Harper's Ferry Investigation

[JohnTaylor]

(snip) …are you contending that this one, single event was in effect, THE back-breaker for the entire South?

I would not characterize it as THE back-breaker, but it contributed to the overall effect of convincing the majority of the South to embrace secession as the best solution for the South. Heck, Robert Barnwell Rhett came across his backbreaker (whatever that was) in 1838. Rhett advocated secession from then on. Others joined him in this conclusion in 1850, with the Clay Compromise measures. Still others came over to secession in 1859-60. These secessionists presumably continued to hold that position after joining that group. But it wasn't until November 1860, that secessionism became a majority position.

In my opinion, the event was used as an excuse to further the cause of secession, but it was not the cause. (snip)

Then you are left to explain why secession wasn’t embraced before in 1832, 1850, or 1856. Thoughts?

Let me ask you a question. Why didn't the South secede immediately after Harpers Ferry? Why did it wait until after the election of 1860?

Good question. I would guess that the majority of Southerners wanted to believe that Harper’s Ferry was an anomaly, and that the love of the Union as it was and the good sense of the North would cause Northerners to reject violent Abolitionism and Republicanism. The North celebrations of John Brown’s crimes, Republican protection of Harper’s Ferry perpetrators, obstruction of Congressional inquiry, all these happened over time, not immediately after Harper’s Ferry. It took a while to bring home the impression that Harper’s Ferry was not just a crime committed by a few nutcases. It was endorsed, or at least excused, by a significant number of Northern Republicans. In addition, there were other issues that came up that spring and summer that weakened Southern Unionism (see below). Another one was the passage in the House of the Morrill Tariff in May.

Yes, I brought up Yancey, … no one could deny he was working to break up the Union long before Harpers Ferry.

Working unsuccessfully up to that point. But I would assert that you are mischaracterizing Yancey’s goal. It was not disunion per se, but disunion if what he believed were Southern rights were not respected in the Union.

As for McGuire, I will let it rest. But let the record show that you haven’t presented anything from the period 1859-1865 that would indicate that what he said in 1899 truly expressed his 1859 feelings. You merely distrust his speech because of the audience to whom he was speaking.

As for the rest of your questions at the end of your post, I believe you are reading something that isn't there. I simply do not know why you would read that I am 'embarrassed' by the embracement of the violence by anti-slavery zealots. If you mean Brown's actions in taking over Harpers Ferry, no. I believe Brown broke the law and deserved to be punished, much as Lincoln did.

As for the question does resorting to violence lend legitimacy to secession, no, it does not, because it falls into the same catagory as Brown's attempt, an illegal and unlawful attempt at rebellion.

Just out of curiosity (and I realize this is a bolt out of the blue) when the North Carolina convention met in 1788 and refused to ratify the Constitution, was North Carolina committing an act of rebellion?

As to the idea that anti-slavery violence robs Unconditional Unionism of some of its moral legitmacy, is Brown's attempt the only incident to which you refer? Or do you have other incidents that I am not aware of? In any case, I am of the opinion whenever a violent few attempt to force the majority to their point of view by means of violence, they lose legal and moral legitmacy in my view.

I would assert that Southerners saw Harper’s Ferry not as “a violent few attempt to force the majority to their point of view by means of violence,” events over that winter and summer convinced a majority of Deep South voters that such acts, were a reflection the Northern majority view.
As for other acts of violence during that time frame, the newspapers that summer were full of reports of a widespread conspiracy in Texas in the summer of 1860. Downtown Dallas was burned on July 9th. Numerous fires broke out in more than twenty towns that summer. In some cases, slaves admitted that Northern white men had put them up to it and that there was a plot to cause a general uprising on election day August 6th, 1860, at which the slaves were to kill the women and children while the men were at the polls, burn the houses, and kill the men when they returned. The fires in July were intended to destroy militia supplies and cause economic dislocation.
Listing of reported fires.
July 8th: Dallas, Denton, Pilot Point, Ladonia, Milford, Honey Grove, Black Jack Grove, Millwood (steam engine), Waxahatchie (caught in time) Eakins and Leonard homes outside Dallas (New York Times, August 3, 1860, pg. 2.), Belknap, Fort Worth (New York Times, July 30th, 1860, pg. 1.).
July 9th: Jefferson, (New York Times, July 30th, 1860, pg. 1.; Texas State Gazette, July 28th, 1860, pg. 2, col. 3.)
July 16th: Kaufman, Navarro (Charleston Mercury, July 31st, 1860, pg. 4, col. 3.)
July 18th: Tyler (Texas State Gazette, July 28th, 1860, pg. 2, col. 3.)
July 24th: Austin (New York Times, August 9th, 1860, pg. 3.)
July 26th: Austin (again) (New York Times, August 3, 1860, pg. 5.),
Henderson (New York Times, September 1, 1860, pg. 4.),
Mount Vernon (New York Times, September 1, 1860, pg. 4.),
August 4th: Belleview, Dangerfield (New York Times, August 27th, 1860, pg. 8.)
August: Round Top. (Charleston Mercury, August 21, 1860, pg. 2, col. 1.)

