COCW Study Guide by Joshua Horn

Causes of the

Civil War

Causes of the

Civil War

Joshua E. Horn with Daniel E. Horn

Reforming To Scripture Press www.ReformingToScripture.com

First Edition: October 2012 Copyright © 2012 by Joshua E. Horn and Daniel E. Horn. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations in articles and reviews. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any other information storage or retrieval system, without permission of the publisher in writing.

Reforming To Scripture Press

8229 Zebulon Road Youngsville, North Carolina 27596 www.ReformingToScripture.com ISBN-13: 978-0-9843696-5-2 ISBN-10: 0-9843696-5-1 Cover Design and Book Layout by Joshua Horn All scripture quotes unless otherwise noted Authorized (King James) Version.

Printed in the United States of America

Contents Introduction...........................................13 Why Study History? How to Use This Book

Religion....................................................1 How Religion Affects Culture Calvinism Great Awakening Charles Finney Unitarianism Anthony Burns Footnotes

Slavery....................................................33 George Whitefield’s Position on Slavery Indentured Servants Slave Trade Biblical Slavery New Testament Slavery Arguments For Slavery Abolitionists

Economics..............................................67 The Great Triumvirate

Henry Clay Daniel Webster John C. Calhoun Economics of the Republican Party Economic and Cultural Differences

John Brown............................................97 John Brown Bleeding Kansas Raid on Harper’s Ferry Response of the Press

Secession...............................................127 Territories and Compromise Stephen Douglas Charles Sumner Charles Sumner Election of 1860 Secession

Fort Sumter..........................................159 Battle of Sullivan’s Island Siege of Charleston Building Forts Battle of Fort Sumter

Jefferson Davis vs. Abraham Lincoln

State’s Rights.........................................195 Doctrine of Interposition Secession vs. Revolution View of Secession in America Preservation of the Union by Force Changes in State’s Rights

Conclusion...........................................223 Contrasting the Confederate and U.S. Constitutions Conclusion

Final Exam...........................................237 Index....................................................245

Acknowledgments

e would like to thank Kendra Horn, Rachel Horn, Stephen Horn, Kristina Breagy, Grace Greagy, Andrea Noah and Stephen Breagy Jr. for grammatical proofreading. Of course, any issues that still remain are the fault of the authors.

Introduction Why Study History?

Thank you for joining us in this study into the Causes of the American Civil War! We hope you will enjoying learning more about how the war which so significantly changed our nation came to be. We will discover that many of the problems we are facing as a nation today have their roots in the Civil War era. However, before we begin examining the causes of the war, we would do well to examine an important question – Why Study History?

1. To Remember the Providence of God

The first reason to study history is to remember what God has done in time past. God has not set up the world to run by itself. He still actively upholds all things and intervenes in the affairs of men. John Adams wrote in 1765, “I always consider the settlement of America with reverence and wonder, as the opening of a grand scene and design in Providence for the illumination of the ignorant, and the emancipation of the slavish part of mankind all over the earth.”1 The study of God’s providence in history allows us to see a wider picture of what God is doing on a grand scale. After the Civil War, Robert E. Lee wrote to one of his former soldiers: [N]or in spite of failures, which I lament, of errors which I now see and acknowledge; or of the present aspect of affairs; do I despair of the future. The truth is this: The march of Providence is so slow, and our desires so impatient; the work of progress is so immense and our means of aiding it so feeble; the life of humanity is so long, that of the individual so brief, that we often see only the ebb of the advancing wave and are thus discouraged. It is history that teaches us to hope.2

Often when we look at the world around us, we can become easily discouraged, as it ap-

pears that nothing is improving, but instead getting worse and worse. But by looking at history, we are able to see the plans of God on a much vaster scale. Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:3

This is why many non-Christians dislike the study of history. They do not want to see God’s hand displayed, and if they do see it, they reject it. Karl Marx wrote, “The tradition of all dead generations weights like a nightmare on the brains of the living.”4 On the other hand, when Christians see the wider view of God’s plans, we realize that our current times are not as bad as they appear. We have hope, because we know that God holds the world in his hand and that He will do His good pleasure.

To Understand God Better

By looking at what God does, we can also see how He treats the world. In Deuteronomy 28, God lays out many blessings for obedience to His commandments and cursings for disobedience to His commandments. Everything in the world happens by God’s choice. Studying history enables us to learn more about God by what He has done. It is easy for us to read in the Bible about how in ancient Israel, God struck the nation with a famine or a plague, and then see a plague in modern times and believe but think it is caused by a virus. The fact that we have an understanding of the means through which God works, like viruses, does not mean that it is not God who chooses for those means to work. In studying American history, it is easy to see God has blessed this nation. But when we see times of bloodshed like the Civil War, we should ask ourselves the question, what is God seeing that displeases Him? Men who came before us had a better understanding of this principle, like Stonewall Jackson, who wrote that he expected the South to lose the war if they did not repent from breaking the Sabbath. Through the study of history, we can see the attributes of God on display, especially how He destroys any nation that attempts to put itself in the place of God.

3. To Commemorate the Sacrifices of Our Ancestors

We have a responsibility to study history, not only to know the works of God and his plan for history, but also to honor our forefathers who came before. Deuteronomy 32:7 says “Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations: ask thy father, and he will shew thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee.” The actions of our ancestors put us in the situation where we are today, and we should honor and remember what they did. Abigail Adams wrote to her husband, John, during the America War for Independence, “Posterity, who are to reap the blessings, will scarcely be able to conceive the hardships

and sufferings of their ancestors.”5 God has created the world so that those who honor will be blessed. He promises that those who honor their fathers and mothers will live long in the land. This does not only apply to physical parents, it also tells us we have a responsibility to honor our grandparents, great grandparents, and all of our forefathers. We also have a responsibility to honor those men and women who are not related to us, but who made great sacrifices by going before us and giving us a culture and civilization where we receive many blessings.

4. Emulate the Good and Avoid the Bad

Although we have a responsibility to honor, not every one in history should be emulated. Everyone, except for Christ, had failings which should be avoided. Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians: Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand. Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents. Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer. Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.6

Although this was written about the Old Testament, it also applies to history as well. God has given us history to study, as examples both of righteous conduct, and of evil to avoid. Solomon said there is nothing new under the sun. The waves of sin which may be going through our culture are not new, they are just a different form of what has been done by different generations. “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” As Thomas Jefferson said: History by apprising them of the past, will enable them to judge of the future; it will avail them of the experience of other times and other nations; it will qualify them as judges of the actions and designs of men; it will enable them to know ambition under every disguise it may assume; and knowing it, to defeat its views.7

By studying history we can apply it to ourselves to see how we are repeating the mistakes of our forefathers.

5. To Understand Men Better

As we study history, we find men that had great impacts on the lives of other people, sometime for good and sometime for evil. As we study these men to learn examples from them, we need to be careful to look at them honestly and fully. It is easy to make heroes of people by only considering their good traits and the things that they did well. It is also

easy to make people villains that only do evil continually. But that is not how God records history. When He records the life of Noah a man who preaches righteousness to an unrighteous society for a hundred years, God also informs us that Noah became drunk when he disembarked from the ark. No one who has walked the earth has been perfect except Jesus Christ. When we look at good men, we need to be honest and see their faults. When we look at men who do evil things, we need to be honest with them and see their strengths as well as their weaknesses. By seeing real men with real struggles, we can understand the struggles that we might face and we can understand the people around us better.

