Restricted Transcontinental Railroad: The Primary Reason for the Election of Jefferson Davis to be President of the CSA

Status
Not open for further replies.

trice

Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
The Democratic Party had announced whole-hearted acceptance of the Compromise of 1850 in its national platform of 1852 and had won an overwhelming victory. Southern men would have to vote for the territorial bill with the Compromise provision or run the risk of being considered unfaithful to the to the South's peculiar institution; Northern senators and representatives might be persuaded that the territories would actually become "free" by virtue of their soil and climate and that it was unwise to continue to exclude slavery by federal law just as "a taunt and a reproach to our Southern brethren." pp162-163 Improvement of Communication by Russel

This was the 3rd or 4th try to get the Kansas/Nebraska bill passed. Southerners had rejected it, because they had No reason to vote for a Bill to allow a couple of Free States. Or give the North a pathway for the TRR? Why, would Southern Senators come to Douglas and ask him to write a Territorial Bill for Kansas? Absolutely, NO reason they would.

  1. What does this have to do with the OP of this thread: "Transcontinental Railroad: The Primary Reason for the Election of Jefferson Davis to be President of the CSA"?
  2. Despite your statement, leaders of "the South" did come to Douglas and offered him a deal: support for a "northern route" in exchange for adding "Popular Sovereignity" to his bill. Douglas was surprised, but did rewrite the Act to include "Popular Sovereignty". (Douglas was not opposed to slavery and got a percentage of the income from his 1st wife's 100-slave plantation for managing it in her father's will.)
 

uaskme

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Location
SE Tennessee
  1. What does this have to do with the OP of this thread: "Transcontinental Railroad: The Primary Reason for the Election of Jefferson Davis to be President of the CSA"?
  2. Despite your statement, leaders of "the South" did come to Douglas and offered him a deal: support for a "northern route" in exchange for adding "Popular Sovereignity" to his bill. Douglas was surprised, but did rewrite the Act to include "Popular Sovereignty". (Douglas was not opposed to slavery and got a percentage of the income from his 1st wife's 100-slave plantation for managing it in her father's will.)

I will let Russel speak for himself.

Russel’s quote does speak of Pierce’s relation to Davis, called Davis his chief Advisor.

Some southerners supported Douglas. If you were from MO, KY or somewhere close to the Central Route, sure you would have supported that Route. Douglas need some lower South support, to get the Bill Passed. Russel gives us the History of how that happened. And the Importance Of Why Douglas need to get it done. The South was ahead of the game. If they were ahead of the game, clear evidence they had not lost interest or supported a Norther Route. Which is beyond Silly!

Some Southerners were against Expansion, the Whigs North and South were. A few votes going the opposite way, doesn’t define the Issue.
 
Last edited:

trice

Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
  1. What does this have to do with the OP of this thread: "Transcontinental Railroad: The Primary Reason for the Election of Jefferson Davis to be President of the CSA"?
  2. Despite your statement, leaders of "the South" did come to Douglas and offered him a deal: support for a "northern route" in exchange for adding "Popular Sovereignity" to his bill. Douglas was surprised, but did rewrite the Act to include "Popular Sovereignty". (Douglas was not opposed to slavery and got a percentage of the income from his 1st wife's 100-slave plantation for managing it in her father's will.)
I will let Russel speak for himself.

Russel’s quote does speak of Pierce’s relation to Davis, called Davis his chief Advisor.

Some southerners supported Douglas. If you were from MO, KY or somewhere close to the Central Route, sure you would have supported that Route. Douglas need some lower South support, to get the Bill Passed. Russel gives us the History of how that happened. And the Importance Of Why Douglas need to get it done. The South was ahead of the game. If they were ahead of the game, clear evidence they had lost interest or supported a Norther Route. Which is beyond Silly!

Some Southerners were against Expansion, the Whigs North and South were. A few votes going the opposite way, doesn’t define the Issue.

It appears you have completely ignored my questions.

The crucial group of Southerners in Washington on this issue of Kansas-Nebraska was what history calls the F Street Mess: David Atchison of Missouri, Andrew Butler of South Carolina and James Mason and Robert Hunter of Virginia. Note that Butler, Mason and Hunter are not from the states you mention, but that they were willing to support a "northern route" if they could get slavery above the Missouri Compromise Line.

