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.
Thank you both for such excellent, well thought out posts!
Please, continue.
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
Is it possible that Southerners felt closer to their States because of the lack of transport and contact with new people, new ideas and new social systems beginning to fully take shape in the North?
I was informed by my reading and my grandparents that it was very rare for people, North or South, to travel over 20 miles from home (it might have even been a smaller figure, I cannot remember) but I think I read the same thing in Bruce Catton's books on the Army of the Potomac.
I think it is very difficult for many people today to understand how limited information flow and contact with outsiders was before the Civil War. The RR and the telegraph were brand new. Nashville in the 1840s was isolated from all but overland travel several times a year by the falling of the Cumberland River. In 1848, the first telegraph was completed to Nashville. By 1860, Nashville was a RR hub, connected to Chattanooga, Atlanta, Memphis, Louisville and the rest of the nation by RR.
When you look at a Civil War map and see how few RRs there were in the South, realize as well that by 1860 there was no spot in Ohio more than 25 miles from a RR track. That network of communications (and telegrapgh lines went wherever the RR went, at a minimum) was much thicker and of greater capacity in the North.
Very few imigrants entered through the South, relative to those who came through New York, Philadelphia, and Boston. If they came through the South, it would be likely to be Baltimore or New Orleans. But the cheapest fares were always to those first three from Europe, and from there you could get RRs to the West. Even in Baltimore the B&O RR took you to the Ohio Valley.
At the same time, Northerners tend to move to states north of the Mason-Dixon Line, while Southerners tended to move to states south of it. The only Northern state that didn't apply to was New Jersey -- the last Northern state to give up slavery, one that normally voted with the South in Congress.
As a result, you would expect the North -- with greater immigration, with greater transportation and communications, and with more likely movement from state to state, to be less regional than the Southern states were, IMHO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by unionblue
My understanding is Lincoln could not understand why Lee stood by his State, and if the lack of travel thing is a consideration, Lee had traveled extensively in his own lifetime.
Heck, in the Winter of Secession Lee spoke of this to the brother of Major Anderson of Ft. Sumter fame. He told Anderson he understood that he did not feel the way he (Lee) did -- but that Lee had been raised that his first loyalty was to Virginia and he must follow her.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Heck, in the Winter of Secession Lee spoke of this to the brother of Major Anderson of Ft. Sumter fame. He told Anderson he understood that he did not feel the way he (Lee) did -- but that Lee had been raised that his first loyalty was to Virginia and he must follow her.
Is it too much to suggest that, in addition to his honor of following Virginia, the net worth of his immediate family was dependent on Custis holdings, and to lead Union armies would mean losing it all in the case of Confederate success? Was Lee above all that?
Is it too much to suggest that, in addition to his honor of following Virginia, the net worth of his immediate family was dependent on Custis holdings, and to lead Union armies would mean losing it all in the case of Confederate success? Was Lee above all that?
Cedarstripper
Certainly not; Lee himself mentioned it in the days around the attack on Ft. Sumter and the secession vote in the convention of Virginia. But it shows as an afterthought, a minor but not a major factor in his decision.
You do not see Lee mentioning it in November and December of 1860 or January, February, and March of 1861. In that period, he refers several times to secession in terms that equate it to treason or anarchy (both of which are anathema to soldiers). He says the Founding Fathers never intended such a "right" to exist. But throughout that period, Lee consistently says that he will follow Virginia, no matter what she does.
When the time comes and he can no longer follow Virginia, that is what he does: he follows Virginia. It is in doing so that he finally mentions the risk to the lives and property of his family, who will lie directly in the path of any war. (Lee is a professional soldier, and knows full well Arlington will most likely be devastated in any war.)
That is not particularly surprising. It would be a natural consideration for almost all men; Lee himself had struggled with family money worries his whole life and would have certainly thought on the matter as war approached.
But it is not a particularly compelling reason for me when examining Lee's actions. Had Virginia stayed loyal, the same reasoning would have drawn Lee towards fighting for the Union to protect his family and their property.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
I try to avoid guessing "intentions" because those can never really be known. They simply reflect the prejudices of the person guessing.
I'll go by his words:
Robert E. Lee letter dated December 27, 1856:
I was much pleased the with President's message. His views of the systematic and progressive efforts of certain people at the North to interfere with and change the domestic institutions of the South are truthfully and faithfully expressed. The consequences of their plans and purposes are also clearly set forth. These people must be aware that their object is both unlawful and foreign to them and to their duty, and that this institution, for which they are irresponsible and non-accountable, can only be changed by them through the agency of a civil and servile war. There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Savior have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day. Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the right not the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master; that, although he may not approve the mode by which Providence accomplishes its purpose, the results will be the same; and that the reason he gives for interference in matters he has no concern with, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbor, -still, I fear he will persevere in his evil course. . . . Is it not strange that the descendants of those Pilgrim Fathers who crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom have always proved the most intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others?
Lee and his wife's family, the Custis were somewhat agnonistic on slavery.
Mary had an idea of educating and preparing the plantation slaves for freedom and her father actually freed them in his will. Lee's experience in managing Arlington after his father in law's death(there was a 5 year lag until the will's manumission took effect), was not a happy one. Those poster who have compared slavery to military service would find one professional soldier who would strongly disagree.
The trouble with the Lee letter, is that after the strong statement that slavery was evil, he piously hopes it will disappear sometimes in the far future, without any effort on anyone's part to make it disappear.
I can see no connection between the CSA Constitution and what Lee thought about slavery and the black man and loyalty to state or nation.
It's a fascinating subject and deserves a thread of its own.
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
secesiion as right, if mentioned at all, means it is not an inherent right but must be codified for use in legal norms for use, which was why it was not in tyhe CSA Constition as niether the conditional users, (VA) or at will users ( GA)saw any need to insert such a clause, unlike the supremacy clause in the USA Constition, which has to be there, as supremacy in law makeing ability, is not inherent in corporations, but must be specified, limited or made absolute etc.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
You have said this before and it has been previously pointed out to you that your understanding is WRONG.
He was perfectly correct.
Quote:
This is what the British SAID in the 1783 Treaty of Paris that ended the American Revolutionary War:
=====
Article I His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof. =====
You can find the entire text at http://library.thinkquest.org/TQ0312...fparis1783.htm
the US was granted nothing, each seperate former UK colony was acknowledged and granted its sepoerate sov status from the crown and from each other, no former union with crown and parliment exitisted.
Quote:
The British King is not "granting" anything. He is simply acknowledging that the United States is an independent nation (NOT the states individually, but the "United States" that they are collectively form).
the owner of a thing, in this case sovriegnty over the colonies, passed that sov status from him and his hiers to the citizens of teh colonies who had through force of arms established their inmdependence after legal claimining seperation from his sov rule, and he acepted that 13 former seperate colonies had gained this indepenedence for all time from the UK crown, and acknowedge this and passed sov control to them, the US was not even refered to as it had no say in the matter.
Btw, if you going to link, try and use edu links not.
If you think otherwise, look at the text and improve your "understanding" to note that the treaty itself says the treaty is "between the two countries" -- not between Britain and thirteen individual countries.
Well since the title of the contratc treads thus " Contract Between the King and the Thirteen United States of North America.
we can assume your posting is wrong.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Last edited by ole : 05-19-2008 at 12:14 PM.
Reason: Edited to make remove combative language.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
