When considering the amount of both correspondences and journals written during the Civil War and the vast quantities of personal accounts of the war published after the fact, I am struck by the high literacy numbers. This is particularly surprising among the common enlisted men. I would even be willing to bet that the percentage of literary men in the Union and Confederate military was the highest in history up to that point; something that I would also consider to be an example of both a modern military and a modern country.
Of even more interest to me personally, was trying to get a handle on the reasons individuals chose to fight for either side. Though it has often been painted in strict black and white, the reality is one of a hundred+ shades of grey. Though there were many Southern soldiers who fought to preserve the institution of slavery, there were many more who found a cause in the protection of their home state from the Northern invaders. And in the North, just as there were many abolitionists among the Union soldiers, there were just as many who were fighting strictly to preserve the Union and who didn't give a damn about the "darkies". I found the examples of letters with "Perman & Taylor" to cover a range of reasonings and attitudes towards the War, their opponents and even towards their supposed compatriots (who oftentimes didn't share the same opinions).
When reading "John Cochran's Letter" I was appalled (but not really surprised) that he would be so willing , nay, really so EAGER to see the blood of "contending brothers" drench the land than live under Republican rule. He would be willing to sacrifice his "family" in order to preserve his "property". Things can always be replaced, but people (especially one's family) are irreplaceable. Now, Cochran may have been speaking metaphorically about "brothers", but still, his willingness to sacrifice living breathing people, in order to guarantee his right to own a certain type of property I find particularly repugnant. (p. 179)
In "Charles Brewster's Letter" the writer shows that he is just as willing as Cochran to defy the law (military law in this instance as opposed to civilian) in order to do what he feels to be right, which is very much anti-slavery. I find his cause to be more just, since he is defending people from enslavement and possible death for running away. He is defending "life", while Cochran is defending "property". (p. 180)
The "Charles Wills Letter" presents the reader with a Union soldier, who is conflicted about slavery and is unsure what to do with the contraband that made their way to the Union lines. Wills doesn't appear to care very much about the slaves, he even states the belief that they are "better off with their masters 50 times over than with us". Yet at the same time he doesn't feel right in sending them back, "I couldn't help to send a runaway nigger back. I'm blamed if I could." He also mentions that the military commanders had made promises to the local slave-owners assuring them that the blacks would be returned to their owners. But in the next sentence he seems to take joy in the "trick" that his leaders paid on those slave-owners, by NOT returning the runaways. Wills' concern is focused more on the day-to-day activities of being a soldier, such as the desire to survive the war and the need to begin saving some of his money in case he must face a future that includes a missing limb or two. (p. 181-2)
It is the "Charles Wills Letter" which I find to be a likely example of the beliefs held by most soldiers on both sides of the Civil War. Though I am sure that there were many "die-hard Abolitionists" and staunch "Slavery is Good proponents" on either side. I really feel that most soldiers held a myriad of beliefs and a wide variety of thoughts on the reasons for fighting and the causes of the war itself. It is thus a very good thing that so many people involved in the war, observing the war or even simply affected by it in some way, were able to record those thoughts, share them with others, and thereby insure that the Civil War will be remembered from a wide variety of viewpoints, guaranteeing that the conflict will be seen as a battle between shades of grey.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Response to Alexander Stephens' Speech
Let me begin by stating that I found Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens' speech in Savannah to be beyond distasteful, to be beyond disgusting and to be beyond repulsive; in fact I have wracked my extensive vocabulary and have failed to discover a word that adequately describes the utter loathing I feel for Vice President Stephens and his loathsome soliloquy.
The thing that really grabs my attention is how Stephens makes use of both the Constitution of the United States and the Founding Fathers. He claims that during the time of the writing of the Constitution:
"It [Slavery] was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error."
He goes on to reference Jefferson as stating that slavery was the "rock upon which the old Union would split." Though there is some truth to this interpretation of Jefferson's thoughts on slavery, this is a man after all who said about it "We have the wolf by the ears; and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other." as well as "believed that it was the responsibility of the state and society to free all slaves."