On January 22, 1854 they told Douglas that no bill he presented on Nebraska would get through the Senate without their approval. They were leaders of the demand for explicit repeal of the Missouri Compromise Line. Douglas went home and turned the Nebraska bill into the Nebraska-Kansas bill -- introducing the doctrine of "Popular Sovereignty" to please them. They wanted more than that, but eventually Kansas-Nebraska made it through Congress with their support.

I see no mention of the reason a Nebraska or Kansas Territory was important to the TRR. It was very simple. The US government could not give land grants to support a RR directly. They had to give the grant (for legal reasons) to a State or Territory -- then the government of that State or Territory could give them to the RR. Therefore, no land grants could be given to the "northern route" until a Territory or Territories were organized to act as a conduit. Blocking the Nebraska bill, or the Kansas-Nebraska bill, was equivalent to blocking any "northern route". Supporting them was supporting the "northern route".

OTOH, the state of Texas and the Territories of New Mexico and Utah already existed and land grants could be given to them. Merely by existing, they put the "southern route" further along in the process.
 

uaskme

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Location
SE Tennessee
It appears you have completely ignored my questions.

The crucial group of Southerners in Washington on this issue of Kansas-Nebraska was what history calls the F Street Mess: David Atchison of Missouri, Andrew Butler of South Carolina and James Mason and Robert Hunter of Virginia. Note that Butler, Mason and Hunter are not from the states you mention, but that they were willing to support a "northern route" if they could get slavery above the Missouri Compromise Line.

On January 22, 1854 they told Douglas that no bill he presented on Nebraska would get through the Senate without their approval. They were leaders of the demand for explicit repeal of the Missouri Compromise Line. Douglas went home and turned the Nebraska bill into the Nebraska-Kansas bill -- introducing the doctrine of "Popular Sovereignty" to please them. They wanted more than that, but eventually Kansas-Nebraska made it through Congress with their support.

I see no mention of the reason a Nebraska or Kansas Territory was important to the TRR. It was very simple. The US government could not give land grants to support a RR directly. They had to give the grant (for legal reasons) to a State or Territory -- then the government of that State or Territory could give them to the RR. Therefore, no land grants could be given to the "northern route" until a Territory or Territories were organized to act as a conduit. Blocking the Nebraska bill, or the Kansas-Nebraska bill, was equivalent to blocking any "northern route". Supporting them was supporting the "northern route".

OTOH, the state of Texas and the Territories of New Mexico and Utah already existed and land grants could be given to them. Merely by existing, they put the "southern route" further along in the process.


The Hall-Richardson Nebraska bill shortly passed the House, the test vote standing 107 to 49. The representatives from the Northwest, who would, presumably, wish the territory opened and organized for all of the reasons advanced during the debate, and who had no objections to the exclusion of slavery therefrom, voted 38 to 2 in its favor. The representatives for Missouri and Kentucky, who would favor the organization for all the reasons mentioned except that they might object to the exclusion of slavery, gave 9 votes for the bill and none against. The members from the other Southwestern states, who, presumably, would be loath to organize a territory form which slavery would be excluded and which would develop into a "free" state and who would be reluctant to vote for a measure to facilitate the building of a railroad to the Pacific by a central route, gave 7 votes for the bill and 9 against it, while several members, including the two from Arkansas, abstained from voting. The favorable votes can probably be accounted for in part by the feeling current in the West that Western men must stand together on Western measures if any were to be adopted and in part by the favor which all proposed legislation calculated to open new opportunities to small farmers met among such men as Andrew Johnson, of east Tennessee, a great champion of the Homestead bill. The delegations of the old Southern states cast 27 votes against the Nebraska bill and 5 for it. Four of the five came from Maryland and Virginia, whose railroad interests largely supported a Missouri terminus for the Pacific railroad and whose westward migrants moved largely in the same belt. The Eastern States voted 47 to 10 in favor of the bill. The lone California representative, of course, voted aye. pp158-159 by Russel

So, the old Southern States voted 27 to 5 against the bill. Butler was a outlier, his first priority was Slavery. The other 4 were from VA and MD whose interest favored the Central Route. So, 1 vote from a Politico who was from a Cotton State and Seceded. Not all Southerners had the Same Interest. Not all Southern States seceded. This discussion is about secession, Davis and the Southern TRR.
 