The confessions came from interrogations that sometimes included the use of torture, so they must be taken with caution. The sheer number of fires that summer was unusual. Given how Northerners were reluctant to respond to the criminal investigation of the Harper’s Ferry insurrection, and that some Republicans were willing to use their public office to protect those wanted for murder, the fact that nobody stepped forward to admit conspiring to cause a slave insurrection in Texas that summer was hardly comforting to Southerners. John Brown’s captured correspondence had proven extremely embarrassing to certain Northern Abolitionists. The radicals of the North seemed to have learned that circumspection in correspondence and practicing good security procedures was key to staying alive if their violent acts came to light. Were there a suspicious number of fires in Texas that summer? Undoubtedly. Was there a conspiracy in Texas that summer? I can’t honestly say. Did Northern acts to protect perpetrators of antislavery violence and endorse their acts make a conspiracy more believable? Absolutely. Were Southerners wrong to believe the worst and act on that fear? Was the Union still a safe political arrangement for those who lived in a State that permitted slavery? I think it is difficult for someone not living in that environment can judge them.
Respectfully,
John Taylor

[JohnTaylor]

Professor John Burgess of Columbia University wrote of Harper’s Ferry:
“If the whole thing both as to time, methods, and results, had been planned by his Satanic Majesty himself, it could not have succeeded better in setting the sound conservative movements of the age a naught, and in creating a state of feeling which offered the most capital opportunities for the triumph of political insincerity, radicalism, and rascality over their opposites. No man who is acquainted with the change of feeling which occurred in the South between the 16th of October 1859 and the 16th day of November of the same year can regard the Harper’s Ferry villainy as any other than the chiefest crimes of our history. It established and re-established the control of the great radical slaveholders over the non-slaveholders, - the little slaveholders, and the little slaveholders, and the more liberal of the large slaveholders, which had already begun to be loosened.”
Burgess, The Civil War and the Constitution, vol. 1, pg. 36

[JohnTaylor]

Again, to try and state it more plainly, Dr. McGuire falls within that time period where many of the South were trying to rewrite the history of the war and its causes. I personally find it hard to take any statements of a former Confederate concerning what he thinks or felt was the cause of the war during this period because of the effort to preesent the South in a more favorable light during the time he gave his speech.

Neil, given your nom de plume you have an obvious pro-Union agenda, or at least a perspective. I have an obvious constitutional agenda or perspective. Does that mean that anything you or I say is a lie? Of course not. What is said should be evaluated in light of that perceived agenda and compared to other contextual elements. Maybe we are in violent agreement on this point.
Respectfully,
John Taylor

[unionblue]

John Taylor,

Sorry for taking so long to reply to your above posts, but I wanted to give a great deal of thought to my reply.

Starting with your post#26, it is my opinion there was no attempts at secession in the years you indicate for any lack of trying, just as you yourself sumise, the support for breaking up the Union was not there amongst the general population of the South. But, this merely indicates that those previous years were simply a learning experience for those dedicated to breaking up the Union. All the time leading up to Harpers Ferry was used to build up secession, hoping for a time when the rest of the country could be convinced that the only solution to their 'problems' would be to leave the Union. I submit if not Harpers Ferry and John Brown, another incident, a piece of legislation, or the election of a Republican president would serve just as well.

In my research, I noticed that there were organized events, newspaper articles in the North, even declarations in Congress that supported the South, agreed that John Brown should have been hung, etc., but it was not enough.

Instead, wild rumors, to include the newspaper articles you have provided, claimed that other plots were about to start a slave insurrection in far-away Texas, yet the stories in the Southern press do not name names nor are they verified. They are much like the stories the one hears from a friend who heard from another friend who claims to have gotten a letter from a friend who heard it from a guy who read an article somewhere at sometime. Could it not be that the Southern newspapers used these 'stories' to further inflame, to incite, to move forward their long delayed plans at disunion?

Some web sites I found on the 'Texas Troubles' of 1860 concerning the fires there at that time.

Texas Troubles.

http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/.../TT/vetbr.html

Dallas Hanged 3 Slaves in Civil War Hysteria.

http://www.labordallas.org/hist/hist1865.htm

White Metropolis (SCROLL DOWN TO PARAGRAPH 27 OF THIS ARTICLE TO VIEW ITS COMMENTS ON THE TEXAS FIRES).

http://www.utexas.edu/utpress/excerpts/exphiwhi.html

As for the Morril Tariff, I have explained my views on it many times before and agree with the South Carolina convention that slavery, not the tariff, was the reason the South favored secession. And I must say that Yancy asserted disunion over the same cause.

I have given my reasons for McGuire and his stated reasons for going to war. In this I agree with you totally in that I mistrust his speech. Nothing more, nothing less.

As for your bolt out of the blue, in 1788 North Carolina was not part of the Union because she had not joined, therefore she was not committing an act of rebellion, if I have my dates correct. Rhode Island had not joined either, is that not also correct?