How to Use This Book

This book is intended to further your study in connection with the Discerning History: Causes of the Civil War video series. There will be a chapter in this book for each episode. Our goal is not to repeat what the videos have already said. Instead we will delve deeper into various topics related to each episode, and give you resources to further your study. The study guide was prepared intending to be an encouragement to read the original source documents. Too often in the study of history, people comment on how other people have analyzed the history. By going back to the original source documents, you can read and consider for yourself what the people were trying to say and do. Some of the quotes can be hard to read, because we tend to use simpler English today, but persevere and learn to read what the actual men involved in the situations wrote. Begin by watching the episode, and then read the chapter of this guide associated with it. As you read through this book you will encounter study questions. Read and consider them deeply, writing out your answer if that would be helpful. The questions were not prepared with the idea that there would be simple answers. They were written out of a desire for you to think more deeply about the world that God has created. There are no answers provided for them, they are intended to further your own personal thinking. After reading the text in this study guide, you can continue learning with the resources given at the end of each chapter. Visit www.DiscerningHistory.com/Causes where you will will find links to all of our recommended resources, either for free or purchase, as well as reviews telling you what to look for and be wary of as you continue your study. You will also find much more free print, audio and video material to further your study. At the end of the course you will find an exam, to test your knowledge of the content of the videos as well as this study guide.

Footnotes 1

The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States by Charles Francis Adams

Lee: The Last Years by Charles Bracelen Flood (New York: Mariner Books, 1998) p. 254-255.

(Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1856) vol. 1, p. 66.

3 Isaiah 46:9-10. 4

The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, by Karl Marx 1852.

Founding Mothers: The Women who Raised our Nation by Cokie Roberts (New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 2004) p. 97.

6 1 Corinthians 10:6-11. 7

The American Geography by Jedidiah Morse (London: John Stockdale, 1792) p. 386.

C h a p t e r

Religion How Religion Affects Culture

Theologian Henry Van Til famously said that culture is religion externalized. He meant that a culture is the outworking of a people group’s fundamental beliefs, their religion and worldview. People do not behave randomly. They act according to what they desire and what they consider right and wrong. It is their religion and worldview that causes them to act the way they choose. Cultures, then, are not ethically neutral. Taking the culture as a whole, there are areas where the people usually externally adhere to God’s law, and other areas where the common practice is to violate it. Many writers say that religion is only one aspect of a culture, but that is incorrect. Every person has a religion. God created men as religious beings. We can either worship the true God or worship some aspect of creation.1 That worship can manifest itself as worship of a god of our own invention, material wealth, demons, or even a man, or mankind. Every person has a religion, and it is that religion which defines how he will act. Henry Van Til wrote in his book, The Calvinistic Concept of Culture: Since religion is rooted in the heart, it is therefore totalitarian in nature. It does not so much consummate culture as give culture its foundation, and serves as the presupposition of every culture. Even when faith and its religious roots are openly denied, it is nevertheless tacitly operative as in atheistic Communism. A truly secular culture has never been found, and it is doubtful whether American Materialism can be called secular. Even Communism, like Nazism, has its gods and devils, its sin and salvation, its priests and its liturgies, its paradise of the stateless society of the future. For religious faith always transcends culture and is the integrating principle and power of man’s cultural striving. Kroner stresses the subjective side of religion when he says, ‘Since faith is the ultimate and all-embracing power in the human soul, nothing

Causes of the Civil War whatever can remain untouched by it. The whole personality is, as it were, informed by one’s faith.’ ... It is certainly folly for God’s people to think that they can live in two separate worlds, one for their religious life and devotional exercises, and the other usurping all other time, energy, money - an area in which the priests of Secularism are calling the numbers. One cannot keep on evangelizing the world without interfering with the world’s culture. It devolves upon God’s people, therefore, to contend for such a ‘condition of society which will give the maximum of opportunity for us to lead wholly Christian lives and the maximum of opportunity for others to become Christians’... To divide life into areas of sacred and secular, letting our devotions take care of the former while becoming secular reformers during the week, is to fail to understand the true end of man. ... To conclude, religion and culture are inseparable. Every culture is animated by religion. A religion that is restricted to the prayer-cell is, in light of the above definition, a monstrosity and historically has proved unfruitful. True religion covers the whole range of man’s existence. The basic covenantal relationship in which man stands to God comes to expression both in his cultus and his culture.2

Questions

Looking at your life, what is the faith that motivates your decisions? Looking at your society, what source is looked to for differentiation between good and evil? Who are the religious leaders of “American Materialism?”

Calvinism

To understand America at the time of the Civil War, we need to understand the religion of the people who founded America and then we need to understand how that theology had changed before the Civil War. The theology that had the greatest influence in the founding of America was Calvinism. There were many other belief systems, such as Roman Catholicism, Arminianism, and Quakerism that were present early in the settlement of this continent, but Calvinism was the most significant. The name goes back to John Calvin, a leader of the Protestant Reformation in

John Calvin

Religion Geneva, Switzerland, in the 16th century. But the doctrine is much older than that, having been expressed by Augustine as well as in the Bible. The foundation of Calvinism was articulated by J. I. Packer in his introduction to the reprint of The Death of Death in the Death of Christ by John Owen. Packer writes: Calvinism is a whole world-view from a clear vision of God as the whole world’s Maker and King. Calvinism is the consistent endeavor to acknowledge the Creator as the Lord, working all things after the counsel of his will. Calvinism is a theocentric way of thinking about all life under the direction and control of God’s own word. Calvinism, in other words, is the theology of the Bible viewed from the perspective of the Bible - the God-centered outlook which sees the Creator as the source, and means, and end, of everything that is, both in nature and in grace. Calvinism is thus theism (belief in God as the ground of all things), religion (dependence on God as the giver of all things), and evangelicalism (trust in God through Christ for all things), all in their purest and most highly developed form. And Calvinism is a unified philosophy of history which sees the whole diversity of processes and events that take place in God’s world as no more, and no less, than the outworking of his great preordained plan for his creatures and his church.3

The fundamental idea of Calvinism is that Biblical Christianity is focused on God, rather than on man. When we consider the most significant issue in Christianity to be how God saves people, rather than what is our duty to God and how are we to worship Him, we have shifted the center of Christianity from God to man. It is God who made the world for His own glory, to cause all things to happen according to His own will, and the purpose of man is to “glorify God and enjoy him forever” as the Westminster Catechism says.4 This foundation works itself out in many areas, but most notably in salvation. Calvinism says that men are born dead in their sins and trespasses, and that they can do nothing toward their own salvation without God making alive those whom He chose before the world began.

Questions

How does man being the center of religion rather than God affect the form of government that would be set up? How does it affect what is done when the church gathers? How does it affect what the church considers worship?

T. U. L. I. P.

Most people today consider Calvinism to be expressed in five points with the acronym TULIP. TULIP stands for T-Total Depravity, U-Unconditional Election, L-Limited

Causes of the Civil War Atonement, I-Irresistible Grace, and P-Perseverance of the Saints. As we have already considered, these five points do not explain the core of the Calvinistic worldview. They were not set out in this way by Calvin. They were developed in 1619, years after his death, at the Synod of Dort. It is important to understand as we read the five points of Calvinism and the five points of Arminianism that these points were written to refute, that this is a single carefully thought out logically consistent viewpoint. It is not possible to logically hold to four of the five points of Calvinism, because theologically they are an internally consistent system that aligns with Scripture. The five points of Calvinism arose in response to an attempt to change the doctrine of the Dutch church in the late 16th and early 17th centuries. It held to Calvinism as defined in the Belgic Confession. A movement against this confession was led by the followers of Jacob Arminius, who was the namesake of Arminianism. After his death, his followers published the Five Articles of the Remonstrance of 1610, which objected to the Belgic Confession on five points. The Remonstrants, as the Arminians were called, said that God did not Synod of Dort choose who He would save before the foundation of the world, but rather God only chose to save those of mankind who would believe in Him. They said that Jesus did not die only for those whom God had elected before the foundation of the world, but for all men, so every man has to have the ability to believe in Jesus. They claimed that the grace of God was necessary for man to be saved, but that an unsaved man could resist this grace. Lastly, the Remonstrants wrote that they were still not convinced that a man could not lose his salvation. It was in opposition to these arguments of Arminianism that the Calvinists at the Synod of Dort developed what are now known as the five points of Calvinism. The attendees at the Synod of Dort were not just Dutch representatives, but were joined in the condemnation of the Arminian doctrine by representatives from Protestant churches all over Europe, including the English and the Germans. The French would have attended had they not been prohibited by their government.