Last edited:

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
No matter how you slice it,Douglas' bill passed only because of the iron control of the Democratic party, by its southern leadership, against the wishes of most of the Northern States. So, in historical fact, the South forced a reluctant north to accept a Northern terminus of a TRR?(that was some compromise by the South)
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
I never said that all I have is my opinion. What I have are overwhelming facts that by themselves scream their significance. All I have done is to pass along that scream for those out of earshot. If you can't hear it, the correct characterization is not "You said this was just your own opinion" which is something I never said or would say. A correct characterization would be, "I didn't hear those screams myself."
James



Perhaps,but, just as likely, you are essentially the only one hearing those screams, From a historical point of view, that is.
 

James Lutzweiler

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Perhaps,but, just as likely, you are essentially the only one hearing those screams, From a historical point of view, that is.

Thanks for your post.

My only point of view is historical. All I do is listen to it.

Perhaps an immersion into the 13 fat volumes of the Pacific railroad surveys might help the hearing. William Goetzmann called these surveys the greatest government documents since Napoleon sent his engineers into Egypt. Interestingly, Napoleon was also looking for a shorter route to China through the Suez Canal. In addition to being the secretary of war, Davis deserves a ranking among the greatest explorers in world history. His surveys told us far more about America than we ever knew before. They trumped by wide margins the far better known Lewis and Clark expedition. Goetzmann had two sets of these surveys in his own personal library. That by itself tells you something. Abraham Lincoln also had a set in his library. I have handled them. I do not know a single historian who advocates for "slavery only" who has ever read these 13 volumes. Many whom I have talked to barely knew they existed. They dwarf in significance Uncle Tom's Cabin; but historians today seem as afraid of them as South Carolina's Seceshers were of Hinton Helper's atom bombshell.

James
 
Last edited:

uaskme

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Location
SE Tennessee
No matter how you slice it,Douglas' bill passed only because of the iron control of the Democratic party, by its southern leadership, against the wishes of most of the Northern States. So, in historical fact, the South forced a reluctant north to accept a Northern terminus of a TRR?(that was some compromise by the South)


Here is Potter:

Douglas already enjoyed some favor among southern Democrats, and there is no evidence that he had to offer them any special inducements to win their support or that the repeal of the Missouri Compromise was a favor they were asking for. In fact one of the tragic aspects of the repeal is that while it was offered to the South as a KIND OF BAIT, southerners had not been pressing for it and were, in fact, decidedly unresponsive to the idea when Douglas first introduced it. Only after the antislavery leaders pilloried Douglas as a tool of the slave power did the proslavery men rally to his support. In this ironical but very real sense, Salmon P. Chase contributed a great deal to the creation of Douglas's proslavery support, simply by accusing him of deserving it.

It is an undisputed fact that Douglas had been deeply interested in the Pacific railroad project, both personally and politically, ever since 1844. If he did not himself proclaim his intention to use Kansas-Nebraska as a stepping-stone toward the realization of a railroad by the Central or Northern route, it was because he could not do so without admitting that he had BAITED his bill with the meat of repeal of the Missouri Compromise in order to entice the southerners into supporting his scheme to win the Pacific Railroad for his own region. To have stated his purpose would have been to defeat it. But it is a significant fact, often ignored by historians, that in the next session of Congress after the Kansas-Nebraska bill, Douglas's main activity was the sponsorship of a Pacific Railroad bill. This bill provided for the construction to three railroads westward for Texas, from Missouri or Iowa, and from Minnesota. No such proposal would have been practicable until after the region included in the Kansas and Nebraska territories had been organized. In the House, this bill was reduced by amendment to a single road, westward from Iowa or Missouri. If it had passed the House in this form, which was perhaps what Douglas intended, it might then have been brought to the Senate and passed there also, in which case the Kansas-Nebraska Act would have borne immediate fruit in the form of a Pacific railroad by the central route. But after first being passed in the House, it was then reconsidered and defeated by a vote of 105 to 91. Subsequently, Douglas secured the adoption of his original three road bill in the Senate, and it remained the only Pacific railroad bill that passed either chamber of Congress prior to the Civil War. pp160-171 The Impending Crisis by David Potter

Here we have 2 historians calling the inclusion of Popular Sovereignty as BAIT to the Southerners. It is true, the Free Soilers are going to see this as a Gift and use it to split the Country, which will cause a War. The Republicans will favor the Presidency over the TRR. Little doubt what was on Douglas's mind. The 3 route proposal for the TRR was a Trap, to be advantaged. Thank you Mr. Potter.
 
