Sarah Haskins' Sections Discussion Questions
Only students in my sections need to respond to this thread.
These questions incorporate all assigned readings for this week, including the speeches, editorials, and addresses. Be sure to use specific examples and refer to specific readings to substantiate your claims (good practice for your essays!) NOTE: You will need to read a selection of the Sumner and Brown editorials from both the North and the South. I want you to be sure to read the Brown editorial from the Chicago Press and Tribune (26 October 1859), "The Patriarchal Tenure" for its particular viewpoint.
Questions:
These questions incorporate all assigned readings for this week, including the speeches, editorials, and addresses. Be sure to use specific examples and refer to specific readings to substantiate your claims (good practice for your essays!) NOTE: You will need to read a selection of the Sumner and Brown editorials from both the North and the South. I want you to be sure to read the Brown editorial from the Chicago Press and Tribune (26 October 1859), "The Patriarchal Tenure" for its particular viewpoint.
Questions:
- How did Northern and Southern politicians, editors, and other intellectuals view the character of each other?
- What reasoning did the Northerners and Southerners give as to the split of the nation? Did they view the war as inevitable?
A good answer will integrate both questions to gain an understanding of the sectional tensions in the immediate years before the Civil War.
posted by shask at 7:01 PM
27 Comments:
I think that as far as the character outlook of each other goes for the sumner incident it is pretty clear what the North thought. They seemed extremely mad and outraged at what happened. They seemed to look at the south as if they were violent and unfair and that the south should be severely punished. The Boston 'Bee" used words such as ferociously and brutally clearly stating, in my opinion, what they think of Brooks, S.C. and probably all of the south in general. They also called Brooks a coward. The Maine 'Advertiser' seemed as if they wanted war even more after this incident, saying things like "how long will men permit themselves to such force." They also ended the article with the phrase "The crisis is rapidly approaching," which seems to be pretty obvious they are talking about war. Most southerners seemed to take a more laid back approach. The Kentucky 'Journal' and the North Carolina 'Daily Herald' both basically said that although they felt sumner was wrong in what he said about S.C. and Butler, Brooks still took it to far in committing an act of violence in the midst of a debate. They also felt that it gave the north a good handle to sieze and deprived the south of any type of justification. But a real outlier in at least the ones i read was the South Carolina 'Mercury'. It thought brooks was right in what he did and that brooks completely had every right to do what he did. I thought this was ridiculous. It also felt war was coming soon as said in the last sentence "Next it will be a line of battle for 2 thousand miles."
Alexander Stephens and Abraham Lincoln also had some ideas of what they thought about the north and the south. Stephens thought that the ideas of the constitution were wrong because it depended on the equality of races which he believed is a lapse of judgement. He seemed to think that the 'creator' meant for blacks to be unequal which a also believe is ridiculous. He said that the union thought that a society based on slavery wouldn't last but the union was wrong. He says that the north is a type of insane b/c they don't think that white are superior. He said that the North thinks it is impossible to war against a principle in politics but that was wrong. Lincoln went on in contrast about the Dred Scott decision. He thought that it will lead to slavery everywhere because if 1 slave is aloud in a state then what is wrong with 100 or even 1000. I do agree with this because they failed to draw a line of where it ends.
The North and South had many opinions about the characters of each other. Many were just stereotypes. The North saw the South as violent ruffians and the South saw the North as a more peaceful, working class of people. The Northern Republicans were against the idea of slavery and the slave lords who used it. The North, however, was not one to use violence unlike the South. The Chicago, Illinois, Press and Tribune (Republican) wrote, “ The Democratic party, however, proposes to increase the chances for insurrection, bloodshed, and all the horrors of servile war…”. One incident of violence was against Sumner. The Boston, Massachusettes, Bee ( American ) wrote, “…Sumner was ferociously and brutally assaulted in the National Senate Chamber yesterday, by a cowardly scoundrel named Brooks.” This event again reiterated the Northerners idea of the South being violent ruffians. Because of these opinions of one another and the growing animosity among them, the nation began to split. One group had ideas for a free nation without slavery, and the other relied on slavery. Disagreements were everywhere especially over whether or not newly admitted states would be a slave state or not. There were also the radical abolitionists who took matters into their own hands. One such white abolitionist was John Brown. Thoreau wrote, “ It was his peculiar doctrine that a man has a perfect right to interfere by force with the slaveholder, in order to rescue the slave.” I think acts such as this, even though well meaning, led to the eventual war. Thoreau, I believe, knew the war was inevitable. He stated, “I do not wish to kill nor be killed, but I can foresee circumstances in which both these things would be by me unavoidable.” Clearly, he foresaw the trouble ahead.
