Just for Curiosity: Pre-War Newspaper Comparison

alan polk

Sergeant Major
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
2,176
#61
Actually, this article has several references to slavery:
• There is a reference to the "Black Republicans" - a phrase used to signify that the Republican Party favors racial equality/the end of slavery (they are the negro-lover party)
• The phrase "with our institutions free from interference and protected" refers to slavery
• The phrase "Northern pulpits denounce us as Christians" refers to Northerners who describe slavery as a sin
• The phrase "we are cheated out of our rights in the common territories" refers to free soil-ism (no slavery in the territories)

Note that, this is not coded language. The readers of The Yazoo Democrat would have known the meaning of these phrases.

- Alan
Thank you. I agree with everything you said. I just simply reported that “the word ‘“slavery’” is not used.” Considering the multitude of other articles posted above, It seemed unique in that aspect as well as its citation of other grievances in that particular article. Slavery is indeed in the background and I suspected that my reporting of the other numerous articles from the Yazoo Democrat makes that abundantly clear. There is only so much interpretation and explanation I can do. That I assumed “Black Republican” had a universal understanding might have been a mistake on my part.

But thank you for making note of it, for it gives me opportunity to state my agreement here at this point with your above comments. Again, thanks for reading and making comments. I look forward to your other observations.
 
Last edited:

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)

alan polk

Sergeant Major
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
2,176
#62
The Yazoo Democrat, August 6, 1859

Below: A perceived direct threat against slavery is growing at the North and felt strongly here. The Yazoo Democrat insists that the question of slavery within the country “is more vitally important to the future of the Union than any other question has ever been, and, probably, can ever be.”

Looming danger is approaching and the language is strong. It has now become, as the Yazoo declares, “a question of life and death.”

At this point, I have not seen the name Abraham Lincoln printed. Instead, the Yazoo Democrat believes William Seward will take the Republican nomination.

Whatever the case, The Yazoo Democrat informs its readers of the continued growth of abolitionism at the north:

“The first abolitionist candidates for the presidency and vice presidency, Birney and Lymoyne, in 1840, did not receive 10,000 votes, all told. Four years after -only four years- the abolition candidate received 60,000 votes! In ‘48, Van Buren and Gerrit Smith polled 400,000 votes. In 1852, a division in the party as to policy caused John P. Hale to fall 150,000 votes behind that number, but in 1856 John C. Fremont received support of the entire party which presented a strength of 1,350,000 votes! This is rapid multiplication, and provides food for grave reflection.”

The Yazoo Democrat asks it readers, “What will you do if Wm. H. Seward is elected president in 1860?” If one section votes against him and the other for him, “Is he any president of the South?”

“We hold it to be a grave respect which the south owes its bane of her revolutionary ancestors - a solemn duty to her and posterity and to her own instincts of freedom, patriotism and self respect, immediately to dissolve this Union, and spurn her oppressors.”

DD1CBA54-2E21-41EF-B388-03D37838A93F.jpeg

103BDCBB-F993-4C3B-A112-0760F82F6A66.jpeg

8F2C3FFA-CE37-4F32-A57E-5EBD2671EA92.jpeg
C0EBBFF7-A16D-4BAD-A824-B128CE2085B1.jpeg
E90465AE-6B7C-4A54-84C7-41B844874591.jpeg
1E5B96AA-03EB-4CB1-B6FF-00B08E02916E.jpeg
 
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
8,464
Location
District of Columbia
#65
Just to point out, as I often do, that since "institutions" is plural, there must logically be other issues involved, because slavery is a singular "institution".
I do understand your point. But having seen the term used in countless docs, it does seem to me that when the term institution or institutions was used, it was a reference to the peculiar institution.

But I'm open to suggestion. What other institutions would they have been referring to, that were under threat by the Black Republicans who were called out in the article?

- Alan
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Messages
7,348
Location
South Carolina
#66
I do understand your point. But having seen the term used in countless docs, it does seem to me that when the term institution or institutions was used, it was a reference to the peculiar institution.

But I'm open to suggestion. What other institutions would they have been referring to, that were under threat by the Black Republicans who were called out in the article?

