The Call For A Revised Study On Secession

The secession of South Carolina on December 20, 1860, by a vote of 169-0 was a response to the election of Abraham Lincoln of 1860. Lincoln perceived as an abolitionist wanted to contain slavery rather than ending it. The majority party above the Mason-Dixon line were Republicans and below were primarily Democrats and Republicans were viewed as abolitionists. The election of a Republican threatened the South’s status quo. The primary catalyst for secession was based on slavery. Different social cultures and political beliefs developed due to the South’s intimate and reliant relationship on slavery. Southern whites feared the end of slavery and this paranoia was shared among plantation slave owners and white Yeoman farmers. Southern whites felt that the North were threatening the supposed tranquility of the South. The South’s agrarian economy, honor, and independence were believed to be in danger. Slavery was intertwined with the South’s social, cultural, and economic makeup. As a result of slavery, the South developed a paternalistic culture and racial ideology of white supremacy. The perceived notion that the North was influencing it’s political and social beliefs on the South lead them to believe that secession was the only act of self-preservation. The growing differences between the South and North made it difficult to negotiate. This fear was exaggerated and accelerated the South’s eventual implosion. The South believed that without slavery it would self-destruct and

The central thesis of this book is that the secession commissioners that were sent Deep South to other slave states in the winter of 1860-1861 played a major role in defending as well as urging people to subscribe to their ideology and follow them out of the Union. This thesis helps in giving insights in the South’s real intention, which can be argued out that it was to defend its slave trade culture that the North was totally against hence the use of secession as a means of convincing people. Even though the historians mostly ignore these men that were involved in the secession, these men played a vital role in the creation of the beautiful country

The recent study of these Northern counties, John R. Lundberg’s article, disputes the prominent narrative for why the North Texas counties voted against secession during the secession referendum. Most historians, for example, Buenger, cite the reasons for voting for or against secession stems from the growing Indian raids on the exposed frontier. Also, Houston’s failure to protect the settlers from those

There exist three consensus or commonalities between each party, including “the unquestioning devotion to perpetual slavery as necessary for racial control.” Each party stressed their version of Unionism while accusing the other of secessionist tendencies, and “both parties disseminated an image of the Republican Party as fanatically bent on the direct abolition of slavery.” However, the continued support for slavery and a complete aversion towards the “black” Republican Party became readily identifiable, but the differing views on and support for Unionism become harder to clarify when conducting an analysis of Texans and the secession

There are many Texas myths that endured about carpetbaggers during the failed Reconstruction era. “Carpetbaggers was generally used to describe Northerners who moved to the south after the Civil War especially who joined state Republicans formed in 1867” pg. 212. They were rumored to be allegedly “corrupt and dishonest adventurous who’s property could fit in a carpet bag (a soft suitcase made of carpet) who seized political power”. In this essay, I will analyze how the myth/legend came about, why the myth/legend is important to Texas history and what implications is has for the history and memory of Texas.

In 1861, the first drastic steps toward the American Civil War were taken when South Carolina decided to secede from the Union. However, several factors led this state as well as several others to realize that they had no purpose to remain in the Union. One main reason that these states decided to leave was their belief of constant oppression and attacking of their Southern pride by the North. The idea of “Southern pride” was defined by the constant beliefs of the region to express its uniqueness and prove its importance to the nation and perhaps the world. This Southern pride existed in several forms, including in the their asset-based economy and their status quo, which in turn lead them to feel degraded in the United States and obligated to secede; this pride also helped the Southern states, as a part of the Confederacy, gain an advantage over the North in the beginning stages of the Civil War.

The secession of the Confederate states can be attributed to the collapse of a longstanding system of political compromise. The factors responsible for this collapse were not only economic and political in nature but also societal. The beginning of the sectional crisis can be attributed to the Market Revolution and reform movements of the early 19th century. These cultural and economic changes subsequently influenced American politics, as evidenced by landmark events such as the Compromise of 1850, the acquisition of Mexican territory in 1858, the Wilmot Proviso, and finally the election of 1860. All of these events can be tied to changes in cultural attitudes throughout the North and South, which invariably related to the question of slavery.

