Featured Where Do You Disagree With the "Conventional Wisdom" on the Civil War?

4th-MSM

Sergeant
Joined
Aug 4, 2012
Curious to know why you believe this. Thought Missouri voted not to secede, and that more men fought for the North than the South. So in what sense did Missouri secede?

And yeah, I have past relatives who fought for the MSG (not monosodium glutimate), MSM, and Confederacy. So I can be two-sided.

Thank you for asking, I'm going to structure my response as a timeline so that those reading this who aren't familiar with the war in Missouri can understand the events leading up to the declaration of secession.

Yes, you are right in that they originally voted almost unanimously to stay in the Union. On March 19th, 1861 in St. Louis, the vote was 89-1 in favor of staying in the Union. Missouri wanted to maintain the policy of armed neutrality. Keep in mind however, that this was before the Camp Jackson Affair that took place on the 10th of May, 1861. That affair greatly increased Southern sympathy in Missouri, as well as in the legislative body of the State. Within 15 minutes of hearing the news, the Missouri legislature called an emergency meeting and approved the formation of the MSG. As an example of this reaction, Uriel Wright (who had voted in favor of remaining in the Union on March 19th) declared after witnessing the event "If Unionism means such atrocious deeds as I have witnessed in St. Louis, I am no longer a Union man."

On June 14th, 1861, approaching Federal troops under the command of General Nathaniel Lyon forced all of the elected Missouri legislators who were conditional Unionist to flee the capitol, taking the Official State Seal with them. The unconditional Unionist that remained, later appointed vetted Unionist to the positions of the legislators that had fled. This created the un-elected provisional government of Missouri, however since the state was shortly afterward placed under martial law, even the provisional government did not have much control over the state. On June the 17th, Lyon followed Governor Jackson to Boonville, where the battle of Booneville took place, forcing Governor Jackson and the raw recruits of the MSG under his command to flee further south. This battle became known as the "Booneville races".

In October of 1861, the legislators that had fled the Capitol in Jefferson City gathered in Neosho, Missouri to decide upon the issue of secession. The declaration that they were to vote on is as follows (in its final amended form):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"AN ACT declaring the political ties heretofore existing between the State of Missouri and the United States of America dissolved.

Whereas the Government of the United States, in the possession and under the control of a sectional party, has wantonly violated the coin pact originally made between said Government and the State of Missouri by invading with hostile armies the soil of the State, attacking and making prisoners the militia whilst legally assembled under the State laws, forcibly occupying the State eapitol and attempting through the instrumentality of domestic traitors to usurp the government, seizing and destroying private property and murdering with fiendish malignity peaceable citizens, men, women, and children, together with other acts of atrocity, indicating a deep-settled hostility toward the people of Missouri and their institutions; and Whereas the present Administration of the Government of the United States has utterly ignored the Constitution, subverted the Government as constructed and intended by its makers, and established a despotic and arbitrary power instead thereof: Now, therefore, Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Missouri, That all political ties of every character now existing between the Government of the United States of America and the people and government of the State of Missouri are hereby dissolved, and the State of Missouri resuming the sovereignty granted by compact to the said United States upon the admission of said State into the Federal Union, does again take its place as a free and independent republic amongst the nations of the earth. This act to take effect and be in force from and after its passage. Approved October 31, 1861."

(Source: Official Records of the Civil War, Series I, Vol. LIII, p. 752)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The largest argument against the legality of this declaration is that there was no quorum. This largely stems from the fact that the legislature failed to take a roll call. However, I have seen other documents, primarily in the form of personal diaries, that indicate that indeed there was a quorum. There are two that immediately come to mind. The first speaks to the effect that they were delaying the vote until a quorum can be reached, then says a few days later that enough legislators had arrived to make a quorum. The second, while not directly stating that there was a quorum, also indicates that the legislature had waited for a quorum before voting rather than voting at first opportunity.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excerpts from the diary of John Fisher:

