My thoughts

[Mark F. Jenkins]

My two cents. As usual, worth every penny.

The war was caused by secession. Absent secession and the seizure of federal property, there was no cause for military action by the federal government.

Secession was caused by the fear of a number of Southern politicians that the election of a Republican administration signaled hardening attitudes on the part of large portions of the North toward slavery and the spread of slavery.

Ironically, secession and the war probably hastened the end of slavery, in a much more thorough and destructive manner than if events were more or less left to run their course. President Lincoln clearly believed at the beginning that the Federal government had no constitutional right to interfere with slavery in the states where it existed. The legal support for the Emancipation Proclamation was provided by the extraordinary war powers of the executive branch; absent a war, those powers would not have existed, therefore no Proclamation. Absent the Southern states' votes in Congress, the Thirteenth Amendment sailed through the process far more rapidly than it would have had they been present, and with little or no concessions or negotiation.

Slavery was doomed in the long run (as Southern politicians saw clearly) due to the faster growth rate of the Northern population, its stronger economy, and the aforementioned hardening attitudes towards the expansion of slavery. Sooner or later, the non-slave states would gain a large enough majority in federal representation to take control and begin to chip away at slavery's power base.

The cardinal sin of the South was that they were willing to break apart the Union over what they saw as their sectional or state-specific demands. But the Union needed Virginia, and Louisiana, and the rest, even South Carolina… and to allow one secession or fragmentation of the Republic was to invite more, whenever a state or group of states disagreed with the central government. The precedent could not be allowed to stand, if there was to be any recognizable sort ofUnited States of America surviving the process. (I won't quote the Gettysburg Address here, but I fully subscribe to its ideas.)

I honor the Confederate dead as soldiers, and even as patriots after a fashion. I respect their prowess and ingenuity, and see it as an inseparable part of the American story. I mourn the deaths of so many Americans on both sides in the struggle. And I heartily wish the contest could have been decided with the ballot-box rather than the bayonet.

Your mileage may vary, and I don't doubt that the hardened partisans will disagree, perhaps vehemently. But this is where I stand.

 

[DanF]

I would only add that one of the greatest fears of the aristocratic southern leaders concerning the triumph of the Republican party was their fear of the formation of a Southern Republican party. They feared the majority non slave holding whites would be attracted to this party and that in the end slavery and the planter class elites rule would be destroyed not by Federal power, but by the votes of their own non slave holding majority within their own states.

 

[rpkennedy]

My two cents. As usual, worth every penny.

The war was caused by secession. Absent secession and the seizure of federal property, there was no cause for military action by the federal government.

Secession was caused by the fear of a number of Southern politicians that the election of a Republican administration signaled hardening attitudes on the part of large portions of the North toward slavery and the spread of slavery.

Ironically, secession and the war probably hastened the end of slavery, in a much more thorough and destructive manner than if events were more or less left to run their course. President Lincoln clearly believed at the beginning that the Federal government had no constitutional right to interfere with slavery in the states where it existed. The legal support for the Emancipation Proclamation was provided by the extraordinary war powers of the executive branch; absent a war, those powers would not have existed, therefore no Proclamation. Absent the Southern states' votes in Congress, the Thirteenth Amendment sailed through the process far more rapidly than it would have had they been present, and with little or no concessions or negotiation.

Slavery was doomed in the long run (as Southern politicians saw clearly) due to the faster growth rate of the Northern population, its stronger economy, and the aforementioned hardening attitudes towards the expansion of slavery. Sooner or later, the non-slave states would gain a large enough majority in federal representation to take control and begin to chip away at slavery's power base.

The cardinal sin of the South was that they were willing to break apart the Union over what they saw as their sectional or state-specific demands. But the Union needed Virginia, and Louisiana, and the rest, even South Carolina… and to allow one secession or fragmentation of the Republic was to invite more, whenever a state or group of states disagreed with the central government. The precedent could not be allowed to stand, if there was to be any recognizable sort ofUnited States of America surviving the process. (I won't quote the Gettysburg Address here, but I fully subscribe to its ideas.)

