs of restiveness in the South were evident among many Democrats, who considered Jackson an unreliable guardian of states' rights."
Fillmore: Appeasement describes the presidents time in office. All this man did along with Senator Douglas was appease the southern slave interest time and time again with the Compromise of 1850 to the Fugitive slave act.
Was the 1850 Compromise only an appeasement of the South, and had no appeal to the North, or to Unionists?
We need to remember that the nation was still getting used to the idea of democratic procedure. (I'm not sure that we are now all that comfortable with it.) The lack of foresight that 5fish bemoans is with us today. A hundred years from now, a forum of geeks will be wondering, "What were they thinking?"
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
Lack of foresight is often one of the curses of politics. Work to solve the immediate problem, and leave the consequences to your successor.
I like the idea of presidential leadership being the main cause of the war. Jackson's handling of the nullification crisis showed much political skill, especially as he was essentially seeing how far the powers of the executive could be pushed. Yet I wonder if only a character like Jackson would have the audacity to attempt such a move. Neustadt's classic definition of the main power of the president being 'that to persuade' seems rather apt.
Whether it's right for the president to act in such a way depends in part one's own conception of the role of the office. If we're arguing that presidential leadership was main cause of the war, are we not criticising the Congress for concentrating on regional and local issues rather than the national picture? Or would we expect a strong president to be able to show Congress the error of its ways?
More questions than answers, I'm afraid, but it should be fun to what we can make of the argument.
In general there was no leadership from either these Presidents or congress in the 1850's on the issue of slavery or on the preservation of the union.
I will give congress a pass but not the Presidents of that period. I our political system the President sets the tone, the political priorities, and any precedents on an issue. The nation follows the direction the President is leading the nation in.
Fillmore, Pierce, and Buchanan set tones of appeasement, set priorities of Slavery is Okay, and the precedent of cowing to whatever the secessionist want.
The direction they led our nation in was one towards Civil War.
These Presidents from what little I have read never preach about the preserving the Union.
These Presidents compromise not to solve a slavery issue but to satisfy the moment and pass the issue on to the next guy.
These Presidents fail any test of leadership!
These Presidents empowered the Abolitionist to fill the void in leadership on slavery and antagonised the north with their Compromises which always gave into slavery demands.
Look at the bright side their poor leadership gave rise to the republican party which gave us Lincoln and leadership.
__________________
"States Rights are about States Wrongs" - Jesse Jackson
In general there was no leadership from either these Presidents or congress in the 1850's on the issue of slavery or on the preservation of the union.
I agree with your assessment when it comes primarily to Buchanan. Standing by while federal properties and assets were seized, while federal officers and politicians collaborated with sessionists, and while confederate forces inhabited states still in the Union, was not carrying out the duties of the office. (he should have started with his own cabinet) He simply passed the burden on to Lincoln. I'm just not as clear that the other two had as clear-cut opportunities to use their office to extinguish anti-union sentiment, since there were no other actual conventions called to secede.
As for appeasement, that animal has a lineage going back to the Declaration of Independence. Fillmore was continuing on with the works of Clay and Douglas, and a tradition of many of the politicians who had come before. Even the Fugitive Slave Act had its genesis in the US Constitution as a result of compromise between the sections.
Would you (or anyone) have some tangible events that you could ellaborate on where you think Fillmore should have acted more like a Jackson, or maybe a Washington?
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Presidential Leadership caused the Civil War 
Linear Mode