From pages 25-26: "Neosho Tuesday Oct 22/ [1861] Well we did not move today as I thought we would, and I do not know when we will, the Legislature met today but did not have a quorum, so adjourned till tomorrow"

Pages 29-30: "We are still encamped near Neosho waiting on the Legislatures which is in session, I was misinformed in regard to their meeting on Wednesday, they did not have a quorum until Friday Oct. 25.1861 we will be passed into the C.S.A. as soon as the necessary legislation can be gone through with"

Page 31: "The legislature passed the Ordinance of Secession today about 10 oclock without a dissenting voice, to night there was a general firing of Cannon and rejoicing and getting drunk generally"

Source: The Diary of John Fisher
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Excerpts from the diary of Capt. John Wyatt:

"Oct 23 1861. Neosho Legislature met here today - No quorum."

"October 29 1861. Heard from Neosho today, the Ordnance of Secession passed today with but one dissenting vote. 100 guns were fired in honor of it. We are now back in Dixie. God Ailmighty [sic] in Heaven Grant we may survive in the coming combat."

Source: The Diary of Capt. John Wyatt
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This Ordinance of Secession was then accepted by the Confederacy who added the 12th star to the Confederate flag in representation of Missouri.

From the Official Records, Series I, Vol. LIII, pp. 752-753:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"[Enclosed declaration of secession as I listed above] I hereby certify the above and foregoing to be a full, true, and perfect copy of the original roll. In testimony whereof I have hereto set my hand and the great seal of the State of Missouri this 2d day of November, 1861. B. F. MASSEY, Secretary of State."

"AN ACT ratifying the Constitution of the Provisional Government of the Confederate States of America. Whereas the Congress of the Confederate States of America have, by an act entitled "An act to aid the State of Missouri in repelling invasion by the United States, and to authorize the admission of said State as a member of the Confederate States of America, and for other purposes," enacted that "the State of Missouri shall be admitted a member of the Confederate States of America, upon an equal footing with the other States under the Constitution for the Provisional Government of the same, upon condition that the said Constitution for the Provisional Government of the Confederate States shall be adopted and ratified by the properly and legally constituted authorities of said State" Now, therefore. be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Missouri as follows : The General Assembly of the State of Missouri for and in behalf of the people thereof do hereby accept the provisions of an act of the Congress of the Confederate States of America, as set forth in the preamble to this act, the State of Missouri hereby adopting and ratifying the Constitution for the Provisional Government of the Confederate States of America as a member of said Confederacy upon an equal footing with the other States under said Constitution. SEC. 2. His Excellency C. F. Jackson, Governor of this State, is hereby directed and authorized to transmit to the President of said Confederate States of America an authentic copy of this act, in pursuance of section 2 of the act of said Congress above referred to, and to perform all other acts which may hereafter become necessary to secure the admission of the State of Missouri as a member of the said Confederacy. This act shall be in force from and after its passage. Approved October 31, 1861.

I hereby certify the above and foregoing to be a full, true, and per fect copy of the original roll. In testimony whereof I have hereto set my hand and the great seal of the State of Missouri this 2d day of November, 1861. B. F. MASSEY, Secretary of State."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Note: Between these letters are a list of some the terms agreed to for Missouri to join the Confederacy. For the sake of length, I did not copy it but it can be read in the ORs]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the Official Records, Series I, Vol. LIII, pp.754-758:

"CASSVILLE, BARRY COUNTY, Mo., November 5, 1861.

