1862 Article: Some Thoughts on the Cause of the War

This is reprinted in the Covington Journal of July 4, 1862, offering some commentary on what caused the Civil War

The Manitowoc Herald does not believe that slavery was the cause of the rebellion. Neither do we. It does not believe that the slavery agitation was a justifying cause of rebellion. Neither do we. it does not believe the North is solely responsible for the crime of rebellion. Neither do we. 

Rebellion agains the Constitution and laws of the United States has no justification. It can have none. We never intimated that it could be justified at any time, anywhere.

War, however, was the inevitable consequence of sectional agitation. And all who contributed needlessly, wantonly or recklessly to that agitation, North or South, contributed to the result which exists.  They caused the war; for sectional agitation is sectional alienation, and sectional alienation is essentially a condition of war. Our war commenced when North and South learned to hate each other, and it will continue until sectional hate is rooted out.    [Milwaukee News]

---
My question is what did the author think caused the sectional agitation? What taught the sections to hate each other?  Also, the author did not believe the North was solely responsible for the war, but what about the South? The second paragraph seems to imply that the blame (or much of it) belongs to those in rebellion against the government. Still, he did not specify who "contributed needlessly" to the sectional controversy.

The Heart of the Matter?

This little exchange printed in the Covington Journal on February 22, 1862 seems to capture the spirit of what many consider the main issue of the Civil War. It also shows that European intervention was something that concerned at least some people in the North.

The New York Tribune says:
"But for slavery we would have no civil war.

But for slavery, we would not now be menaced with the armed intervention of foreign powers, undertaken especially to consummate the disememberment (sic) of the nation.


Do you know how to put down the rebellion? DESTROY SLAVERY! 


Do you ask how to prevent European intervention by depriving it of its only occasion and only pretext? DESTROY SLAVERY!"


The Chicago Tribune replies: 


"But for abolitionism we would have no civil war.

But for abolitionism, we would not now be menaced with the armed intervention of foreign powers, undertaken especially to consummate the disememberment (sic) of the nation.


Do you know how to put down the rebellion? DESTROY ABOLITIONISM! 


Do you ask how to prevent European intervention by depriving it of its only occasion and only pretext? DESTROY SLAVERY!"

Newspaper article: The Negro in Congress

This is from the Covington Journal of December 7, 2011.

The "Irrepressibles" in Congress are moving with a high hand.

Senator Trumbull has given notice of a bill to give freedom to persons in slave States.


Representative Elliott proposes to advise the President to emancipate all slaves in any military district in a state of insurrection against the government.

Representative Campbell proposes to confiscate the slaves of rebels.


Representative Stevens offers a resolution directing the President to declare free all slaves who may leave their masters. 

Representative Gurley proposes to apprentice the slaves to loyal masters and after a while colonize them. 


Senator Wilson has introduced a bill to punish officers of the army and soldiers who may return fugitives from slavery.

The same Senator has introduced a resolution directing the committee on the District of Columbia to inquire into the expediency of abolishing slavery in the District.


All of this is the work of a day or two, and it is only the beginning. 

In this connection it is a significant fact that a resolution reiterating the Crittenden resolutions of last session to the effect that the only object in carrying on the war was to re-establish obedience to the Constitution and the Union, was on a motion of Mr. Stevens laid on the table by a vote of 71 to 65.

No one can mistake the purpose of the leading men of the party in power. If their counsels prevail the war will hereafter be prosecuted for the abolition of slavery. 

Lyman Trumball and Thaddeus Stevens 

The Constitution of the Confederate States

Another post based on the Covington Journal, this one of February 23, 1861.

The Constitution of the Confederate States
The New York Herald points out several particulars in which the Constitution of the Confederate States differs from the Constitution of the United States.

The old one commences with the words - "We the people of the United States &c., -  The new - "We the deputies of the Sovereign and Independent States of South Carolina, &c.," - thus distinctly indicating their sovereign and independent character, and yet their mutual reliance."


Again, the new constitution reverentially invokes "the favor of Almighty God." In the old, the existence of a Supreme Being appears to have been entirely ignored.