Last edited:

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Thanks for your post.

My only point of view is historical. All I do is listen to it.

Perhaps an immersion into the 13 fat volumes of the Pacific railroad surveys might help the hearing. William Goetzmann called these surveys the greatest government documents since Napoleon sent his engineers into Egypt. Interestingly, Napoleon was also looking for a shorter route to China through the Suez Canal. In addition to being the secretary of war, Davis deserves a ranking among the greatest explorers in world history. His surveys told us far more about America than we ever knew before. They trumped by wide margins the far better known Lewis and Clark expedition. Goetzmann had two sets of these surveys in his own personal library. That by itself tells you something. Abraham Lincoln also had a set in his library. I have handled them. I do not know a single historian who advocates for "slavery only" who has ever read these 13 volumes. Many whom I have talked to barely knew they existed. They dwarf in significance Uncle Tom's Cabin; but historians today seem as afraid of them as South Carolina's Seceshers were of Hinton Helper's atom bombshell.

James

Perhaps they "dwarf in significance" because they aren't very significant in South Carolina's secession or for the selection of Davis as president of the Confederacy?

Perhaps the other historians recognize this insignificance of these 13 fat volumes because they do not in any way impact on the already established cause of the Civil War?
 

James Lutzweiler

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Perhaps they "dwarf in significance" because they aren't very significant in South Carolina's secession or for the selection of Davis as president of the Confederacy?

Perhaps the other historians recognize this insignificance of these 13 fat volumes because they do not in any way impact on the already established cause of the Civil War?

Yes, yes, of course the PRS were not significant in SC's secession. Sure enough, six years after their native son, James Gadsden, snookered Congress out of $10 million for 30,000 square miles of kitty litter, the locals forgot all about him. And sure enough, 14 years after and continuously through 1860 and beyond, their other native son, James D. B. DeBow had launched his review, each issue of which was like a railroad boxcar carrying news of the TRR, the PRS, China, California, Sonora, the Spice Islands and Peruvian Guano, the locals forgot all about him, too Makes sense to me.
 
Last edited:

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Yes, yes, of course the PRS were not significant in SC's secession. Sure enough, six years after their native son, James Gadsden, snookered Congress out of $10 million for 30,000 square miles of kitty litter, the locals forgot all about him. And sure enough, 14 years after and continuously through 1860 and beyond, their other native son, James D. B. DeBow had launched his review, each issue of which was like an railroad boxcar carrying news of the TRR, the PRS, China, California, Sonora, the Spice Islands and Peruvian Guano, the locals forgot all about him, too Makes sense to me.

Just sayin', the only time I have heard about a theory that the TRR was the cause of the Civil War or South Carolina's secession or the TRR got Davis selected as President of the Confederacy, is here, on the threads you create.

Now why is that?
 

johan_steele

Regimental Armorer
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
South of the North 40
I’ve never seen convincing evidence that the RR had much of anything to do with Davis being appointed. You cannot be elected if there was no opponent.

I believe the choice of Davis as CSA President was set during the DNC a year prior to Secession. He had planned to run for President of the US but was convinced to back out. Then miraculously a year later he was President of the CSA. The RR had nothing to do with it.

Davis was a professional politician that didn’t see the plus of the RR or his area would have been chock full of RR line.
 

uaskme

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Location
SE Tennessee
Just sayin', the only time I have heard about a theory that the TRR was the cause of the Civil War or South Carolina's secession or the TRR got Davis selected as President of the Confederacy, is here, on the threads you create.

Now why is that?

What, “got Davis selected as president” ? He was not a Fire-eater. Do you have a source, of why he got selected?
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
What, “got Davis selected as president” ? He was not a Fire-eater. Do you have a source, of why he got selected?