As you have stated when I brought up an author and his book, on another thread, I will reply with the same with Proffessor John Burgess. It's nice that he has written something on the subject, but it is after all, his opinion in the end.

As to your last post concerning my nom de plume, Unionblue, I admit to being somewhat puzzeled. While I can see my dismissel of McGuire's speech gives you some discontent, I fail to see what my avatar and my log-on name has to do with what I personally believe. I have my log-on name as part of a joke when I first joined CWT when I was trying to decide what name to use. I picked it because it was as far as it could be in the other 'camp' as it were, as I was debating a dear friend of mine who had picked 'OldRebel' as his.

I admit, I lean to the North, my posts and arguments make that very plain as can be viewed by their content. I do not believe we are in any sort of violent disagreement on this point. It is simply I choose to accept some material as more factual than others, more worthy of serious consideration than other source material. In other words, I evaluate and decide and come to my own conclusions.

I would also inform you that I came to this method by experience, as I was of the view back in 1993 that the South had left the Union over the issues of States Rights, unfair tariff practices and interference from the federal government. I also believed that slavery was a very small matter and had nothing to do with the 'real' reasons the South left the Union. In other words, I took the advice of others instead of doing my own research. I no longer do so.

Now, am I to assume, that your choice of John Taylor was picked by you because you admire him and his works concerning the US Constitution? That you admire his stance on States Rights and his support of the farmer? His long, honorable service as an officer in the Revolution, his time in the US Senate?

Or am I to assume that you admire that he was a large plantation owner with 145 slaves, who had no idea about the common farmer, seeing that he never worked his farm but merely supervised what he termed his 'animal labor' in the running of his plantation? Based on what has been said about the man, I could make either choice, but how does that help me in deciding who you are and what you believe?

I am willing to simply wait and see how you present your ideas and arguments more than I am to prejudge you on your choice of log-on identification. I do not assume that you lie or present falsehoods. You are presenting your reasons and justifications to support your views. Nothing more, nothing less.

Until next time,
Unionblue

[JohnTaylor]

Starting with your post#26, it is my opinion there was no attempts at secession in the years you indicate for any lack of trying, just as you yourself sumise, the support for breaking up the Union was not there amongst the general population of the South. But, this merely indicates that those previous years were simply a learning experience for those dedicated to breaking up the Union. All the time leading up to Harpers Ferry was used to build up secession, hoping for a time when the rest of the country could be convinced that the only solution to their 'problems' would be to leave the Union.

You are sort of begging the question. Why was secessionism embraced by the majority of the people in 1860-1, yet not embraced by the majority in any State in 1850 or 1856? You are correct that secessionists wanted secession at earlier dates, and would use any pretext to see it enacted, but why didn’t the majority in any State join them until 1860-61?

I submit if not Harpers Ferry and John Brown, another incident, a piece of legislation, or the election of a Republican president would serve just as well.

As I have pointed out already, Henry Wise called for a meeting of all Southern Governors during the run-up to the 1856 Presidential to consider what to do if Fremont was elected. Yet only two Governors showed up, and they couldn’t agree to anything. Why were the majority of the people of the Southern States apathetic about a Republican in 1856? I believe you are seriously underestimating Southern unionism. It took a lot to overwhelm that. I believe that justice and moderation on the part of the North would have held the Union together after Lincoln’s election. Instead, a significant number of Northerners embraced radicalism and violence.

In my research, I noticed that there were organized events, newspaper articles in the North, even declarations in Congress that supported the South, agreed that John Brown should have been hung, etc., but it was not enough.

Instead, wild rumors, to include the newspaper articles you have provided, claimed that other plots were about to start a slave insurrection in far-away Texas, yet the stories in the Southern press do not name names nor are they verified.

Having read the articles, I can tell you that the names of the places were indeed named. In many cases, dollar amounts of damages from the fires were also listed. Shall we go down the list of places with suspicious fires and see whether a fire happened or not? Are you asserting that there was no fire in Dallas? Charles Pryor, who lived in Dallas, wrote a letter dates July 9th which described the fire in downtown. The fire started in Peak’s drug store, and swept most of downtown Dallas. Damaged were estimated at $500,000. Do you doubt whether this fire actually happened?

Could it not be that the Southern newspapers used these 'stories' to further inflame, to incite, to move forward their long delayed plans at disunion?

Eight of the citations I provided are from the New York Times, four are from Southern newspapers. Are you saying that the New York Times was part of some secessionist conspiracy to incite the people to embrace secession?

As for the Morril Tariff, I have explained my views on it many times before and agree with the South Carolina convention that slavery, not the tariff, was the reason the South favored secession.

You are cherry-picking here. South Carolina did indeed say that what she felt was unfair taxation was a reason for secession. The Address of the People of South Carolina asserted “one great principle, self-government, and self-taxation the criterion of self-government.” Economic exploitation is addressed elsewhere in the document.

And I must say that Yancy asserted disunion over the same cause.

