U.S. to 1877 – Fall 2013 – Page 3 – Just another My blog Sites site

December 2, 2013

Is Secession “Legal?”

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

In his final chapter, Wilentz discusses the various political ideas supporting secession. I think that we sometimes have the tendency to group all Southerners and secessionists together and not realize the political complexity of secession, so I’m glad that Wilentz addressed this in detail. However, ANBURTON pointed out the “debate between ‘the preservation of a traditional Southern heritage and states rights vs. the preservation of slavery’ as the main cause for secession,” but also asserted that they are “completely interconnected.” I agree with this, but would also like to look at the idea of secession itself.

The first group mentioned is the militant secessionists, or the fire-eaters. Their stance was based on the idea that “secession was perfectly legal and represented nothing radical” (Wilentz 439). They believed that when a state secedes, it is only exercising its right to act as a sovereign state, exactly as the states did when they signed the Constitution and formed the Union. The only difference would be that the states are breaking away from the alliance with USA instead of Great Britain in order to form a different sovereign nation. In a way, these secessionists were acting in defense of the Constitution. They saw the Northern Republicans as the aggressors who violated the “original constitutional agreement that left slavery undisturbed” (439).

A different group of secessionists fully embraced the illegality of secession, but they did not believe that this lessened their right to do so. “Secession was a replay of the American Revolution, a new War of Southern Independence that aimed to vindicate, not repudiate, the struggles of the founding generation” (439). Just as the colonists did not have the legal right to rebel from England, the Southerners also did not have this right. Nevertheless, the American colonists rebelled successfully. According to this view of secession, the Southerners shared the aims of their revolution with the colonists: to preserve their definition of liberty.

Even though they recognize its illegality, I see a much more legitimate justification for secession in the second, more moderate viewpoint. The fire-eaters claim their rights as sovereign states, but to me it seems like they gave up a significant part of that sovereignty when the US switched from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution with a more powerful federal government. It would be more difficult to argue or prove their sovereignty to either the Northerners or Southern Unionists. On the other hand, the colonies did rebel against England, so these secessionists have a similar success story at which to point. It would be easier to convince fellow Southerners of the legitimacy of this cause. Moral issues on slavery aside, I believe that either on the grounds of state sovereignty or right to revolution, individual states have the right to withdraw from the Union if its citizens deem it necessary, but that the idea of “a new War of Southern Independence” would be more successful at gathering public support for secession (439).

December 2, 2013

The Negotiation cat is in the bag, and the bag’s in the river

In the final chapters of Willentz , he discusses several of the volatile figures at the end of the Era of Secession which contributed to pushing the country towards civil war. The first is Chief Justice Taney, who was a staunch southerner, who held a strong affinity for southern culture and didnt not believe that black people, free or slaves, had any part in it or in being an american citizen. He also made the controversal ruling on the Dredd Scott case. This and other rulings within government, including the admission on Kansas as a slave state, worked to strengthen sectionalism in government. By this time, factionalism in government and the disdain each faction had for one another began spilling out past the point of negotiation, and even into violence on the house floor, as was the case during the Kansas state vote. As Malandini pointed out, Tensions rose eve further as civilian radicals such as John Brown began to surface during a time of already high tension and a government which could not handle domestic affairs effectively. The use of the sword from John Brown would push american media into a frenzy and send America down a path to war which was nigh impossible to diverge from.

December 2, 2013

Lincoln and Secession

In Chapter’s 23 and 24 of Wilentz’s The Rise of American Democracy, Wilentz spends a good deal of time characterizing Lincoln’s political and moral stance specifically surrounding the issue of slavery. And after reading Wilentz’s portrayal, I feel that my perception of Lincoln’s platform has changed. Generally, Lincoln is portrayed as the figure head for the abolitionist movement, leading the charge against slavery. However, as Wilentz explains in the end of Chapter 23 and throughout Chapter 24, Lincoln’s campaigning was different than his moral standing. Wilentz makes it very clear that Lincoln’s “hatred for slavery ran deep,”(Wilentz 413). On the other hand, Lincoln realized that strong polarization to the abolitionist movement was not the best political move. So he instead simply stood for “a house divided against itself cannot stand,”(Wilentz 414, nomination address). The stance essentially stated that a divided nation is ultimately dysfunctional, which the majority of Americans understood through current political disputes. This brilliant political move quickly became very influential, not only because it divided the Democratic party, but it also gained support from some moderates. I agree with SPEDWARDS post in that “Lincoln’s directness lead to a heightened public interest nation-wide,” yet I propose that perhaps it also simultaneously deepened the divide between abolitionists and pro-slavery activists—the exact cause that Lincoln was trying to eradicate. Because Lincoln advocated for a homogeneous position on slavery, the American people wanted their own position on slavery (for or against slavery) for the whole country. The talk of an all free or all slave America could have sparked the seeds for secession from the Union, as Lincoln brought abolitionist perceptions with him into the presidency. The perceived last effort by the southerners was secession. I feel that Wilentz does not fully include the possibility of Lincoln’s campaign and political scheme, to deepen the divide between the North and South.