In the original not only has the word slave been omitted, but even the idea has been so studiously avoided as to raise grave questions concerning the intent of the several clauses in which the "institution" is a subject of legislation; while in the new the word "slaves" is boldly inserted, and the intention of its framers so clearly defined with reference to them, that there is hardly a possibility of misapprehension.


Again, contrary to the expectation of the majority of the Northern people, who have persistently urged that the object of the South, in establishing a separate Government was to re-open the African slave trade, the most stringent measures are to be adopted for the suppression of the trade.


And all has been done with a unanimity which indicates the harmony of sentiment that prevails among the people of the seceding States, and among the delegates by whom they were represented in the Southern Congress.

---
Clearly, the author does not try to hide the "intention of its framers" - especially since this article neglects to mentions items such as tariffs, yet finds a way to "boldly" insert comments about the particular "institution" that seems to have been more than a little bit important to those framers.


Also, I wonder how long it took before the author realized that the "unanimity" and "harmony of sentiment" that aided in the drafting of this Constitution were more mirages than long-term pieces of the Confederate experiment.

The True Difference Between Northerners and Southerners (humor)

Slavery? Tariffs? Centralized governmental powers?

Forget it all. The Covington Journal in early 1861 gives us the true difference between the two regions.


A wag was once heard to say that the difference between the Southern and Northern people is, those in the South never sell anything they can eat, while those in the North never eat anything they can sell.

2009: Year in Books, Part 2

Continuing my look at some of the books I read in 2009, I'll start now with Why the Civil War Came, edited by Gabor Boritt, which is a very nice collection of essays about the coming of the war, including his own thoughts on how Lincoln refused to see the war coming in time to try to prevent it, some interesting discussion of the failure of the U.S. political system, and other thought-provoking essays on topics like the Northern reaction to the war, as well as the pre-war actions of women and of African-Americans. It is a bit difficult to read at times, but is well worth the effort.

All That Makes a Man: Love and Ambition in the Civil War South by Stephen W. Berry is a book that I found difficult to read at times, trying to understand the language and themes he used, especially when he discussed psychological and philosophical themes . For some reason, it did not fit my personal style of what I like to read, or maybe I just did not fit it. This book discusses the role of love and ambition in Southern men, discussing gender roles and how that influenced the way men handled the controversies leading to the war. I liked how he used pairs of men as examples in different sections, showing how the experiences and lives of each compared and contrasted. It is a really good subject, with a lot of potential, but I just did not find this book as readable or as easy-flowing as his next book House of Abraham: Lincoln and the Todds, a Family Divided by War, which I read a couple of years ago.

I believe the following books (or most of them) have already been the subjects of reviews on my blog, but I will give them brief mention again here.

James P. Duffy's Lincoln's Admiral: The Civil War Campaigns of David Farragut is a very enjoyable, informative and smoothly-flowing review of the career of David Farragut, concentrating on his Civil War experiences on the Mississippi River, at New Orleans, Mobile Bay and other locals. I do wish it had included endnotes or footnotes, however.

I claim no objectivity on this one, as I do know Dr. James A Ramage and am privileged to work at the museum named in his honor, but still found his Rebel Raider: The Life of General John Hunt Morgan to be a very informative look at the life of this famed Confederate, offering both praise and critical analysis of Morgan's actions and decisions.

Another book that I found to be absolutely outstanding, both in style of writing and, especially, for its subject and treatment thereof was Mr. Lincoln's T-Mails: How Abraham Lincoln Used the Telegraph to Win the Civil War by Tom Wheeler. It is a concise, but informative review of Lincoln's uses of this new technology, which had not been available to any war-time U.S. President previously. Wheeler shows how Lincoln had no precedent on how to use such a tool, but how he found an effective way to employ it to his advantage.

One book which was a bit confusing at times due to the many voices used, yet still provided many unique and interesting perspectives was The Slaves' War: The Civil War in the Words of Former Slaves  , edited by Andrew Ward. The confusion came from so many different sources used, yet that added to the variety and diversity of opinions and viewpoints. There were surprising views as well, such as slaves thinking of Yankees as monsters, or protecting their masters' valuables from invading Northern forces. It took me some time to get used to the format but once I did, I found this to be a very interesting look at life from the perspectives of these who had lived as slaves during the war.