The overall Union sentiment in Texas falls into “three classes: those who actively and openly supported the Federal cause; those who remained outwardly neutral; and those who submitted.” Claude Elliott discusses key political Unionist leaders that fit into each category. Those who actively and openly supported the Union: E. J. Davis, John L. Haynes, A. J. Hamilton (discussed below), James P. Newcomb, and Sam Houston. Those that remained neutral: E. M. Pease and George W. Paschal and those that switched to the Confederate side: J. W. Throckmorton, E. W. Cave, and B. H. Epperson. Elliott affirms that “each of these men, whether militant or passive, contributed largely to disaffection in Texas,” by encouraging thousands of men to follow suit. Elliott proceeds to describe the different regions (counties) that continued to support Unionist views following the referendum. The regions of discussion include the Northern counties that resulted in “Hangings in Gainesville.” Elliott asserts that following the executions in the “matters appeared quite in the Northern” counties, but “beneath the surface, however, the current of dissension and disaffection ran swifter and swifter” throughout Texas. The further dissension and dissatisfaction become evident during his continued discussions of the central counties around San Antonio, Austin, and Fredericksburg, to include discussions of the “Battle of the Nueces.” He then proceeds to describe the southern counties around the

Under Edmund J. Davis, the governor of Texas during Reconstruction, tried his best to weed out corruption under his administration but men like “Adjutant General Davidson defrauded the state of more than $37,000 by issuing fraudulent warrants, and fled the state in 1872”(Moneyhon). Very few instances during Reconstruction do carpetbaggers exercise political corruption and cash in on the economic turmoil of the Southern economy. Many of the officials appointed over the South during Reconstruction had it in their best interest to create a stronger Southern economy so the Union could truly be united again. Even before Edmund J. Davis, Governor E.M. Pease “urged the Constitutional Convention of 1868-1869 to accept radical reconstruction so that Texas could normalize relations with the Union as soon as possible”(Texas State Library and Archives Commission). Unlike the usual view of carpetbaggers as being corrupt and horrible human beings who wanted to destroy the South for their own gain, Pease saw it in the best interest for Texas to join the Union as fast as possible. The faster Texas accepted its punishment and joined the South the faster it can recover economically. Both Edmund J. Davis and E.M. Pease, carpetbaggers from the North, didn’t take advantage of black vote or suppress the whites, but wanted a more prosperous life both whites

“Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union” (1860) adds a supporting second account of events to back up what Alexander Stephens is arguing. “An increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution”, “We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill

The Confederate South were deeply in need of a individual who had military experience, had a nationwide political status and wasn’t from the north, preferably Virginia. The confederate states without doubt would certainly be caught up in a war with the union as soon as it declared independence, so a nationwide figurehead with military understanding was a

In my initial post, I also discussed the economic factor for the Southern States seceding from the Union; however, the Mississippi Declaration of Secession says two main factors for the state decision of seceding from the Union than the economic factor. Historians do not use a small piece of evidence to decide what happened, they gather facts to reconstruct the events that have to transpire, and the same should be done when analyzing a primary document. On the Mississippi Declaration of Secession also states, “It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system. It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression

In efforts to better understand the Civil War most historians examine the Sectional Crisis and the Compromise of 1850 in the decades leading up to the worst years in American History. Some historians prefer to focus on the underlying theme of the war, others tightly examine individual leaders, events, and political parties, connecting them all together like puzzle pieces to define the years prior to the war. Despite the contrasting views, it is clear to realize the constant prevailing issues of the Antebellum Period, the Sectional Crisis and the Compromise of 1850. In particular, the Compromise of 1850 is deceivingly taught as only establishing 3 pivotal elements: the status of slavery in future territories (popular sovereignty), California statehood, and the fugitive slave law. Granted these elements of the compromise provide a great amount of controversy long after their birth, but one element of the compromise perceives to fail in obtaining recognition. The Texas-New Mexico boundary resolution seems to find itself fading away from its relevancy to the civil war, shadowed by more prominent issues regarding the stability of the Union. Abandoning the traditional teaching of the compromise, the Texas-New Mexico border decision figuratively and literally changed the identity of Texas. This was the long awaited result caused by deep rooted social and political issues dating back to the Texas Revolution.

Have you ever wondered why people would ever oppose secession?Well if you did not know today you learn why many felt that it was bad for Mississippi to succeed from the other states.Some people thought that it was not a good idea to succeed from the other states is because they did not want to let their slaves go the reason they did not want to let the slaves go because many of them made lots of money for the plantation owners and the county itself because many slaves were hardworking and did and lot of helpful things for the community.

The main arguments that people have who are anti secession are that the new-formed state is not powerful enough on their own and that there is the potential to lose their constitutional rights. An example of the first point would be when Maine was first talking about seceding to create their own state, but Shay’s rebellion had just occurred in Massachusetts. Maine saw the damage and all that it took to put down the rebellion and Maine knew that they did not have the power to defeat an uprising like that. But all Maine had to do was wait and build up its power and create an army and by the time Maine got it’s statehood, Maine would be able to fend off attacks. This argument eventually becomes invalid, as it is only good for so long as states