In addition, Jefferson intended to roundly condemned the British for the colonial slave trade in his Declaration of Independence, by stating that the Crown "has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere." However, this last statement was later struck from the Declaration. Jefferson was continually expressing wishy-washy statements on slavery throughout his entire life, they spanned they full spectrum from racist southerner to supporting colonization to even questing the to justice and viability of the entire slave system. To use one tiny snippet of this man's writings as an expression of his thoughts on anything, is impossible and does a disservice to both Jefferson and Stephens' audience.
In addition, though Stephens' takes care to REPEATEDLY overemphasize the support that the Constitution gives for the existence of slavery, he never quotes a single word from the Constitution. Might it be because, other than counting slaves as 3/5 of a person in order to help determine the number of Representatives a state will have, the Constitution is rather mute on the subject. It is chock full, on the other hand, of statements, phrases and Amendments guaranteeing personal liberty. For example, the Preamble:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Also, Article 1's intent to prevent abuses by Congress:
"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."
In addition, there is a section in Article 4, which is designed to insure that the citizens of all states are treated equally:
"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."
Finally, there are the Amendments. Amendment One is the most obvious one, guaranteeing a whole multitude of personal rights:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Then there is the 4th Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The 9th and 10th Amendments also serve to protect people's rights, stating that anything not listed in the Constitution belongs to the people and that just because something isn't listed in the Constitution DOESN'T necessarily mean that the people are deprived of those rights.
In short, the Constitution speak a whole HELL of a lot about person liberty and individual freedom, both freedom "from" and freedom "for". What it doesn't speak about is slavery. Does anyone here not find it rather puzzling then that Alexander Stephens chooses to use this venerable document to "support" slavery???
It is really easy then to say that the NUMBER ONE thing I took away from this speech was Stephens' absolute fixation with slavery from his need to justify its existence and thereby justifying the South's act of secession. He really is downright obsessed with being right at all cost. I would feel sad for someone so pathetic that he can't handle ever being wrong, if I wasn't so bloody pissed off at him!
The thing that really grabs my attention is how Stephens makes use of both the Constitution of the United States and the Founding Fathers. He claims that during the time of the writing of the Constitution:
"It [Slavery] was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error."
He goes on to reference Jefferson as stating that slavery was the "rock upon which the old Union would split." Though there is some truth to this interpretation of Jefferson's thoughts on slavery, this is a man after all who said about it "We have the wolf by the ears; and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other." as well as "believed that it was the responsibility of the state and society to free all slaves."
In addition, Jefferson intended to roundly condemned the British for the colonial slave trade in his Declaration of Independence, by stating that the Crown "has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere." However, this last statement was later struck from the Declaration. Jefferson was continually expressing wishy-washy statements on slavery throughout his entire life, they spanned they full spectrum from racist southerner to supporting colonization to even questing the to justice and viability of the entire slave system. To use one tiny snippet of this man's writings as an expression of his thoughts on anything, is impossible and does a disservice to both Jefferson and Stephens' audience.
In addition, though Stephens' takes care to REPEATEDLY overemphasize the support that the Constitution gives for the existence of slavery, he never quotes a single word from the Constitution. Might it be because, other than counting slaves as 3/5 of a person in order to help determine the number of Representatives a state will have, the Constitution is rather mute on the subject. It is chock full, on the other hand, of statements, phrases and Amendments guaranteeing personal liberty. For example, the Preamble:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Also, Article 1's intent to prevent abuses by Congress:
"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."
In addition, there is a section in Article 4, which is designed to insure that the citizens of all states are treated equally:
"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."
Finally, there are the Amendments. Amendment One is the most obvious one, guaranteeing a whole multitude of personal rights:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Then there is the 4th Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The 9th and 10th Amendments also serve to protect people's rights, stating that anything not listed in the Constitution belongs to the people and that just because something isn't listed in the Constitution DOESN'T necessarily mean that the people are deprived of those rights.