1776 by David McCullough took me away from pure Civil War studies, but I actually found several themes throughout the book that reminded me of various discussions of the "2^nd American Revolution," including the one large, powerful existing government versus the upstart Rebels and some mentions of sectional discord or distrust among the American leadership and troops. It is an outstanding book to read and gives a fascinating look at this pivotal year in American history.

A Yankee Goes to Gettysburg is a series of beautiful photographs from the Gettysburg battlefield followed by original poetry by Todd Patrick Coleman, a local author whom I have been fortunate enough to meet and befriend and whose book is available at the Ramage Museum. I enjoyed these short tributes to those who fought at that Pennsylvania town – they are not the typical poems with rhyming lines, but are of a more abstract style, while still adding meaning to the wonderful pictures. This is a book that can be read in one sitting, and is well worth it.

Daniel Mark Epstein wrote a fine book entitled Lincoln's Men: The President and his Private Secretaries that provides a nice perspective at some of the background work taking place in Lincoln's White House, and how Lincoln and these young men came to rely on each other for support and developed close relationships over the years. The amount of work these men (John Nicolay, John Hay & William Stoddard) did was amazing.

I did read one collection of diary and journal entries this year, and it was another fascinating book, concentrating on the last year and 4 months of the Confederacy. No Soap, No Pay, Diarrhea, Dysentary & Desertion: A Composite Diary of the Last 16 Months of the Confederacy compiled by Jeff Toalson, is exactly what its long title suggests. It takes excerpts from many people and locations to provide a diverse set of views of the end of the Civil War, including comments from soldiers, sailors and people at home, including women, some of whom had very strong opinions on Confederate leadership. This work is very enjoyable and informative.

William Lee Miller's President Lincoln: The Duty of a Statesman is a good solid look at Lincoln during his presidential years, focusing on his new-found role as not just a local lawyer and politician, but a statesman who now had worldwide correspondents and responsibilities. It focuses mostly, though, on h is role in America as a statesman and how his personal set of values and morals guided him through the tough job of war-time leader. I found it to be very enjoyable and informative, and a fairly easy read.

Lincoln at Peoria: The Turning Point by Lewis Lehrman was the final book I finished in 2009, and is one of my favorites, not just from that year. It is a very detailed, organized and fascinating look at the importance and impact of the speech Lincoln gave at Peoria, Illinois in October 1854. Lehrman argues, convincingly, I may add, that this speech marked a change in Lincoln's professional life, in terms of how he prepared and delivered his speeches, and about the topics he argued in those speeches. It simply is an outstanding book that I enjoyed about as much as any other I can recall reading. It, along with White's & McCullough's works, is one of the best I read in 2009, and perhaps in my life.

Legacy of John Brown

The anniversary of John Brown's ill-fated raid on Harper's Ferry has just passed, one of the more violent and incredible acts that took place in the antebellum years, leading up to the Civil War.

First of all, the House Divided Blog has posted a couple of very interesting posts about this subject, including a link to the online exhibit at the Gilder Lehrman Institute. Both of these sites are very interesting and much more in-depth than anything I plan to post, but I thought I would post a few of my comments about this subject anyway.

A few  weeks ago, I made a post claiming 1850s was a volcano, with many mini-eruptions spewing out controversies throughout the land. If this is true, the Harper's Ferry raid may have been the nearest thing to the Mount St. Helens type explosion, at least during this decade (though the firing at Fort Sumter was the ultimate eruption.)

I guess my interest in the matter is regarding the legacy Brown left. Was he a hero, dying for his cause? Or was he a 19th-century terrorist, using violent crime to make his point? A martyr or a threat to civilization?

My opinion, I suppose will be nothing new. I can understand the concept of "dying for what you believe in" and appreciate that his opposition to slavery was admirable, especially in that time, but to resort to such violence, even after what he had witnessed in Bloody Kansas, was not justified.

Perhaps a reasonable argument is that time proved Brown right - that the coming of the Civil War meant his prediction that bloodshed would be required in order to end slavery turned him into a sort of Nostradamus of his time. Maybe he had more foresight than most of  his peers.