“All, then, that the South asks in this contest is that you shall observe the constitutional checks and balances with reference to her. – She is not willing that her rights shall be submitted to the will of mere numerical majorities. For our fathers, for our ancestors, and the great patriots of the North agreed that it should be otherwise. It was the written compact of our fathers that the minority should receive protection from the Constitution against the mere selfish and avaricious will of a preponderant majority. Parties divided themselves originally in this country upon that great principle. One desired that the majority should rule in all things, while the other – the State-rights party of the country – desired it should be different. This latter party carried the day in the formation of the Constitution, and placed checks upon the advancement of the majority. And this written Constitution was the compact by which majorities should restrain themselves with reference to the rights of the minorities. Majorities need no protection save their own power. Hence it is easy for the North to cry out for the Union at all hazards and under all circumstances. It is easy for the North, with its majority of millions, to say they are for this Union any how. No matter who may be elected, no matter what may be done, still they will stand to the Union as the great cause of their prosperity. Why? Because with no Constitution at all, the North can protect themselves with the predominant vote in the country. But how is it with the South? How is it with the minority of the country – the minority States of the Government? If they leave it to the mere will of the preponderant majorities in Congress, the North, as in all other cases, will seek its advancement of power, will seek its own selfish aggrandizement, and will distribute the money of the Government among themselves, raise as much as they please, and do all for their own advancement at the expense of minorities. Minorities, gentlemen, are the true friends of our Constitution because that Constitution is their shield and their protection against the unchecked and unlicensed will of the majority. Hence it is that my section of the South stands by that Constitution. You do not hear so much said there with such flippant tongues about the Union as you do at the North, but you hear much said there about the Constitution; about its strict construction; about the rigid enforcement of its checks, and its balances in favor of these minorities, because to them it is a thing of life and death. Within this government that Constitution must prevail, or the minority will be placed as a “lamb that is led to the slaughter.” But let that Constitution be observed, and the rights of all sections under the Constitution be preserved, and the South is content to abide its fate under the workings of that instrument.” (Yancey’s speech in Washington, September 21st 1860.) Doesn’t sound like a secession-at-all-costs position to me.

I have given my reasons for McGuire and his stated reasons for going to war. In this I agree with you totally in that I mistrust his speech. Nothing more, nothing less.

That strikes me as a pretty close-minded position.

As for your bolt out of the blue, in 1788 North Carolina was not part of the Union because she had not joined, therefore she was not committing an act of rebellion, if I have my dates correct. Rhode Island had not joined either, is that not also correct?

Thank you for that. Yes, you are correct. Neither Rhode Island nor North Carolina had joined the Union by the time that the new government under the Constitution had convened in March-April 1789. This is a point I shall return to later.

As you have stated when I brought up an author and his book, on another thread, I will reply with the same with Proffessor John Burgess. It's nice that he has written something on the subject, but it is after all, his opinion in the end.

Why would a northern professor at a northern University write this if he did not believe it was true? And why would he believe it was true?

(snip) I admit, I lean to the North, my posts and arguments make that very plain as can be viewed by their content. I do not believe we are in any sort of violent disagreement on this point. It is simply I choose to accept some material as more factual than others, more worthy of serious consideration than other source material. In other words, I evaluate and decide and come to my own conclusions.

I would also inform you that I came to this method by experience, as I was of the view back in 1993 that the South had left the Union over the issues of States Rights, unfair tariff practices and interference from the federal government. I also believed that slavery was a very small matter and had nothing to do with the 'real' reasons the South left the Union. In other words, I took the advice of others instead of doing my own research. I no longer do so.

You are wise to not uncritically accept the Southern view. But at the same time, you should not uncritically accept the Northern view of events either. I believe the wisest path is to critically examine all the facts, wherever possible from original source materials, and come to conclusions, but always to retain an open mind.

(snip)
Or am I to assume that you admire that he was a large plantation owner with 145 slaves, who had no idea about the common farmer, seeing that he never worked his farm but merely supervised what he termed his 'animal labor' in the running of his plantation?

Neil, that is a cheap shot. It should be beneath you. I have never said anything in defense of slavery.

Thanks for the links.

Respectfully,
John Taylor

[unionblue]

John Taylor,

No, you have never said anything in the defense of slavery, and that was not my point. How can You assume to take my log-on name, Unionblue, and somehow determine my thoughts and my stand on John Brown, secession, etc., while I not therefore able to infer something by the log-on name you use here? Because, in my opinion, it would be pretty silly to do so. We should both take each others presentations as we debate the facts and not assume anything simply by our log-on IDs. That was the point I was trying to make, not to insult you or claim you supported slavery.

I also believe I am not begging the question about previous attempts at secession and their failure to take form. What I am saying is that those who wanted secession, after each failed attempt, built up their arguments, organizations, newspapers and other organs of misinformation and that it took some time to do so.

I also am not sure if Southern Unionism was overwhelmed from the year 1856 to 1860, just under represented at the secession conventions held at that critical election year.