In short, the Constitution speak a whole HELL of a lot about person liberty and individual freedom, both freedom "from" and freedom "for". What it doesn't speak about is slavery. Does anyone here not find it rather puzzling then that Alexander Stephens chooses to use this venerable document to "support" slavery???
It is really easy then to say that the NUMBER ONE thing I took away from this speech was Stephens' absolute fixation with slavery from his need to justify its existence and thereby justifying the South's act of secession. He really is downright obsessed with being right at all cost. I would feel sad for someone so pathetic that he can't handle ever being wrong, if I wasn't so bloody pissed off at him!
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Uncle Tom's Cabin
I am of two minds on Harriet Beecher Stowe's novel Uncle Tom's Cabin. On the one hand, it did serve to draw Northern attention to the horrors of slavery and the plight of slaves in the South. On the other hand, it is inconsistent in its' portrayal of slavery, much of this is probably due to Stowe's unfamiliarity with the South's "peculiar institution" (she was a Northern woman who spent no time in the Lower South and little time new the North/South border) and in the nature and character of the slaves.
On the first point, Stowe did do an excellent job in detailing the common occurrence of family break-ups, due to slavery. Uncle Tom's last night with his wife and his good-byes with his family this next morning, brought a tear to to this reader's eye. (Chapter X) Also, the ease with which the trader Haley sells Lucy's baby, while the poor girl as gone to the side of the boat to try and see her husband, is monstrous. (Chapter XII) The desperate straits that Eliza is moved to go to in order to prevent her son being sold is something that a mother should never have to experience. (Chapter V) Cassy's life story (one of degradation, abuse and familial separation) in Chapter XXXIV is also harrowing.
In addition, the details dealing with the internal slave trade, the Middle Passage, the abuses heaped on slaves by their masters, and some of the inner-workings of the aid that slaves had in getting to Canada were also well presented. Though Haley, Marks and Tom Loker are a bit stereotypical, they proceed at their jobs of slave dealing and fugitive slave tracking matter-of-factly and with a certain degree of professionalism, (Chapters VI, VIII) even if they are all rather like scoundrels. The portrayal of the Quakers, who help Eliza and George Harris on their way to Canada is also interesting, particularly the character Phineas and his willingness to bend the Quaker's rules on pacifism in the pursuit of a greater good, namely preventing the slaves he is hurrying away to freedom from being recaptured. (Chapter XVII)
However, it also seemed as though Stowe was trying to appeal to both the Abolitionists and the Anti-slavery contingents. Her descriptions of the Africans made it clear that though she was in favor of the total ending of slavery and couched its' wrongness in the religious words of the fervent abolitionist, she was also careful to never state that she was in favor of political and social equality between Blacks and Whites. While personally, she might have been in favor of this, the book is less absolute on it.
In addition, Uncle Tom's Cabin seems to show Stowe's support for the colonization movement in Africa. This is most obvious in Chapter XLIII with George Harris' thoughts on the new colony of Liberia:
In short, Harriet Beecher Stowe, though obviously outraged over slavery, seems to have written Uncle Tom's Cabin as a novel with appeals to both sides of the anti-slavery argument. Both Abolitionists and Anti-slavery will find sections of the novel pleasing to their belief structure and thus I believe that either Stowe was masking her true feelings in regards to the nature of Negroes or she was perhaps attempting to provide both sides with a common rallying point, something they could both agree and unite behind.
On the first point, Stowe did do an excellent job in detailing the common occurrence of family break-ups, due to slavery. Uncle Tom's last night with his wife and his good-byes with his family this next morning, brought a tear to to this reader's eye. (Chapter X) Also, the ease with which the trader Haley sells Lucy's baby, while the poor girl as gone to the side of the boat to try and see her husband, is monstrous. (Chapter XII) The desperate straits that Eliza is moved to go to in order to prevent her son being sold is something that a mother should never have to experience. (Chapter V) Cassy's life story (one of degradation, abuse and familial separation) in Chapter XXXIV is also harrowing.