The Five Articles of the Remonstrants, 1610 Article 1

That God, by an eternal and unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ his Son before the foundation of the world, has determined that out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to

Religion save in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through Christ, those who through the grace of the Holy Spirit shall believe on this his son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath and to condemn them as alienated from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John 3:36: “He that believes on the Son has everlasting life: and he that does not believe the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abides on him,” and according to other passages of Scripture also.

Article 2

That, accordingly, Jesus Christ the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer, according to the word of the Gospel of John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” And in the First Epistle of John 2:2: “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”

Article 3

That man does not posses saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as in his state of apostasy and sin he can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do any thing that is truly good (such as saving Faith eminently is); but that it is necessary that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, and will, and all his faculties, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John 15:5, “Without me you can do nothing.”

Article 4

That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of all good, even to the extent that the regenerate man himself, without prevenient or assisting, awakening, following and cooperative grace, can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements that can be conceived must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. But with respect to the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible, since it is written concerning many, that they have resisted the Holy Spirit (Acts 7, and elsewhere in many places.)

Article 5

That those who are incorporated into Christ by true faith, and have thereby become

Causes of the Civil War partakers of his life-giving Spirit, as a result have full power to strive against Satan, sin, the world, and their own flesh, and to win the victory; it being well understood that it is ever through the assisting grace of the Holy Spirit; and that Jesus Christ assists them through his Spirit in all temptations, extends to them his hand, and if only they are ready for the conflict, desire his help, and are not inactive, keeps them from falling, so that they, by no deceit or power of Satan, can be misled nor plucked out of Christ’s hands, according to the Word of Christ, John 10:28: “Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” But whether they are capable, through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginning of their life in Christ, of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away from the holy doctrine which was delivered them, of losing a good conscience, of neglecting grace, that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scripture, before we ourselves can teach it with the full confidence of our mind. These Articles, thus set forth and taught, the Remonstrants deem agreeable to the Word of God, tending to edification, and, as regards this argument, sufficient for salvation, so that it is not necessary or edifying to rise higher or to descend deeper.

Questions

What Scripture passages would you use to refute or support each of these articles?

Total Depravity

Total Depravity is the most fundamental doctrine in the Canons of Dort. It states that man is dead in his sins and trespasses, a slave to sin, and there is nothing he can do to save himself without God first changing him. In the original Remonstrance, the Arminians did not object to this point, but because it was logically inconsistent with the rest of their position, they abandoned this position in their responses during the Synod of Dort. The Canons of Dort said: Man was originally created in the image of God and was furnished in his mind with a true and salutary knowledge of his Creator and things spiritual, in his will and heart with righteousness, and in all his emotions with purity; indeed, the whole man was holy. However, rebelling against God at the devil’s instigation and by his own free will, he deprived himself of these outstanding gifts. Rather, in their place he brought upon himself blindness, terrible darkness, futility, and distortion of judgment in his mind; perversity, defiance, and hardness in his heart and will; and finally impurity in all his emotions. Man brought forth children of the same nature as himself after the fall. That is to say,

Religion being corrupt he brought forth corrupt children. The corruption spread, by God’s just judgment, from Adam to all his descendants-- except for Christ alone--not by way of imitation (as in former times the Pelagians would have it) but by way of the propagation of his perverted nature. Therefore, all people are conceived in sin and are born children of wrath, unfit for any saving good, inclined to evil, dead in their sins, and slaves to sin; without the grace of the regenerating Holy Spirit they are neither willing nor able to return to God, to reform their distorted nature, or even to dispose themselves to such reform.

The doctrine of total depravity was in opposition to the very old doctrine of Pelagianism. In the 4th and 5th centuries, Pelagius taught that Adam’s fall had not affected his children. He taught that man is the, “master of his own will and power,”5 as Tertullian had already said. This view introduces many theological inconsistencies and problems, including the fact that everyone knows that they are not able to control their own sin from their own experience in life. If every man has the potential to refrain from sin, the death of Christ was not necessary. Paul states in Romans that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,6 but Pelagius taught that it did not need to be so, that men could make themselves right with God simply through the teaching and example of Christ. This heresy was condemned at the Council of Carthage in 418 AD, and this condemnation was reaffirmed at the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD. The rejection of Pelagianism did not mean that men within the church were humbled in their view of themselves. They continued to elevate man above his actual significance, and Semi-Pelagianism was developed. It holds that man’s nature was affected by Adam’s fall and that it is depraved, but not totally so. It says that men are saved through the work of God, but that each man, not God, has to decide whether he will be saved. It holds that salvation begins with an act of free will, and man can freely choose God without His intervention, because human nature is not totally corrupt. This doctrine was deemed heretiPelagius cal at the Council of Orange in 529 AD, but it is still prevalent to this day in the church in the form of Arminianism.

Causes of the Civil War The doctrine of Total Depravity, or original sin, stands in opposition to this false belief system. It is based on many Biblical passages, including Romans 5. It is important as we consider this passage that we understand Paul’s argument, we are all fallen because of what we inherited from Adam, but we are saved because of what we receive from Christ. If someone rejects the fall of man in Adam, then to be logically consistent, they also need to reject the justification of any man through Christ. Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.7

This was not a new doctrine invented by Paul, since David understood it as well: Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest. Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.8

Questions

Does your life testify that you have the power in yourself to stop from sinning and not to fall short of the glory of God? Why is the rejection of total depravity a way to exalt man? How does God receive more glory by ordering the world in this manner?

Unconditional Election

From the doctrine of Total Depravity follows the doctrine of Unconditional Election. If because of Adam’s fall we continue our father’s rebellion towards God and have no ability to do anything without sinning, then it cannot be our choice that causes us to be made

Religion right with God. We would never make that choice. We died to the things of God with Adam, so God must determine that we will be restored to Him. It cannot be conditioned upon anything that we would do, because we are incapable of doing anything that is spiritual, for we are carnal. The Synod of Dort expressed it as follows: Before the foundation of the world, by sheer grace, according to the free good pleasure of his will, he chose in Christ to salvation a definite number of particular people out of the entire human race, which had fallen by its own fault from its original innocence into sin and ruin. Those chosen were neither better nor more deserving than the others, but lay with them in the common misery. He did this in Christ, whom he also appointed from eternity to be the mediator, the head of all those chosen, and the foundation of their salvation. And so he decided to give the chosen ones to Christ to be saved, and to call and draw them effectively into Christ’s fellowship through his Word and Spirit. In other words, he decided to grant them true faith in Christ, to justify them, to sanctify them, and finally, after powerfully preserving them in the fellowship of his Son, to glorify them. God did all this in order to demonstrate his mercy, to the praise of the riches of his glorious grace. As Scripture says, God chose us in Christ, before the foundation of the world, so that we should be holy and blameless before him with love; he predestined us whom he adopted as his children through Jesus Christ, in himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, by which he freely made us pleasing to himself in his beloved (Eph. 1:4-6). And elsewhere, Those whom he predestined, he also called; and those whom he called, he also justified; and those whom he justified, he also glorified (Rom. 8:30). … But the cause of this undeserved election is exclusively the good pleasure of God. This does not involve his choosing certain human qualities or actions from among all those possible as a condition of salvation, but rather involves his adopting certain particular persons from among the common mass of sinners as his own possession. As Scripture says, When the children were not yet born, and had done nothing either good or bad..., she (Rebecca) was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” (Rom. 9:11-13). Also, All who were appointed for eternal life believed (Acts 13:48).

