Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Three impacts of southern secession during the civil war
Us civil war
Us civil war
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Seceding the Nation
I remember it clear as day, “As the telegraph flashed news of Lincoln’s election,” we, “South Carolina legislature called a convention to take the state out of the Union. Within six weeks, the six other states of the lower South had also called conventions” (McPherson, 139). Electors quickly nominated delegates after concentrated campaigns. By February 9, 1861, three months subsequent to Lincoln’s election, representatives from these states met in Montgomery, Alabama, assuming an interim constitution for the Confederate States of America, selecting Jefferson Davis as the makeshift head of state.
While secession advanced with amazing rapidity in the subordinate South, the arrival of esprit de corps disguised three interior
…show more content…
divisions. The first, and most fundamental, was the immediate secession.
“Proponents of this viewpoint believed that each state should secede on its own without waiting for collective action by the South as a whole” (McPherson, 140). These territories held major populaces of slave districts, and were folks whom preserved Democrats, without slaves, and Whig partisans, with slaves, whom were in the drive to end slavery by the apparent Republican risk to white sovereignty and oppression. Cooperation secessionists consisted of three subtypes. Firstly, the cooperative secessionists whom were ones who leaned toward secession, but were not willing to partake until others did so. Secondly, the ultimatumists whom wondered what Lincoln would do in response to these operations, as president. The last subtype of cooperation secession was the conditional unionists, they wanted to stay in the union unless or until there was an attack on the south. Unconditional unionists were men whom wanted to stay in the United States and wanted no part of …show more content…
secession at all. I would best describe my beliefs, at the time, as a cooperative secessionists, if others were willing to join, and thought it was of worthy cause, I would join with them. This is so I would not be punished, in most circumstances, by leading or joining a few in this activity of leaving the union. If many leave, it is harder to punish, other than in the cases of war. When war is created by the federal powers, it shows a farther disunion between them and the confederacy leaving. The union should create a situation in which the confederates want to return to the union, especially in the times of secession. We, as in the south, felt that secession was completely normal, legal, and righteous, as stated in the Compact Theory of the constitution.
We shadowed the front-runners of hundreds of Republicans, quoting their speeches and editorials for proof that the Republicans were the revolutionists, not us, the confederates. Seward and Lincoln come to mind in particularly. They were leaders of our part. If anyone truly represented Republican intentions, they did. Seward had predicted the ultimate victory of the free-labor ideology, “I know and all the world knows, that a revolution has begun. I know and all the world knows that revolutions never go backward” (McPherson, 143). Seward was telling the truth hear, a revolution meant change, and once it is implemented there is no looking back. Lincoln addressed the two nations in his House Divided speech saying that “Republicans intended to place slavery ‘where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction”’ (McPherson, 143). Lincolns refer to Republicans having plans of putting slavery to rest, in favor of the northern states at the time, versus the south who favored slavery, and seceded the
union. Also, it was events like the Charleston Mercury in which threw tea overboard in 1776, that have revolutionized us, the South, to think in a way that we can secede, for our country revolutionized from the very beginning. We seceded from England, Spain, France, and so forth, and now the Confederates, we have seceded from the Union of the United States of America. For, we believe in the rights of the states, the implication of slavery if we wish, and less nationalistic approaches with superiors. The Northerners questioned us, and our secession of the nation, with regards to the kind of president and Congress they have leading their nation. They simply do nothing to encourage our secession, but nothing to alienate the unionists among us Southerners. The Northerners simply wait for us to return, as if we will come waddling back, without any plea, bargain, or benefit. Our nation, and thus the confederate section, through this secession, and past revolts, has become one of which that is legally, socially, and politically changed. As two separate, but similar sections of the United States, we have created ourselves a civil war. Lincoln calls for his troops, as the South secedes.
The archives show how Augusta, Virginia and Franklin, Pennsylvania, and the South and North, shared many characteristics before the war, which Ayers points out well. One main point he makes when writing about their similarities is noting that both counties had people who supported slavery. Augusta, in the South, had slavery as their main economic system, and Franklin, in the North, had whites who believed in and supported slavery. There was also an abundance of racial discrimination still in the Franklin. These similarities didn’t matter much when it came to the issue of secession.
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
South Carolina seceded from the Union on December of 1860, General Robert Anderson and his troops were stationed out at Fort Moultrie. They did not think Fort Moultrie was safe enough so then he had a plan to move his troops to Fort Sumter. The Commander of the Union was Robert Anderson, and the Confederate commander was P.G.T. Beauregard. Anderson had moved his troops from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter. Soon after coming to the fort Anderson realized he only had a couple week’s supply of food left. The confederate soldiers came and surrounded the fort and demanded Anderson had over the fort to them. Anderson was starting to run out of supplies for fighting and food. General Beauregard thought the Union would leave the South Carolina fort but Anderson refused. Beauregard threatened the Union to surrender but they would not, then the firing began. Anderson eventually realized there was no hope for them winning this battle, he then surrender the Southern for...
On the question as to whether states’ rights was the cause of the Civil War, Dew references a speech made by Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederate States of America, during his inaugural address as one that “remains a classic articulation of the Southern position that resistance to Northern tyranny and a defense of states’ rights were the sole reason for secession. Constitutional differences alone lay at the heart of the sectional controversy, he insisted. ‘Our present condition…illustrates the American idea that governments rest upon the consent of the governed, and that it is the right of the people to alter or abolish governments whenever they become destructive of the ends for which they were established’”(13).
