The "Rebellion" which fell upon the country as a full scale Civil War... How extensive was it???

Cavalry Charger

Captain
Forum Host
Silver Patron
Joined
Jan 24, 2017
Messages
5,577
#21
Right lefty, you have asked that question before. :D I dont think I have ever attempted to answer your question, but since @Cavalry Charger asked about Howell Cobb's motivations I'll give it a shot.

I think, at least in Cobb's case, advocating for secession was more about the rights that Southern states would potentially lose under the Lincoln administration and a majority Republican congress. Up to that time, the south had enjoyed a majority voice in Congress. In 1860 during the 36th US Congress, the the tides shifted and, the Republican party outnumbered the Democratic party.

@alan polk 's thread Pre-War Newspaper Comparison https://civilwartalk.com/threads/ju...war-newspaper-comparison.154355/#post-1980355 has provided me with a better understanding of southern perceptions at the lead-up to the war. As I interpret it, for most southern politicians at the time, "states rights" was their way to describe decentralized government. (IDK, maybe they didnt even have the term decentralized government back then?) Anyway, to use slavery as a substitute or synonym of "states rights," or to imply that they are the same, oversimplifies the antebellum period, leaves out perceived partiality, and gives the impression of a narrow understanding of the politics of the time, at least as far as Southern perceptions go. If you read some of the articles in Alan's thread perhaps you'll gain a better understanding of some of the perceived fears of southern politicians.

For Cobb and many other Southern politicians, I think it was more about the threat of lost representation in Congress; the threat of a more centralized government; the fear of losing decentralized government; the perceived partiality of government spending; and perceived favoritism in investment and infrastructure. Basically, the southern politicians didn't want to be the minority in Congress. And that was happening - regardless of whether slavery was protected in the areas where it already existed.

So when the question is asked: "What state right was lost" it is implied that there is only one answer -slavery. I would suggest that a better answer is "all of them." You can insert anything you like. Something that might have been predictable at the time or not - including slavery. Anything you put there would no longer be a decision to be solely delegated to the state. Without delving too much into modern issues, look at the challenges Colorado has in trying to exercise its own "states right." :smoke:
Thanks for responding to my question @lelliott19 . I think you've done a great job and certainly added to my understanding :smile:
 

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

Booner

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
May 4, 2015
Messages
2,024
Location
Boonville, MO
#22
First, I'd like to say that I think Mr. 2nd Al. Cav. post' was just excellent.

When I read it, my first thought was "what was left of the federal government with all the southeners leaving?" We had a fairly new political party taking power for the first time, but half the government was gone! Truly revolutionary times.
 
Joined
Jan 29, 2019
Messages
197
#23
First, I'd like to say that I think Mr. 2nd Al. Cav. post' was just excellent.

When I read it, my first thought was "what was left of the federal government with all the southeners leaving?" We had a fairly new political party taking power for the first time, but half the government was gone! Truly revolutionary times.
Lincoln and Hamlin had no problem filling their Cabinet... But I can not imagine what it must have been like in the Senate and the House of Representatives when one southern Democrat after the other resigned their positions and joined the Confederate Cause. I am sure that this caused quite a bit of confusion, uncertainty, angst and stirred up a lot of deep seated emotions regarding our great nation and its prospects for a bright future. Then when numerous experienced and well respected officers began to resign their commissions in the U.S. Army and Cavalry, only to join the Confederate States Army, it could have only raised more serious concerns. It was so bad that the whole U.S. Army and Cavalry had to be reorganized with numerous young and inexperienced officers being promoted to fill the vacancies of those who had just recently left. Many of the seasoned officers remained in their positions, but I am sure that they lamented heavily at their friends leaving to join an Army against them. Again resulting in more and more confusion and uncertainty. Remember that these men had gone to West Point together and most had served together during the Blackhawk Wars, the 2nd Seminole War, the Mexican-American War, the Utah War (Mormons) and then during the defense of the newly expanding western Frontier. This in addition to quite a few former members and high ranking officials of previous administrations doing the same in joining with the southern cause. I can not begin to fathom the emotions, concern and uncertainty that our fellow countrymen were feeling at that point in time.
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
15,941
Location
los angeles ca
#25
Right lefty, you have asked that question before. :D I dont think I have ever attempted to answer your question, but since @Cavalry Charger asked about Howell Cobb's motivations I'll give it a shot.

I think, at least in Cobb's case, advocating for secession was more about the rights that Southern states would potentially lose under the Lincoln administration and a majority Republican congress. Up to that time, the south had enjoyed a majority voice in Congress. In 1860 during the 36th US Congress, the the tides shifted and, the Republican party outnumbered the Democratic party.

@alan polk 's thread Pre-War Newspaper Comparison https://civilwartalk.com/threads/ju...war-newspaper-comparison.154355/#post-1980355 has provided me with a better understanding of southern perceptions at the lead-up to the war. As I interpret it, for most southern politicians at the time, "states rights" was their way to describe decentralized government. (IDK, maybe they didnt even have the term decentralized government back then?) Anyway, to use slavery as a substitute or synonym of "states rights," or to imply that they are the same, oversimplifies the antebellum period, leaves out perceived partiality, and gives the impression of a narrow understanding of the politics of the time, at least as far as Southern perceptions go. If you read some of the articles in Alan's thread perhaps you'll gain a better understanding of some of the perceived fears of southern politicians.

For Cobb and many other Southern politicians, I think it was more about the threat of lost representation in Congress; the threat of a more centralized government; the fear of losing decentralized government; the perceived partiality of government spending; and perceived favoritism in investment and infrastructure. Basically, the southern politicians didn't want to be the minority in Congress. And that was happening - regardless of whether slavery was protected in the areas where it already existed.

So when the question is asked: "What state right was lost" it is implied that there is only one answer -slavery. I would suggest that a better answer is "all of them." You can insert anything you like. Something that might have been predictable at the time or not - including slavery. Anything you put there would no longer be a decision to be solely delegated to the state. Without delving too much into modern issues, look at the challenges Colorado has in trying to exercise its own "states right." :smoke:
The problem is that there was no " centralised government" in the mid 19 th Century. There was no income tax, there was no EPA no Dept of Labor or Education. There were no farm subsidies etc. The modern federal government really didn't begin until the 1930s. The Federal government only had two small federal law enforcement agencies the United States Marshall's Service, US Customs and what is now known as the Coast Guard. The US Army in 2861 had less then 16 k men and was spread out over a wide area in the West. The only foreign military presence was a few gun boats in China.
If the South needed more federal money for internal improvements how would a war help them? Why not just utilize their votes and form political coalition's in the house or Senate?
Leftyhunter
 
Joined
Nov 27, 2018
Messages
828
Location
Chattanooga, Tennessee
#26
@2nd Alabama Cavalry stated at the end off his last post, "I cannot begin to fathom the emotions, concern and uncertainty that our fellow countrymen were feeling at that time." General Sherman was very expressive before the war while in Louisiana, and later when he visited the President. General Grant too, expressed the intimacies shared among fellow soldiers that served through the Mexican War. These two examples can reveal a mental anguish, or a determination for remaining behind the Union.
On the other hand, I tend to see politicians through a more jaded lens. I believe their devotions were for protecting money interests, chances for prominent placement in world history, remaining true to their own followers as shepherds, and the number one idea I perceive is to begin anew with a fresh chance of building a nation as their forefathers did, sort of like the 'Woodstock II' syndrome, prevalent some decades ago. The States' Rights and slavery et.al. were mere tactics of law and enforcement giving them a claim to build a foundation on a wishful desire within the heart. Thanks,
Lubliner.
 



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