The doctrine of Unconditional Election keeps God at the center of salvation and not man. He saves men to demonstrate His mercy. If we play any role in determining our salvation, then the glory would go to us because it is our choice. God is a jealous God and has

Causes of the Civil War ordained salvation such that no man can boast, because it was granted to him by faith alone without any work on his part.

Questions

How would you support or reject Unconditional Election from scripture? How does the doctrine of Unconditional Election exalt the fact that God is just?

Limited Atonement

If God chooses who will be saved, then it follows that He has decreed that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ would only cover the sins of those whom He has chosen. God is not an unjust God. If Christ paid for all the sins of all of the people, then how could He send anyone to hell? Their debt would have already been paid. The argument is usually made that this doctrine makes evangelism a waste of time. After all, if God has decreed who will be saved and He will certainly make it come to pass, why would we evangelize? We do it out of obedience and because God does not decree only the end, but the means also. We obey God by preaching the gospel to every man, woman and child, because we do not know whom God has elected. It is their responsibility to repent and believe, even while they are still dead in their sins and trespasses and are unable to do so. They still stand guilty before God, because they are still in rebellion to God. God does not have to break their rebellion to be just. The only ones who are justified are those who God decreed that He would consider them as having died to the law with Christ on the cross.9 This does not mean that Christ’s sacrifice was insufficient in some sense to be effective towards all people. It was no lack on the part of His sacrifice. God had already determined that He was purchasing only those whom He decreed would be His bride. The third Canon deals with this issue: This death of God’s Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world. … For it was the entirely free plan and very gracious will and intention of God the Father that the enlivening and saving effectiveness of his Son’s costly death should work itself out in all his chosen ones, in order that he might grant justifying faith to them only and thereby lead them without fail to salvation. In other words, it was God’s will that Christ through the blood of the cross (by which he confirmed the new covenant) should effectively redeem from every people, tribe, nation, and language all those and only those who were chosen from eternity to salvation and given to him by the

Religion Father; that he should grant them faith (which, like the Holy Spirit’s other saving gifts, he acquired for them by his death); that he should cleanse them by his blood from all their sins, both original and actual, whether committed before or after their coming to faith; that he should faithfully preserve them to the very end; and that he should finally present them to himself, a glorious people, without spot or wrinkle.

Everyone who rejects universalism, the idea that all are saved, agrees that the atonement is limited - not everyone will be saved. The question is, who makes that choice? Is it God or man? Who is controlling all things? The answer is God, not man. And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.10

Questions

How would you support or refute Limited Atonement from scripture? How does rejecting the doctrine of Limited Atonement steal glory from God?

Irresistible Grace

Since God is the one who chooses who will be saved and have their sins forgiven, it follows that God must make that happen. He is the one that subdues our rebellion. Where we were once proud, He humbles us. Where we believe in our independence, He forces us to accept that we are dependent upon Him. The act of salvation is the act of a conquering God. No human is able to withstand the power of God. To state that He needs a response from us, which He does not have control over, is to give man power over God. God is so powerful that He makes us alive to spiritual things, so we willingly and joyously choose to believe in Him. All those who are made spiritually alive, will then be able to understand spiritual things and will turn towards God. The process is described in the statements from the Synod of Dort: Moreover, when God carries out this good pleasure in his chosen ones, or works true conversion in them, he not only sees to it that the gospel is proclaimed to them outwardly, and enlightens their minds powerfully by the Holy Spirit so that they may rightly understand and discern the things of the Spirit of God, but, by the effective operation of the same regenerating Spirit, he also penetrates into the inmost being of man, opens the closed heart, softens the hard heart, and circumcises the heart that is uncircumcised. He infuses new qualities into the will, making the dead will alive, the

Causes of the Civil War evil one good, the unwilling one willing, and the stubborn one compliant; he activates and strengthens the will so that, like a good tree, it may be enabled to produce the fruits of good deeds. And this is the regeneration, the new creation, the raising from the dead, and the making alive so clearly proclaimed in the Scriptures, which God works in us without our help. But this certainly does not happen only by outward teaching, by moral persuasion, or by such a way of working that, after God has done his work, it remains in man’s power whether or not to be reborn or converted. Rather, it is an entirely supernatural work, one that is at the same time most powerful and most pleasing, a marvelous, hidden, and inexpressible work, which is not lesser than or inferior in power to that of creation or of raising the dead, as Scripture (inspired by the author of this work) teaches. As a result, all those in whose hearts God works in this marvelous way are certainly, unfailingly, and effectively reborn and do actually believe. And then the will, now renewed, is not only activated and motivated by God but in being activated by God is also itself active. For this reason, man himself, by that grace which he has received, is also rightly said to believe and to repent.

Jacob Arminius

Religion

Questions

How would you support or refute Irresistible Grace from scripture? How is God glorified through the doctrine of Irresistible Grace?

Perseverance of the Saints

Once God has saved us, what state are we then in? Are we in the same state as Adam, equally susceptible to fall? If that was the case, election would mean nothing, because people are not eternally saved. We would not be true heirs with Christ. All our sins are forgiven because Christ died in our place. To the law, before salvation we were already dead, as we would be condemned to punishment in hell. We cannot make ourselves alive to it again. But because the Arminians hold that we are free to choose or reject God without His participation, they are forced to say that we cannot lose that freedom once we are saved. In other words, if God will not force someone in open rebellion to do something, why would He possibly chose to force someone to continue to believe who is now saved. In dealing with the concept that we are free in Christ,11 Arminians cannot accept that we would lose those freedoms once we are saved. But this would mean that someone who was saved by the blood of Jesus Christ can turn from Him and God will treat the blood of Jesus Christ already applied to that man as having no power. God the Father never tramples under foot the blood of Jesus Christ. Instead, He shows mercy to whom He will show mercy, and to those He shows it eternally. Saints will persevere in the faith, because God collects the lost sheep and infallibly persuades them to stay within His fold. The Synod of Dort understood the nature of the power of God: So it is not by their own merits or strength but by God’s undeserved mercy that they neither forfeit faith and grace totally nor remain in their downfalls to the end and are lost. With respect to themselves this not only easily could happen, but also undoubtedly would happen; but with respect to God it cannot possibly happen, since his plan cannot be changed, his promise cannot fail, the calling according to his purpose cannot be revoked, the merit of Christ as well as his interceding and preserving cannot be nullified, and the sealing of the Holy Spirit can neither be invalidated nor wiped out.

This position is defended by Romans 8:16-17: The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Causes of the Civil War

Questions

Explain each of the five points of Arminianism and Calvinism in your own words. How does rejecting one of the five points of Calvanism, such as Limited Atonement, make the other four points inconsistent?

Great Awakening Calvinism in America

Calvinism was the predominate theological foundation for the early founders of America. Whether it was the Puritans from England, the Huguenots from France, or the Scotch-Irish, the majority of the immigrants to America came from cultures which had been greatly affected by Calvinism. However, as time went on, the zeal for Calvinism began to fade. While the culture still retained some of the effects of that worldview, the understanding and the reasoning to reach those conclusions were lost. Rejection of Calvinism’s basic doctrines became so widespread that many prominent ministers began to deny conversion was really even necessary. This changed with the coming of the Great Awakening. The Great Awakening was a religious revival which swept through England and America during the 1730’s and 40’s, re-emphasizing the doctrine of conversion. At the same time, the Arminianism that had been rejected at the Synod of Dort was also growing again. There were opportunities where both Calvinists and Arminians were able to work together because the major issue of the day was the need to be born again, but it also planted the seed for later conflict.