I am also of the opinion that the fires in Texas were real, and I have no doubt enormous damage took place, but the do not point to any conclusive, historical evidence that they were set by raving abolitionists. I contend these fires were blown out of proportion by those seeking any excuse to provide incidents and excuses for secession.

It was also routine for Northern papers to pick up stories 'on the wire' so I am not surprised the stories were carried by them. But as we both know, newspapers of the times were wont to inflate news events and carry rumor and speculation. The sites I have provided seem to indicate as much, at least to my satisfaction.

And no, John, I am not cherry-picking, I am simply taking for the truth the following by Mr. Keitt said at the South Carolina Secession Declaration Debate: "But the Tariff is not the question which brought the people up to their present attitude. We are to give a summary of our causes to the world, but mainly to the other Southern States, whose co-action we wish, and we must not make a fight on the Tariff question." A bit later, Keitt says, "Our people have come to this on the question of slavery. I am willing, in that address to rest it uppon that question." As to what Yancy said in Washington and what he said and wrote to others, it seems to me to be a matter of timing along with where and when and what particular rights he wanted to protect under the Constitution, the right to preserve and expand slavery.

And yes, John, my statement does appear to be pretty close-minded on the subject of McGuire. You have me pretty much pegged on that one.

I am certain that a northern professor of a northern universtity wrote what he thought was true on the subject, but that does not make him right, just that he thinks he is right. Why he would say such a thing, I have no idea, except to assume that he feels he is right. I also have a right to disagree with him.

I agree with you that one should not embrace Northern views wholely simply because they are from Northern sources. You should be glad that I reject a Northern source about John Brown since this proves that I do not automatically accept all Northern sources simply because of that point on the compass. I agree with you that one should examine all the facts and weigh them and then come to a conclusion based on that examination.

Respectfully,
Unionblue

[JohnTaylor]

Neil, I was looking at your posts, and then you log-on, and putting one and one together. If I presumed too much, I apologize.

I also believe I am not begging the question about previous attempts at secession and their failure to take form. What I am saying is that those who wanted secession, after each failed attempt, built up their arguments, organizations, newspapers and other organs of misinformation and that it took some time to do so.

But, and this is the key point, those that opposed secession in earlier crises, eventually came to accept secession as the remedy. By 1861, this position represented the majority in the Deep South States. I see a difference between radical secessionists (the Rhett’s and Yanceys on 1838 & 1850), and the majority of the population of the Deep South States. I don’t think you can explain Southern behavior unless you make note of that distinction.

I also am not sure if Southern Unionism was overwhelmed from the year 1856 to 1860, just under represented at the secession conventions held at that critical election year.

I believe that the elections for the State Conventions in 1860-1861 were very representative. I believe that I explained this elsewhere on this board, but, once a State decided to hold a Convention, local figures would nominate a candidate for the Convention, based, normally, on his views. Frequently, local newspapers would list those people who had agreed to serve as delegates to the Convention, and, also frequently, the candidates would declare their positions on the issues of the day, sometimes as a result of open letters published in the local newspaper. For example, one person (or group) would ask candidate X whether he was in favor of immediate secession as the solution to the sectional problems of the day, or whether he was in favor of coöperative secession (i.e. States banding together before secession), or was in favor of waiting for some “overt act” by the Federal government under Republican administration (derisively called submissionists by the radical secessionists), and others felt that secession was unacceptable under any circumstances. The candidate would frequently respond publicly to the query, so voters would know what they were voting for.

I am also of the opinion that the fires in Texas were real, and I have no doubt enormous damage took place, but the do not point to any conclusive, historical evidence that they were set by raving abolitionists. I contend these fires were blown out of proportion by those seeking any excuse to provide incidents and excuses for secession.

On his you may be right. I have looked into them as far as I think I can, and I have found little to confirm the existence of any conspiracy. I’m not saying there wasn’t one, just that its existence has not been confirmed. Of course, the efforts by Republicans to squash investigation of Harper’s Ferry made this lack of evidence in Texas less than convincing. One thing is beyond a doubt: there were a lot of fires in Texas that summer. There are flaws in the theories put forward to explain this. Don Reynolds says that the summer of 1860 was unusually hot, and a drought was in effect. I ran across the US Army records of high temperatures in Texas that summer, and far and away the month with the highest max temperature was June. The July max temp was lower than June, and August (when the most fires occurred) was cooler than July. On would think that if heat and dryness explained the fires, the extreme max temps would be the opposite of what they were. Also, some of the fires occurred at night, which was not the hottest time of day. Texas Whig (or “Opposition” or Houston) papers accused Democrats of playing up the extent of the crisis for political effect, but the Texas State Gazette countered that no Opposition party members were suspected, and Democrats had nothing to gain by increasing the menace of a secret Abolitionists conspiracy. Also, getting slaves to confess to arson and conspiracy, and then hanging them for their crimes was hardly a good way to protect the institution in Texas. That is a pretty self-defeating and expensive program (even if one ignores the morality of it for a moment).