In addition, the details dealing with the internal slave trade, the Middle Passage, the abuses heaped on slaves by their masters, and some of the inner-workings of the aid that slaves had in getting to Canada were also well presented. Though Haley, Marks and Tom Loker are a bit stereotypical, they proceed at their jobs of slave dealing and fugitive slave tracking matter-of-factly and with a certain degree of professionalism, (Chapters VI, VIII) even if they are all rather like scoundrels. The portrayal of the Quakers, who help Eliza and George Harris on their way to Canada is also interesting, particularly the character Phineas and his willingness to bend the Quaker's rules on pacifism in the pursuit of a greater good, namely preventing the slaves he is hurrying away to freedom from being recaptured. (Chapter XVII)
However, it also seemed as though Stowe was trying to appeal to both the Abolitionists and the Anti-slavery contingents. Her descriptions of the Africans made it clear that though she was in favor of the total ending of slavery and couched its' wrongness in the religious words of the fervent abolitionist, she was also careful to never state that she was in favor of political and social equality between Blacks and Whites. While personally, she might have been in favor of this, the book is less absolute on it.
In addition, Uncle Tom's Cabin seems to show Stowe's support for the colonization movement in Africa. This is most obvious in Chapter XLIII with George Harris' thoughts on the new colony of Liberia:
- On the shores of Africa I see a republic, - a republic formed of picked men, who, by energy and self-educating force, have, in many cases, individually, raised themselves above a condition of slavery. Having gone through a preparatory stage of feebleness, this republic has, at last, become an acknowledged nation on the face of the earth, - acknowledged by both France and England. There it is my wish to go, and find myself a people.
In short, Harriet Beecher Stowe, though obviously outraged over slavery, seems to have written Uncle Tom's Cabin as a novel with appeals to both sides of the anti-slavery argument. Both Abolitionists and Anti-slavery will find sections of the novel pleasing to their belief structure and thus I believe that either Stowe was masking her true feelings in regards to the nature of Negroes or she was perhaps attempting to provide both sides with a common rallying point, something they could both agree and unite behind.
Perman & Taylor (Chapter 4: Sectionalism & Secession)
First, in regards to the Preston Brooks caning of Charles Sumner, please see my previous post. I became so incensed regarding that incident, that what was just supposed to be a few sentences ended-up taking over the whole posting, so it was posted separately. Anyway, I find the whole incident to be yet another example of the lengths to which Southerners would go to forcibly push their beliefs onto others. Just like in Kansas, if they cannot get their way by "fair means", then they are perfectly willing to use "foul" ones, such as fraudulent elections, arson and in the case of of Brooks, assault. Ralph Waldo Emerson was right on the money with his condemnation of the South and the questioning of how a "barbarous community" which could support such actions (South) could exist along side a "civilized community". Though Lincoln expressed the sentiment better in his "A House Divided" speech, Emerson's statement that "I think we must get rid of slavery or we must get rid of freedom" was a point well made also.
In matters of secession, I feel that South Carolina, and any other slave state for that matter, can cloak their reasons for seceding in any language they like and pretend that the actions of the North can somehow justify their actions, but that they cannot obfuscate the simple fact that keeping "slavery" as an institution was their TRUE motivation for their act of secession. Just consider the these paragraphs from "3. South Carolina Declares and Justifies its Secession, December 1860":
Historian Manisha Sinha also reinforces this point in the essay "The Political Ideology of Secession in South Carolina", but also states that the desire to protect slavery is also a desire to protect the power of the white planter class at the expense of not just the slaves or Northerners, but at the expense of other Southern whites. The conflict was not just a racial divide, but also a class and gender divide, with the South afraid of the growing progressivism in the North towards the enfranchisement of not only blacks, but also of middle class, poor and immigrant white men, and even of women. These were the people who would be less likely to have anything in common with the Southern slave-holding elite and thus less inclined to vote in support of this "American aristocracy" down south. And the South was firmly against any concept of either social or political equality. (p. 129)
Though secession was seen as inevitable by some, other Southern politicians attempted to keep the union whole, albeit with sharp divisions between Southern and Northern government. Calhoun, had in fact, proposed the concept of "nullification" as an attempt check the actions of the federal government. By allowing any "ONE" state to nullify "ANY" federal law it considered to be unconstitutional, this would have led to a "rule of the minority", one in which the desires of any one state would take precedence over the needs of the whole country. (p. 124) This is a gross distortion of the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which grants "all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people", which would permit abuses by individual states, at the expense of the others. As Spock said so elegantly in Star Trek II: the Wrath of Khan, "The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few". The federal government should not be held accountable to the whims of any individual person, state or region. The United States, only truly works as a country when there is majority rule.