George Whitefield

The most popular leader of the Great Awakening was George Whitefield. Whitefield was born at the Bell Inn in Gloucester, England on December 16, 1714, the 5th son of the innkeeper. As he grew up he was involved in acting and the theater, which, in later years, would be apparent in his sermons. He entered Oxford and became a part of what was called the Holy Club, with its founders, John and Charles Wesley. The members of the Holy Club spent much of their time trying to systematically serve God in prayer, Bible reading, and ministering to unfortunates. This was in sharp contrast to the majority

George Whitefield

Religion of the college, who made little effort to serve God. Although the members of the Holy Club might have looked holy on the outside, they were unclean within. They were trying to be acceptable to God by their works, rather than having faith in Jesus Christ and truly being converted. Whitefield eventually experienced true conversion. Through both physical and spiritual agony, he realized his separation from God, and turned to Him, rejecting his own attempts at salvation through works. Whitefield gained true fervor for God and soon thereafter was ordained a minister in the church of England. His sermons were very popular and such large crowds came to hear him speak that no church could hold them. For this reason he began preaching all over England in the open air, angering many of the leaders of the Anglican Church partly out of jealousy, and partly because preaching without the formal edifice of a church was considered to be treating the Word of God with disrespect. Soon after beginning his ministry, Whitefield decided to go to America to preach and to start an orphanage. After returning to England after a short trip in 1738, he began to work with John Wesley. At this time, God was saving many people in Bristol, England through Whitefield’s preaching. When Whitefield decided to return to America in 1739, he needed to give the responsibility for the large congregation in Bristol to someone. He chose John Wesley. The theological differences between the two men soon became apparent. Whitefield held to traditional Calvinism, but Wesley rejected important elements. Whitefield encouraged Wesley not to make this difference public, but instead wanted to focus on evangelism and the areas where they were more in agreement.

Free Grace

Wesley would not remain silent on the issue of Calvinism, and in August 1739, very soon after Whitefield left for America, Wesley preached and published a sermon called Free Grace. He had received a letter urging him to preach against election. As was his habit, he decided to cast a lot to make his decision. The lot fell to “preach and print” therefore he prepared his sermon. In it, he openly attacked the doctrine of the congregation he had just been given: Call it therefore by whatever name you please, election, preterition, predestination, or reprobation, it comes in the end to the same thing. The sense of all is plainly this, -by virtue of an eternal, unchangeable, irresistible decree of God, one part of mankind are infallibly saved, and the rest infallibly damned; it being impossible that any of the former should be damned, or that any of the latter should be saved. But if this be so, then is all preaching vain. It is needless to them that are elected; for they, whether with preaching or without, will infallibly be saved. Therefore, the end

Causes of the Civil War of preaching -- to save should -- is void with regard to them; and it is useless to them that are not elected, for they cannot possibly be saved: They, whether with preaching or without, will infallibly be damned. The end of preaching is therefore void with regard to them likewise; so that in either case our preaching is vain, as you hearing is also vain. This then, is a plain proof that the doctrine of predestination is not a doctrine of God, because it makes void the ordinance of God; and God is not divided against himself. A Second is, that it directly tends to destroy that holiness which is the end of all the ordinances of God. I do not say, none who hold it are holy; (for God is of tender mercy to those who are unavoidably entangled in errors of any kind;) but that the doctrine itself, -- that every man is either elected or not elected from eternity, and that the one must inevitably be saved, and the other inevitably damned, -- has a manifest tendency to destroy holiness in general; for it wholly takes away those first motives to follow after it, so frequently proposed in Scripture, the hope of future reward and fear of punishment, the hope of heaven and fear of hell. That these shall go away into everlasting punishment, and those into life eternal, is not motive to him to struggle for life who believes his lot is cast already; it is not reasonable for him so to do, if he thinks he is unalterably adjudged either to life or death. You will say, “But he knows not whether it is life or death.” What then? -- this helps not the matter; for if a sick man knows that he must unavoidably die, or unavoidably recover, though he knows not which, it is unreasonable for him to take any physic at all. He might justly say, (and so I have heard some speak, both in bodily sickness and in spiritual,) “If I am ordained to life, I shall live; if to death, I shall live; so I need not trouble myself about it.” So directly does this doctrine tend to shut the very gate of holiness in general, -- to hinder unholy men from ever approaching thereto, or striving to enter in thereat.… And as this doctrine manifestly and directly tends to overthrow the whole Christian Revelation, so it does the same thing, by plain consequence, in making that Revelation contradict itself. For it is grounded on such an interpretation of some texts (more or fewer it matters not) as flatly contradicts all the other texts, and indeed the whole scope and tenor of Scripture. For instance: The assertors of this doctrine interpret that text of Scripture, “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated,” as implying that God in a literal sense hated Esau, and all the reprobated, from eternity. Now, what can possibly be a more flat contradiction than this, not only to the whole scope and tenor of Scripture, but also to all those particular texts which expressly declare, “God is love?” Again: They infer from that text, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy,” Rom. 9:15 that God is love only to some men, viz.,the elect, and that he hath mercy for

Religion those only; flatly contrary to which is the whole tenor of Scripture, as is that express declaration in particular, “The Lord is loving unto every man; and his mercy is over all his works.” Psalm 145:9.12 Again: They infer from that and the like texts, “It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy Rom. 9:16, that he showeth mercy only to those to whom he had respect from all eternity. Nay, but who replieth against God now? You now contradict the whole oracles of God, which declare throughout, “God is no respecter of persons:’ Acts 10:34 “There is no respect of persons with him.” Rom. 2:11. Again: from that text, “The children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; it was said unto her,” unto Rebecca, “The elder shall serve the younger;”you infer, that our being predestinated, or elect, no way depends on the foreknowledge of God. Flatly contrary to this are all the scriptures; and those in particular, “Elect according to the foreknowledge of God; “ 1 Peter 1:2; “Whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate.” Rom. 8:29.

Wesley Preaching And “the same Lord over all is rich” in mercy “to all that call upon him:” Romans 10:12: But you say, “No; he is such only to those for whom Christ died. And those are not all, but only a few, whom God hath chosen out of the world; for he died not for all, but only for those who were ‘chosen in him before the foundation of the world.’” Eph.