And no, John, I am not cherry-picking, I am simply taking for the truth the following by Mr. Keitt said at the South Carolina Secession Declaration Debate: "But the Tariff is not the question which brought the people up to their present attitude. …“ (snip)

As I said earlier, Keitt was one delegate, but not the only one. And Keitt undoubtedly felt that Abolitionists agitation was what had led his brother’s slave to slit Keitt’s brother’s throat in his bed. In one of the two South Carolina declarations, economic exploitation was clearly one of the issues that led the people of South Carolina to embrace secession. Comparing one delegate’s declaration, and a declaration of the body as a whole, which is more authoritative?

And yes, John, my statement does appear to be pretty close-minded on the subject of McGuire. You have me pretty much pegged on that one.

Well, that is a candid response.

I am certain that a northern professor of a northern universtity wrote what he thought was true on the subject, but that does not make him right, just that he thinks he is right. Why he would say such a thing, I have no idea, except to assume that he feels he is right. I also have a right to disagree with him.

You have a right to disagree with him, but do you have an objective reason to do so?

I agree with you that one should not embrace Northern views wholely simply because they are from Northern sources. You should be glad that I reject a Northern source about John Brown since this proves that I do not automatically accept all Northern sources simply because of that point on the compass. I agree with you that one should examine all the facts and weigh them and then come to a conclusion based on that examination.

I presented Burgess quote for two reasons: first, he states the effect of Harper’s Ferry pretty clearly and eloquently. Second, he, being a Northerner at a Northern university, would have no apparent reason to exonerate Southerners for secession, except the truth. Yet, you reject him, not for where he come from, but for what he says (without offering objective historical evidence to substantiate that rejection).
Respectfully,
John Taylor

[unionblue]

John Taylor,

One and one together? If only I could convince others that I am that simple to understand!

I am afraid I have some things to do at present, but I will return shortly to answer your most recent post.

In the meantime, please view the following site concerning if state conventions represented the entire viewpoint of those they were to represent.

South Carolina's Pivotal Decision for DisUnion: Popular Mandate or Manipulated Verdict?

http://www.sc.edu/library/socar/uscs/2001/meet01.html

Until that time, I am,

Simply Yours,
Unionblue

[JohnTaylor]

John Taylor,

One and one together? If only I could convince others that I am that simple to understand!

I am afraid I have some things to do at present, but I will return shortly to answer your most recent post.

In the meantime, please view the following site concerning if state conventions represented the entire viewpoint of those they were to represent.

South Carolina's Pivotal Decision for DisUnion: Popular Mandate or Manipulated Verdict?

http://www.sc.edu/library/socar/uscs/2001/meet01.html

Until that time, I am,

Simply Yours,
Unionblue

Interesting that you pointed out Freehling. I have never come across an historian with a more obvious contempt for his subject matter. In Secessionists at Bay, he frequently calls Southerners "dirt-eaters," only without quotes; the word is Freehling's own.
As for the article, I fundamentally disagree with his premise that secession was not a popular policy in South Carolina. He builds his case on two rather weak points: first, A. P. Aldrich chose not to publish an anti-secession open letter written by James Hammond (whom Freehling acknowledge's as his "anti-friend", as if Freehling's emotions have anything to do with what Hammond said and did in his life a century and a half ago). Also, the militia paraded in South Carolina at that time (while secession was being publicly debated, which would seem to bring into question Freehling's assertion), and that made open popular choice impossible.
One wonders how Freehling feels about the presidentially-directed arrest in 1861 of Maryland State Legislators before they had a chance to vote in favor of the "wrong" position (in favor of holding a State Convention to debate secession or not), or the wartime use of the Union army to prevent voters from approaching the polls unless that had the correct (Union) color-coded ballot in hand. ("In one district the military officer took his stand at the polls before they were opened, declaring that none but the “yellow [Union] ticket should be voted,” and excluded all others throughout the day.")
Compared with these abuses of democracy, the South Carolina militia parading in the streets seems a little tame, yet Freehling would have us believe that a fair debate on whether to secede or not in South Carolina was impossible under such circumstances. Balderdash. South Carolinians, as a group, were made of sterner stuff, and anyone who opposed secession could say so, and some did. By December 1860, however, most favored the policy.
Respectfully,
John Taylor

[ole]

Compared with these abuses of democracy, the South Carolina militia parading in the streets seems a little tame, yet Freehling would have us believe that a fair debate on whether to secede or not in South Carolina was impossible under such circumstances. Balderdash. South Carolinians, as a group, were made of sterner stuff, and anyone who opposed secession could say so, and some did. By December 1860, however, most favored the policy.

I have always considered SC to be the linchpin of proslavery/secessionist thought -- that she had the smallest proportion of unionists of all the slaveholding states. It would follow that antislavery/prounion sentiment arguments were, at best, barren and, at worst, dangerous.

John has made an excellent point in dismissing Freehling's statement, but isn't the statement substantially correct despite its weaknesses? Was there ever even a glimmer of a chance for unionists to bring any weight to their side of the debate?