- Alan
@Andersonh1 ,

And what would those other institutions be in your opinion?

Sincerely,
Unionblue
Anything the states controlled prior to the 14th amendment and incorporation doctrine. States determined citizenship, who could vote, who could own property, etc. As Calhoun noted, if the General government could use the tariff and taxation to claim power for coercing a state, they could claim power over anything, including slavery, as indeed they ultimately did.
 

alan polk

Sergeant Major
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
2,176
#67
The Yazoo Democrat, August 6, 1859

Below: Article describing the efforts of US Marshals to intercept a suspected slave ship off the coast of Florida.

D60EECB4-B6BF-4CB2-B2F9-C91A0667CD90.jpeg

CB1D1C54-9255-4905-BF84-F40EB38B8DF5.jpeg
 
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
8,464
Location
District of Columbia
#68
Anything the states controlled prior to the 14th amendment and incorporation doctrine. States determined citizenship, who could vote, who could own property, etc. As Calhoun noted, if the General government could use the tariff and taxation to claim power for coercing a state, they could claim power over anything, including slavery, as indeed they ultimately did.
I don't want to hijack this thread with this discussion. But I find it dubious that these were considered under the rubric of "our institutions."

Slavery is an institution that was unique to the South. One historian has made the point that the peculiar in the term "peculiar institution" was a reference to slavery being peculiar to the South, not peculiar in the sense of being odd (I don't recall who that scholar was). I recall another historian who made the point that when talking about their institutions (in terms of sectional conflict) they were usually talking about slavery. So, this is something that I have seen discussed by historians.

Something like setting citizenship was a power that all states had, it was not a unique institution of the South. There was definitely an issue of states rights and federalism at play here, but that is not by nature an issue of "our institutions" being at risk. Some northern states had the same issues with states rights and federalism that were not about any "northern" institutions.

> If further discussion is to be made, out of respect to the OP, perhaps it should be in a different thread. It will be true that things will be said in the press clippings that will require some interpretation to be understood as the people of the times understood them.

- Alan
 

alan polk

Sergeant Major
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
2,176
#69
The Yazoo Democrat, August 6, 1859

Below: The Yazoo copies another article from the Southern Citizen condemning a declaration by the Episcopal Convention of South Carolina. That convention declared that marriages between slaves should be recognized by masters, stating that “the injunctions of the Savior forbidding the separation of man and wife is obligatory on the master.”

The writer of the article strongly disagrees, stating marriage never existed in Africa and that the institution “is unsuited to the negro character.”

F9E34A2D-A632-4BE4-BC9E-113DC8578646.jpeg

4EBA76CA-D718-4667-8C5C-233BDE0F1C3F.jpeg
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
28,203
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
#70
The Yazoo Democrat, August 6, 1859

Below: The Yazoo copies another article from the Southern Citizen condemning a declaration by the Episcopal Convention of South Carolina. That convention declared that marriages between slaves should be recognized by masters, stating that “the injunctions of the Savior forbidding the separation of man and wife is obligatory on the master.”

The writer of the article strongly disagrees, stating marriage never existed in Africa and that the institution “is unsuited to the negro character.”

View attachment 293696
View attachment 293697
Wow.
 

alan polk

Sergeant Major
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
2,176
#71
The New York Herald, September 1, 1859

The Herald publishes several speeches delivered by different leaders in the country expressing different positions on the issues of the day.

I will post portions of each. The first, by former Governor of New York.

Below: Speech delivered August 24, 1859 by former New York governor Horatio Seymour to the Young Men’s Democratic Union Club in St. Paul, Minnesota.

Seymour informs his Minnesota audience that their upcoming elections, though local in part, will nonetheless have a national influence. He informs the Minnesotans that the States of the Northwest “will exert a peculiar influence over the destinies and fortunes of our country, that you should lay deep and broad the foundations of your future policy, on a firm and enduring basis - one of sound principles and exact justice to every portion of this great country.”

Governor Seymour states that the country is divided, that “we hear men in certain portions of these United States denounced as bitterly and as heartlessly as if they were our enemies instead of being our brethren and citizens of the common land of ours.”