As much as I do, however, not like the actions he took, the decisions he made, the killing, the bloodshed and the violence he produced, there is a small nagging feeling that perhaps something so radical was necessary to help lead towards the end of an institution that had been so violent and evil towards not dozens, but millions of people over 250 years. I cannot get rid of the feeling that maybe Brown was heroic, at least in some sense of the word.  I do not mean to defend the killing he and his minions did, but simply wish to point out what a complicated, confusing issue this can be.

Mount Vesuvius, Krakatoa, Mt. St. Helens, and the 1850s in the United States

What are four famous volcanoes?

Well, not really, but I have come to believe that the arrival of Civil War in the United States was the culmination of a long series of events, not just one election or one speech or any one single grandiose occurrence. It was a long, slow process that, in hindsight, gives the modern reader plenty of evidence of what was to come, and may even make the war seem inevitable given the many controversies, disputes and grandstanding that took place in the ante-bellum era. When trying to get a feel for this era and how a long and bloody Civil War resulted from it, the best metaphor that has come to my attention is that of a volcano, with years of pressure building underneath the surface, not really seen or understood by those living on top of it despite occasional venting that might now appear to have been foreshadowing of future events.

This thought has been in my mind for a while and I did express in publicly once, in a message board post on Civilwartalk.com, which started some very good and interesting discussion. Most of the below message is from that post, with some tweaks I've made, including some thoughts gathered in feedback to my original claims and questions.

Perhaps the argument could be made that this time frame should be extended back to 1848 to include the Wilmot Provisio and the trouble it stirred, or to earlier events like the Mexican War, the acquisition of Texas, or even to the Gag Order or Nullification Crises, in the early 1830s. A strong argument could claim that such troubles were within this country from its birth, or even beforehand. I, however, chose to focus on the 1850s as the pattern of major public arguments taking place every couple of years really caught my attention with the start of this new decade. I do actually see the annexation of Texas, the Mexican War and the Wilmot Proviso as part of that pattern as I read more about them and perhaps that's a topic for further exploration in the future, but for now I look into the turbulent 1850s. This decade may not be nearly as famous as the "Roaring 20s" or the 1960s of Vietnam and Civil Rights struggles, but, I contend, certainly belongs at the top of any list of decades which influenced this nation.

As the roar of cannon-fire sounded through Charleston Harbor early on April 12, 1861, and balls and bullets thudded into the earth or the masonry walls of Fort Sumter, the United States of America had descended not only into war, but into a type of war long regarded as the most serious, violent and harmful of all – Civil War. Where it would lead in the next few years in terms of death, bloodshed, lost limbs, split families, orphaned children, widowed wives and political and social change is a story that remains popular many years and decades after the men who fought in that war have passed away from this life. It will likely remain an object of study and curiosity for as long as the United States lives on, but the story of how that war came about, how and why that volcano exploded when it did is a fascinating tale itself.

The 1850s witnessed tensions between North and South grow like never before, more quickly, more constantly, with a series of events that served as both evidence of the pressure building underneath the American political groundwork and as additional pressure and stress.

In 1850, the very start of the decade, debate over the Compromise of 1850 stirred passions, but ended with several measures to try to sooth feelings, including major concessions such as the admission of California as a free state, the banning of the slave trade in Washington DC and a tough fugitive slave law. Neither North nor South found this totally satisfactory, but it provided enough for both sides, at least temporarily.

The possibility of compromise, upon which the nation's foundation had been lying for much of the 19^th century, soon diminished early in this decade, however, with the deaths of the "Great Triumvirate" of John C. Calhoun, Henry Clay and Daniel Webster, all between 1850 and late 1852. Three great, influential men – from regions southern, border and northern – were now gone, along with their long and well-known work. The succeeding generation would find it impossible to replace such leadership and influence.

In 1852, the publication of Uncle Tom's Cabin created a firestorm about the issue of slavery and the treatment of slaves, as well as how the north and south perceived the institution and how it was to be publicly portrayed. Steam was starting to creep out from underground as the earth and politicians tried desperately to contain it.