One source from the book, Look Away!: A History of the Confederate States of America, by William C. Davis, chapter 3, Visions of Breakers Ahead, page 72:

"The final argument came from Davis himself. Alexander Clayton, a Mississippi delegate had been held up and only arrived on the afternoon of February 7. With him he brought a letter from Davis in which, replying to a question from Clayton, he said he would not turn down the presidency if offered. Many had assumed that, in the event of war, he would naturally be appointed to chief command of the armies they would have to raise, the best use for the Mississippian's acknowledged military talents. Indeed, he made it clear that this would be his preference as well. But the constitution they were then debating included the old commander-in-chief clause unchanged, meaning that their president would have ultimate authority over their armed forces just as in the United States. If there was any lack of unanimity for Davis in the Mississippi delegation, this quenched it entirely."

Unionblue

PS: In all of William C. Davis's book, I have not found one mention of the TRR nor the word "railroad" in the index of his book.
 
Last edited:

James Lutzweiler

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
One source from the book, Look Away!: A History of the Confederate States of America, by William C. Davis, chapter 3, Visions of Breakers Ahead, page 72:

"The final argument came from Davis himself. Alexander Clayton, a Mississippi delegate had been held up and only arrived on the afternoon of February 7. With him he brought a letter from Davis in which, replying to a question from Clayton, he said he would not turn down the presidency if offered. Many had assumed that, in the event of war, he would naturally be appointed to chief command of the armies they would have to raise, the best use for the Mississippian's acknowledged military talents. Indeed, he made it clear that this would be his preference as well. But the constitution they were then debating included the old commander-in-chief clause unchanged, meaning that their president would have ultimate authority over their armed forces just as in the United States. If there was any lack of unanimity for Davis in the Mississippi delegation, this quenched it entirely."

Unionblue


See below, last sentence in the next paragraph. Are we to assume this was Clayton's first interest in railroads? I think not. What do you say?

Around 1 April 1866 Gov. Benjamin Humphries appointed Clayton the circuit judge for the counties near his home. The Fourteenth Amendment, adopted on 4 July 1868, barred from office all prewar public officials who had supported the Confederacy. The US Army removed Clayton from his position as judge on 2 March 1869, and for the remainder of his life, he practiced law, managed his plantation, and served as a director of the Mississippi Central Railroad.

Clayron had been allied with JD at least since 1851, when JD ran for Governor of Mississippi. I guess maybe Clayton never even noticed why or what JD was up to in 1853 and from 1853 forward. Must have missed it all, sort of like you said.

Below is the Mississippi Central currency in 1862 of which Clayton served as a director after the war. But from the mid-1850s until Secession, Clayton practiced law in Holly Springs, Mississippi, through which the Mississippi Central ran, and he also practiced in Memphis to which the Memphis and Charleston RR ran. Maybe he missed all of this and their corollaries.

1565548385798.png

James
 
Last edited:

uaskme

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Location
SE Tennessee
One source from the book, Look Away!: A History of the Confederate States of America, by William C. Davis, chapter 3, Visions of Breakers Ahead, page 72:

"The final argument came from Davis himself. Alexander Clayton, a Mississippi delegate had been held up and only arrived on the afternoon of February 7. With him he brought a letter from Davis in which, replying to a question from Clayton, he said he would not turn down the presidency if offered. Many had assumed that, in the event of war, he would naturally be appointed to chief command of the armies they would have to raise, the best use for the Mississippian's acknowledged military talents. Indeed, he made it clear that this would be his preference as well. But the constitution they were then debating included the old commander-in-chief clause unchanged, meaning that their president would have ultimate authority over their armed forces just as in the United States. If there was any lack of unanimity for Davis in the Mississippi delegation, this quenched it entirely."

Unionblue

PS: In all of William C. Davis's book, I have not found one mention of the TRR nor the word "railroad" in the index of his book.

Great Post, and thanks for that. His military service is something that you have head of. Defending the South was definitely important in a New Nation.

How about Economics, would that not be Important? How would a new Nation pay for its military and Independence? Have you ever head of this?:

Such sentiments were widespread. The grand vistas, the beautiful tunnels, the elegant viaducts and the steep embankments indicated a range of new possibilities. But the political implications of these new geographical arrangements were unclear. Toasts were made to the "young west" and to the "future Empire" and the nation's "surpassing agricultural wealth, manufactured production, commercial energy, and political power." They were also made to the South and in defense of its rights (that is, slaves).