“Now, I am a Northern man, standing on Northern soil and speaking to Northern men, and, in speaking of the South . . . I recognize them as patriotic men, who love their country. . . .”

In conveying to his audience the differences that have developed between the North and South, Seymour examines a bit of the history from a viewpoint not often taken by Northerners during this present time of divisiveness.

He reminds his audience that both Northerners and Southerners fought the Revolution against a foe on common battlefields and struggled together for common rights. Seymour reminds his audience that, during this time, “slavery existed in all our colonies” “We had no difficulty on account of slavery, then, in achieving our independence.”

However, Seymour continues, slavery has been abolished in more than half of the country. It is believed by many of them that slavery is now leading to “the disruption of this great confederacy.”

“I fear that we of the North are unjust, and not altogether courageous, in our treatment of our brethren of the South. How came slavery in these United States? Who brought the negro from Africa? The South never had ships. The men of New York, where I came from, the men of Massachusetts, the men of Rhode Island, were those who sold them from their homes and brought them over to the shambles here.”

“The time was when, over the length and breath of this land of ours, the people did not recognize the black man as having any political rights. Now, my friends, that is just as true of Massachusetts as of South Carolina.”

“When the constitutions of the United States was formed, when the delegates from the different states met in convention, the question of slavery was there, and it was asked when shall the slave trade be put to an end? Georgia says, now; Virginia says, now; South Carolina says, not yet; Connecticut, not yet; Rhode Island, not yet; Massachusetts, not yet; and New Hampshire said not yet - the slave Trade is profitable.”

“The slavers laid their cargoes on some unfrequented shores of the Southern coast, and forthwith the entire South was charged with complicity in the slave trade. But they do not at the same time tell you that the ships are fitted out from New England ports.”

“Now, what lead to the abolishment of slavery in the North, and thus gave us the basis of our present strength?” It is because, “The democratic party under Jefferson inaugurated the wise and beneficent policy of inviting the laboror of the old world to plant himself down upon the great and fertile plains of our country.”

As a result, “We [the Free States] have now a majority in the Senate, in the House of Representatives, and in the Electoral College . . . Is this a time, and are these the circumstances under which an “Irrepressible Conflict” shall be waged against the people and institutions of the weaker section? When the South was strong and we were weak, they furnished us no precedent for the course of action we now propose to pursue against them.”

He goes on to state that it is a “great deal easier to denounce other people for their sins than it is to reform ourselves.” The former governor quips that slavery came about by the firm of “Weaver, Wearer and Planter, and two of the partners live up North.”

Seymour asks his audience to consider these points, and states to them that there is a difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. “The democratic party is a let alone party - the republican party is a meddling party.”

D386E5F7-6BE2-41DD-9EB1-80D9C0B43F2D.jpeg

A7B49E68-C195-49DA-9D5F-3D13723B11C5.jpeg
6FDEE1C2-B515-4769-A99D-7F69D359F544.jpeg
B269D113-6B7E-4474-B2FA-CAF056831B23.jpeg
 
Last edited:

alan polk

Sergeant Major
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
2,176
#72
The New York Herald, September 1, 1859

Below: Speech given by Ohio Govorner, Salmon P. Chase, in Sandusky, Ohio.

Due to its length, the speech will be divided into several posts.

The bulk of Chase’s speech deals with the growing issue of the slave question and it’s relationship to Ohio. However, before wading into that issue, he briefly attacks President Buchanan in relation to expenditures.

In short, Chase cites a letter written by Buchanan in 1852, four years prior to his election, wherein Buchanan warns the country that government expenditures were growing out of control (then at 50 million dollars) and that if the Democrats did not extend its “strong arm” to resist this extravagance, that sum would reach 100 million dollars in a short time.

Chase states that, when Buchanan took office, expenditures were 50 million dollars. During his first term as President, however, that number rose quickly to 65 million. It did not stop. Under Buchanan and the Democrats, the government’s expenditures continued to inflate, so that during 1857, according to Chase, it grew to 80 million dollars. Chase informs his audience that it is now estimated that during the year 1859, expenditures will increase to 91 million dollars with reasonable expectations that it will exceed over 100 million dollars by 1860.

