Secession!
Secession had been discussed and threatened well before the Civil War. A few New Englanders called for secession as early as 1814 to express their opposition to the War of 1812. John C. Calhoun and South Carolina discussed a much more legitimate threat of secession during the Nullification Crisis of the 1830s. South Carolina was the focal point during that time as well. The possibility of secession was limited to the South. Prominent abolitionists such as William Lloyd Garrison spoke of their preference for disunion rather than Union with slavery. On December 20, 1860, rhetorical debate transformed into political reality when South Carolina voted to secede. By June 1861, tennessee became the last of 11 states to sever its ties with the Union and form the Confederate States of America.
In a good example of "locking the barn doors after the cattle have come home", the Supreme Court ruled that states held no Constitutional power to secede in Texas v. White (1868).
In a good example of "locking the barn doors after the cattle have come home", the Supreme Court ruled that states held no Constitutional power to secede in Texas v. White (1868).
* * * Discussion Questions * * *
1. What do the acts of secession have in common? Basic principles? Events referenced?
2. Analyze the chronological order in which states voted to secede. What geographical or political patterns are revealed?
3. What impact if any did the hostilities at Fort Sumter and Lincoln's call for volunteers have on the secession process? Look especially at Virginia's two attempts at secession?
2. Analyze the chronological order in which states voted to secede. What geographical or political patterns are revealed?
3. What impact if any did the hostilities at Fort Sumter and Lincoln's call for volunteers have on the secession process? Look especially at Virginia's two attempts at secession?
Why did the South secede?
In the twenty plus years of my career in history education, it is certainly one of the most common questions that I have been asked. In the last five years or so, the repetition of The Question has spiked – not just for me but for the nation as a whole. It is probably one of the most divisive questions asked today – more than 150 years after it was first pondered.
In the twenty plus years of my career in history education, it is certainly one of the most common questions that I have been asked. In the last five years or so, the repetition of The Question has spiked – not just for me but for the nation as a whole. It is probably one of the most divisive questions asked today – more than 150 years after it was first pondered.
“What was the Civil War about?”
Let’s tackle that question here and now as we examine the Winter of Secession.
The first step towards answering that question is to clarify the question. What exactly are we asking? You see, The Question is not always the same.
These are the most common variations The Question that I receive.
In the twenty plus years of my career in history education, it is certainly one of the most common questions that I have been asked. In the last five years or so, the repetition of The Question has spiked – not just for me but for the nation as a whole. It is probably one of the most divisive questions asked today – more than 150 years after it was first pondered.
“What was the Civil War about?”
Let’s tackle that question here and now as we examine the Winter of Secession.
The first step towards answering that question is to clarify the question. What exactly are we asking? You see, The Question is not always the same.
These are the most common variations The Question that I receive.
Sometimes the asker of The Question offers choices rather than leave an open ending for possible answers. Was the Civil War about states’ rights or slavery? I am never quite certain when The Question is framed in such a manner as to the intent of the asker – Do they honestly believe those two concepts to be the only options? Or are they attempting to confirm their already arrived conclusion that one of those two mustbe the answer and the other mustbe wrong.
So, as a historian, educator of history, Civil War reenactor and enthusiast, Civil War preservationist, and all-around swell guy, here’s my answer to The Question.
So, as a historian, educator of history, Civil War reenactor and enthusiast, Civil War preservationist, and all-around swell guy, here’s my answer to The Question.
Here’s my answer to The Question..........It depends.
It depends on which version of The Question we ask. They are not the same question. Let's take them one at a time.
Q. Why did the South secede?
A. To protect Slavery and Slave Power
The South seceded to protect slavery, or perhaps to be more precise, to protect Slave Power as a political and economic entity.
Why do I answer slavery? The Southern leaders told us and their contemporaries that slavery was the reason. Their Articles of Secession openly declare slavery to be their reason. Nearly every Confederate state made reference to years of perceived attacks on the institution of slavery. Many states such as Texas believed the that the North had, "...impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance." Others such as Louisiana made no mention of slavery and offered little reasoning whatsoever.
Vice President Alexander Stephens declared the Confederate States of America to be the first government to founded upon the concept of racial bondage…
"This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
Why do I answer slavery? The Southern leaders told us and their contemporaries that slavery was the reason. Their Articles of Secession openly declare slavery to be their reason. Nearly every Confederate state made reference to years of perceived attacks on the institution of slavery. Many states such as Texas believed the that the North had, "...impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance." Others such as Louisiana made no mention of slavery and offered little reasoning whatsoever.