I honor the Confederate dead as soldiers, and even as patriots after a fashion. I respect their prowess and ingenuity, and see it as an inseparable part of the American story. I mourn the deaths of so many Americans on both sides in the struggle. And I heartily wish the contest could have been decided with the ballot-box rather than the bayonet.

Your mileage may vary, and I don't doubt that the hardened partisans will disagree, perhaps vehemently. But this is where I stand.

I agree with most of what you wrote here, Mark. Good post.

R

 

[jpeter]

Two cents? It's undervalued.

I'm issuing a "buy" order to all my clients.

 

[Red Harvest]

Something I don't think was understood by Southerners of the time is that the US saw itself facing an existential threat from a very aggressive and hostile CSA. The CSA had its eye on the territories and history suggested it wouldn't make for a "good neighbor." The Union states were backed into a corner by the rather small free population of the Deep South.

 

[KeyserSoze]

Slavery was doomed in the long run (as Southern politicians saw clearly)...

With respect, prior to the outbreak of the rebellion I'm not aware of a single Southern leader who thought slavery was doomed to extinction any time soon. Certainly not within the next few generations.

 

[Rob9641]

The further irony is that without Lee, the CSA would have lost the war a lot earlier, so early that the Emancipation Proclamation would not have been issued. The more he won, the more Lee doomed the cause he was fighting for.

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

With respect, prior to the outbreak of the rebellion I'm not aware of a single Southern leader who thought slavery was doomed to extinction any time soon. Certainly not within the next few generations.

The doom I mean is that the Northern/nonslavery areas and political power were growing more rapidly than the slave states, and that they feared the nonslavery faction would eventually grow powerful enough to dictate their own terms.

 

[Joshua Horn]

One

Secession was caused by the fear of a number of Southern politicians that the election of a Republican administration signaled hardening attitudes on the part of large portions of the North toward slavery and the spread of slavery.

This is true for the cotton states/deep south, but the rest of the South didn't secede until after Lincoln's call for troops. So it seems to me they seceded to keep from having to force the other states to remain in the Union. Of course, if it hadn't been for the secession of the deep South the rest wouldn't have seceded either.

 

[DanF]

One


This is true for the cotton states/deep south, but the rest of the South didn't secede until after Lincoln's call for troops. So it seems to me they seceded to keep from having to force the other states to remain in the Union. Of course, if it hadn't been for the secession of the deep South the rest wouldn't have seceded either.

You have to keep in mind that the states that did not secede had taken a wait and see attitude with Lincoln. They were fully prepared to secede if Lincoln moved against Slavery. They were also prepared to secede if coercion was used againt the seceded states.

So in reality it is not a case of those states were not ready to secede over slavery if it came down to that.

 

[CSA Today]

I would only add that one of the greatest fears of the aristocratic southern leaders concerning the triumph of the Republican party was their fear of the formation of a Southern Republican party. They feared the majority non slave holding whites would be attracted to this party and that in the end slavery and the planter class elites rule would be destroyed not by Federal power, but by the votes of their own non slave holding majority within their own states.

Are you making this up or did you read it somewhere?

Apparently someone told Gen Benjamin F. Butler that the priest Fr. LeRay refused to conduct the funeral for a Union soldier so he called Fr. LeRay before him. When Fr. LeRay met the general he said-- "Why no General Butler, I would NEVER refuse to bury ANY Union soldier, in fact I would be glad to bury the entire Union army."

 

[DanF]

Are you making this up or did you read it somewhere?

Apparently someone told Gen Benjamin F. Butler that the priest Fr. LeRay refused to conduct the funeral for a Union soldier so he called Fr. LeRay before him. When Fr. LeRay met the general he said-- "Why no General Butler, I would NEVER refuse to bury ANY Union soldier, in fact I would be glad to bury the entire Union army."

You can read it in some of the secessionist speeches. I am guessing you never have. Most of it centered around the fears of Lincoln using the patronage system to appoint Southerners who would become republican to fill federal positions in the south. Forming a nucleus around which a southern republican party would grow.