In fact, just look at how well the United Confederate States of America did as a government, they were besieged by the concerns of the States and ultimately doomed by their lack of a strong central government.
In matters of secession, I feel that South Carolina, and any other slave state for that matter, can cloak their reasons for seceding in any language they like and pretend that the actions of the North can somehow justify their actions, but that they cannot obfuscate the simple fact that keeping "slavery" as an institution was their TRUE motivation for their act of secession. Just consider the these paragraphs from "3. South Carolina Declares and Justifies its Secession, December 1860":
- We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.
- For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
Historian Manisha Sinha also reinforces this point in the essay "The Political Ideology of Secession in South Carolina", but also states that the desire to protect slavery is also a desire to protect the power of the white planter class at the expense of not just the slaves or Northerners, but at the expense of other Southern whites. The conflict was not just a racial divide, but also a class and gender divide, with the South afraid of the growing progressivism in the North towards the enfranchisement of not only blacks, but also of middle class, poor and immigrant white men, and even of women. These were the people who would be less likely to have anything in common with the Southern slave-holding elite and thus less inclined to vote in support of this "American aristocracy" down south. And the South was firmly against any concept of either social or political equality. (p. 129)
Though secession was seen as inevitable by some, other Southern politicians attempted to keep the union whole, albeit with sharp divisions between Southern and Northern government. Calhoun, had in fact, proposed the concept of "nullification" as an attempt check the actions of the federal government. By allowing any "ONE" state to nullify "ANY" federal law it considered to be unconstitutional, this would have led to a "rule of the minority", one in which the desires of any one state would take precedence over the needs of the whole country. (p. 124) This is a gross distortion of the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which grants "all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people", which would permit abuses by individual states, at the expense of the others. As Spock said so elegantly in Star Trek II: the Wrath of Khan, "The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few". The federal government should not be held accountable to the whims of any individual person, state or region. The United States, only truly works as a country when there is majority rule.
In fact, just look at how well the United Confederate States of America did as a government, they were besieged by the concerns of the States and ultimately doomed by their lack of a strong central government.
Southern Honor is a myth
First off, I find the Southern defense and heroizing of Preston Brooks' vicious and unprovoked assault on Senator Charles Sumner to be particularly appalling. How could any man of honor, as all Southern men claim to be, find honor in the beating of an unarmed man nearly to death? If Brooks felt that Sumner's political speech, critical of slavery, and given publicly before Congress, was an affront to the section of America he called home, then he should have called him out and challenged his fellow Senator to a duel. Southerners placed great store in their long tradition (one still occurring in 1857) of handling affairs of honor with duels, then why didn't Brooks challenge Sumner to one? My answer is that a duel is a meeting of equals and Brooks didn't consider Sumner his equal at all. Also, a duel gives both participants an equal chance for both victory and death, something that Brooks didn't want to risk happening. He wanted to be ASSURED a victory, so he attacked Sumner unprovoked and while the man was unarmed and unprepared (really, how could he be since he was attending a meeting of the Senate, little expecting to be attacked) and kept beating on him, long after his victim had ceased to even try to protect himself and probably long after Sumner had lost conciseness.
Southern honor is not just a myth, it is complete and utter bullshit.