The Caning of Sumner was the first big act of violence between the North and South. Northerners were outraged and shocked by the uncivilized violence. The Boston Bee called Brooks’s actions “barbaric”, “villanous” and “brutal” which shows that the north did not think highly at all of Brooks or his actions. In Boston’s Atlas it was said that “if violence must come we must know how to protect ourselves.” This, to me, illustrates that the North expected more violence to come and in a much bigger way, such as war. As for the south, they celebrated Brooks’s actions. They though Brooks was right for what he did. The South Carolinian, states that Brooks received many gifts in gratitude for what he did.
The other brutal act leading up to the war was the raid at Harper’s Ferry lead by John Brown. As a radical abolitionist, Brown was controversial to begin with. After the raid the Evening Journal of New York saw him as a traitor and a “madman”. However, the North did feel that the South was far too outraged by what had happened which is shown by this quote, “The south speaks that the slaves love them and have a good bond and want to remain slaves… then why is the south so worried about the slaves revolting. (the Press and Tribune)” The south was also outraged by his actions. They saw this as an act of violence by the North. In the Mercury, of South Carolina, it is said that a pro-slavery party will form and will “back-up” the South in further acts of violence. Again, this shows that the South is now preparing themselves for further acts of aggression and possibly war.
The views that the North and South respectively had of each other got more and more one sided the further away you got from the Border States. In Springfield IL, near the border states, the paper there says of the Sumner caning, "The assault on many accounts is regrettable, but we must take in to count the provocation." Meanwhile, as far away from the border as you can get, Portland Maine, has a different opinion. Their paper says, "We know of nothing meaner or more cowardly than which now calls itself Southern Chivalry." At least near the border, you have the consideration of the cause of the caning, where in Maine they don't care to factor that in the equation. In the South, the opinions were just as varied. A letter in South Carolina says the women of the state would have sent hickory sticks to Sen. Brooks had they know what he was going to do. In the border state of Kentucky, the Louisville paper American Journal calls the incident, "regrettable", and calls for the expulsion of Sen. Brooks. In the Deep South, he is a hero and near the border, he is somewhat villified. Thus something like John Brown's raid on Harpers Fairy was going to garner some of the same opinions. The South takes a militaristic stance, fearing John Brown is acting on the wishes of the North. The Union-American in Nashville, TN says, "Of the capacity of the South to defend and protect herself, we have no doubt. She must know who her are her friends and enemies." The stance in the North differs where the two Chicago papers and one in Albany accuse each other of being backed by political parties and promoting their lies in the press. The opinion was one of extremes, depending where you were in the country at the time period. With statements like this, (especially in Tennessee) war seemed like the only alternative to solving this sticking issue.
I agree with some of the things that ndg2n5 said in the last comment. I agree that the North thought it out of line that Brooks attacked Sumner in the halls of Congress. Most Northern newspapers called Brooks a violent ruffian in several instances, and one definition of ruffian in the American Heritage College Dictionary is, "A thug or gangster." Back then, I'm sure that ruffian was almost equivalent to a low blow. Most Southern newspapers, especially in South Carolina and the deep South, on the other hand felt as if it were a point for the South and its rights. However, not all Southern newspapers were on the same page. Southerners may have believed that Sumner deserved what he got, but did not approve of Brooks' actions. For example, in the May 26, 1856 Edition of the Wilmington, NC "Daily Herald", it says, "We think Sumner deserved what he got, but we do not approve the conduct of Brooks....It is disgraceful that scenes of violence like these should be permitted to occur within it....he has yet given a good handle for the Northern people to seize, in denunciation of his course, and deprived the South of the opportunity of justification." The last part from this quote, to me, is something not to be overlooked. Although in most cases to both Norherners and Southerners alike, war seemed inevitable, but it is definitely apparent that some people hoped that it could be worked out.