For your neck of the woods look up the Speech of the honorable Thomas L Clingman on the State of the Union, North Carolina. He expounded on the Dangers that Lincoln presented that would deeply divide the South.

 

[carson_reb]

Mark, your two cents are worth considerably more than mine. Well written and expressed, sir.
My pennies have been borrowed against the dollar one too many times! LOL

 

[pattyjo]

This is just my opinion from everything I have read about him he despised the institution of slavery but timing was everything I think ending slavery was always on his agenda I know first and foremost was preserving the Union but slavery was next on the list

 

[Robtweb1]

My two cents. As usual, worth every penny.

The war was caused by secession. Absent secession and the seizure of federal property, there was no cause for military action by the federal government.

Secession was caused by the fear of a number of Southern politicians that the election of a Republican administration signaled hardening attitudes on the part of large portions of the North toward slavery and the spread of slavery.

Ironically, secession and the war probably hastened the end of slavery, in a much more thorough and destructive manner than if events were more or less left to run their course. President Lincoln clearly believed at the beginning that the Federal government had no constitutional right to interfere with slavery in the states where it existed. The legal support for the Emancipation Proclamation was provided by the extraordinary war powers of the executive branch; absent a war, those powers would not have existed, therefore no Proclamation. Absent the Southern states' votes in Congress, the Thirteenth Amendment sailed through the process far more rapidly than it would have had they been present, and with little or no concessions or negotiation.

Slavery was doomed in the long run (as Southern politicians saw clearly) due to the faster growth rate of the Northern population, its stronger economy, and the aforementioned hardening attitudes towards the expansion of slavery. Sooner or later, the non-slave states would gain a large enough majority in federal representation to take control and begin to chip away at slavery's power base.

The cardinal sin of the South was that they were willing to break apart the Union over what they saw as their sectional or state-specific demands. But the Union needed Virginia, and Louisiana, and the rest, even South Carolina… and to allow one secession or fragmentation of the Republic was to invite more, whenever a state or group of states disagreed with the central government. The precedent could not be allowed to stand, if there was to be any recognizable sort ofUnited States of America surviving the process. (I won't quote the Gettysburg Address here, but I fully subscribe to its ideas.)

I honor the Confederate dead as soldiers, and even as patriots after a fashion. I respect their prowess and ingenuity, and see it as an inseparable part of the American story. I mourn the deaths of so many Americans on both sides in the struggle. And I heartily wish the contest could have been decided with the ballot-box rather than the bayonet.

Your mileage may vary, and I don't doubt that the hardened partisans will disagree, perhaps vehemently. But this is where I stand.

Works for me.

 

[CSA Today]

You can read it in some of the secessionist speeches. I am guessing you never have. Most of it centered around the fears of Lincoln using the patronage system to appoint Southerners who would become republican to fill federal positions in the south. Forming a nucleus around which a southern republican party would grow.

For your neck of the woods look up the Speech of the honorable Thomas L Clingman on the State of the Union, North Carolina. He expounded on the Dangers that Lincoln presented that would deeply divide the South.

You are right; I haven't read anything like that. The only Southerner that might have said anything of the sort would have been Hinton Helper and he was hardly in the mainstream of Southern thought. There is no questions Southerners had a lot of worries in 1860, but turning Republican wasn't one of them. I not familiar with Clingman's speech, but if he said anything suggesting the South was in danger of turning Republican I should be able to uncover it.

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

H. L. Mencken

 

[DanF]

You are right; I haven't read anything like that. The only Southerner that might have said anything of the sort would have been Hinton Helper and he was hardly in the mainstream of Southern thought. There is no questions Southerners had a lot of worries in 1860, but turning Republican wasn't one of them. I not familiar with Clingman's speech, but if he said anything suggesting the South was in danger of turning Republican I should be able to uncover it.

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

H. L. Mencken

And Helpers book is what set off the furor and led to Southerners being concerned about the potential rise of the Republican party in their midst with Lincoln election. remember that Helpers book was aimed not at slaves but non slave holding whites. Telling them that they were being exploited by the planter class. Slave states went to great lengths to suppress the book. And at least one of them, IIRC Georgia, even indicted him.