Vice President Alexander Stephens declared the Confederate States of America to be the first government to founded upon the concept of racial bondage…
"This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
|
Why do I say qualify that by saying “Slave Power”? One of the finer but often overlooked points of the Antebellum Era is that many of the contentious debates of the slave era were about maintaining the political power of the slave states rather than the institution of slavery itself. Although maintaining slavery in the South was necessary to preserve slave power, the debates were most commonly centered on the extension of slavery to the western territories.
In Virginia, the issue of secession proved quite divisive. On April 4, after meeting in convention for nearly 2 months, Virginia delegates voted to remain un the Union by a margin of 2 to 1. Eight days after the vote, Confederate forces fired on Fort Sumter. Eleven days after the vote, President Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to put down the insurrection. Two days after Lincoln's call for volunteers, Virginia voted again - this time to leave the Union. In their ordinance of secession Virginia did not cite the protection of slavery but rather accused "the Federal Government having perverted said powers not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slave-holding States". their faction was under attack.
In his First Inaugural Address on March 4, 1861, as the procession of secession was at its midpoint, Abraham Lincoln reaffirmed his intent to not interfere with the existence of slavery in the Southern States. By focusing on stopping the spread of slavery westward rather than the existence of slavery in the South, Lincoln posed a threat to "Slave Power" as a political faction able to control its own destiny.
In Virginia, the issue of secession proved quite divisive. On April 4, after meeting in convention for nearly 2 months, Virginia delegates voted to remain un the Union by a margin of 2 to 1. Eight days after the vote, Confederate forces fired on Fort Sumter. Eleven days after the vote, President Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to put down the insurrection. Two days after Lincoln's call for volunteers, Virginia voted again - this time to leave the Union. In their ordinance of secession Virginia did not cite the protection of slavery but rather accused "the Federal Government having perverted said powers not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slave-holding States". their faction was under attack.
In his First Inaugural Address on March 4, 1861, as the procession of secession was at its midpoint, Abraham Lincoln reaffirmed his intent to not interfere with the existence of slavery in the Southern States. By focusing on stopping the spread of slavery westward rather than the existence of slavery in the South, Lincoln posed a threat to "Slave Power" as a political faction able to control its own destiny.
"I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that 'I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this, and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them." |
In his first Inaugural Address, Lincoln promised the South that he posed no threat existence of slavery as property in those States where it was already established. According to the new president, "I now reiterate these sentiments: and in doing so, I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible, that the property, peace and security of no section are to be in anywise endangered by the now incoming Administration."
Is this letter dated September 21, 1861, President Lincoln explains his reasoning for counter-acting General John C. Fremont's order to place Missouri under martial law and provide for the immediate emancipation of all slaves in Missouri. According to Lincoln, Fremont's action was inappropriate because it was a political move not a military one. The only power to emancipate slaves was derived out of military necessity instead of political beliefs. Lincoln also explained that it was necessary for him to make this clear due to political pressure from the border state of Kentucky. Lincoln did, however, leave the door open for such action as emancipation to be come a military necessity in the future.
|
This attention paid to the political power of slave owners was not a new concept. As early as 1787, James Madison noted that during the Constitutional Convention it appeared that “the States were divided into different interests, not by their difference of size, but by other circumstances; the most material of which resulted partly from climate, but principally from the effects of their having or not having slaves.”
Ten years later, during the presidency of Andrew Jackson, the Tariff of Abominations spurred talk of Nullification, Force, and Secession. The Nullification Crisis wasn’t a debate over the morality of slavery but rather an argument over preserving an economic way of life. It pitted two sections of nation that were growing apart – one increasingly dedicated to manufacturing and commerce and one increasingly dedicated to an agrarian economy with massive wealth accumulated by in an aristocratic planter class.
When this balance was upset with the admission of California in 1850, none less than Southern stalwart John C. Calhoun predicted the dissolution of the Union. His reasoning wasn’t the loss of slavery in the South but rather the loss of slave political power.
When this balance was upset with the admission of California in 1850, none less than Southern stalwart John C. Calhoun predicted the dissolution of the Union. His reasoning wasn’t the loss of slavery in the South but rather the loss of slave political power.
“A single section, governed by the will of the numerical majority, has now, in fact, the control of the Government and the entire powers of the system. What was once a constitutional Federal Republic is now converted, in reality, into one as absolute as that of the Autocrat of Russia, and as despotic in its tendency as any absolute Government that ever existed."
|
Without the power to assure the extension of slavery, the wealth and power of slavery itself faced an uncertain future. With no political means left to protect the interest of slave power, Slave Power must ask what means of resistance were left?