With John Brown's raid, everything is the same except with the Northern and Southern viewpoint switched around. Most Northerners praised John Brown for his actions, while the South (Virginia) ended up trying him for treason and hanging him. After talking of the injustices of slavery and how the South relies on the Federal government for protection against the slaves as it was apparent that the slaves did not love their chains as the South had always claimed, the Chicago "Press and Tribune" (26 October 1859) stated, "We appeal to the conservative men of the country to say which is the safest and best policy: the Democratic, which is striving to multiply and expand this volcanic element, or the Republican which seeks to limit and circumscribe it, and place it on the way of ultimate extinction." The answer was obviously the latter. However, there are always more moderate people and similarly as with the Southerners and the actions of Brooks against Sumner, some northerners were ashamed of the rash actions that he took.
After reading the editorials, one can really get a sense as to the feelings the regions had for one another. Northerners saw Southerners as brute, arrogant, slave drivers who only cared to make a buck while killing and violating the rights of human beings (slaves) in the process. Southerners saw Northerners as self-righteous scoundrels who wanted to ruin their economy and their "rights" in order to gain for themselves by increasing the price of labor. Northerners blamed the split of the nation on slavery and its injustices not only against blacks but against white northerners who were hurt by the low price of labor. Southerners on the other hand blamed the split on Northerners trying to undermine their economy and right to prosper by threatening to abolish slavery. It was almost like Siamese twins trying to pull apart from each other as one wanted to go one way and the other another. Most people on the opposite sides knew the question would have to be settled almost certainly with force, and if that meant war between the North and the South well then so be it, both were ready to fight for the rights they believed independently they deserved.
Northern and Southern politicians, editors, and other intellectuals viewed the character of each other in immensely different ways. Opposite is a word to describe them. Dealing with senator Summer, the “New York Tribune” claims that he was brutally assaulted in his seat. The South is resorting to violence. It just goes the show that they are cowards. According to the Charleston “Mercury”, Summer delivered a “magliant Abolition speech.” Outraged by this, Col. Brooks was outraged by this so he assumed action. “ I did not wish to hurt him much, but only punish him.” Col. Brooks claimed that he deserved it. Senator Toombs of Georgia was proud of what Col. Brooks had done. He stated “ You have done the right thing and in the right place.” Another largely diverse view was John Brown and his raid on Harper’s Ferry. In a southern newspaper, “The Irrepressible Conflict” they reported Harper’s Ferry as the most “monestrous villainies ever attempted in this country.” Brown was called a “blood-stained ruffian.” Brown is an abolitionist. These two incidents along with a few more caused the split between the North and the South. The main reason, the South was for slavery and the North was against it. The Missouri Compromise was another leading factor. It decided the line between slave states and free states. It caused great controversy with the expansion to the west. As people were migrating to the West it was hard to determine what should be free and what should be slave. As settlers moved into Kansas it was undetermined as free or slave state. It became known as “Bleeding Kansas.” Pro-slavery gangs attacked the town of Lawrence. As a result of this attack, John Brown murdered pro-slavery settlers. I think that this tiny events lead up the ultimate split of the nation. Slowly over time all those tiny little events exploded into the Civil War. The North and South could no longer agree on anything. Every time a new state entered the nation there was the problem of slave or free state.
Through this reading it becomes very clear of the North and South intellectuals, politicians, and editors views of each other. The North portrayed to the South to be very violent, uncivilized, and bloodshed people. With the Souths thinking of slavery as a good thing and pushing to make more states to join them in their thoughts in hope in making the United States a slave country. The North being outraged at the South for their mindset seemed to look at the South with disgust, as John Brown mentioned, "I think my friends, you are guilty of a great wrong against God and humanity..." The South view the North not so much as very violent people but, as the working class people. One of the first incidents of the separation of the country what the violence against Sumner the Senator, as the Boston Massachusetts, "Bee" wrote,“…Sumner was ferociously and brutally assaulted in the National Senate Chamber yesterday, by a cowardly scoundrel named Brooks.” This was again a further reason to view the Southerners as "ruffians." The Southerners still seemed to take a more relaxed view on what was happening and the South Carolina 'Daily Herald' mentions that they believe what happened was wrong, that Brook should not have acted the way he did during a debate but, they also think that Sumner was wrong for what he said about South Carolina.
Moving to John Brown which was another cause of all the uproar. Brown was a abolitionist and soon acted upon these thoughts that violence is the only way at this point to bring an end to slavery. Through Brown's actions of his effort to seize the federal arsenal at Harper's Ferry in West Virgina, he was soon captured and executed for his doing. In the North though he was honored and celebrated for his heroic action to the American Revolution. With Brown also mentioning "...all you people at the South, prepare yourselves for a settlement of that question...this negro question, I mean; the end of that is not yet." Also as Thoreau states,"...I do not wish to be kill or be killed, but I can foresee circumstances in which both these things would be by me unavoidable.” Inevitability, the war was soon to come.