Southern honor is not just a myth, it is complete and utter bullshit.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Ordeal By Fire - Ch. 7 (Dred Scott & Presidential / Judicial Misconduct)
The "Dred Scott Decision" was one of the greatest travesties of justice in United States history. Justice Taney should have been ashamed of himself. It was an attempt to settle matter of slavery in the territories, but instead only inflamed both sectionalism and the anti-slavery movement. If ever there was a clear-cut case of Presidential misconduct worthy of impeachment, it was Buchanan's actions in this matter. He was asked by the Southern contingent on the Supreme Court to put pressure on a fellow Pennsylvanian judge in order to get him to go along with the majority decision, which was pro-slavery, anti-Dred Scott freedom, and which ruled that Congress had no right to restrict slavery ANYWHERE. In effect, this ruled the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional.
The ruling was obviously EXTREMELY prejudicial and tainted both by Buchanan's interference, but also by Taney's prejudices. He was strongly in favor of Southern rights, a virulent sectionalist and hated the North. Taney should have been forcibly recused from hearing this case and certainly should NEVER have been allowed to rule on it. It made obvious that the Southern-run Federal government was making policy and laws that were for the good of the few (South) over the good of ALL Americans. The South could no longer hide the fact that they were in control of all branches of the Federal government.
On the plus side, the conflict in Kansas helped to divide the already fractured Democratic Party more and the bloodshed proved that "popular sovereignty" was defective.
The ruling was obviously EXTREMELY prejudicial and tainted both by Buchanan's interference, but also by Taney's prejudices. He was strongly in favor of Southern rights, a virulent sectionalist and hated the North. Taney should have been forcibly recused from hearing this case and certainly should NEVER have been allowed to rule on it. It made obvious that the Southern-run Federal government was making policy and laws that were for the good of the few (South) over the good of ALL Americans. The South could no longer hide the fact that they were in control of all branches of the Federal government.
On the plus side, the conflict in Kansas helped to divide the already fractured Democratic Party more and the bloodshed proved that "popular sovereignty" was defective.
Ordeal By Fire - Ch. 6 (Douglas & Kansas / Nebraska Act)
My thoughts on Stephen Douglas have never been vary deep. I feel that most Americans think of him (if they even know who he is) in connection with the famous "Lincoln / Douglas Debates" and how he handed Lincoln a political loss. Some might connect him also with his infamous proposal "Kansas / Nebraska Act", which contained in it the concept of "popular sovereignty", viewed by many as one of the major causes of the Civil War.
I consider the passage of this legislation to be a major turning-point. From the moment this bill becomes law, the Civil War is truly inevitable. The K/N Act, by virtue of its ambiguity (designed by Douglas to have his cake and eat it too) was supposed to please both sides and stop the squabbling over which states would allow slavery. It sought to do this through the concept of "popular sovereignty", which let the people living in the states decide for themselves the legality of slavery within their borders. However, this ran counter to the Missouri Compromise, which stated that no land above Line 36 ยบ 30' N, which both the Kansas and the Nebraska Territories were, could have legal slavery. Though the statements about "the states deciding for themselves" on slavery should have solved the matter, Southerns in the Congress wanted it codified as an amendment, which appealed the restrictions on slavery along Latitudinal lines. This concession caused more problems and more of an uproar than there had been before. In the end, the "Compromise of 1854" served truly to accomplish only 3 things:
1) Created many more abolitionists
2) Was the impetus for the creation of the Republican party
3) Fatally divided the Democratic Party in the North
As for the architect of this Kansas/Nebraska Fiasco, though I personally dislike Douglas for being apathetic towards slavery, I cannot hate him for trying to preserve unity. He was simply trying to do his job as a "politician", but should have been striving to instead act as befitting a "statesman". Thoughts on Douglas' motives behind the creation of the K/N Act have run the gauntlet from sympathy for slavery to the over-riding desire to see Manifest Destiny realized. I cannot believe that he either had sympathy for the South or was so mercenary as to be willing to trade in his moral convictions for Southern presidential votes and a transcontinental railroad through Illinois. Douglas was trying to please both North and South and the end result was that he only inflamed both sides, leading eventually to war.