1854 witnessed the capture of Anthony Burns in Boston and his return to Virginia. This may not have been the biggest event on a national basis, but it certainly did create an uproar in Massachusetts and the surrounding region, and did nothing to diffuse the tempers of the most radical of abolitionists.

A major political shift occurred during the middle part of this decade when the Whig party, the nationally organized opponents of the Democratic party, began to fall apart, as the slavery issue divided Northern and Southern wings of this party and the Know-Nothing party, with its nativist and anti-Catholic sentiments, managed to build support of its own, much of it coming from the Whig party.

Adding to the political strain was the Kansas/Nebraska Act of 1854. With its concept of popular sovereignty being applied to the slavery question, its repeal of the Missouri Compromise, and its making possible the expansion of slavery into federal territories, it may have been symbolic of the first magma creeping onto the surface of the political world, showing how serious the situation truly was and was becoming. Perhaps it could be argued that this act and its after-effects in Kansas were the actual first eruption of civil war. That may be an exaggeration, but it is beyond dispute that this act enflamed the situation even more than it had been, especially in the North and among former Whigs, and even some Democrats. This was now a political crisis in the eyes of many.

One of the effects of this political act was to get a fairly unknown Illinois lawyer named Abraham Lincoln back into politics on an active basis, first still as part of his beloved Whig party, then, when that party eventually died, as part of a new group that called itself the Republican party.

Preston Brooks attacked Charles Sumner in Congress in 1856, hitting him with his cane and beating him severely, due to a speech Sumner had made that was taken as an insult to Brooks' uncle and an attack on slavery as well as family honor. Freedom of speech was under attack by the slave power, or so it seemed to many Northerners (though the Southerners who sent Brooks new canes and re-elected him to Congress may not have agreed.)

"Bleeding Kansas" and the Lecompton Constitution controversy both were taking place during the middle of the decade as well, adding bloodshed and violence to all the political talk and grandstanding. It was no longer just an issue of talk and bravado.

These issues also added to the trouble within the Democratic party as Douglas split with President Buchanan over the issue of Kansas and its admission as a free or slave state, another sign of things to come.

1857 brought the Dred Scott decision, which said no government had any right to keep slavery out of the territories, meaning slave-owners could take their "property" with them to the lands to the west and northwest. This ruling outraged many people, including the Republicans, but also negated Stephen Douglas' theory of popular sovereignty, adding to the fissure within the Democratic Party, which resulted in the splitting of the party at its Charleston convention in 1860.

That year also saw the publishing of "The Impending Crisis of the South" by Rowan Helper, which claimed slavery was bad for the South from an economic viewpoint (not the same moral view that many/most abolitionists supported), an argument that offended many of Helper's fellow Southerners. Then, the 1859 House of Representatives had trouble selecting a Speaker of the House as the Democrats refused to vote for anyone who had endorsed Helper's book, as many Republicans had done. This was one of the events that may not have created an explosion of ash and dust, but which certainly added to the stress and strain on the political system, beyond the view of many citizens.

Finally, and perhaps most dramatically, John Brown and his few minions attacked Harper's Ferry in 1859, attempting to convince local slaves to rise up against their master. This scheme was a huge failure and Brown was quickly captured, tried and hanged, but he served as an important symbol to many people on both sides - a martyr to some in the North, dying for what he believed in, and a threat to many in the south, a sign of slave uprisings and how the North might encourage them.

One year later, the Democratic party split into Northern and Southern halves, a Constitutional Union party formed to compete for the nation's highest office and the new Republican Party, which had lost its first Presidential election in 1856, nominated that unknown prairie lawyer Abraham Lincoln as its second Presidential candidate.

Lincoln's victory in November preceded South Carolina's December declaration of secession. After a few more weeks of ineffectual leadership by outgoing President James Buchanan, the United States inaugurated its new leader, who, then had to decide how to react to Fort Sumter after only a few weeks in office.

The Civil War – long, bloody, violent, perhaps revolutionary – had finally erupted, spewing ash, dust, magma and lava throughout the land, leaving nobody perfectly clean over the next four years of incredible pain, suffering and violence.