I also think it is very clear about what both the North and South thought of eachother. For almost any even you could look at what each side said and they would be completly different. A great example is how the North and South differed in views about John Brown. The North viewed him as a hero while the South thought he was a terrorist. As the time went on they grew further apart and both did their part to push the other away. This is truly evident in how both sides continued to describe events in different lights and try to make the other side look bad. I do not think they wanted to go to war at the beginning of these disputes, but after years of fighting with eachother they finally knew that was would be inevitable to keep their "beliefs" from being taken from them.
The Northerners and Southerners both had radical views of each other's characters, but often times the individuals were not that different from each other. Often the Southerners were viewed as rich farmers that thought they were better than the Northerners. A characteristic that Northerners viewed as arrogance and with slavery a strong hold in the South accounting for a large part of the economy. These Southerners were in a sense a very important part of the economy both in the North and South. Though the Northerners disliked slavery the put up with it for quite a while because they were afraid of what might happen should slavery be banned in all states. They were also thought that “The expansion of slavery… would undermine the Jeffersonian ideal of a freeholder society and ensure permanent control of the federal government by slaveholding Democrats” as it mentions in the textbook. So either way they were in a jam with what they should do with slavery. As for the Northerners, they were viewed as a middle class society that did lots of manual labor unlike most in the South who had slaves to work for them. This is one of the reasons that the Northerners and Southerners split themselves because they were living two totally different lifestyles and for this reason had a hard time understanding each others way of life. Most Northerners and Southerners did view the war as inevitable because they both knew that the nation could not go on when there was such a division between regions over separate ways of life. Both sides tried for years to try and straighten things out through Congress, but this lead nowhere and eventually the Union reached its breaking point and the Civil War began with the South succeeding from the Union itself. The United States was split between the slave holding states and the non-slave holding states. The sectional tensions had grown too much and had gone on for too many years. “On the verge of death, John C. Calhoun … asserted the right of states to secede from the Union” in turn urging the South to separate. This in turn helped to fuel the Civil War on and tore the nation apart.
Looks like everyone has a good start. Be sure to use specific examples and refer to the sources when writing your comments. Also, perhaps someone could comment on the Lincoln, Rhett, and Stephans documents? How did they view the North and South? Did they think war was coming and why? Keep up the good work.
The Northerners and Southerners certainly did not have flattering opinions of the other. In the edition of the Chicago Press and Tribune (26 October 1859), the editorial made the Southern Governor Wise analogous with "a boy who whistled in the grave-yard, to keep his courage up". The paper also spoke of the governor as being "windy", and Southerners in general stashing their houses full of "deadly arsenal". Clearly, the paper was trying to depict Southerners as a whole as being scared and in great fear of their former slaves return.
The Southern paper, the Richmond Enquirer (in its 25th of October edition of 1859), described the Harper's Ferry assault as a "midnight murder of Virginia citizens" and "destruction of Government property". They saw this as a very cruel and vandalistic act. The paper went on to describe the North as having "aided and abetted this treasonable invasion of a Southern State." The South was so outraged by Harper's Ferry, they went as far as to call it treasonous!
In the Caning of Sumner, the North was clearly outraged, calling it "so bald, so bad, so alarming" and "the sanctity of the Senate chamber" in the May 24th (1856) issue of the Boston Atlas. They saw a desecration of a very sacred place, and were deeply offended by the atrocity. The South however, applauded the event and almost described as being done in a gentlemen-like fashion. The Charleston Mercury (28 May 1856) described Sumner as being "well and elegantly whipped". The Edgefield, South Carolina, Advertiser (28 May 1856) said Sumner received a "handsome drubbing".
In that same issue of the Advertiser, there is a quote that clearly describes how the South saw trouble as being inevitable. It says, "...we have borne insult long enough and now let the conflict come if it must." They knew a fight was coming, and they were by all means ready to give one. In the famous "cornerstone" speech given by Alexander Stephans (the Vice-President of the Confederacy), he described his new government being founded "upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man." He believed that this truth would eventually spread throughout the globe, "a full recognition of this principle through the civilized and enlightened world." Stephans felt that not only was their beliefs of intellectual integrity, but that it would spread to other "enlightened" cultures. Today, we know said cornerstone is ridiculous.