As a side note, Bleeding Kansas should have been seen as an early warning to the North that the South would do WHATEVER it took to get their own way. They were eagerly willing to flagrantly break both Federal and State laws and even shed blood all to get what they wanted. The fact that Senator Brook's wasn't even prosecuted for nearly beating an unarmed man to death on the floor of the Senate should have shown the North the lengths to which the South was willing to go. No one should have been surprised that the war lasted 4 years.
Buchanan's election as President was a double-edged sword for the South. Though he strongly favored Southern interests and pushed their causes forward. His obvious prejudicial thoughts and actions helped to strengthen the Anti-slavery group in the North.
I consider the passage of this legislation to be a major turning-point. From the moment this bill becomes law, the Civil War is truly inevitable. The K/N Act, by virtue of its ambiguity (designed by Douglas to have his cake and eat it too) was supposed to please both sides and stop the squabbling over which states would allow slavery. It sought to do this through the concept of "popular sovereignty", which let the people living in the states decide for themselves the legality of slavery within their borders. However, this ran counter to the Missouri Compromise, which stated that no land above Line 36 ยบ 30' N, which both the Kansas and the Nebraska Territories were, could have legal slavery. Though the statements about "the states deciding for themselves" on slavery should have solved the matter, Southerns in the Congress wanted it codified as an amendment, which appealed the restrictions on slavery along Latitudinal lines. This concession caused more problems and more of an uproar than there had been before. In the end, the "Compromise of 1854" served truly to accomplish only 3 things:
1) Created many more abolitionists
2) Was the impetus for the creation of the Republican party
3) Fatally divided the Democratic Party in the North
As for the architect of this Kansas/Nebraska Fiasco, though I personally dislike Douglas for being apathetic towards slavery, I cannot hate him for trying to preserve unity. He was simply trying to do his job as a "politician", but should have been striving to instead act as befitting a "statesman". Thoughts on Douglas' motives behind the creation of the K/N Act have run the gauntlet from sympathy for slavery to the over-riding desire to see Manifest Destiny realized. I cannot believe that he either had sympathy for the South or was so mercenary as to be willing to trade in his moral convictions for Southern presidential votes and a transcontinental railroad through Illinois. Douglas was trying to please both North and South and the end result was that he only inflamed both sides, leading eventually to war.
As a side note, Bleeding Kansas should have been seen as an early warning to the North that the South would do WHATEVER it took to get their own way. They were eagerly willing to flagrantly break both Federal and State laws and even shed blood all to get what they wanted. The fact that Senator Brook's wasn't even prosecuted for nearly beating an unarmed man to death on the floor of the Senate should have shown the North the lengths to which the South was willing to go. No one should have been surprised that the war lasted 4 years.
Buchanan's election as President was a double-edged sword for the South. Though he strongly favored Southern interests and pushed their causes forward. His obvious prejudicial thoughts and actions helped to strengthen the Anti-slavery group in the North.
Monday, September 6, 2010
Ordeal By Fire - Ch. 5
I had always considered the belief that slavery would "die out" eventually and the idea that slavery was not "suited" to existence in the territories of the West and Southwest to be spurious ones. Though I had never truly considered the possibility of slavery existing "anywhere" other than in the South. Thus, I was surprised to learn about the serious consideration of the possible use of slaves in the mining operations of California and the extreme suitability of slavery to this occupation. It was even spoken about openly, such as this statement taken from the Charleston Mercury:
"There is no vocation in the world in which slavery can be more useful and profitable than in mining."
(McPherson, 80)
However, I really shouldn't have been surprised all that much considering how hard the South worked towards acquiring more slave-owning states for their little political confederation. Because really, deep down, it was all about politics. Southerners wanted to control the Federal government (ironic considering the fact that they allegedly went to war for "states rights") and to do that they needed as many slave states as possible, each with as large a population as possible. Only other states where slavery was legal could be counted on to support the legislation that the shakers and movers within the Southern community desired.