His Excellency JEFFERSON DAVIS, President Confederate States of America:

SIR: I have the honor and the pleasure of transmitting herewith "An act declaring the political ties heretofore existing between the State of Missouri and the United States of America dissolved" also "An act ratifying the Constitution of the Provisional Government of the Confederate States of America" These two acts were passed with almost perfect unanimity by the (General Assembly and approved by me on the 3d instant, and are believed to be all that is necessary on the part of the State to secure her admission into the Confederate States of America as a member of that Government. If, in the opinion of the Confederate Government, anything further is required on the part of Missouri to complete and perfect her admission, it will be seen by reference to the second section of the act ratifying the Constitution of the Provisional Government that the Executive of the State is directed and authorized to perform all other acts which may hereafter become necessary to secure the admission of the State. This clause of the act was inserted, not because the General Assembly deemed it at all necessary to secure the admission of the State, but in the abundance of their caution it was considered safest to provide against any and all contingencies that might arise. By some of the members it was thought the Confederate Government might require the act to be ratified by a vote of the people before the admission of the State, and hence the clause was inserted clothing me with power to have it done in that event. On this point it is proper that I should state that the act would at once have been submitted to a vote of the people but for the reason that the State is now invaded by the Federal army to such an extent as to preclude the possibility of holding an election at the present time. That the people would ratify the act, if permitted, admits of no doubt. I am sure that more than four-fifths of the people desire an immediate and unconditional connection with the Southern Government, and I pray that soon it may be consummated. As soon as this may be done I desire that the Missouri forces shall be reorganized at the earliest practicable moment under the Confederate Government, and a general appointed at once to command all the forces that may be ordered to Missouri. Who the man shall be is of no consequence to me. I have full confidence in your good judgment, and doubt not you will give us the best man you can. General Bragg would be very acceptable, but we will all be satisfied with anyone you may select. You know better than I that an army to be successful can have but one head, and that should be a good one. It may possibly be known to you that heretofore there has not been that degree of harmony and concert of action between Generals Price and McCulloch that should exist between officers laboring in a common cause. While this has been the case hitherto to some extent, I am rejoiced now to be able to say that a restoration of the most amicable relations has been effected, and that they and their armies are now co operating together in the most harmonious manner, and I trust it will not be many days before they will be able to rout Fremont from this part of Missouri. Their joint force I cannot give with exactness, but it is somewhere between 20,000 and 25,000 quite sufficient to meet any force Fremont can bring against them. As soon as I can with propriety absent myself from the army I shall endeavor to go to Richmond, where I can more fully communicate with you in reference to the reorganization of the Missouri forces and the future operations of the army in the State. For further particulars in relation to the movements of the army here, its general conditions, arms, &c., I refer you to Captain Myersou, the bearer of this letter. He is a reliable gentleman and a good officer. I have the honor, &c.. C. F. JACKSON."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"RICHMOND, November 5, 1861.

To the Congress of the Confederate States: I transmit to you for your consideration two acts passed by the General Assembly of Missouri on the 31st of last October, the one entitled "An act declaring the political ties heretofore existing between the State of Missouri and the United States of America dissolved" the other entitled "An act ratifying the Constitution of the Pro visional Government of the Confederate States of America" Together with these I send a letter from Governor C. F. Jackson, of Missouri, addressed to myself and dated November 5, 1861. An act of the Confederate Congress, approved August 20, 1861, in reference to Missouri, provided that when the "Constitution for the Provisional Government of the Confederate States shall be adopted and ratified by the properly and legally constituted authorities of said State, and the Governor of said State shall transmit to the President of the Confederate States an authentic copy of the proceedings touching said adoption and ratification by said State of said Provisional Constitution, upon the receipt thereof the President, by proclamation, shall announce the fact." It was also declared by this act that upon a proclamation thus made the admission of the said State into this Confederacy shall be complete "without any further proceedings on the part of Congress" I am thus empowered to judge as to the authorities in the State of Missouri which are properly and legally constituted to adopt and ratify the Constitution for the Provisional Government of the Confederate States. I am also authorized without further consultation with Congress to proclaim the admission of the State. Had the case been thus presented to me during the recess of Congress, I should have deemed it my duty to issue the proclamation under this power; but as these acts are transmitted during the session of Congress, I feel it to be due to you, in a matter of so much importance as the admission of a new State into the Confederacy, to lay before you the acts to which I have referred that you may take such action upon them as in your judgment may be necessary and proper. I also submit to you, for your consideration and action in relation thereto, a copy of a convention between the Confederate States and the State of Missouri which was concluded and signed by the commissioners of both parties at the city of Richmond, on the 31st day of October, 1861. JEFF N DAVIS."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"AN ACT to admit the State of Missouri into the Confederacy as a member of the Confederate States of America.