Causes of the Civil War 1:4. Flatly contrary to your interpretation of these scriptures, also, is the whole tenor of the New Testament; as are in particular those texts: -- “Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died,” Rom. 14:15, -- a clear proof that Christ died, not only for those that are saved, but also for them that perish: He is “the Saviour of the world;” John 4:42; He is “the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world;” John 1:29; “He is the propitiation, not for our sins only, but also for the sins of the whole world;” 1 John 2:2; “He,” (the living God,) “is the Savior of all men;” 1 Timothy 4:10; “He gave himself a ransom for all;” 1 Tim. 2:6; “He tasted death for every man.” Heb. 2:9. If you ask, “Why then are not all men saved?” the whole law and the testimony answer, First, Not because of any decree of God; not because it is his pleasure they should die; for, As I live, saith the Lord God,” I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth.” Ezek. 18:3, 32. Whatever be the cause of their perishing, it cannot be his will, if the oracles of God are true; for they declare, “He is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance;” 2 Pet. 3:9; “He willeth that all men should be saved.” And they, Secondly, declare what is the cause why all men are not saved, namely, that they will not be saved: So our Lord expressly, “Ye will not come unto me that ye may have life.” John 5:40. “The power of the Lord is present to heal” them, but they will not be healed. “They reject the counsel,” the merciful counsel, “of God against themselves,” as did their stiff-necked forefathers. And therefore are they without excuse; because God would save them, but they will not be saved: This is the condemnation, “How often would I have gathered you together, and ye would not!” Matt. 23:37. … On this I join issue with every assertor of it. You represent God as worse than the devil; more false, more cruel, more unjust. … This is the blasphemy for which (however I love the persons who assert it) I abhor the doctrine of predestination, a doctrine, upon the supposition of which, if one could possibly suppose it for a moment, (call it election, reprobation, or what you please, for all comes to the same thing,) one might say to our adversary, the devil, “Thou fool, why dost thou roar about any longer? Thy lying in wait for souls is as needless and useless as our preaching. Hearest thou not, that God hath taken thy work out of thy hands; and that he doeth it much more effectually?13

Questions

How would you summarize Wesley’s arguments? What is Wesley basing his conclusions on?

Religion

Whitefield’s Response

Although Whitefield was loath to publicly speak against Wesley, whom he saw as a brother, he ultimately decided he had to write a public letter to defend the doctrine of predestination, which Wesley had attacked. Bethesda in Georgia, Dec. 24, 1740 Reverend and very dear Brother, God only knows what unspeakable sorrow of heart I have felt on your account since I left England last. Whether it be my infirmity or not, I frankly confess, that Jonah could not go with more reluctance against Nineveh, than I now take pen in hand to write against you. Was nature to speak, I had rather die than do it; and yet if I am faithful to God, and to my own and others’ souls, I must not stand neutral any longer. … I am apt to think, one reason why God should so suffer you to be deceived, was, that hereby a special obligation might be laid upon me, faithfully to declare the Scripture doctrine of election, that thus the Lord might give me a fresh opportunity of seeing what was in my heart, and whether I would be true to his cause or not; as you could not but grant.... First, you say that if this be so (i.e., if there be an election) then is all preaching vain: it is needless to them that are elected; for they, whether with preaching or without, will infallibly be saved.... O dear Sir, what kind of reasoning—or rather sophistry—is this! Hath not God, who hath appointed salvation for a certain number, appointed also the preaching of the Word as a means to bring them to it? Does anyone hold election in any other sense? And if so, how is preaching needless to them that are elected, when the gospel is designated by God himself to be the power of God unto their eternal salvation? And since we know not who are elect and who reprobate, we are to preach promiscuously to all. For the Word may be useful, even to the non-elect, in restraining them from much wickedness and sin. However, it is enough to excite to the utmost diligence in preaching and hearing, when we consider that by these means, some, even as many as the Lord

George Whitefield

Causes of the Civil War hath ordained to eternal life, shall certainly be quickened and enabled to believe. And who that attends, especially with reverence and care, can tell but he may be found of that happy number? Second, you say that the doctrine of election and reprobation directly tends to destroy holiness, which is the end of all the ordinances of God.... I thought that one who carries perfection to such an exalted pitch as dear Mr. Wesley does, would know that a true lover of the Lord Jesus Christ would strive to be holy for the sake of being holy, and work for Christ out of love and gratitude, without any regard to the rewards of heaven, or fear of hell. You remember, dear Sir, what Scougal says, “Love’s a more powerful motive that does them move.” But passing by this, and granting that rewards and punishments (as they certainly are) may be motives from which a Christian may be honestly stirred up to act for God, how does the doctrine of election destroy these motives? Do not the elect know that the more good works they do, the greater will be their reward? And is not that encouragement enough to set them upon, and cause them to persevere in working for Jesus Christ? And how does the doctrine of election destroy holiness? Who ever preached any other election than what the Apostle preached, when he said, “Chosen … through sanctification of the Spirit?” (2 Thess. 2:13). Nay, is not holiness made a mark of our election by all that preach it? And how then can the doctrine of election destroy holiness? The instance which you bring to illustrate your assertion, indeed, dear Sir, is quite impertinent. For you say, “If a sick man knows that he must unavoidably die or unavoidably recover, though he knows not which, it is not reasonable to take any physic at all.” Dear Sir, what absurd reasoning is here? Were you ever sick in your life? If so, did not the bare probability or possibility of your recovering, though you knew it was unalterably fixed that you must live or die, encourage you to take physic? For how did you know but that very physic might be the means God intended to recover you by? Just thus it is as to the doctrine of election. I know that it is unalterably fixed (one may say) that I must be damned or saved; but since I know not which for a certainty, why should I not strive, though at present in a state of nature, since I know not but this striving may be the means God has intended to bless, in order to bring me into a state of grace?… Further, you say, “This doctrine makes revelation contradict itself.” For instance, say you, “The assertors of this doctrine interpret that text of Scripture, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated, as implying that God, in a literal sense, hated Esau and all the reprobates from eternity!” And, when considered as fallen in Adam, were they not

Religion objects of his hatred? And might not God, of his own good pleasure, love or show mercy to Jacob and the elect—and yet at the same time do the reprobate no wrong? But you say, “God is love.” And cannot God be love, unless he shows the same mercy to all? Again, says dear Mr. Wesley, “They infer from that text, ‘I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy,’ that God is merciful only to some men, viz the elect; and that he has mercy for those only, flatly contrary to which is the whole tenor of the Scripture, as is that express declaration in particular, ‘The Lord is loving to every man, and his mercy is over all his works.’” And so it is, but not his saving mercy. God is loving to every man: he sends his rain upon the evil and upon the good. But you say, “God is no respecter of persons” (Acts 10:34). No! For every one, whether Jew or Gentile, that believeth on Jesus, and worketh righteousness, is accepted of him. “But he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk. 16:16). For God is no respecter of persons, upon the account of any outward condition or circumstance in life whatever; nor does the doctrine of election in the least suppose him to be so. But as the sovereign Lord of all, who is debtor to none, he has a right to do what he will with his own, and to dispense his favours to what objects he sees fit, merely at his pleasure. And his supreme right herein is clearly and strongly asserted in those passages of Scripture, where he says, “Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion” (Rom. 9:15, Exod. 33:19).

Whitefield Preaching

Causes of the Civil War Further, from the text, “the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; it was said unto her [Rebekah], The elder shall serve the younger” (Rom. 9:11-12)—you represent us as inferring that our predestination to life in no way depends on the foreknowledge of God. But who infers this, dear Sir? For if foreknowledge signifies approbation, as it does in several parts of Scripture, then we confess that predestination and election do depend on God’s foreknowledge. But if by God’s foreknowledge you understand God’s fore-seeing some good works done by his creatures as the foundation or reason of choosing them and therefore electing them, then we say that in this sense predestination does not any way depend on God’s foreknowledge. … However, it may not be amiss to take notice, that if those texts, “The Lord is . . . not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (2 Pet. 3:9) and “I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live” (Ezek. 33:11)—and such like—be taken in their strictest sense, then no one will be damned. But here’s the distinction. God taketh no pleasure in the death of sinners, so as to delight simply in their death; but he delights to magnify his justice, by inflicting the punishment which their iniquities have deserved. As a righteous judge who takes no pleasure in condemning a criminal, may yet justly command him to be executed, that law and justice may be satisfied, even though it be in his power to procure him a reprieve. I would hint further, that you unjustly charge the doctrine of reprobation with blasphemy, whereas the doctrine of universal redemption, as you set it forth, is really the highest reproach upon the dignity of the Son of God, and the merit of his blood. Consider whether it be not rather blasphemy to say as you do, “Christ not only died for those that are saved, but also for those that perish.” … Dear Sir, for Jesus Christ’s sake, consider how you dishonour God by denying election. You plainly make salvation depend not on God’s free grace, but on man’s freewill. And if thus, it is more than probable, Jesus Christ would not have had the satisfaction of seeing the fruit of his death in the eternal salvation of one soul. Our preaching would then be vain, and all invitations for people to believe in him would also be in vain. But, blessed be God, our Lord knew for whom he died. There was an eternal compact between the Father and the Son. A certain number was then given him as the