The Northern population also saw the fight as being in the near future as well. In the May 24th (1856) issue of the Pittsburgh Gazette, it was written that “…blow must be given back for blow. Forbearance and kindly deportment are lost upon these Southern ruffians.” This paper didn’t see a solution being resolved by negotiation and debate in the legislation, but in a cold, bloody, war…
The division between North and South was primarily based on differences in beliefs. The North was gaining wealth, stronger political standings, and was pushing the idea of ending the spread of slavery into the West, and these growths began to install fear into the minds of Southerners. Although ideas were silently building division between the North and South, politicians remained indifferent on what was the right decision about slavery. Politicians knew that tension was building, and avoided the conflict by discussing less pressing issues. Unlike politicians, editors in the 1840’s and 1850’s took strong stands on issues such as freedom of speech and slavery. Northern editors all took strong stands against southern politicians, and even used personal attacks in their editorials. Gossip of Southern cruelty towards the North spread throughout the North. Northern editors spared no mercy when reporting on the attack on Mr. Summer, a Massachusetts senator, by Mr. Brooks, a Southern senator. The Southern editors, however, did not hold back in their own ideas of the fight between Brooks and Summer. Southerners wrote in favor of Brook’s attack on Summer and justified it as what the abolitionist Summer deserved. The underlying conflict between the North and South was what eventually led to the division of the nation. Both sides new that above and below the surface differences of opinions were building up, and that the end would result in conflict. The two sides differed on many issues, but the idea of slavery was ultimately what pushed them over the edge. The North feared the expansion of slavery into the West, and the South feared the non-expansion of slavery in to the West. In the end the differing beliefs, and fear of the future drove both sides to stand up and fight for what they believed was right.
Politicians, editors, and other intellectuals of the North and South both had extremely diverse opinions about the opposite group. The North was outraged by the behavior (specifically the attack on Sumner) carried out by the barbaric South. The “Advertiser” from Portland, Maine clearly stated, “The dastardly and perhaps murderous attack on Senator Sumner is on a par with their whole course. How long will the people of the Free States tamely submit to such outrages?” Citizens of the North were not content with the way things were moving in the country and needed to directly do something in order to prevent furthering the violence. Southerners believed that what had happened to Sumner was over and done with. The North was being looked at as a ‘cry-baby’. From a non-titled article from Boston, Massachusetts, the author portrays how nonchalant the attack seemingly was, “The despatches from Washington yesterday afternoon were that ‘Mr. Sumner was better, and would be able to occupy his seat in a day or two’. His wounds could not have been so very dangerous as has been represented”. Undoubtedly, these two groups would have a difficult time compromising on a future course of action.
In Alexander Stephens’ “Cornerstone Speech” he states that the status of Africans was strictly slavery and, “this was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this as the ‘rock upon which the old Union would split’”. All in all, the war was very predictable by both sides while still nothing was done to prevent it.
Northern and Southern intellectuals had a view of hatred and disgust toward each other.They felt that only there way was the "right" way and that was reflected in their acts(ie-politics,publications,speeches)They even took it as far as almost killing Sumner who was savagely beaten on the head with a cane, resulting in permanent brain damage.These factors as well as John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry contributed to the split of the nation.This violence just kept going back and forth with no resolution.With such extreme hatred of the opposition and how strongly each felt about their view I don't think the war was inevitable.The tensions were just getting worse and worse and apparently nothing they had tried had worked to come to a consensus.I don't think these people truly considered working things out peacefully because those who were for slavery obviously didn't have any regard for human life and the others were willing to "beat the sense" into their opposition.I think both northerners and southerners had issues that hindered them from working things out rationally without violence.As a result, as we know, civil war broke out.
As the onset of the Civil War is rapidly approaching both the North and South are developing strong views of the other. Northerners are convinced that their southern neighbors are barbaric slave owners that handle every situation with violence. To validate the northerners view the Patriarchal Tenure states, “Why does every slave-holder go armed to the teeth; and why in his house an arsenal of deadly weapons of defense?” Likewise, the southerners see the northerners as individuals that try to use a pen and paper to end their major tool of production; slavery. Two politicians that represent either the North or the South are Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts and Representative Preston Brooks of South Carolina. Although Sumner, a northerner, is a nasty individual that says what comes to mind, he feels that it is his time to stand up and speak out against the “Border Ruffians” that are trying to turn the territory of Kansas into a slave state. Brooks, a southern, objects to Sumner’s opinions by beating him with a cane, until he is brain damaged. These politicians show a glimpse into the opinions and demeanors of the North and South. All in all, slavery seems to be the main key element that is leading the country into the inevitable Civil War.