Also, there was a great deal of desire (not only in the South, but also in the North as well) for the US to acquire more land. Cuba was the one territory that both sides usually agreed on. Acquiring new territories to the north was not possible, due to Great Britain's strong hold there, so it was to the South (in particular Mexico and Central America) that the US was compelled to look for new lands. Unfortunately, any territories thus gained, would have been guaranteed to become new slave states, under the regulations dictated by Missouri Compromise. Such a situation was vehemently opposed by Northern (particularly anti-slavery and abolitionist factions) mostly due to the increased power over federal matters it would give to the South (who already had too much power as it is). For the anti-slavery contingent, giving slavery new territories to expand into, would allow it the space it needed to grow and flourish, thereby preventing its extinction. Though the South never acquired Cuba (it would take a later war with Spain to win the US the dubious distinction of "owning" Cuba) or made any inroads into Mexico and Central America, these very publicly discussed aspirations helped to convince me that the South never had ANY intention of letting slavery gradually "expire".
In addition, measures taken in attempts to please all factions, eventually ended-up satisfying NO ONE and inflaming EVERYONE. The "Fugitive Slave Act", was too much for the North to tolerate and not enough for the South. Even ignoring the gross violations it perpetrated on Free Blacks who were forced back into slavery and the very idea of not permitting people to speak or produce evidence on their own behalf, this Federal law road rough-shod over the rules of the states. I found McPherson's words on the irony of the South backing a strong Federal law and the North standing-up for States' rights to be right on the money:
"Thus the supremacy of federal law, supported by the South, was upheld, and state sovereignty, supported by the North, was struck down --- indeed an ironic commentary on the South's traditional commitment to states' rights."
(McPherson, 89)
Ultimately, I discovered, the only thing that the "Fugitive Slave Act" actually accomplished was to strengthen the anti-slavery sentiment and resolve in the North.
"There is no vocation in the world in which slavery can be more useful and profitable than in mining."
(McPherson, 80)
However, I really shouldn't have been surprised all that much considering how hard the South worked towards acquiring more slave-owning states for their little political confederation. Because really, deep down, it was all about politics. Southerners wanted to control the Federal government (ironic considering the fact that they allegedly went to war for "states rights") and to do that they needed as many slave states as possible, each with as large a population as possible. Only other states where slavery was legal could be counted on to support the legislation that the shakers and movers within the Southern community desired.
Also, there was a great deal of desire (not only in the South, but also in the North as well) for the US to acquire more land. Cuba was the one territory that both sides usually agreed on. Acquiring new territories to the north was not possible, due to Great Britain's strong hold there, so it was to the South (in particular Mexico and Central America) that the US was compelled to look for new lands. Unfortunately, any territories thus gained, would have been guaranteed to become new slave states, under the regulations dictated by Missouri Compromise. Such a situation was vehemently opposed by Northern (particularly anti-slavery and abolitionist factions) mostly due to the increased power over federal matters it would give to the South (who already had too much power as it is). For the anti-slavery contingent, giving slavery new territories to expand into, would allow it the space it needed to grow and flourish, thereby preventing its extinction. Though the South never acquired Cuba (it would take a later war with Spain to win the US the dubious distinction of "owning" Cuba) or made any inroads into Mexico and Central America, these very publicly discussed aspirations helped to convince me that the South never had ANY intention of letting slavery gradually "expire".
In addition, measures taken in attempts to please all factions, eventually ended-up satisfying NO ONE and inflaming EVERYONE. The "Fugitive Slave Act", was too much for the North to tolerate and not enough for the South. Even ignoring the gross violations it perpetrated on Free Blacks who were forced back into slavery and the very idea of not permitting people to speak or produce evidence on their own behalf, this Federal law road rough-shod over the rules of the states. I found McPherson's words on the irony of the South backing a strong Federal law and the North standing-up for States' rights to be right on the money:
"Thus the supremacy of federal law, supported by the South, was upheld, and state sovereignty, supported by the North, was struck down --- indeed an ironic commentary on the South's traditional commitment to states' rights."
(McPherson, 89)
Ultimately, I discovered, the only thing that the "Fugitive Slave Act" actually accomplished was to strengthen the anti-slavery sentiment and resolve in the North.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)