Jacob Winslow HIST 309 Professor Haine Review of: William W. Freehling The Road to Disunion, Volume II: Secessionists Triumphant 1854-1861. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Although this is not the first book to deliberate on the topic of Southern secession, in fact there are many, it does provide a more contemporary analysis with new approaches. One might think that there would be little left to discuss on the primary causation of Southern secession but Freehling focuses on the major political and social events, as well as key players, in the secession crisis that gripped the nation during the climatic years from 1854 – 1861. This is also a sequel to his first volume which explores the early origins of the secession crisis beginning with the birth of the nation up to the start of this volume. This first volume was published in 1990. Both volumes are pivotal to developing a valuable insight into the long and massive history surrounding this issue. According to Jason Phillips of Mississippi State University, “collectively, these works represent one of the finest political histories of the Old South.” One important point that many authors on the subject make, and indeed many primary secession documents would lead one to believe, is the important role of the contentious issue over slavery in the territories. However, as part of his argument Freehling contends that this issue did not weigh heavily with the politicians in the eastern states such as South Carolina. Instead, the focus of his argument is the perceived loss of power, particularly among the influential slave holding class of the Deep South, and increasingly through the efforts of this minority, spreading among the broader Southern Democratic Party. This ... ... middle of paper ... ...and Tennessee seceded. Again this is based on Freehling’s attempt to show that there were leaders of this movement that threatened secession in the past and continued to lead the way. However, it is important to understand why other States followed and why some like Kentucky did not. In conclusion, I believe this to be an important contribution to my own argument, that the issue of slavery played a central role. Although, if you explore the historiography on the topic you will see that this is not always the case. There has been plenty of work in the past, and surprisingly even still today, that underplays the role of slavery and focuses on issues of state’s rights or tariffs. This important contribution helps explain the question of how an entire region of the country would choose to break away from the Union when only a small number actually held slaves.
Both sides desired a republican form of government. Each wanted a political system that would “protect the equality and liberty of the individuals from aristocratic privilege and…tyrannical power.” (404) However, the north and south differed greatly in “their perceptions of what most threatened its survival.” (404) The secession by the south was an attempt to reestablish republicanism, as they no longer found a voice in the national stage. Prior to the 1850s, this conflict had been channeled through the national political system. The collapse of the two-party system gave way to “political reorganization and realignment,” wrote Holt. The voters of the Democrats shifted their influence toward state and local elections, where they felt their concerns would be addressed. This was not exclusively an economically determined factor. It displayed the exercise of agency by individual states. Holt pointed out, “[T]he emergence of a new two-party framework in the South varied from state to state according to the conditions in them.” (406) The “Deep South” was repulsed by the “old political process,” most Southerners trusted their state to be the safeguards of republicanism. (404) They saw the presidential election of Abraham Lincoln, a member of the “the anti-Southern Republican party,” as something the old system could not
In Apostles of Disunion, Dew presents compelling documentation that the issue of slavery was indeed the ultimate cause for the Civil War. This book provided a great deal of insight as to why the South feared the abolition of slavery as they did. In reading the letters and speeches of the secession commissioners, it was clear that each of them were making passionate pleas to all of the slave states in an effort to put a stop to the North’s, and specifically Lincoln’s, push for the abolishment of slavery. There should be no question that slavery had everything to do with being the cause for the Civil War. In the words of Dew, “To put it quite simply, slavery and race were absolutely critical elements in the coming of the war” (81). This was an excellent book, easy to read, and very enlightening.
Lowell H. Harrison's argued in his book that for the Union to be successful it had to keep Kentucky was crucial to federal strategy, both military and psychological. He made it very clear, for Kentucky it was truly a "brother's war," where loyalties to section or nation ran deep, where issues of states' rights, secession, slavery, abolition, and federal centralization roused strong passions.
A controversial issue during 1860 to 1877 was state’s rights and federal power. The North and South were divided over this issue. The North composed of free states and an industrial economy while the South was made up of slave states and an agricultural economy. The South did not like federal authority over the issue of slavery; therefore, they supported the radical state rights’ ideology. South Carolina seceded from the Union because it believed that since states made up the Union, it could leave when it chooses to. The government argued against the South saying that they had no right to leave the Union because the Union was not made up of just states but people. However, the South counteracted this argument with the case that the 10th amendment “declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by its states, were reserved to the states.” (Doc A) However, the government still believed that secession from the Union was unjust and decided that a new change surrounding state’s rights was necessary. As a result, when the Union won in the Civil War, a resolution was made, where the state’s lost their power and the federal government gained power. U...
