Member Review The First South

Andersonh1

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Location
South Carolina
The First South by John Richard Alden (1908-1991) professor of history at Duke University.
c 1961, Louisiana State Press

One of the things I've discovered since I began studying Civil War history is that the roots of that conflict go back to the founding of the United States, and so a knowledge of the history of the early South is very useful and relevant in order to understand how the South of 1860 came to exist. "The First South" (as contrasted with "The Old South" of John C. Calhoun and Jefferson Davis) is defined for the purposes of this book as the time between 1775 and 1789. "It appeared with the American nation", Alden states, "and it clashed ever more sharply with a First North during and immediately after the War of Independence. This First South did not hasten under the Federal Roof with swift and certain steps, but haltingly and uncertainly."

Alden takes us through the history of this region, the Revolutionary South, home to Patrick Henry, Light Horse Harry Lee, John Rutledge, and George Washington, among many others. The book is divided into five chapters and each chapter covers a seperate topic, so I will summarize them in the order they appear.

Chapter One - The First South covers how "the South" and "the Southern states" came to be referred to as a distinct region of the American Union. During the time period covered, the inhabitants of those southern states (Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, usually Virginia, sometimes Maryland) were not sure that it was wise to be a part of the Union, fearing a tyranny from Congress under the Articles of Confederation. "Heat, geography, racial and national composition, economic pursuits, social order, and even political structure were ties of unity rather than sources of discord below the Susquehanna. That such was so is proven by events, for the First South frequently behaved as a section before 1789." (p. 7) In proportion to the rest of the nation, this time period was as close as the South ever got to equality, with about 1,900,000 inhabitants compared to 2 million in the North. Indeed, in the 1790 census there were some who believed the South would outpace the North in population. Culture and manners set the North and South apart, and of course, the number of slaves did as well. The climate of the South led to specialized farming of rice and indigo which could not be grown up North, and this led to a cycle where more black slaves were imported to grow more. Disagreements between North and South were about how to count slaves in terms of voting and taxation in Congress, not the morality of the institution.

Why a distinct South? The climate differed between North and South. The North was suited for fishing, general farming, lumbering and shipping. The South's climate lent itself to general and specialized farming such as rice and indigo, and hence why slavery became more prominent in the South as Africans were imported to do the work. It became a cycle: as the population of slaves grew, the amount of farming grew. The greater amount of farming, the greater the need for labor. This and the generally hotter climate tended to discourage white immigration to the region, though for a time there was almost parity in population between North and South, and Southerners even believed they might outpace the population growth of the North, but that was very temporary. Nationalism overcame sectional disputes for a time during the war as all states had a common cause and a common enemy.

Chapter Two - Struggles in the Continental Congress. Alden makes the case that most Americans know very little about the Continental Congress and the work they did, and he asserts that all things considered they did fairly well in some very trying circumstances, even with the sectional bickering. Southerners in the Congress distrusted New Englanders and clashes were frequent. Southern planters objected to negroes serving in the Continental army, though it was Henry Laurens of South Carolina who later proposed to free slaves who would fight for independence. His plan was approved by Congress, but failed in SC and GA.

Attempts to revise the Articles of Confederation created sectional conflict. There were debates over who would pay for the national government, and how the burden would be fairly divided up. There was great concern that "the common good" meant the North would rule over the South. There was concern that giving Congress treaty-making power would allow the New England states to control shipping to the detriment of the South. It will probably surprise no one that the greatest sectionalism came from South Carolina, whose delegates in Congress were very concerned about tyranny by the central government, even under the compartively weak Articles of Confederation.

Other issues that North and South clashed over under the Continental Congress:
- The North was concerned with obtaining fishing rights in the Atlantic, while the Southern States were far more concerned with opening the Mississippi to navigation. This would remain a hot issue until the Louisiana Purchase.
- The admission of new states was a source of conflict, with both North and South concerned about losing votes and thus power in the Confederation. The North didn't want Kentucky admitted, and the South didn't want Vermont.
- There was conflict over the location for a national capital
- There was an economic depression in 1785 and 1786 which caused finger-pointing.
- The North was hostile to Southern expansion while the South was opposed to Northern hold on maritime trade.
- There was conflict over giving Congress the power to levy import and export duties, because the South feared that the North would use the power again, to monopolize trade.

By 1786 it had become almost impossible to make changes to the Articles, because changes had to pass muster both with Congress and the states, which wasn't going to happen. Sectional conflicts had in many ways paralyzed the government. James Madison noted that it was a difficult stumbling block, while James Monroe warned that some in New England were considering forming a separate Union.

But.... nationalism was strong enough in the end to counter these conflicts, and produce the Constitution, particularly under the leadership of George Washington.

review will be continued in the next post.
 
Last edited:
Chapter Three - The South and the Making of the Constitution.

All of this being true, Alden asks why the Southerners helped to make the Constitution and ratify it? There were a number of reasons:

- the North was not attacking slavery, so there was no need to defend it
- the South had won some of the sectional conflicts, so they felt they had a "fighting chance"
- they felt it was possible to both establish a stronger central government and yet limit its ability to act against Southern interests
- in 1787-1788 many believed that the Southern population was growing faster than the Northern population, and it was temporarily, though this was a short-lived trend
- The first chief executive couldn't be anyone but Washington, a Virginian and a Southerner, and the one man the entire country respected

There were other reasons, not confined just to the South:
- rising nationalist feelings
- disgust over state bickering
- many wanted a stronger defense against Indians and against Europe
- all would reap economic benefits from a stronger Union
- people who had lost political power and influence during the revolution hoped to regain it again with a stronger central government, and to benefit financially

Even so, there were plenty of sectional conflicts in the Constitutional Convention itself. Chapter Four details those, and since so much of that is available elsewhere, I won't go into great detail. Many of the sectional feelings were sharper from Southerners than Northerners, but both sides demonstrated the ability to set aside some concerns for the greater good, which all appreciated.

I'll review the final chapter tomorrow once I've taken some notes and organized my thoughts, and I'll summarize what I think of this book. I'll say this: Alden was quite right, I do know very little about the Continental Congress, so this is some history that taught me quite a bit.
 
Last edited:
Chapter 5 - Aftermath

Despite the unanimous election of Washington, and the adoption of the Constitution, the underlying problems were still there. "But if all the American people listened to the "voice of reason" in electing Washington, there was no oracle, then or afterward, which persuaded North and South that they had naught that was basic about which to quarrel, and Southern sectionalism was to endure, reaching a climax in 1861." (p 128) The laws passed during Washington's administration seemed to favor the North, and as early as 1791, "Southerners who had favored the Constitution were joining Southerners who had opposed it to defend Southern interests." (p 130) Jefferson urged Washington to run for a second term to prevent violence and secession, because the Southern people had confidence in him. Washington fought for and advised staying away from sectionalism, but once he was out of office the divisions came to the fore again, and continued. The North outpaced the South in population, and the Old South that's so much more familiar than the First South would soon appear.

The author lists seven pages of sources at the end of the book, among which are many legislative records and convention records, and the papers of important men who played a role in the early nation. The Journals of the Continental Congress were a major source, among many other primary sources. Ultimately, Alden makes the case that "southern sectionalism appeared with the American republic", from the very first days, and he makes the case convincingly. This book is recommended to the student of Southern history, and for anyone who is interested in the roots of the Southern identity that led to the secessions of 1860-61. Highly recommended.
 
Back
Top