The Making Of A Secessionist : The Antebellum Career Of Roger Q. Mills

David M. Potter theme of Impending Crisis is the study of sectional conflict dealing primarily with political events that led up to or caused southern states to secede from the Union resulting in the Civil War. Potter contends that during the expansionist period of the 1840s the country was experiencing a growth of American nationalism, but “the emergence of the sectionalism which almost destroyed the nation was symbolized by an amendment to an appropriation bill which was never enacted.” For the next fifteen years the Wilmot Proviso (1846) and the issue of slavery would become “a catalyst of all sectional antagonisms, political, economic, and cultural…opened the floodgates of sectionalism, for now all the pent-up moral indignation which had been walled in by the constitutional inhibition could be vented into the territorial question.”

The romanticized version of the Civil War creates a picture of the North versus the South with the North imposing on the South. However, after reading “The Making of a Confederate” by William L. Barney, one can see that subdivisions existed before the war was declared. The documents analyzed by Barney primarily focus on the experiences of Walter Lenoir, a southern confederate and a member of the planter elite. His experiences tell a vivid story of a passionate and strongly opinioned participant of the Civil War as well as demonstrate a noticeably different view involving his reasoning when choosing a side. Between analyzing this fantastic piece of literature and other resourceful documents from “Voices of Freedom” by Eric Foner, one

Southern expansionism took on many forms in the United States between the years 1789 and 1860. Examining southern history for these years shows how slave-grown cotton played a major factor in southern expansion, specifically through the issues of the Louisiana Purchase, soil erosion, the desires of yeoman farmers and planters, Indian removal, the interstate slave trade, the independence movement in Texas, the Mexican War, filibusters in Central America, and especially concerning relations between the southern and northern states. However, southern history shows us that while the growth of southern cotton did in fact play a large role in the rationale for expansion, but there are other concerns involved here. Most notably, the constant dilemma of the slave to free state representation in Congress additionally played a large role in why so many southerners decided to pack up and head west. These two reasons can be explained as the two most primary concerns involving the sudden growth of southern expansion. Despite cotton being one of the major factors that led to southern expansion, it can be proven by examining southern history that the constant struggle between northerners and southerners to balance the ratio of slave to free states in Congress additionally played into expansion.

In today’s society with so many disagreements between the state and federal government going on the thought crosses some Texans minds about secession. The movement, headed by the Texas Nationalist Movement and the Tea Party, is seeking to remove the state from the union and institute Texas as a new country. Many questions arise over the topic of secession covering topics such as economy, currency, population, and if Texas would be helped or hurt by leaving the United States federal government behind. It has been shown that Texas has a much larger population than many countries as well as gold to back a currency should it decide to create one. The Texas economy is extremely strong with a mass of exports and natural resources being gathered in the state. These natural resources tied with other products made in Texas give the state one of the strongest economies in the world. Even with all this knowledge the question over secession still persists.

Sam Houston’s vote against the Kansas-Nebraska Bill was his most detested he ever gave. The bill also disagreed with everything the Texan people stood for. People said he “betrayed his state in the Senate,” “joined the Abolitionists,” and “Deserted the South” (96). The Democratic State Convention didn’t approve with his decision and said, “[He] was not

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

1.An examination of the presidency of Mirabeau Lamar as indicated in this week's readings reveals that overall, his presence and effect was somewhat deleterious to the productivity of the Republic of Texas. It is also interesting to note the way that his effect on the country was diametrically opposed, in many ways, to that of his political rival, Samuel Houston, who managed to remain a political nuisance to the president by taking up a prominent role in Congress.

The political factors that tied into Texas being a Southern state before the Civil War relied heavily on who owned slaves. When the people went out to vote for who they wanted to run the state and local governments, it was generally those who owned slaves that won the elections. This meant that the leadership positions, and the overall ideals of the state, functioned under a “southern consensus” (230). The elected officials in Texas were all Democrats with pro-slavery positions, and these Democrats were able to win every “presidential and gubernatiorial election from 1845-1860” (231). These slaveholders held Texas in their hands and there was no one any of the politicians would sacrifice their careers to oppose the topic of slavery.