The Congress of the Confederate States of America do enact, That the State of Missouri be, and is hereby, admitted as a member of the Confederate States of America, upon an equal footing with the other States of the Confederacy, under the Constitution of the Provisional Government of the same. Approved November 28, 1861."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Though not heard often today, the 8th verse of the popular Southern song "Bonnie Blue Flag" even speaks of Missouri's admission into the Confederacy.

8th Verse:
"And now to Missouri we extend both heart and hand,
And welcome her a sister of our Confederate band;
Tho' surrounded by oppression no tyrant dare deter
Her adding to our Bonnie Blue Flag her bright and twelfth star.

Hurrah! Hurrah! For Southern Rights! Hurrah!
Hurrah! For the Bonnie Blue Flag has gained its twelfth star."

Original Sheet Music:

http://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/scriptorium/sheetmusic/conf/conf01/conf0114/conf0114-1-72dpi.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As to the point you brought up of Missouri sending more troops to the Union Cause than the Confederacy - that number is often mentioned when trying to determine the loyalties of Missouri, but I have never seen those numbers broken down into organizations, such as the E.M.M., M.S.M., U.S. Regulars, etc, of which I will explain the importance of in a moment. I also question if the number of Confederates includes the MSG - because I usually see the number of Missouri Confederates listed between 30-40,000, but the MSG reached a max strength of close to 40,000 alone. While the MSG was technically not a part of the Confederate Army, in terms of indicating loyalty it would greatly change the perception depending if their numbers were included or not. Another angle to keep in mind, is that since the Union took control of the state so quickly, organized armies of the south were cut off from an easy source of potential recruits (though recruiting parties were sent into Missouri throughout the war), and was soon replaced by guerrilla warfare. The number of these geurillas are not included in the list of Missouri Confederates, but should be kept in mind if one is trying to gain an accurate idea of the loyalty within Missouri.

One of the reasons why I think it is important to distinguish the number of Union troops by organization is because orders were given that all able bodied male citizens between the age of 16 and 45 were required to enroll in at least the E.M.M. - despite of where their loyalties lay - or face imprisonment. This order had two effects, first it boosted the Union numbers, and second it raised Southern sympathy by forcing - sometimes literally at gunpoint - many citizens to fight against their conscience (even if that person wished to only remain neutral) or head to the bush and join local bands of guerrillas (aka: bushwhackers). Here is an excerpt from the diary of Rachel Anderson, who spoke of the conscript law:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"July 1, 1862
Well, what next? The whole community is in a state of excitement. The Federal commander has issued the order that all citizens are commanded to take an oath of allegiance to the Federal Government. Those who do not swear are not allowed to follow any business whatever and are prisoners at home. This oath compels thousands to swear against their own conscience or have their families to perish. Mr. Anderson this day subscribed to the oath required. It was a hard thing but the only alternative. Women and children are also required to swear allegiance or be prisoners at home. I am now a prisoner at home, liable to be arrested if I but leave the yard. God being my help, I will not take the oath unless circumstances beyond my control force me to it. We have been in an alarming drought this spring and summer. We had a heavy shower on Saturday June 28th."