The south newspapers and politicians thought that the North would come into the South and "meddle" with the way they lived. They said if the North were to come down to the South then it would start revolts. Although Lincoln promised not to interfere with the states that were already slave states his words were not readily trusted. The secession between the North and South had been contemplated for years before it accually came to. A man by the name of Robert Barnwell Rhett had been pushing a secession for about 10 years. With Lincoln being elected without one electoral vote from the South it made him that much closer to his goal. When Senator Charles Sumner of Mass. made his speech "Crime Against Kansas" set a spark of event to happen. As soon as he made this speech South Carolina Rep. Preston Brooks beat him with a cane in the room as he gave the speech. This beating also caused Brown to go around with his group and pull southerners out of there house and beat them to death.
It is obvious what the North and South thought of each other. However there were some exceptions on each side. The South had a different way of handling problems compared to the North. The North handled problems without the use of violence. They resulted their problems with only their words and writing. However, the South did the complete opposite. They thought it was best to kill or punish those that did wrong or were different from them. In the Press and Tribune, the goal of the South is to “[extend] the area of slavery indefinitely and [re-open] the African slave trade”. They were willing to do just about anything to continue with their way of life. The North began to feel that the South was too dominating and the fight of free states was going to result in massacre. But neither side was willing to give up.
Neither the Northerners nor the Southerners liked the idea of the nation having to split and go into war. I believe they knew it was best to fight for what they thought was right. However, the attack at Harpers’ Ferry was the first step in the war breaking out. They finally realized that nothing was going to get solved unless both sides fight for what they believed in. So to some extent, they did view the war as inevitable.
It is very clear what the North and South thought of each other. In 1850, John C. Calhoun explained how white southerners feared the North's increasing politcal power, wealth, and their moral righteousness. He also stated that the South feared the North's "long-continued agitation of the slavery question." Each side felt extremely strong about their beliefs and felt as if their way was the only way. Each side had somewhat of a hatred for the other. This hatred is evident in 1856 when Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts gave a speech in which he denounced the south, and congressman Preston Brooks took strong offense to his words and he beat Sumner unconscious with a walking cane. In result of this horrible act, Sumner had brain damage, and Brooks became a hero in the South. In the Boston, Massachusetts Bee 23 May 1856, the North had this to say of Brooks, “ This bully brooks who has disgraced the name of man, ought to be branded as a villain of the blackest dye, and then mercilessly kicked from one end of the continent to the other.” The aftermath of the canning of Sumner also resulted in the northerners believing that the south viewed them as being no more than slaves.
The war between the North and the South known as the Civil War, was mainly over the enormous issue of slavery. Both sides used violence instead of reasoning. The war was inevitable and both sides knew that the war would eventually happen, but no different approach was used instead of violence.
The division of beliefs between the north and the south was evident throughout this time period. In Robert Barnwell Rhett’s address to the slaveholding states, Rhett stated, “Discontent and contention has moved in the bosom of the Confederacy for the last thirty-five years. The government of the United States is no longer a government of a confederate republic, but of a consolidated democracy.” Rhett went on to say that the northern states were taking advantage of their control in Congress. Referring to the other southern states, Rhett ends his speech by saying, “We ask you to join us in forming a confederacy of Slaveholding States.”
In his Cornerstone Speech, Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephens degrades the African-American race. Stephens stated, “The negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition.” While the crowd applauded his words, Stephens went on to say that the Northerners were insane. “It is a species of insanity. They assume that the Negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just-but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails.”
In his first inaugural address, President Lincoln assured both sides that he would not take sides by twisting the Constitution or any laws. “I take the official oath to-day with no mental reservations and with no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws by any hypercritical rules; and while I do not choose now to specify particular acts of Congress as proper to be enforced, I do suggest that it will be much safer for all, both in official and private stations, to conform to and abide by all those acts which stand unrepealed than to violate any of them trusting to find impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional.” The President also stated that he would do nothing to change the minds of those who wished to destroy the Union. “That there are persons in one section or another who seek to destroy the Union at all events and are glad of any pretext to do it I will neither affirm nor deny; but if there be such, I need address no word to them.” Both sides were aware that the war was coming. The only remaining question was “When?”.