December 2, 2013

The divorce of North and South

In chapter 24, Wilentz successfully distills the complex political atmosphere of America at the dawn of the civil war by succinctly describing the Harpers Ferry affair and its political ramifications. Wilentz does not oversimplify the matter or simply make Brown a one-dimensional figure. For example, on page 425, Wilentz explains the following: “To allay fears that Brown’s sympathizer’s came even close to a northern majority, northern conservatives and businessmen sponsored their own public meetings condemning Brown and any who would trample the Constitution. Democrats, North and South, tried to tie Brown around the neck of the Republican party. Alarmed Republicans hastily distanced themselves from Brown.” Here, Wilentz aptly characterizes the complicated nature of Brown as a national figure while simultaneously illustrating the tangled relations that both Democrats and Republicans shared across regional lines.

In many ways, Brown could be read as the catalyst that split the North and South, but Wiletnz seems to avoid that interpretation by giving the reader more to think about; both in terms of North vs. South and the bipartisan relationship between the Republicans and Democrats of the era. As @romangone states in their post, the South saw Lincoln’s election as “the North’s embrace of John Brown,” further separating the two regions in what would eventually lead to the realization of irreconcilable differences.

December 2, 2013

A Farewell to Wilentz

In the final chapters of The Rise of American Democracy, Wilentz discusses the final developments in the national powder keg, which inevitably exploded, thereby prompting the Civil War. While most other posts have thoroughly discussed the finer points leading up to this conflict, I found Wilentz’s analysis of the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision to be particularly notable.

Rather than solely focusing on the political tension between the North and South, Wilentz rightfully acknowledges the Supreme Court’s role in spurring conflict. Dred Scott v. Sandford focused on Scott’s attempt to buy himself (and his family) from slavery after living in Wisconsin, which was a free territory. Despite Scott’s previous condition of servitude, such a change presumably gave him standing in the fight for his freedom. Ultimately, the Court ruled that slaves were not citizens and thus they had no claim to citizenship. As such, Scott had no standing in the case. This meant that because he was not a citizen, he could not bring his plea to a courtroom. This distinct use of judicial review clearly reaffirms the Supreme Court’s role regarding the separation of political powers in the federal government. The Court’s ruling undid the Missouri Compromise, which had previously offset tensions concerning slavery. Furthermore, the Court also stripped power from Congress, as it dictated that Congress had no right to regulate slavery.

As we can see, the Court’s ruling meant that the issue of slavery could no longer be resolved politically. Unintentionally or not, their ruling had serious consequences.

Although many have already written eloquently about it, particularly Alia and Andrew, John Brown also played a role in contributing to the advent of the Civil War through non-political means. His use of direct force, although brief and futile, brought him to the forefront of tension over slavery. Ultimately, as others have stated, he encouraged military action to resolve slavery. However, more than that, he became a martyr in the North – giving a name and face to the cause.

December 2, 2013

Election of 1860 and Secession

The topic of slavery dominated politics during the mid-19th Century. It divided social classes, political parties, and most importantly the North and the South. Adamant on maintain slavery’s presence and expansion, Southerners repeatedly threatened seceding from the United States for decades. Beginning in late 1860, shockingly soon after the election of Abraham Lincoln, this threat became a reality, as South Carolina seceded, and several other states soon followed suit. In this post I will attempt to answer ANBURTON’s question (http://sites.davidson.edu/his141/secession-becomes-a-reality/), “[Was] secession an inevitable result of the presidential turnover, or was it really due to Lincoln’s particular election?” Also, I will explore the factors causing the South to secede.