According to Chase, Democrats are satisfied with such growth because they refuse to discuss it in their speeches.

SLAVERY:

Chase discusses the issue of slavery “coming into our state and national affairs.” In doing so, he contrasts Ohio Republicans from Ohio Democrats while also warning of the potential outcome of Lemmon v. New York case, then pending before the US Supreme Court.

He asserts that, though the lower courts have ruled that the slaves in Lemmon Case to be free, the election of another Democrat to the presidency in 1860 will all but assure that the Supreme Court will rule against the lower courts, “just as after the election of Mr. Buchanan the Dred Scott case was decided in favor of the claims to carry slaves into the territories.”

Chase warns that a Democratic victory will mean the same thing for the Lemmon Case as it meant for the Dred Scott Case: “it will be decided as is claimed by the slave power . . . In other words, it is a decision in favor, not of the African slave trade, but of the American slave trade, to be carried on in the free states.” He states that history has clearly shown that Federal officials under Democratic rule will not hesitate to enforce such a ruling.

Governor Chase reminds voters that it was Ohio Republicans who initially passed an “act to prohibit slaveholding in Ohio.” However, the Ohio Democrats repealed that law, believing that “slaveholders had the right of transit.”

Chase insists that such repeal “will be invoked as the consent of the Democratic Party of Ohio before the Supreme Court, and of a majority of the people of the State of Ohio, who, it will be presumed, elected that legislature pledged to this nefarious doctrine.”

In addition, Ohioans built their jails and courthouses “to enforce justice between man and man.” It is why, Chase says, “the republican Legislature passed an act denying the use of these jails to the slave catcher, because, according to the constitution of the United States, the duty of arresting fugitive slaves belongs to the United States and not to the states.” However, the Democratic Legislature of Ohio “repealed these laws, opened your jails, and sanctioned the employment of your officers in this business.”
9B9D63E3-1204-456B-9065-E51E97DC6CB4.jpeg

5AB11327-61A3-4CFB-A5E7-4F70844D181D.jpeg

5B4428C1-3E27-4EA1-8CC5-BB728AEB71F0.jpeg
 

alan polk

Sergeant Major
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
2,176
#73
The New York Herald, September 1, 1859

Salmon Chase Speech Continued:

Chase continues by telling his audience that the overriding “object of the slave interest has been for many years to obtain control of the federal government.”

According to Chase, the slave power has attempted this by “securing the nomination and election of such men for the president as will use the patronage of the government in their behalf, and thus control legislation.”

By such methods, the slave interest has sought to organize the Supreme Court: “They have now five slaveholding judges, while there are only four non slaveholding judges.” Chase insists that the slave power appointed these judges through the president of its selection.

To assume the slave interest will cease in its attempts to control the Federal Government, Chase proclaims, is a dire mistake. Many once thought that the “compromise measures” would bring about a “final settlement” of the slavery question. It did not. During the Pierce administration, the slave power demanded the “Missouri prohibition repealed.” President Pierce succumbed to their demands, thinking that complying to such would bring about a finality on the issue. However, the slave interest did not stop with its aggressiion, for it next wanted Kansas, and wanted Pierce to “appoint officials to secure it.”

“They wanted Constitutional sanction for slavery everywhere. This came from the Dred Scott decision.” Now, claimed Chase, “slavery is sanctioned in all the Territories.”

Yet the aggression has not stopped. Chase asserts that having slavery established in all the Territories is not good enough. Now, the slave power is determined to put negroes into the Territories. To do this, “they have revived the [African] slave trade already” by essentially refusing to convict slavers. Now slaves are being smuggled into places like Florida without penalty. As such, the slave Trade is technically revived, and the “only question is, whether the laws which prohibit it shall be repealed or not.”

The Democrats have shown they will not resist the aggression of the slave power. Chase warns that slave interests will next “claim that slaves once introduced into the country may be sent into the free states.”