Henry Steele Commager’s essay “The Defeat of the Confederacy: An Overview” is more summary than argument. Commager is more concerned with highlighting the complex causality of the war’s end rather than attempting to give a definitive answer. Commager briefly muses over both the South’s strengths
Madaras, Larry, and James M. SoRelle. Issue 14 “Was Slavery the Key Issue in the Sectional Conflict Leading to the Civil War?." Taking Sides. 13th ed. Dubuque, IA: McGraw Hill Higher Education, 2009. 310-329. Print.
When even the highly-supported secession documents clearly outline how important slavery was to the southern states, it is hard to deny its fault in the war. The argument that the Confederacy was fighting for states’ rights is the most-often suggested alternative, however all one needs to do is dig deeper and calculate what these
Of all the areas with which the southerners contended, the socio-political arena was probably their strongest. It is in this area that they had history and law to support their assertions. With the recent exception of the British, the slave trade had been an integral part of the economies of many nations and the slaves were the labor by which many nations and empires attained greatness. Souther...
Near the end of the Antebellum Era, tensions and sectionalism increased as the states argued over what was constitutional. The South had later seceded from the United States and had become the Confederacy of America while the North had remained as the Union. The South had fully supported states’ rights while the north had strongly disapproved it. However, westward expansion, southern anger with the abolitionists, and the secession of the South that had destroyed the feeling of unity in the country because of the disagreement over slavery had been the main factors to the cause of the Civil War. Therefore, since slavery was the primary reason for the discontent in the country, it had been the primary cause of the Civil War.
The turmoil between the North and South about slavery brought many issues to light. People from their respective regions would argue whether it was a moral institution and that no matter what, a decision on the topic had to be made that would bring the country to an agreement once and for all. This paper discusses the irrepressible conflict William H. Seward mentions, several politician’s different views on why they could or could not co-exist, and also discusses the possible war as a result.
...ld not protect the interest of the Southern states. Coupled with the hostilities, lack of votes for Lincoln from the South and disregard for the constitutional protection of slavery is a justifiable reason from the Southern leaders to secede from the Union.
The majority of speculations regarding the causes of the American Civil War are in some relation to slavery. While slavery was a factor in the disagreements that led to the Civil War, it was not the solitary or primary cause. There were three other, larger causes that contributed more directly to the beginning of the secession of the southern states and, eventually, the start of the war. Those three causes included economic and social divergence amongst the North and South, state versus national rights, and the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Dred Scott case. Each of these causes involved slavery in some way, but were not exclusively based upon slavery.
Nullification is a precursor to secession in the United States as it is also for civil wars. However, in contrast, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions did not suggest that states should secede from the union. Under the direct vigilance and radical views of Calhoun, he suggested that states should and could secede from the union if they deem a law was unconstitutional. Calhoun’s reputation as a “Cast Iron” proved fittingly as compromises were reached for the proposed Tariffs. The southern states contribution to the financial welfare of the union as a result of slavery was undoubtedly substantial, but as history unfolded, it was not a just means to financial stability. His views of constitutional propriety was for the “privileges of minority” rather than for the “rights of the minority.” [2]
The presidential elections of 1860 was one of the nation’s most memorable one. The north and the south sections of country had a completely different vision of how they envision their home land. What made this worst was that their view was completely opposite of each other. The north, mostly republican supporters, want America to be free; free of slaves and free from bondages. While on the other hand, the south supporters, mostly democratic states, wanted slavery in the country, because this is what they earned their daily living and profit from.
The American Civil War was the bloodiest military conflict in American history leaving over 500 thousand dead and over 300 thousand wounded (Roark 543-543). One might ask, what caused such internal tension within the most powerful nation in the world? During the nineteenth century, America was an infant nation, but toppling the entire world with its social, political, and economic innovations. In addition, immigrants were migrating from their native land to live the American dream (Roark 405-407). Meanwhile, hundreds of thousand African slaves were being traded in the domestic slave trade throughout the American south. Separated from their family, living in inhumane conditions, and working countless hours for days straight, the issue of slavery was the core of the Civil War (Roark 493-494). The North’s growing dissent for slavery and the South’s dependence on slavery is the reason why the Civil War was an inevitable conflict. Throughout this essay we will discuss the issue of slavery, states’ rights, American expansion into western territories, economic differences and its effect on the inevitable Civil War.