One guest hailed the railroad as "a powerful agent. . .to republicanize a people. The toasts caught precisely the contradictory spirit of the age. The development of railroads in the East, West and South spurred expansion across great space and competition for resources, trade routes and "natural" advantages. Railroad lines reconfigured the landscape and changed the "location: of cities, towns, and even natural features. Hiring and disciplining thousands of workers, the railroads began a process on networking the nation and let to Americans' first and most significant experience in and within, a national system. In the heated debates of sectional conflict, slavery, and western expansion, Americans at these moments speculated on how the railroads might affect a future war.

Later in the presidential election of 1860, over 1,000 votes were cast in Baltimore City for Abraham Lincoln, more than in any county in Maryland and more than in any other place in the South, where Lincoln was no ever on the ballot. Indeed, all along the B & O line in Maryland, especially in Allegheny County, where the company had its shops, large numbers of Lincoln voters went to the polls for the Republicans in 1860. There seemed to be little coincidence in this Lincoln support along the railroad.

The B & O therefore, appeared to be the exception in the slaveholding South that probed the influence of all railroads, whether built with slave or free labor. Railroads and telegraphs could, and did, appear to sway the political and social orientation of new places. Despite its slave state location, in other words, the B&O seemed to be pulling Maryland and western Virginia closer to Ohio and Pennsylvania, rather that the reverse. The lesson for southern slaveholders seemed clear with regard to expansion in western territories: free labor railroads could sustain free labor societies, and slave labor railroads could sustain slave labor societies.

At nearly the same time, the Memphis and Charleston Railroad held its celebration of completion, but its event turned into a rehearsal for secession. The Mayor of Charleston, South Carolina, William Porcher Miles, explained that the railroad would bind the southern people "together more closely and compactly as a homogeneous people having common interests, common institutions, and a common destiny," He called the internal bickering between southern states and cities competing for railroads, "suicidal madness for us, while our citadel is besieged." Miles sharply pointed out, "The time [for Union] has passed." The South cannot "blink" or cry for peace, because "the war has already begun."

These defiant sentiments found ready agreement in Virginia, where the Richmond Examiner was already fretting that the South's failure to build railroads would jeopardize its security in a sure-to-come civil war. With its exposed position on the frontier of any future Confederacy, Virginia, the newspaper warned, should not find herself "without the means of concentrating troops with the rapidity indispensable to modern warfare," would be governed "by steam," and it had achieved a velocity "not dreamed of thirty years ago." The Examiner considered it "obvious" that the Covington and Ohio Railroad was a military necessity because it planned to connect the states's largest white population in western Virginia with the points in the East most vulnerable to attack. The future war would be won and lost, the Examiner believed, by how quickly and how many forces could be rushed to the battlefields.

Every time a railroad celebration took place in the South, white Southerners, such as Charleston's Mayor Miles, were increasingly convinced that the Confederate nation was already self-evident. The South's railroads took in capital from abroad through state bond sales and participated in the global web of the cotton trade. They stood at the fore front of commerce and engineering. When southern secession conventions met after Lincoln's election in 1860, the same ideas of civilization and progress--what a nation needed to claim modernity--were strikingly evident. What surprised white Southerners throughout the sectional debates over the extension of slavery in the late 1850s was the North's blatant disregard for the underlying geographic advantages that they thought nature had bestowed upon the South. The recent mastery of geography that their railroad building so clearly demonstrated seemed to count for little in the North, and yet the experience gave the white South unprecedented confidence in its modern civilization and slavery's place in its society as "a first rate power" in the world, and an infrastructure to justify and sustain independence of necessary. pp62-64 The Iron Way by Thomas.

Recon what Porcher Myles would of put in the Secession Documents for Reason? Part of building a New Nation is to build Nationalism. Slavery Expansion to the West and Industrial Slavery was all part of the TRR. Davis was the biggest Contributor to a Southern TRR. Davis had spent the last 10 years in this capacity.
 

uaskme

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Location
SE Tennessee
The Story Continues:

Everywhere the White Southerners looked in 1860 and 1861, they could find striking examples of material improvements in their society made possible by the railroads. . .