"Saturday, July 26th
Another panic is upon us. The conscript law is now in force in Missouri; all able bodied men from 16 to 45 years of age are compelled to enroll their names and drill immediately for Federal service. Mass meetings are being held - women pale & tremble and cry "what shall I do, what will become of me and my children?" Southern men say, "Must I fight against my friends, my principles, my conscience?" Their widows and mothers say, "No, never, shoulder your guns and go south and God being our help we will do the best we can while you strike for "God and Liberty!" While the old women and women of the Federal party say to their men, "Go, we will take care of your women and children while you fight for the Government and Federal party." Now they [????] Feds -- collecting, drilling; their women moving to papa's and uncles, while the secesh move off in silent procession by the light of the moon leaving their families in the midst of their enemies. I look on and my heart aches and aches until it almost breaks. Then I say, "I thank thee Father that my husband and son are, the one too old, the other too young, to come under this conscript law." Then I pray for them and us and for peace until my heart is discouraged and I fear there will be no peace, but God is good and "His mercy endureth forever." The excitement is as intense as the mind of man can bear. The southern men who have taken the oath will now be compelled to fight their friends or forfeit their oath. Most of them I think will prefer the latter alternative."

"September 9, 1862
A month of trouble, excitement and intense anxiety has passed since I opened this little book. Southern men who refused to enroll in the militia have been hunted up, imprisoned and are forced to work on the fortifications being built at Springfield, and oh what distress their families are in."


Source: The Diary of Rachel Anderson
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will be the first to admit that I do not have specific documents to prove outright that the numbers you mention are false (nor am I trying to), because I do not know how you can prove the true loyalties of so many individuals. But, because of the reading I have done over the past years of first hand accounts, I do believe those numbers do not tell the whole story. Missouri's story was too complicated to wrap up in one set of numbers. So, while I do not deny the numbers you spoke of, I do have to question whether they can be an accurate determination of the loyalties of Missouri. Please understand however, that I am not saying that the entire state was completely pro-Southern, simply that it was just much more divided than what it is generally accepted as. Enough so that the Secession Ordinance would have had a much more dramatic impact on the outcome if the state hadn't fallen under Federal control so quickly.

Now that it's as clear as a muddy river, I hope I have presented enough evidence to answer your question on why I believe Missouri seceded.
 
Last edited:

TheSecretSix

Corporal
Joined
Nov 24, 2014
I believe that Lincoln outlined his goals in his 1861 inaugural, wherein he said that he was after the duties and the imposts. There is a marvelous series of events that take place during the six months leading up to Fort Sumter that is detailed in Swanberg's FIRST BLOOD AT FORT SUMTER as well as PROLOGUE TO SUMTER by Philip Van Doren Stern. There is a movie about what really happened at fort sumter on Amazon according to the actual dispatches. I think I might rent it one night. The other one is called Fort Sumter the whole story! but it is on VHS tape only and looks like it was made in the 1960's, originally. The second one shows how the fort was made, and how the feds ended up occupying it. I really want to know about that. Both claim to have been made locally in South Carolina.

I think President Lincoln was after the tariffs...
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
I believe that Lincoln outlined his goals in his 1861 inaugural, wherein he said that he was after the duties and the imposts. There is a marvelous series of events that take place during the six months leading up to Fort Sumter that is detailed in Swanberg's FIRST BLOOD AT FORT SUMTER as well as PROLOGUE TO SUMTER by Philip Van Doren Stern. There is a movie about what really happened at fort sumter on Amazon according to the actual dispatches. I think I might rent it one night. The other one is called Fort Sumter the whole story! but it is on VHS tape only and looks like it was made in the 1960's, originally. The second one shows how the fort was made, and how the feds ended up occupying it. I really want to know about that. Both claim to have been made locally in South Carolina.

I think President Lincoln was after the tariffs...

(Sigh.)

Sincerely,
Unionblue
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Went and looked up the two books mentioned by SecretSix in his post#324 of this thread.

Prologue to Sumter, by Philip Van Doren Stern, published in 1961, ranked on Amazon's most popular book list at number 6,776,486.

First Blood at Sumter, by Swanberg, published in 1957, got some good customer reviews where one commented that Secretary of War Floyd was the real problem in Buchanan's cabinet, always pushing for secession. How that equates to Lincoln "was after the tariffs..." is beyond me.