Doctor Charles Sellers’ book covers the American historical period from the ending of the War of 1812 through the Polk’s administration of the annexation of the Republic of Texas in 1846. The coverage of the book is basically the entire United States and its territories. Seller’s compiles this book through the prism of either a New Left Historian or as Progressive Historian. There appears on my reading elements of both styles scattered in the text (Hegelian dialectic). The text is well sourced with multiple secondary sources which on first glance were written from the early 1970’s forward to the mid-1980s. The book is chronologically written with an intertwining of various narratives such as religion (The Great Awakening and the rise of Mormonism), banking (excerpts from the Federalist Paper) and infrastructure.

The Crittenden Compromise and Alexander H. Stephens’s “Corner Stone” speech are two significant pre-Civil War sources that serve to give insight to students of history about the ultimate cause of secession and the War: slavery. Both documents show that this institution was a central facet of the South’s identity but do so in dissimilar ways. The Compromise demonstrates this merely by needing to be created since it was meant to salvage the Union by protecting slavery for the South. Stephens’s speech took a more direct approach by defending slavery as a foundation of society and as a natural state for blacks with whites taking their God given place above them.

This fiery excerpt serves as evidence that the sectional issues were indeed not cured by a haphazard compromise. In fact, the wound that was a divided Union would never be cured by a compromise. It was time for change. Although without proposing a solution, Senator Daniel Webster also agreed it was time for change, at least in such a way that would create a balance once again, but without tearing the Union apart. He did this by writing, “I hear with pain and anguish the word ‘secession’, especially when it falls from the lips of those who are eminently patriotic, and known to the country, and known all over the world for their political services. Secession! Peaceable secession! Sir, your eyes and mine are never destined to see that miracle...I hold the idea of a separation of these states-those that are free to form one government and those that are slaveholding to form another-as a moral impossibility. We could not separate the states by any such line if we were to draw it. We could not sit down here today and draw a line of separation that would satisfy any five men in the country.”(Document 1). Again, the issue of slavery and slaveholding states was weighing a massive burden on the nation, and compromises such as the Compromise of 1850 were simply no longer going to work. There needed to be a definitive solution, and unfortunately, that solution was found through war after the era of deep rooted sectional disputes “ended”.

During the 1856 governor’s race Morton especially gained popularity among the Republican Party in Indiana for his speeches against slavery. The vast majority of Indiana took the antislavery position. The antislavely position was essentially a “big umbrella” that a majority of northerners came to agreement

The author argues that the North's ideas and actions, as well as the republican party encouraged an idea of antisouthernism which led to an American identity crisis over which ideology to follow. In 1856, after the creation of the Republican Party, the members created an image of the South as “antirepublicanism and irredeemably opposed to American national values.” The Republican Party represented the views of the North which stood for free labor and soil, as well as giving the North power in Congress to spread their views. The election of Nathaniel Banks to Speaker was seen as “the first victory of the Northern idea” since Banks expressed views of free soil which came in line with the Republican views. With him as speaker, the North would be able to spread their ideology.

In 1855, the newspaper in Texas featured an immense load of articles on slaves. Editors of the newspapers, undoubtedly, shared their opinions on slavery in Texas. Whether the piece was about how slaves should be more under control, or how other countries have some form of slavery to help the guilt of Texans having slaves. As slavery was the main source of Texas’ source of more immigrants coming in, and the cotton economy, Texans did not see a reasoning on why they would get rid of slavery. Believing that slavery was their only hope of making an attempt to make Texas a great place. During this time there were an immense amount of slaves living in Texas this time period. Older Texans were not the only people attracted to the idea of expanding

As we look back over history and conflicts as they arise among populations, one central theme of war is the possession of resources from which profit can be made. The areas of the North and South were not immune to this trend and as the divided issue of slavery became more prominent, conflict grew. Between the years of 1854 to 1856, Kansas and events therein played a vital role in the outbreak of civil war. By 1854, Republicans of the North sought to end the forward movement of slavery while the Democrats in the South supported the advancement of slavery west and farther south, thus supporting the Kansas-Nebraska Act, as it went along with their political