The north and the south had completely opposite beliefs. While the north was focused on manufacturing and food production to increase economics while the south focused on cotton and slavery. There were stereotypes of arrogant, violent, self indulgent southern slave lords and peaceful, puritanical middle class working families. The reason there was a split in the nation was power. Both the north and the south wanted to have more political power then the other. This caused expansion into the west to claim new land for either free states or slave states. The north moved to the original colonies for religious freedom while the southerners came to America for money. The north depended on each other while the south had plantation and where self sufficient. This claiming of territories and believes about slavery ultimately caused the war. The war was inevitable.
The main thing I took out of reading these articles, speeches and books is that both the North and the South espoused fanatical opinions so blatantly opposed that some sort of conflict was inevitable. If two people feel very strongly about an issue, they will not let it just slide away. In the same way, there was moral antagonism between the two regions. They were both their own worst enemies, because they saw the other side as morally corrupt and fanatical. For example, in the North Carolina "Register", the article "No Pardon or Commutation of Sentence for Old Brown" states that “The conduct of these Northern people presents a most extraordinary compound of villainy and impudence…if Brown is a crazed fanatic, irresponsible either in morals or law, there are yet guilty parties. He is then the agent of wicked principals.” The moral indignation digresses into name-calling, and eventually violence. Even the pacifistic Thoreau was caught in the wave of fanaticism, and compared John Brown to Christ (Clotel, 507).
From this point of view (of both sides as being fanatical), yes, the war does seem to be thrust forward as inevitable, if only because both sides made it clear that they were not going to back down. Had they had a more impartial view (as we do), they might have seen some of the logical errors in their thinking, i.e., the ends justifying the means. Thoreau states that “We preserve the so-called peace of our community by deeds of petty violence every day. Look at the policeman’s billy and handcuffs! Look at the jail! Look at the gallows!” etc., and while he has a point, he completely ignores the fact that John Brown’s deeds are exactly what the Abolitionists loathed in the slave holders: violent, destructive, and demeaning. On the other hand, the South definitely saw the North’s desire to be rid of slavery as an infringement of their rights. In "The Address of the people of South Carolina, assembled in Convention, to the people of the Slaveholding States of the United States," it states that “The one great evil from which all other evils have flowed, is the overthrow of the Constitution of the United States. The Government of the United States is no longer the government of a confederate republic, but of a consolidated democracy. It is no longer a free government, but a despotism.” Moral indignation, then, is the main characteristic of the regions’ assessment of one another.
Primarily, the North the and South had similar but clear views of the other. The Boston "Courier" remarks that "there is no chivalry in a brute. There is no manliness in a scoundrel." It seems that after the canning of Sumner, the North viewed the South as mindless and mannerless brutes. They shouldn't even br treated as men or equals. The South on the other hand thought the North as weak and lacked honor. They thought this because the South solved problems using violence and took pride in withholding their honor. So the Southern view of the North was that they were less than men because they didn't practice a "policy that involves violence and blood." Both sides regarded the other as less than men but on different accounts.
There is no doubt that slavery was the cause of the Civil War. Both sides recognized this fact. Even though the North weren't morally opposed to slavery, they still believed it was wrong and wanted it to end. The South "needed" slavery and hated anyone who opposed it. What I saw while reading some of these articles is the South wanting to fight. The South Carolina "Advertiser" said "let the conflict come if it must." This must mean that they knew the war was inevitable.
The North did not feel at all too comfortable with the south in the way they handled things. A good example would be the sumner issue. Not only was it unethical for Brooks to act on part of the south in such a way, but it gave way to a new perception of the the underlying issues in disputes between the south and the north. THe sumner issue demonstrated that things were starting to get out of hand and that there should be some compromise to these disputes (i.e. slavery) to keep them from escalating to violent measures (Brooks). The south , on behalf of Brooks, proved they were willing to fight to keep their way of life and their ideals. The south was not prowling for an arguement, they simply wanted to be left alone and continue their way of life. I feel it was the north instigating problems and some southern citizens who feared their way of life was in danger. So southerners acted out either verbally or physically in a way that they felt was proportional to northern accusations.