The rush to build railroads in the South led its leaders to constantly calibrate their region's position relative to the nation's commercial and economic network. As late as 1860 and 1861 the rush was still on. New southern railroads were coming on line, connecting places never before linked and adding to the dynamic of sectional examination and measurement. Passenger traffic surged, but southern freight proved valuable and substantial. In this respect the 1850s marked a decisive period of change for the white South's identity, as modern ideas, technologies, practices, and institutions were instantiated in repeated sequences across the region. The timetable, the depot platform, the locomotives, the bridges, and the tunnels offered evidence to white Southerners of the mobility and success of their society.

But it was the timing of the completion of the Charleston & Savannah Railroad in the fall of 1860 that played a decisive role in shaping the secession movement in South Carolina. The Railroad's opening celebration took place on November 2, a few days before the presidential election. Speakers at the banquet talked of a fraternal and mutual sovereignty between Georgia and South Carolina that the railroad confirmed. The river border that for so long separated Georgia and South Carolina had been bridged, Savannah lawyer Francis S. Bartow argued, and the states were united by the railroad. The Savannah banquet was such a success that the Charlestonians ask the Savannah men to come to their city for reciprocal festivities.

Not to be outdone, the Charleston railroad men hosted the Georgians on November 9, three days after Lincoln was elected president. Up to then the reaction to Lincoln's election, even among South Carolina's leading politicians, had been cautious. But the South Carolina legislature was in session in Columbia and considering what measures to take. At the railroad banquet, the dignitaries ate turtle soup, duck with olives, lamb chops and other regional delicacies. Then, Bartow, a self-proclaimed Union man and southern Whig who a week earlier urged South Carolina not to secede, suddenly changed his position. Bartow encouraged South Carolina forward toward secession in a dramatic speech at the railroad banquet in Charleston. The Georgians, led by Bartow, gave disunion a credibility it did not otherwise have, and gave the South Carolinians what they needed most to take the step of secession: a clear sign of cooperation and southern unity form a neighboring state. Within the year Bartow was leading Georgians into the first Battle of Manasas, where he was killed, the first Confederate general to die in the Civil War. pp64-65 The Iron Way by Thomas

Events surrounding Bartow's speech kicks off secession which spreads quickly and can't be stopped. Didn't see this in SC's secessionist documents. I remember someone saying, This was a RailRoad War. Think he was RIGHT!
 

James Lutzweiler

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Just sayin', the only time I have heard about a theory that the TRR was the cause of the Civil War or South Carolina's secession or the TRR got Davis selected as President of the Confederacy, is here, on the threads you create.

Now why is that?

Please remember where you first heard it in case somebody comes along to plagiarize the idea.
 

trice

Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
See below, last sentence in the next paragraph. Are we to assume this was Clayton's first interest in railroads? I think not. What do you say?

Around 1 April 1866 Gov. Benjamin Humphries appointed Clayton the circuit judge for the counties near his home. The Fourteenth Amendment, adopted on 4 July 1868, barred from office all prewar public officials who had supported the Confederacy. The US Army removed Clayton from his position as judge on 2 March 1869, and for the remainder of his life, he practiced law, managed his plantation, and served as a director of the Mississippi Central Railroad.

Clayron had been allied with JD at least since 1851, when JD ran for Governor of Mississippi. I guess maybe Clayton never even noticed why or what JD was up to in 1853 and from 1853 forward. Must have missed it all, sort of like you said.

Below is the Mississippi Central currency in 1862 of which Clayton served as a director after the war. But from the mid-1850s until Secession, Clayton practiced law in Holly Springs, Mississippi, through which the Mississippi Central ran, and he also practiced in Memphis to which the Memphis and Charleston RR ran. Maybe he missed all of this and their corollaries.

View attachment 320213

James

So: is there a point where Clayton says "We must elect Jefferson Davis President of the Confederacy because he wants a Transcontinental Railroad"????? Or is this yet another post that says nothing about the topic of the OP?
 

trice

Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
BTW, in the final analysis, it seems the State of Alabama voted for Jefferson Davis because:
  • They did not want Howell Cobb of Georgia and
  • Virginia (not yet seceded) appeared to want Jefferson Davis and Alabama leaders thought Virginia was essential to the success of the Confederacy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top