4EC3D804-DCCD-40BA-BD1C-DD32ABBFD90C.jpeg

C02B3F2D-E5CC-45C7-A0C4-DB364C5BC8FB.jpeg

97E42AB1-7A5F-482A-ABED-F917FAE5133B.jpeg
 

alan polk

Sergeant Major
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
2,176
#74
The New York Herald, September 1, 1859

Salmon Chase Speech Continued.

After the Democratic Party “submitted to the Fugitive Slave Act and the Compromise of 1850, I did not dream there was any further humiliation in reserve for us. I did not suppose that this guarantee for freedom, by which the Territories were protected as free homes for free men, was to be broken down.”

Chase asserts that the Republican Party stands by the Homestead Bill. It believes “the public lands of the country should pass into the hands of settlers; that they should have all opportunity to take up those public lands, with little or no price, and cultivate them, the country looking for remuneration not to the price of land but to the increase wealth resulting from the settler’s industry.”

According to Chase, the Democratic Party voted against the bill. “All the slaveholders in the South, aided by a great body of the democracy of the North, united in voting down that proposition.” The Republican Party votes and acts for the bill, which marks the Republicans as “the party of the people and not as a party of the Oligarchy.”

C437E361-04B8-4126-8FC2-F13BA1563B96.jpeg

5213819A-0F44-45CA-AE46-D5CDF30DFCC9.jpeg

98820ED5-3B46-4B64-AFBD-D48634B33D77.jpeg
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
34,760
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#76
From the opening post of this thread:



The context of the discussion of this subject was that there was a southern newspaper which stated that it was necessary that "our institutions (are) free from interference and protected" from the the "black Republicans." The article is here.

My question was, exactly which other other institutions were those southern writers referring to, which were threatened by the Black Republicans, besides slavery?

It strikes me that, depending on how you define the word, a lot of social practices can defined or perceived or seen as an "institution." But not every institution was under threat from Black Republicans, as they are called. So, which ones were under threat?

- Alan
We have a current thread speculating on the term Domestic Institutions.
Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions;
 

alan polk

Sergeant Major
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
2,176
#78
The New York Herald, September 1, 1859

Below: Speech delivered by Senator Jefferson Davis on July 5, 1859 to the Democratic State Convention in Jackson, Mississippi.

Davis addresses several resolutions submitted to the State Convention regarding protection of Southern Rights in the Territories. In doing so, he speaks about the Compromise of 1850, Kansas-Nebraska Act, Dred Scott Decision, and the latest Northern construction of the Non Intervention Doctrine.

“In your resolutions you have asserted the right to protection by the general government for the property of civilians of the several states who may settle on the common domain, the territory of the United States, as a consequence of the equality of the states, and the correlation of the allegiance and protection, your proposition would seem too clear for argument. Nor, indeed, has it been denied, except in view of the performance of the duty towards one kind of property, and it is hazarding little to foretell that your resolution, though general in its terms, will be construed as having a single application to property in slaves.”

Davis talks at length about attempts during the 1850 Comprise to ensure that slavery would be protected in the newly acquired territories. According to Davis, these attempts were thwarted at every turn. Southern amendments to several bills were voted down.

Recalling those events, Davis asks, “was it hate for the South which caused a majority thus tenaciously to preserve the decree of a government which obstructed the equal enjoyment by all citizens of the United States of the property held by joint tenure, and won by their common toil, blood and treasure?”

The best the South could get were provisions restricting the Territorial governments “from establishing or prohibiting African slavery.”

“When the same question rose again in 1854, on the bill for the reorganization of Kansas and Nebraska,” Davis reminded the Convention, “the original draft was modified to declare the constitution should have the same force and effect in those Territories as elsewhere in the United States, and the obstruction to the enjoyment in that Territory of equal rights by the citizens of the Southern States, known as the Missouri Compromise, was swept from the statute book.”

“What were our constitutional rights in the Territories remained an open question, being designedly left for judicial decision.”

However, notes Davis, the Supreme Court of the United States “decided the issue in our favor, and though place men may evade and fanatics rail, the judgement stands the rule of right, and claims the respect and obedience of every citizen of the United States.”