Religion purchase and reward of his obedience and death. For these he prayed (Jn. 17:9), and not for the world. For these elect ones, and these only, he is now interceding, and with their salvation he will be fully satisfied. … God knows my heart, as I told you before, so I declare again, nothing but a single regard to the honour of Christ has forced this letter from me. I love and honour you for his sake; and when I come to judgment, will thank you before men and angels, for what you have, under God, done for my soul. There, I am persuaded, I shall see dear Mr. Wesley convinced of election and everlasting love. And it often fills me with pleasure to think how I shall behold you casting your crown down at the feet of the Lamb, and as it were filled with a holy blushing for opposing the divine sovereignty in the manner you have done. But I hope the Lord will show you this before you go hence. O how do I long for that day! If the Lord should be pleased to make use of this letter for that purpose, it would abundantly rejoice the heart of, dear and honoured Sir, Yours affectionate, though unworthy brother and servant in Christ, George Whitefield

This theological disagreement between Whitefield and Wesley was never resolved on earth. While they did work together on some evangelistic outreaches later in life, their relationship was always strained because of their different views on how God works in salvation.

Questions

How would you summarize Whitefield’s arguments? What is he basing his conclusions upon? According to Whitefield, why does the doctrine of universal redemption cast the highest reproach upon the dignity of the Son of God?

Whitefield’s Impact

Because the religion of the people manifests itself in the culture, the impact of the Great Awakening on America was tremendous. The colonies were completely transformed through the preaching of Whitefield and many others. Benjamin Franklin, who was not a follower of Whitefield, but greatly respected him, wrote after George Whitefield preached, “It was wonderful to see the change soon made in the manners of our inhabitants. From being thoughtless or indifferent about religion, it seemed as if all the world were growing religious, so that one could not walk through the town in an evening without

Causes of the Civil War hearing psalms sung in different families of every street.”14 Whitefield became one of the most recognizable figures in America. Huge crowds gathered to hear him every day, and most of the colonists heard him preach live at least once. God used Whitefield mightily to spread the gospel and Calvinism throughout America.

Charles Finney

In England, the Great Awakening had a mix of Whitefield’s Calvinism and Wesley’s Arminianism, but in America Calvinism was restored. The founding documents of America reflect the ideas of Calvinism, but because of the growing Arminianism in England there was pressure for the religion of America to change through Methodist missionaries being sent to America. Within sixty years of the Great Awakening, there were two separate movements away from traditional theology – Arminianism in the west, and Unitarianism in the east. Perhaps the most influential man in the Northwest in the 19th century was Charles Finney. Finney was not always clear about his theology. In fact, when he was ordained as a Presbyterian minister, he said he agreed with the Calvinistic Westminster Confession of Faith. However, Finney later admitted in his autobiography that he had never read it: Unexpectedly to myself they asked me if I received the Confession of faith of the Presbyterian church. I had not examined it;—that is, the large work, containing the Catechisms and Presbyterian Confession. This had made no part of my study. I replied that I received it for substance of doctrine, so far as I understood it. But I spoke in a way that plainly implied, I think, that I did not pretend to know much about it. However, I answered honestly, as I understood it at the time.15 When I came to read the confession of faith, and saw the passages that were quoted to sustain these peculiar positions, I was absolutely ashamed of it, I could not feel any respect for a document that would undertake to impose on mankind such dogmas as those, sustained, for the most part, by passages of Scripture that were totally irrelevant; and not in a single instance sustained by passages which, in a court of law, would have been considered at all conclusive.16

Finney rejected the idea that God must put in us a new heart and instead held that man must, by his own strength, fix his own heart so that man can come to God. [Sinners] are under the necessity of first changing their hearts, or their choice of an end, before they can put forth any volitions to secure any other than a selfish end. And this is plainly the everywhere assumed philosophy of the Bible. That uniformly

Religion represents the unregenerate as totally depraved, and calls upon them to repent, to make themselves a new heart... 17

Although Finney was very popular and led large revivals, not everyone agreed with him and his techniques. Albert Baldwin Dod, a professor at Princeton University, wrote a rebuttal to Finney. After dealing with his Arminian theology point by point, he then dealt with Finney’s promise to uphold the Confession: We have not shown the discrepancies between Mr. Finney’s doctrines, and the standards of the church to which he belongs. … It is too evident to need elucidation, that on all subjects which we have gone over, his opinions are diametrically opposed to the standards of the Presbyterian church, which he has solemnly adopted. … [C]an he see no moral dishonesty in remaining in a church, whose standards of faith he has adopted, only to deny and ridicule them?18

Finney’s Arminian theology worked itself out in his practices. He became the promoter of what was called Revivalism. Since he believed that salvation rested upon the decisions of men, he tried to influence those decisions so that men would be convinced to choose Christ. Finney used a mourner’s bench set at the front of the crowd, emotional music to sway his hearers, and long impassioned pleas to come to Christ. He was successful in breaking down the minds of his listeners and many professed that they had been saved through his preaching. However, by Finney’s own admission, these conversions did not last and his converters returned to their old patterns of life, unlike people who are truly born again in Christ who walk in a new life.

Charles Finney

Questions

How did Finney’s methods flow from his theology? What aspects of his techniques are still used today in many churches?

Unitarianism

The other major theological movement that happened at the beginning of the 19th century is the rise of an ancient heresy, Unitarianism, coming into the church through the

Causes of the Civil War universities. One of the impacts of the Great Awakening was the founding of new colleges to train pastors. In fact, many of America’s oldest colleges were founded for this purpose. Without the restraining influence of an overseeing church or an established confession of faith, many colleges became centers for the adoption of new, unorthodox theologies. An especially important college was Harvard University. Harvard was originally founded by the Calvinistic Puritans in 1636, but around 1800 its theology started to change. The new theology was Unitarianism, the belief that God is one person, not three in one. The change first began when Arminianism became accepted and Unitarianism is one step further. Unitarian theology holds if men have enough good in them to make the choice for their own salvation and to change their own heart, there is little to separate them from Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was simply better at cleansing himself. If He was a man who simply never sinned, and therefore became good enough to be with God and be made a lesser god, then anyone has the strength to do the same. Once people reject the truth that Jesus was eternally begotten, then there is nothing stopping any other man from living a perfect life and becoming part of God. This is the belief of Unitarianism. It is a complete rejection of Biblical Christianity, and modern Unitarian Universalists no longer even claim to be Christians. The center of American Unitarianism became New England, which had once been the bastion of Calvinism. Most of the old churches hired pastors that had been trained in Unitarianism from the universities which resulted in the churches becoming Unitarian. It especially became the religion of choice among the elite of New England. Various leading men of the period, many of whom were sons of the founders, were actually Unitarian. These included John Adams and John Quincy Adams, Presidents of the United States; William Lloyd Garrison, editor of the Liberator; poets Oliver Wendell Holmes, Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry Wadsworth Longfellow; Louisa May Alcott, author of Little Women; Herman Melville, author of Moby Dick, and Henry David Thoreau, author of Walden. Consider one of these men, Ralph Waldo Emerson, the famous author and poet. His grandfather was William Emerson. William Emerson was the minister at Concord, Massachusetts during the War for Independence, and encouraged his congregation in their resistance of the British at Concord Bridge. He became a chaplain in the Provincial Congress and in the Continental Army. He died of camp fever while in the Army. His son, also named William Emerson, departed from orthodoxy and became a Unitarian as minister of Boston’s First Church. One of his sons was Ralph Waldo Emerson. Ralph Waldo Emerson was the leader of Transcendentalism, intellectually the next step from Unitarianism. Transcendentalism was the departure from the traditional view of God,