Unionblue
 
Last edited:

ole

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Near Kankakee
Where is the patented "yawn"?

Missouri had to have been the most screwed up state ever. A Union State with Confederate leanings or a Confederate state with Union leanings? There was no safe side to pick.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Where is the patented "yawn"?

Missouri had to have been the most screwed up state ever. A Union State with Confederate leanings or a Confederate state with Union leanings? There was no safe side to pick.

ole,

I save the patented "yawn" for those really remarkable, nonsensical posts.

Trust me, the time is drawing near.

Sincerely,
Unionblule
 

BillO

Captain
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Location
Quinton, VA.
Most people who don't know anything about it think that.

Hence " conventional wisdom".

Went and looked up the two books mentioned by SecretSix in his post#324 of this thread.

Prologue to Sumter, by Philip Van Doren Stern, published in 1961, ranked on Amazon's most popular book list at number 6,776,486.

First Blood at Sumter, by Swanberg, published in 1957, got some good customer reviews where one commented that Secretary of War Floyd was the real problem in Buchanan's cabinet, always pushing for secession. How that equates to Lincooln "was after the tariffs..." is beyond me.

Unionblue

So this means I have to read "50 shades of gray" cause it's popular.
 

1950lemans

First Sergeant
Joined
Jun 23, 2013
Location
Connecticut
Conventional wisdom states that the Civil War was the defining moment in the course of our history.

That's only half the equation! What defines America today were the repercussions of the Civil War and Reconstruction. You can't understand the great turning point in US history without studying both in the same breath. What makes America what it is today, North, South, East and West - back then and today - is a result of both periods. I believe you need to look at Reconstruction as a continuation of the CW. Instead Reconstruction is shamefully relegated to the dust bin of US history.
 

TheSecretSix

Corporal
Joined
Nov 24, 2014
Went and looked up the two books mentioned by SecretSix in his post#324 of this thread.

Prologue to Sumter, by Philip Van Doren Stern, published in 1961, ranked on Amazon's most popular book list at number 6,776,486.

First Blood at Sumter, by Swanberg, published in 1957, got some good customer reviews where one commented that Secretary of War Floyd was the real problem in Buchanan's cabinet, always pushing for secession. How that equates to Lincooln "was after the tariffs..." is beyond me.

Unionblue


What do you think that he meant by save for the collection of duties and imposts, there will be no invasion, no using of force among or against the people, anywhere?? And why did he not stick to that? According to the dispatches, The US Navy wanders into the area with a number of warships. men, and cannons, and then just watches South Carolina, who has no navy of any kind, reduce the Charleston side of the fort in some thirty or so odd hours of shelling. Then the US just collects the surrendered Anderson and his 65 (now 64) men, and leaves. In no way did they help him to hold that fort. Then they come home and complain that they were driven off... yet did nothing to defend themselves.

If I had been a Northern newspaper man, I would have liked to have known the particulars of a fight that never happened. President Lincoln goes from claiming an interest in duties and imposts to actually denying his men the right of the act of doing just that, and then seems to invade at First Manassas some time later.

His inaugural is a rather pitiful poem, when you study it. He says in March that states cannot leave when they have been gone since December, and January... he then rambles on about how he's so slavery-tolerant by law, and then says that he's going to hold the forts and collect the tariff taxes. In fact, at neither fort does he do these things. What actually happens at Sumter after eleven or so odd bombings during the war is that the place is completely destroyed. And it has never been rebuilt.

I am surprised that a man of your rank has not at least heard of either of those books, especially the Swanberg one...
 

DanF

Captain
Joined
Feb 29, 2012
What do you think that he meant by save for the collection of duties and imposts, there will be no invasion, no using of force among or against the people, anywhere??

He means the normal everyday operations of the legitimate Govt. And the upholding of the Laws of tbe United States will continue.