Non Intervention:

Yet, Davis asserts, there are “those who seek to revive the controversy by indirection, and deny the obligation of the general government to give efficacy to constitutional rights which have been established beyond the limits of legitimate denial. . . The government which withholds all practicable and rightful protection to its citizens, forfeits its claim to allegiance and support.”

Davis cites the War of 1812 as proof of the government’s power to protect its citizens. That war, Davis argues, was waged for the protection of merchantmen from detention on the high seas and to defend our citizens.

Nevertheless, Davis cites a new version of Non Intervention that is being used against the South which operates to obstruct their rights guaranteed them under Dred Scott. (I believe non intervention was initially used to describe popular sovereignty in the territorial debates. I think it is safe to assume the evolution of that idea was encompassed and popularized by Stephen Douglas in the late1850s, particularly in the Lincoln-Douglas debates.) This “modern construction,” according to Davis, “denies the right of Congress to do anything in relation to slave property in either the Territories, States, or District of Columbia”

“If the question be submitted to the intelligent minds in any portion of the country, ‘Shall the general government have the means which will enable it to give adequate protection to person and property of American citizens on the high seas and wherever on land it has jurisdiction?’ I will not doubt what the answer would be. . . Our assertion to the right of protection does not necessarily involve the enactment of additional laws, nor would any law give security unless they were honestly administered.”

“The proposition . . . that the constitution, as the supreme law of the land, extended to the Territories, and as it recognized property in slaves, so authorized their introduction into the Territories, the common domain of the United States, has been affirmed by the Supreme Court.”

“Our fathers feared the convulsions which the election of a President would produce. The next generation regarded the apprehension as unfounded; to us its realization may be appointed, because to us it has been reserved to witness the organization of a party seeking the possession of the government not for the common good, not for their own particular benefit, but as a means of executing a hostile purpose towards a portion of the States.”
BC30F765-962C-4DC5-AAFB-28FD3332C4BF.jpeg

72B68B74-0D7F-49EF-8075-33E93737A06F.jpeg
6D53084D-81AF-4C5D-B556-F96C64B37156.jpeg
8928CB06-9795-44CD-9DDF-913331F86D9D.jpeg
158CDCBB-0197-4FB0-B2FC-A1B91AD3DFA8.jpeg
B547CF87-BC0C-469B-BC1E-5A3FEA015B1E.jpeg
 
Last edited:

alan polk

Sergeant Major
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
2,176
#79
The Yazoo Democrat, September 3, 1859.

Below: John J. Pettus, Democrat, would become Governor of Mississippi during the turbulent years of the Civil War. These articles discuss Pettus’s positions as a candidate for the position of governor.

Pettus is for resisting the growing aggression of sectionalism. “He would favor a cessation of trade with the North, and other milder measures of resistance, and if that failed to stay the tide of abolitionism, he would, as a last resort, interpose with force and arms.”

On the Territorial issue, Pettus denounces “the squatter sovereignty of Douglas and his followers, and claimed it to be the duty of Congess to interpose adequate protection to slavery in the Territories, in default of territorial legislation to that effect.”

Pettus believed that “the protection to property was one of the chief ends of governments . . . and that this protection to property in the Territories was in accordance to the Constitution; and it was in unison with the spirit of fraternity which resulted in the States forming the Federal compact.”
B442E848-75BD-43D7-BE96-6C294B75AD3D.jpeg
F0A99436-7501-4FA4-9D13-2AF7D57252D5.jpeg
 

alan polk

Sergeant Major
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
2,176
#80
The Yazoo Democrat, September 3, 1859.

Below: John J. Pettus articles continued, wherein he cites the deplorable conditions of Jamaica after its emancipation and warns that the South would follow suit if emancipation occurred here.

He believes Seward will get the Republican nomination and asserts that, if made President, he will move to punish the South, forcing emancipation without compensation.


2F1AD7EC-9F64-4EBF-99DB-CA871788D103.jpeg
EC99D62E-FBAD-44A8-A327-8B6D60EE026D.jpeg
 



(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top