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
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.