I do think Lincoln’s election directly caused the immediate secession of the South. This decision, however, seemed overly radical, especially considering Lincoln’s moderate nature. Lincoln firmly believed that the spread of slavery needed to halt, but he never threatened altering the institution where it already existed. In addition, he did not support radical abolitionists, such as John Brown (Fun Fact: Today is the 154th anniversary of his execution). The South’s severe opposition to Lincoln struck me as greedy, as his election did not threaten slaveholders’ social structure at home, only their long-enjoyed national dominance in politics. The reaction also may have resulted from misinformation about Lincoln’s positions. Other candidates certainly tried to damage Lincoln’s campaign by attributing radical ideals to him. Furthermore, I suspected that fire-eaters manipulated the public into believing that Lincoln posed a direct threat to the entire institution of slavery. The fact that southern fire-eaters enjoyed Lincoln’s victory provided evidence, “No less pleased, though, were the southern fire-eaters … southern militants took the next step toward creating their slaveholders’ republic” (Wilentz 434). Clearly the South made a regrettable decision by seceding from the Union. Whether the reaction resulted from a greedy attempt to preserve widespread dominance, or from misinformation about Lincoln’s moderation, the election of Lincoln certainly ignited the amount of panic necessary to end in secession.

I really enjoyed and appreciated Wilentz’s coverage of the election of 1860 and secession. I found his treatment of the topic thorough, interesting, and easy to follow.

December 2, 2013

Secession Becomes a Reality

In today’s readings from Sean Wilentz’s The Rise of American Democracy, the “big bang” takes place… so to speak. On November 6, 1860, on the day of Lincoln’s election to power, all of the talks concerning secession finally come true, as South Carolina passes legislation to “strike back at the North and secede from the Union before Lincoln could take office” (Wilentz, 436). After years of tension between northern and southern states, failed compromises and extremist politicians, South Carolina has finally had enough and has left the Union. More states were to follow, as Wilentz writes that the “swiftness with which the rest of the Deep South followed suite was breathtaking” (Wilentz, 437), as Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina and Tennessee all leave the Union by June 8, 1861. According to Wilentz, Lincoln’s rise to power “turned many Deep South moderates and even erstwhile Unionists into secessionists” (Wilentz, 436), as the question was “not whether to secede but when and how” (Wilentz, 436). It shocks me that one president (whose party described themselves as a “white man’s party (Wilentz, 433) could inspire so much disagreement. It made me wonder whether secession was an inevitable result of the presidential turnover, or was it really due to Lincoln’s particular election?

What has always baffled me concerning secession is the debate between “the preservation of a traditional Southern heritage and states rights vs. the preservation of slavery” as the main cause for secession. Personally, I see the two issues being completely interconnected. Antebellum Southern culture (the culture the states so desperately wanted to preserve) was essentially a culture founded on and maintained by human bondage. When Wilentz discusses the South’s desire to “[leave] the Union to preserve their old institutions from a revolution [that] threatened to destroy their social system” (Wilentz, 439), the social system that the North was attempting to destroy and the South was trying to preserve was one where daily life was routed in and informed by slavery.

Just before secession, one of the most interesting characters we have run into so far over the entire course has easily been John Brown, a radical abolitionist who attempted to achieve abolition by any means necessary. Although he failed, I agree with ALKAROUT where Brown opened the door for possibilities of more organized forms of insurrection against slavery. What amazes me is the impact one figure (and relatively small raid) had on the South’s relationship with the North, with “new funds for military preparations and expressed solidarity with their sister slaveholding states” (Wilentz, 426) emerging in the immediate aftermath of Brown’s defeat and how. Many southerners saw it impossible to live in in a country under a government where Brown was considered a Christian martyr, as they considered his actions to be dangerous and unjust. Had a violent Southern rebellion be led against Northern abolitionists, it would have most likely been condemned by the government.

December 2, 2013

A House Divided…

In the final chapters, Wilentz describes the series of events leading to the first shots of the Civil War. One of the main political debates explained in the text is that between Lincoln and Douglas during the 1858 Senate elections in Illinois. Douglas arose victorious in the polls, but Lincoln definitely won all facets other than the election. He gained great popularity for his strong morals concerning the issue of slavery.

A main topic of blog posts in earlier weeks has been the somewhat futile effects of the many compromises made in the years leading up to the Civil War. CHMASONE’s post on November 20 explains this point by stating that political negotiations such as the Compromise of 1850 “all failed and only delayed the unavoidable conflict.” I believe this same principle was the main difference in Douglas’ and Lincoln’s platforms and ultimately, led to Douglas’ demise and Lincoln’s success in politics. Like many before him, Douglas constantly was on the fence concerning the issue of slavery. He supported popular sovereignty, which in itself can be seen as a cop-out because instead of dealing with an issue as a nation, it allowed particular sects to decide for themselves, thus widening the gap between northern and southern thought. Senator Douglas also went back and forth with his backing of the Dred Scott case, showing his lack of certainty in the area. On the other hand, Lincoln used a strong and assertive moral high ground stance throughout the debates. He condemned “the monstrous injustice of slavery itself” (414). Although he knew he would receive disapproval from southerners nationally, he stood by his morals no matter the opposition. I believe Lincoln’s directness in this situation led to heightened public interest nation-wide, and eventually led to his presidency in 1860.