"As, then, the North has the absolute control over the Government, it is manifest that on all questions between it and the South, where there is a diversity of interests, the interests of the latter will be sacrificed to the former, however oppressive the effects may be, as the South possesses no means by which it can resist through the action of the Government."
Q. Why did they fight the Civil War?
A. There is no one answer.
To answer this fully one must be able to delve into the minds and souls of the nearly 3 million men (and some women) who took up arms in combat. From what those people wrote and said it is obvious that the decision to fight was often a deeply personal one.
Some certainly fought to preserve slavery while others certainly fought to eliminate it.
But most soldiers seemed to list a great variety of reasons. Duty, expectations, a paycheck, home or family, patriotism, the Union, nationalism, adventure, glory…
To argue that one man or one side or all men or all sides fought for one reason would be folly.
Some certainly fought to preserve slavery while others certainly fought to eliminate it.
But most soldiers seemed to list a great variety of reasons. Duty, expectations, a paycheck, home or family, patriotism, the Union, nationalism, adventure, glory…
To argue that one man or one side or all men or all sides fought for one reason would be folly.
From the start of its colonization the United States was divided into separate regions which pursued different paths of economic development often based upon geography, climate, resources, and settlers. This early Sectionalism then transformed itself into a variety of differences as that gulf of sectionalism widened. While merchant commercialism, shipping, and finance grew in the North, cash crop agriculture grew in the South. More immigration in the North; less in the South. growth of industry in the North; growth of King Cotton in the South. More support of nationalist government in the North to support their growing economy (Alexander Hamilton and Henry Clay) versus a more rural agrarian society (Jeffersonian and Jacksonian) in the South. Throughout the ever-widening divide, Southern leaders repeatedly turned to the state government as their source of protection against the perception of national power abuse. More often than not the argument over slavery was about the political power of the slave or free states rather than the morality of slavery. It was as if the Federalist-Anti-Federalists debates had never been resolved...
Sprinkle in some religious differences and top it off the growing importance of Slavery as an economic necessity in the South and the setting for a Civil War is nearly set. All that remains is the growing moral debate over slavery brought about by the Second Great Awakening and then added the fuse of westward expansion and the start of the Civil War is around the corner.
I do not see any way one can argue that any one issue such as slavery OR states' rights "caused" the Civil War. Likewise, I can not understand an argument that neither slavery nor states rights were a major factor.
The main cause of secession was the desire to preserve slavery as a means to preserving the political and economic power of the Southern states. And the main cause of sectionalism was the competition between rival political factions formed by slavery, the expansion of slavery, and the competition for political power between the slave states and the free states.
Sprinkle in some religious differences and top it off the growing importance of Slavery as an economic necessity in the South and the setting for a Civil War is nearly set. All that remains is the growing moral debate over slavery brought about by the Second Great Awakening and then added the fuse of westward expansion and the start of the Civil War is around the corner.
I do not see any way one can argue that any one issue such as slavery OR states' rights "caused" the Civil War. Likewise, I can not understand an argument that neither slavery nor states rights were a major factor.
The main cause of secession was the desire to preserve slavery as a means to preserving the political and economic power of the Southern states. And the main cause of sectionalism was the competition between rival political factions formed by slavery, the expansion of slavery, and the competition for political power between the slave states and the free states.
Secondary Sources on the Causes of Secession
Primary Sources
On April 4, 1861, the hope of Southerners to form a new nation were dealt a serious blow when Virginia voted by a count of 88-45 to reject secession and remain in the Union.
On April 15, 1861, Lincoln calls for volunteers to suppress the rebellion.
On April 17, 1861, Virginia finally voted for secession just two days after Lincoln's call for volunteers to subdue the rebellion. Their resolution spoke of defending against the oppression of slave states rather than defending slavery itself.
A collection of primary sources related to Virginia secession at the University of Virginia.
|
The American Battlefield Trust has collected all 13 acts/bills of secession into one location.
With several states having already voted to secede, the fate of the Union hung in the balance as newly elected President Lincoln delivered his first inaugural address on March 4, 1861. His assurances that he meant no threat to slavery where it already existed was not enough to appeal to "the better angels of our nature".
|
Secondary Sources
While it is easier and usually popular to condense historical events into neat little packages where the key players act in unison and their reasoning is all of one opinion, the truth is often far more complicated and the actors' mindsets far more diverse and complex.
This article by the American Battlefield Trust examines the complexities behind the decisions of our ancestors to take action during the winter of secession. |
Of all people, it is more than a little ironic that a few abolitionists supported the right of secession even after Fort Sumter. |