Just a thought.
Ole

[unionblue]

John Taylor,

Again, I apologize for taking so long to come back to this thread, but events have mandated that I can only view this board for brief periods for the near future.

Yes, it is interesting that I quote Freehling and even more interesting is your response to him. I have the book you mention by him and I do not remember him calling Southerners 'dirt eaters' but I do remember him saying that poor yeomen farmers had to eat clay for some reason.

It is Freehling's contention that the South did not secede over Haprers Ferry, a statement I tend to agree with. From the date of John Brown's attempt to take over Harpers Ferry until the election of a Black Republican in 1860, there appears to be quite a period of time, especially if one thinks the South had it in their minds this was all the work of a Abolishionist cabal in the North. The South seemed pretty willing to wait and see how the election would turn out and THEN began secession over the election results.

I also still have my doubts concerning how well the people of the South were represented in the various secession conventions. A while ago I came upon an article that refuted the idea that Georgia had voted for secession, and it fact, by a very slim margin, rejected secession. I will try and find the web site for you as soon as I am able.

Frankly, the more I consider it, the less I am inclined to go with the idea that Harpers Ferry was a cause of secession. I am more inclined to believe it was simply an excuse, an incident in a long continuing campaign to bring about secession by those who were determined to break up the Union to further their own agenda.

Until next time,
Unionblue

[JohnTaylor]

Ole,
I think you are mixing the two possible meanings of the phrase "did not have a chance." In one sense, the phrase means that, even though a contest is open and the rules applied fairly, one outcome is all but a foregone conclusion. If my high school football team played the Pittsburg Steelers, we would not have had a chance, even if the rules were fairly applied. Walter Mondale never had a chance against Ronald Reagan, and Bob Dole never had a chance against Bill Clinton, even though neither Reagan nor Clinton cheated in any way.
In another sense, one side can not have a chance, because the rules are unfairly applied, as in the Maryland cases I presented. People in South Carolina could very easily have voted for unconditional Unionist candidates, submissionist candidates, cooperationist candidates, or immediate secessionist candidates. That they chose mostly latter does not in any way mean that they could not vote for the former. Indeed, in Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia, there were significant minorities in favor of varying degrees of opinion vis-à-vis secession (from cooperationism to outright unconditional unionism).
Freehling's opinion on this point is simply incorrect. There was a free and open debate on whether South Carolina should leave the Union or not, and most Carolinians decided in favor of immediate secessionism, regardless of what Freehling wishes the case to be.
Respectfully,
John Taylor

[JohnTaylor]

Yes, it is interesting that I quote Freehling and even more interesting is your response to him. I have the book you mention by him and I do not remember him calling Southerners 'dirt eaters' but I do remember him saying that poor yeomen farmers had to eat clay for some reason.

About the third time Freehling used the word "mud-eaters" or "dirt-eaters," I dropped the book and moved on. He was not quoting someone else; those were his own words. I find that about as offensive as an "historian" who uses the "n-word" in his text, when not quoting someone else. I have a hard time taking someone like that seriously.
Respectfully,
JT

[JohnTaylor]

I also still have my doubts concerning how well the people of the South were represented in the various secession conventions. A while ago I came upon an article that refuted the idea that Georgia had voted for secession, and it fact, by a very slim margin, rejected secession. I will try and find the web site for you as soon as I am able.

Neil, I have seen the web page you are talking about. They counted cooperationist candidates as anti-secessionist candidates, which, as we have discussed, is an incorrect view of cooperationism. Cooperationists still endorsed secession, they just believed in cooperative secession (i.e. several states cooperating in secession). Anti-secessionists were labelled "submissionists" because they believed in staying in the Union, regardless of what happened.
If you still have doubts as to how well the people of the South were represented in the State Conventions, do you have any information from the historical record of the period to support your doubts? Or do these doubts come from some place other than the historical record?
Respectfully,
JT

[unionblue]

John Taylor,

I am about to begin my scheduled vacation and I will be gone for about two weeks. I do not want this thread to die from any lack of my participation, so do not fret if I do not answer for a time.

I will try and refind the source material I had on Southern Conventions, and by the way, we may have discussed what a cooperationist was, but I am not sure we totally agreed on that point.

But I will do my utmost to honor your request for historical sources.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[JohnTaylor]

Frankly, the more I consider it, the less I am inclined to go with the idea that Harpers Ferry was a cause of secession.

Proving that one historical event had nothing to do with causing another is pretty difficult.

I am more inclined to believe …

Why would you have this inclination?

… it was simply an excuse, an incident in a long continuing campaign to bring about secession by those who were determined to break up the Union to further their own agenda.