But such concerns were not new, An editorial in Debows review in 1850 voiced concerns about the white non slave holding class and it's potential threat to the institution of slavery.

"The great mass of our poor white population begin to understand that they have rights....They are fast learning that there is an almost infinite world of industry opening before them, by which they can elevate themselves and their families from wretchedness and ignorance to competence and intelligence. It is this great upbearing of our masses that we are to fear, so far as out institutions are concerned."

Later Another writer for the review wrote that many poor whites Harbored, "A feeling of deep rooted jealousy and prejudice. of painful antagonism, if not hostility, to the institution of negro slavery, that threatens the most serious consequences, the moment black republicanism becomes triumphant in the union."

 

[CSA Today]

And Helpers book is what set off the furor and led to Southerners being concerned about the potential rise of the Republican party in their midst with Lincoln election. remember that Helpers book was aimed not at slaves but non slave holding whites. Telling them that they were being exploited by the planter class. Slave states went to great lengths to suppress the book. And at least one of them, IIRC Georgia, even indicted him.

But such concerns were not new, An editorial in Debows review in 1850 voiced concerns about the white non slave holding class and it's potential threat to the institution of slavery.

"The great mass of our poor white population begin to understand that they have rights....They are fast learning that there is an almost infinite world of industry opening before them, by which they can elevate themselves and their families from wretchedness and ignorance to competence and intelligence. It is this great upbearing of our masses that we are to fear, so far as out institutions are concerned."

Later Another writer for the review wrote that many poor whites Harbored, "A feeling of deep rooted jealousy and prejudice. of painful antagonism, if not hostility, to the institution of negro slavery, that threatens the most serious consequences, the moment black republicanism becomes triumphant in the union."

Dan,

Hinton Helper had to be one of the most frustrated men in the South. You are correct in that he targeted non- slave owning whites, he was also a blatant racist, even by the standard of the day, you are also correct in saying that he was disliked and hounded by the Southern ruling class who regarded him as a trouble maker. You are wrong though in suggesting that Helper ever stood a snowball's chance in Hades of turning the South Republican – even the pro unionists didn't like the Republicans.

There may have been some fleeting concerns about the non-slave owning Southerners during the ante Bellum South, but these fears were groundless. This class of people, like many of their Northerner counterparts feared competition from blacks if freed, and then too many of the Non-slave owners hoped to be slave owners themselves one day.


"Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have."

Richard Salent, former president, CBS News

 

[DanF]

You are wrong though in suggesting that Helper ever stood a snowball's chance in Hades of turning the South Republican – even the pro unionists didn't like the Republicans.​

​

I don't propose that Helper could have done any such thing, I think about the only thing that helper could have accomplished in the south was to get himself hanged.

That said there were concerns by secessionists that non slave holding whites could potentially be attracted to a Southern republican party led by southern men. which they referred to as turncoats. The slave holding planter class never trusted any non slaveholders. For the simple reason as they said time and time again. non slave holders did not have their (Slaveholders) interests at heart.

 

[CSA Today]

I don't propose that Helper could have done any such thing, I think about the only thing that helper could have accomplished in the south was to get himself hanged.

That said there were concerns by secessionists that non slave holding whites could potentially be attracted to a Southern republican party led by southern men. which they referred to as turncoats. The slave holding planter class never trusted any non slaveholders. For the simple reason as they said time and time again. non slave holders did not have their (Slaveholders) interests at heart.[/quote]

I doubt that the non-slave did, other than the hope that some day they might become slave owners themselves, they had no reason to. But I would have to see some hard evidence that Hinton Helper, or anyone else, came anywhere near convincing the non- slave holding majority that the abolition of slavery and the embrace of the Republican party was in their economic and social best interest.

"The American people, North and South, went into the war as citizens of their respective states, they came out as subjects, and what they thus lost they have never gotten back."
H. L. Mencken