And why did he not stick to that? According to the dispatches, The US Navy wanders into the area with a number of warships. men, and cannons, and then just watches South Carolina, who has no navy of any kind, reduce the Charleston side of the fort in some thirty or so odd hours of shelling. Then the US just collects the surrendered Anderson and his 65 (now 64) men, and leaves. I

You answered your own question. It was rhe secessonists tbat crossed the line and initiated hostilities not Lincoln.

Here's a clue you apparently can't decipher on your own.

S. Carolina firing on a union fort is an act of treason/war.

says in March that states cannot leave when they have been gone since December, and January...

No, they only claim they have left the Union. Lincoln and later the United States Supreme Court maintain they have not left the Union but are just in a State of rebellion / insurrection.
 
Last edited:

DanF

Captain
Joined
Feb 29, 2012
Here is what someone who lived thru the Civil War had to say about the "States rights claims".

Henry Brooks Adams, historian and grandson of John Quincy Adams.

Between the slave power and states' rights there was no necessary connection. The slave power, when in control, was a centralizing influence, and all the most considerable encroachments on states' rights were its acts. The acquisition and admission of Louisiana; the Embargo; the War of 1812; the annexation of Texas "by joint resolution" [rather than treaty]; the war with Mexico, declared by the mere announcement of President Polk; the Fugitive Slave Law; the Dred Scott decision—all triumphs of the slave power—did far more than either tariffs or internal improvements, which in their origin were also southern measures, to destroy the very memory of states' rights as they existed in 1789. Whenever a question arose of extending or protecting slavery, the slaveholders became friends of centralized power, and used that dangerous weapon with a kind of frenzy. Slavery in fact required centralization in order to maintain and protect itself, but it required to control the centralized machine; it needed despotic principles of government, but it needed them exclusively for its own use. Thus, in truth, states' rights were the protection of the free states, and as a matter of fact, during the domination of the slave power, Massachusetts appealed to this protecting principle as often and almost as loudly as South Carolina.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ole

4th-MSM

Sergeant
Joined
Aug 4, 2012
Where is the patented "yawn"?

Missouri had to have been the most screwed up state ever. A Union State with Confederate leanings or a Confederate state with Union leanings? There was no safe side to pick.

Yes you're right, no one was safe in Missouri no matter which side they favored. Neither side was completely clean of injustice. It was a messy and complicated time, which I guess is my point. Missouri can't be easily labeled as only a pro-Union or pro-Confederate State because of it. But that is part of the reason I find it so interesting, its story is unique.
 
Last edited:

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
What do you think that he meant by save for the collection of duties and imposts, there will be no invasion, no using of force among or against the people, anywhere?? And why did he not stick to that? According to the dispatches, The US Navy wanders into the area with a number of warships. men, and cannons, and then just watches South Carolina, who has no navy of any kind, reduce the Charleston side of the fort in some thirty or so odd hours of shelling. Then the US just collects the surrendered Anderson and his 65 (now 64) men, and leaves. In no way did they help him to hold that fort. Then they come home and complain that they were driven off... yet did nothing to defend themselves.

If I had been a Northern newspaper man, I would have liked to have known the particulars of a fight that never happened. President Lincoln goes from claiming an interest in duties and imposts to actually denying his men the right of the act of doing just that, and then seems to invade at First Manassas some time later.

His inaugural is a rather pitiful poem, when you study it. He says in March that states cannot leave when they have been gone since December, and January... he then rambles on about how he's so slavery-tolerant by law, and then says that he's going to hold the forts and collect the tariff taxes. In fact, at neither fort does he do these things. What actually happens at Sumter after eleven or so odd bombings during the war is that the place is completely destroyed. And it has never been rebuilt.

I am surprised that a man of your rank has not at least heard of either of those books, especially the Swanberg one...

ole,

watch closely.

(YAWN!)

Sincerely,
Unionblue
 
Top