For men like Robert Barnwell Rhett, you might have a case. Rhett was pro-secession in 1838. But you still haven’t explained why, in December 1860-April 1861, secessionism became the position of the majority of Southerners.
So you challenge the premise, again without any reference to the historical record to back up that challenge. Somehow, apparently, wily secessionists “tricked” Southerners into embracing secession. It really wasn’t a popular policy. Yet, you remain unable to show from original source material that this unpopularity was real and widespread.
Curious.
Respectfully,
John Taylor

[ole]

At another time, not that long ago, elektratig, I believe, posted some strong evidence that state governments became gerrymandered to skew political clout in favor of the slave owner (and the mill owner, etc.). I can agree with the evidence because political groups still do it -- it's a natural adjunct to any republican government.

This political clout afforded the slaveowner a disproportionate voice in local, state and federal administration -- including conventions held to determine whether to secede, as well as representatives sent to construct a state constitution. Had there been statewide, secret ballots, there might have been different conclusions. But that is not provable, either way.

Just a thought.
Ole

[JohnTaylor]

At another time, not that long ago, elektratig, I believe, posted some strong evidence that state governments became gerrymandered to skew political clout in favor of the slave owner (and the mill owner, etc.). I can agree with the evidence because political groups still do it -- it's a natural adjunct to any republican government.

This political clout afforded the slaveowner a disproportionate voice in local, state and federal administration -- including conventions held to determine whether to secede, as well as representatives sent to construct a state constitution. Had there been statewide, secret ballots, there might have been different conclusions. But that is not provable, either way.

Just a thought.
Ole

Ole, that certainly was the case in Virginia, where representation was based on tax-paying, not one-man, one vote. But even in this case, since slaves under 12 years of age weren't taxed, they were "represented" either. And in the case of Virginia, the people weren't in for of secession until after President Lincoln called for troops to invade the South. Then there was a large majority in favor of secession. (132,201 to 37,451 in favor, although a few counties' results, both in the east and the west, have been lost). This vote was one man, one vote, so slave-owners were not over-represented. Secession was popular in Virginia in May 1861.

In Texas, there was also a referendum, and secession won the popular vote, 46,153 for and 14,747.

It also won in Tennessee, 104,471 to 47,183.

I believe that these were the only States that held referenda. In every case, the decision was a popular one.

It is difficult to imagine that, in South Carolina (unanimous in convention), if a referendum had been held, that secessionism would not have won the day, yet, half of South Carolina families were nonslaveholding. In Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi, there were significant minorities in each convention, yet, because of the democratic nature of the selection of delegates, it seems unlikely that referenda would have reversed the conventions' decisions. People voting for delegates knew the positions of the various delegates, and indeed selected their delegates based on the delegates' stated views on secession.

Underlying your post (and Neil's as well) is the unstated assumption that democratically-arrived at decisions in favor of secession (or against, theoretically), were therefore legitimate. That explains why modern-day Unionists seek to question the democratic credentials of those decisions.
Respectfully,
John Taylor

[ole]

Underlying your post (and Neil's as well) is the unstated assumption that democratically-arrived at decisions in favor of secession (or against, theoretically), were therefore legitimate. That explains why modern-day Unionists seek to question the democratic credentials of those decisions.

I'm not one who holds that referenda in every state would have produced results much different than those realized. It is a subject for discussion and verification, but hardly demonstrates illegitimacy.
Ole

[JohnTaylor]

I'm not one who holds that referenda in every state would have produced results much different than those realized. It is a subject for discussion and verification, but hardly demonstrates illegitimacy.
Ole

Ole, just for the sake of argument, if the decision to secede had been arrived at democratically,would you look with more favor on such a decision?

[unionblue]

John Taylor,

Fair is fair. If it was proven that the choice for secession was NOT arrived at democratically, would you look with more favor at the decision to keep the Union intact?

Unionblue

[ole]

Ole, just for the sake of argument, if the decision to secede had been arrived at democratically,would you look with more favor on such a decision?

It wasn't arrived at democratically?
Ole

[JohnTaylor]

John Taylor,

Fair is fair. If it was proven that the choice for secession was NOT arrived at democratically, would you look with more favor at the decision to keep the Union intact?

Unionblue

Neil,
yes, I would. If someone could demonstrate that secession was not democratically chosen, I would view the unionist position with more favor. You see, I am not pro-slavery, nor specifically pro-southern. I am pro-constitution (as originally intended) and, more broadly, pro-self-determination.
I have not arrived at these positions becuause I think they are right. I have come to these positions from looking at the historical record, and examining how the Founders dealt with these issues.
Of course, which demos one selects to determine how democratic the decision was is an important one. The Founders decided that the people of each State would decide for itself whether to join the Union or not.

[JohnTaylor]

It wasn't arrived at democratically?
Ole

Ole, I am just asking theoretically.

[ole]

Ole, I am just asking theoretically.

I know. Was just funnin' ya'll.

Not really. Many a bad law is passed democratically; e.g., Jim Crow, Prohibition, secession declarations, state nullification of constitutional provisions... I believe the constitution intended for there to be no unilateral secession. Irregularities in conducting the secession processes were nothing new, impossible to curb and (lacking any guarantee of absolute fairness) ought to be taken as valid -- however illegal the object.

Ole