Abraham Lincoln’s original views on slavery were formed through the way he was raised and the American customs of the period. Throughout Lincoln’s influential years, slavery was a recognized and a legal institution in the United States of America. Even though Lincoln began his career by declaring that he was “anti-slavery,” he was not likely to agree to instant emancipation. However, although Lincoln did not begin as a radical anti-slavery Republican, he eventually issued his Emancipation Proclamation, which freed all slaves and in his last speech, even recommended extending voting to blacks. Although Lincoln’s feeling about blacks and slavery was quite constant over time, the evidence found between his debate with Stephen A. Douglas and his Gettysburg Address, proves that his political position and actions towards slavery have changed profoundly.
Lincoln was a very smart lawyer and politician. During his “House Divided” speech he asked the question, “Can we, as a nation, continue together permanently, forever, half slave, and half free?" When he first asked this question, America was slowly gaining the knowledge and realizing that as a nation, it could not possibly exist as half-slave and half-free. It was either one way or the other. “Slavery was unconstitutional and immoral, but not simply on a practical level.” (Greenfield, 2009) Slave states and free states had significantly different and incompatible interests. In 1858, when Lincoln made his “House Divided” speech, he made people think about this question with views if what the end result in America must be.
People attending schools before 1960’s were learning about certain “unscrupulous carpetbaggers”, “traitorous scalawags”, and the “Radical Republicans”(223). According to the historians before the event of 1960’s revision, these people are the reason that the “white community of South banded together to overthrow these “black” governments and restore home rule”(223). While this might have been true if it was not for the fact that the “carpetbaggers were former Union soldiers”, “Scalawags… emerged as “Old Line” Whig Unionists”(227). Eric Foner wrote the lines in his thesis “The New View of Reconstruction” to show us how completely of target the historians before the 1960’s revision were in their beliefs.
As a central figure in the Republican Party and passionate advocate for anti-slavery, William Henry Seward characterized the conflict between the Southern Democrats and Northern Republicans as inevitable. Each political party had two radically different ideologies regarding the expansion of slavery into western territories. The Southern Democrats believed that slavery should exist in all western states while the Northern Republicans strongly disagreed. Similar to the ideologies of the Republicans, Seward believed that slavery was unjust and humans were granted the r...
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.
Connelly and Burrows provide a valuable perspective which highlights the paradox and irony which essentially defined the southern mindset before, during, and after the Civil War. This text offers the reader with an in depth look into the mindset of southerners throughout the Civil War and beyond, which enables one to better understand the actions of these rebels within such a decisive period in our Nation's history.
The memory of massive death was still in the front of everyone’s mind, hardening into resentment and sometimes even hatred. The south was virtually non-existent politically or economically, and searching desperately for a way back in. Along with these things, now living amongst the population were almost four million former slaves, who had no idea how to make a living on their own. They had been freed by the 13th amendment in 1865, and in the future became a great concern to many political leaders. Still, it was no secret that something had to be done. So, as usually happens, political leaders appeared on the stage, each holding their own plan of Reconstruction, each certain their ideas were the correct ones. One of the first people who came up with a blueprint for Reconstruction was the president at the time, Abraham Lincoln. The “Lincoln Plan” was a very open one, stating that after certain criteria were met a confederate state could return to the union. To rejoin, a state had to have ten percent of voters both accept the emancipation of slaves and swear loyalty to the union. Also, those high ranking officers of the state could not hold office or carry out voting rights unless the president said
Contrary to what today’s society believes about Lincoln, he was not a popular man with the South at this time. The South wanted to expand towards the West, but Lincoln created a geographical containment rule keeping slavery in the states it currently resided in. Despite his trying to rationalize with the South, Lincoln actually believed something different ”Lincoln claimed that he, like the Founding Fathers, saw slavery in the Old South as a regrettable reality whose expansion could and should be arrested, thereby putting it on the long and gradual road ”ultimate extinction” (216). He believed it to be “evil” thus “implying that free southerners were evil for defending it”(275). Lincoln wanted to wipe out slavery for good, and the South could sense his secret motives.
Alfred P. Aldrich, South Carolina legislator from Barnwell: "If the Republican party with its platform of principles, the main feature of which is the abolition of slavery and, therefore, the destruction of the South, carries the country at the next Presidential election, shall we remain in the Union, or form a separate Confederacy? This is the great, grave issue. It is not who shall be President, it is not which party shall rule -- it is a question of political and social existence." [Steven Channing, Crisis of Fear, pp. 141-142.]
...om’s Cabin in 1852, the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, the Dred Scott Decision of 1857, John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry in 1859, and the outcome of the Presidential Election of 1860—created conditions where Southerners felt the need to secede from the United States (they felt that their “way of life” was being threatened), as well as created conditions where the Northerners decided to go to war against the Southern Confederacy in order to maintain the Union. It is not surprising, however, that the Civil War occurred; since the Industrial Revolution, the Industrial North had always been different than the Agricultural South. If each region paid more attention to resolving the issues that separated them, instead of trying to prove themselves right, they could have stopped the bloodiest battle in American history (even though this is using hindsight knowledge).
In the 1860 presidential election, Republicans, led by Abraham Lincoln, opposed the expansion of slavery into United States' territories. Lincoln won, but before his inauguration on March 4, 1861, seven slave states with cotton-based economies formed the Confederacy. The first six to secede had the highest proportions of slaves in their populations, a total of 48.8% for the six. Outgoing Democratic President James Buchanan and the incoming Republicans rejected secession as illegal. Lincoln's inaugural address declared his administration would not initiate civil war. Eight remaining slave states continued to reject calls for secession. Confederate forces seized numerous federal forts within territory claimed by the Confederacy. A peace conference failed to find a compromise, and both sides prepared for war. The Confederates assumed that European countries were so dependent on "King Cotton" that they would intervene; none did and none recognized the new Conf...