Yes, the war was inveitable, it could have been seen from miles away. But the patriotism of the country did not allow commoners to realize such a thing untill intellectuals declared the inevitable path of civil war.Again, the south's reasoning was that the north was violating their way of life and the south could no longer tolerate such acts. THe north's reasoning was that slavery was completely and morally unethical and that was not the way that god wanted life to be. The dispute between the North and the South preceding the upcoming civil war was an arguement on how to live in a land under a constitution that did not value all citizens or inhabitants (slaves) equally. Northerners, being mostly people of god, felt that freedom was god given and no human being should ever be captured from their peaceful life and brought to some foreign country where then they were imprisoned and forced to work under horrible conditions. Basically, Northerners knew what was good and felt that it was the will of god to make all living beings free amongst their own will and not the will of others.
In the years closely preceding the civil war, the opinions of various public speakers became more and more radical in terms of how they spoke about their political adversaries, this is true for both northerners and southerners. In the case of Charles Sumner getting "beat down" with a cane by Mr. Brooks, it is clear that southern publications like the Atlas saw Mr. Brooks as a charismatic figure, "it must be attributed to the bold and vigorous demonstration of the Kansas inequity, which he has just uttered in the Senate." The Atlas uses Summers speech as perfect justification for physical violence.
On the other end of the spectrum, its seems like northerners had a much more conservative view on the subject. Most publications admitted that the speech Sumner gave was a little over the top, "gentlemen everywhere will admit that Sumner's general tone was neither parliamentary nor gentlemanly; neither were his particular applications." - Daily Inquirer 23 May, 1856. Of course this in now way justified an outright act of violence.
In regards to the second question, it seems like the south was gaining more and more political and geographical power in the years leading up to the civil war. During the Pierce presidency, the southerners gained huge amounts of land in the west. Then came the Kansas Nebraska act, which gave the south even more land and power, they were also allowed to take the slave trade with them as they moved west. Because of this, northerners were put at a huge political disadvantage, especially considering the "border ruffians" used to pull more votes for the democrats. In the end, it seems like the radical and sometimes violent acts of the southerners in Kansas simply drove the northerners to start defending themselves. Neither side viewed war as all out "inevitable." Southerners were willing to fight to keep their new political power and pro-slave land. The northerners were willing to defend themselves from the "southern ruffians."
This is a test for the blogger. Anyway, the South really left no option for the North but to go to war with them. After Lincoln was elected without one electoral vote from the South, then that showed everyone what needed to be done. The South had a fighting chance when for a while, but it soon would change because of the army of the North.
Northern politicians, editors, and intellectuals viewed Southern politicians, editors, and intellectuals as brutes that fought instead of using their words to settle their differences. Northern Senator Charles Sumner had no idea how serious the repercussions would be to his three-day speech in Kansas. After being beaten to near death by Southerner Preston Brooks, the Northerners found out how violent the South could really be. The Southerners thought the Northerners were working class people they could walk all over. After raiding towns and casting their on votes instead of the locals’, and chanting, “Death to all Yankees and traitors in Kansas!”, ruffians proved they did have a certain amount of power. The Northerners were at the end of their patience after these events. In the New York Tribune Northerners wrote, “It is high time that this People should take a stand not only against the immediate perpetrators of ruffian assaults but against their confederates and apologists in public life and in the Press.” They knew war was coming and it would be the only way to defend their way of life. As for the Southerners, the Charleston, South Carolina Mercury wrote, “Events are hurrying on. A despatch has just been received that Lawrence has been demolished, and lives lost. Next it will be a line of battle for two thousand miles!” Both sides knew what was ahead.
North and the South viewed each other as the enemy before the Union even split officially. Northerners saw the Southerners as barbaric brutes and bullies. The South seemed to intimidate the Northern middle class average Joe, because of the idea of the South being less civilized and more vicious. Southerners viewed the North as tyrants like Great Britain, as displayed in the South Carolina Speech to the slaveholding states by Robert Barnwell Rhett, “The Southern States now stand exactly in the same position toward the Northern States that our ancestors in the colonies did toward Great Britain. The Northern States, having the majority in Congress, claim the same power of omnipotence in legislation as the British Parliament.” Southerners are worried that the North is out to attack the South, which angers the South and gives them something to unite on.
The entire country agreed that war was inevitable. Abraham Lincoln stated in his infamous house divided speech, “I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free… It will become all one thing, or all the other.” This statement was crucial because not only did Lincoln state that war was inevitable, but that the war was primarily over slavery, which is also how the majority of Northerners and all Southerners felt about the cause of the war. Northerners were not being heroes against racism though, they still viewed slaves as worthless and almost not human, and Southerners were worried about losing their lively-hoods if slavery was abolished. But when it all boils down to one thing that provoked war, slavery was the main cause.
Post a Comment
<< Home