As Lincoln moved on to the presidential election of 1860, he kept his beliefs of stopping the spread of slavery. Wilentz describes Lincoln as a politician during this time and how he had to express his views, but also attract votes from southern states. TASIMMONS’ blog post on December 1^st draws a parallel to this point and states that Lincoln had to “remain moderate” in order to win the presidential race. I agree with this point to an extent. Lincoln definitely had to tone down some of his views in the midst of the election, but Lincoln had always been considered a moderate republican. His views did not change from the debates in 1858 to the election of 1860. I think people often make the mistake of thinking Lincoln was quite radical with his beliefs concerning slavery but in reality, his main goal was to only stop slavery’s spread and then to eventually eradicate it. Lincoln was very against the institution of slavery based on his strong morals, but his plan to stop it was actually quite moderate all along.

December 2, 2013

Sending Not Peace But A Sword

Reading what Wilentz had to say about the politics and events leading up to the civil war was much more invigorating than usual. Come of the previous chapters explored high politics, and though well-written, failed to keep my attention. However, these chapters were rather interesting, especially the section about John Brown.

John Brown’s plans for raiding Harpers Ferry were foolish. However, the extent to which his strategy was unrealistic leads me to believe that he had a feeling he’d be exchanging “the role of an avenging commander-in-chief for that of a martyr” (Wilentz, 423). Uncommitted to actually being successful in his raiding efforts, he seemed to know that his actions served more as an ideological example for abolitionists. He knew that true change within “this slave country” would “never be purged away; but with Blood” meaning that his insurrection was only a glimpse of what was to come in the clash between the North and South.

Evfarese mentioned in their post that “many thought that it might occur, but Brown’s violent actions and his prophecy surely convinced a large amount of Americans that secession and war was in the future.” As my classmate pointed out, John Brown’s actions precipitated the public’s realization that war was imminent given the growing tensions between the North and South.

It was ironic that Brown’s actions, meant to exemplify his fundamental hatred for the institution of slavery, actually made southern slave owners believe that their slaves were content with slavery (Wilentz, 425). Wilentz brought up a point that I had never previously considered. After John Brown’s failed revolution, he was almost universally ridiculed for his hastiness. But as a result of this widespread disapproval of his actions, the door was opened for more moderate Republicans such as Abraham Lincoln to ascend to political power (Wilentz, 425). Although Brown would have rejected the more moderate route taken by Lincoln, the same goal of abolition was achieved in the end. Although the election of Lincoln is most often cited as the greatest provocation of the South’s secession (and perhaps it is) the events such as John Brown’s raid should also be cited to give context of the rising tension and chaos in the nation leading up to the election of 1860.

December 1, 2013

Leading up to Secession

Many events took part in factoring into the decision for South Carolina so secede from the Union. Of course they had been upset for quite some time with the abolitionists in the north and they were starting to feel that few if not no northerners could be trusted to hold represent them as president. They were shocked to see how far some northerners would go to see abolition when John Brown took hostage a federal armory. He had hoped to have many more people join him, especially other major figures like Frederick Douglass who firmly said no and it would be foolish to take the armory. Brown also intended to rally slaves as he went through to fight for him, but they were not very interested. Finally John Brown gave up after a day and half and was captured by Robert E. Lee. Just before his execution he wrote out his final prophecy and that was that the US was a guilty land and its crimes “will never be purged away; but with Blood.” (424) His words struck a large amount of the population who saw that maybe he war right and that a war was imminent. I think that Brown solidified the possibility of war in citizens’ heads. Many thought that it might occur, but Brown’s violent actions and his prophecy surely convinced a large amount of Americans that secession and war was in the future.

The final major event that lead to secession was the election of Abraham Lincoln into office. This election was very hard fought and caused the Democratic party to split in two, forming Northern and Southern branches. I think if anyone other than a pro-slavery president was elected, the South would surely secede. And that is exactly what happened when Lincoln was elected. ROMANGONE raises a good point regarding the fact that even though some Southern Democrats were divided on certain issues, they all stood together in opposition of Lincoln. Within the same month of Lincoln’s election South Carolina had seceded, closely followed by many other states who would go on to form the confederacy. I think that Lincoln’s election was the tipping point of the road to secession. It was as though the idea of secession had been brewing for so long and with the 1860 election, the South finally snapped. There were many events on the road to secession, but none more important than the election of Abraham Lincoln.