Religion instead viewing the entire world as divine. It is called transcendentalism because it holds that the basis for knowledge is not God or His word, rather it is principles that are sourced in the natural goodness of nature and of man. The theory is that the principle of the goodness of nature and man transcends all other knowledge. Since the ultimate is always god, the transcendentalists hold that goodness makes everything have a spark of the divine. Irrespective of all evidence to the contrary, transcendentalism is a religion that is based on a complete rejection of the doctrine of total depravity. It believes in total goodness. The foundation of this movement was Nature, an essay written by Ralph Waldo Emerson in 1836. He urged people to become one with nature as “the Supreme Being, does not build up nature around us, but puts it forth through us.... Who can set bounds to the possibilities of man? Once inhale the upper air, being admitted to behold the absolute natures of justice and truth, and we learn that man has access to the entire mind of the Creator, is himself the creator in the finite.”19 He concluded, Build, therefore, your own world. As fast as you conform your life to the pure idea in your mind, that will unfold its great proportions. A correspondent revolution in things will attend the influx of the spirit. So fast will disagreeable appearances, swine, spiders, snakes, pests, madhouses, prisons, enemies, vanish; they are temporary and shall be no more seen. The sordor and filths of nature, the sun shall dry up, and the wind exhale. As when the summer comes from the south; the snow-banks melt, and the face of the earth becomes green before it, so shall the advancing spirit create its ornaments along its path, and carry with it the beauty it visits, and the song which enchants it; it shall draw beautiful faces, warm hearts, wise discourse, and heroic acts, around its way, until

Ralph Waldo Emerson

evil is no more seen. The kingdom of man over nature, which cometh not with observation, -- a dominion such as now is beyond his dream of God, -- he shall enter without more wonder than the blind man feels who is gradually restored to perfect sight.20

This theme of nature being divine was just old pagan beliefs being expressed in a new way by Emerson. It was a departure from the beliefs of his fathers. In his introduction to Nature he wrote, Our age is retrospective. It builds the sepulchres of the fathers. It writes biographies,

Causes of the Civil War histories, and criticism. The foregoing generations beheld God and nature face to face; we, through their eyes. Why should not we also enjoy an original relation to the universe? Why should not we have a poetry and philosophy of insight and not of tradition, and a religion by revelation to us, and not the history of theirs?21

This departure from the paths of his forefathers was not a constant theme for Emerson. He wrote his poem, Concord Hymn, for the 1837 dedication of a monument at the battlefield of Concord Bridge. The poem was to honor the men who had fought for American freedom, including his own grandfather. This was in 1837, the year after his essay Nature, which rejected the religion which had impelled the patriots in their fight. By the rude bridge that arched the flood, Their flag to April’s breeze unfurled; Here once the embattled farmers stood; And fired the shot heard round the world. The foe long since in silence slept; Alike the conqueror silent sleeps, And Time the ruined bridge has swept Down the dark stream that seaward creeps. On this green bank, by this soft stream, We set to-day a votive stone, That memory may their deeds redeem, When, like our sires, our sons are gone. O Thou who made those heroes dare To die, and leave their children free, -Bid Time and Nature gently spare The shaft we raised to them and Thee.22

Ralph Waldo Emerson

Questions

What is the major issue that separates Calvinism from Arminianism? How is that idea further changed in Unitarianism? Define Unitarianism in your own words.

Anthony Burns

Once the change of the theology of the North to Arminianism and Unitarianism had taken place, it began to transform the culture around it. One of the most important ways was through the rise of the Abolitionist Movement. As we will see in the next

Religion chapter, the theology of Arminianism leads directly to the opposition of slavery. Physically, it is easy to see the correlation. In the Northeast, the center of the Abolitionist Movement was Boston, which was also the center of the theological change to Unitarianism. In the Northwest, the driving force in the change to Arminianism was at Oberlin College which was also the college sending out most of the men who were speaking against slavery. In the years leading up to the Civil War these communities took many actions against slavery. One of these, in Boston, was the attempt to recapture Anthony Burns, an escaped slave. Burns had escaped from a Southern plantation, but was recaptured in Boston. He described his capture this way: I kept my own counsel, and didn’t tell anybody that I was a slave, but I strove for myself as I never had an opportunity to do before. When I was going home one night I heard some one running behind me; presently a hand was put on my shoulder, and somebody said: “Stop, stop; you are the fellow who broke into a silversmith’s shop the other night.” I assured the man that it was a mistake, but almost before I could speak, I was lifted from off my feet by six or seven others, and it was no use to resist. In the Court House I waited some time, and as the silversmith did not come, I told them I wanted to go home for supper. A man then come to the door; he didn’t open it like an honest man would, but kind of slowly opened it, and looked in. He said, “How do you do, Mr. Burns?” and I called him as we do in Virginia, “master!” He asked me if there would be any trouble in taking me back to Virginia, and I was brought right to a stand, and didn’t know what to say. He wanted to know if I remembered the money that he

Boston

Causes of the Civil War used to give me, and I said, “Yes, I do recollect that you used to give me twelve and a half cents at the end of every year I worked for you.” He went out and came back next morning. I got no supper nor sleep that night. The next morning they told me that my master said that he had the right to me, and as I had called him “master,” having the fear of God before my eyes, I could not go from it. Next morning I was taken down, with the bracelets on my wrists -- not such as you wear, ladies, of gold and silver -- but iron and steel, that wore into the bone.23

The Massachusetts Spy recorded the attempt to rescue him: On Friday evening, Faneuil Hall was filled to overflowing, with the people of Boston and vicinity, to consider what steps should be taken to save Massachusetts from the disgrace of having a man, who claimed the protection of her laws, taken by violence from her metropolis and consigned to perpetual slavery. So intense was the feeling of the community, that at seven o’clock it was impossible to gain admittance, and thousands who wished to get in were disappointed. … The great majority of the audience seemed to be impressed with the force of Mr. Phillips’s arguments, and the meeting was about to adjourn in quiet, when a person in the gallery cried out with a stentorian voice, “that a large body of negroes were assembled in Court Square, determined to rescue the fugitive to-night.” There was an immediate rush to the door, and the crowd, without organization, without leaders, or any settled purpose, proceeded to the Court House. Entering upon the Eastern Avenue, in the space of a minute or two, several hundred people had collected, and the officers in the building closed the doors. Presently there was a rush to the West side, and a crowd of several hundred persons was assembled upon the opposite sidewalk. Several heads appeared from the windows in the third story, from one of which two pistols were discharged in quick succession. This seemed to exasperate the crowd most intensely, and a rush was made to the door. Finding that it would not yield readily, a piece of joist about ten feet long, seven inches wide, and two inches thick, was procured, and with it some six or eight strong men, soon battered down the door. The menials of the kidnapper, inside, all armed to the teeth, made a desperate resistance in the entry way, with clubs and cutlasses, and, just at this juncture, a dozen policemen from the Centre Watch House, arrived upon the ground, and, in a few moments arrested several persons, and took them to the Watch House. While thus engaged, several pistol shots were heard in the entry, by those outside, one of which, it was afterwards ascertained, had resulted in the death of one of the hired assassins of Liberty, in the employ of the kidnappers, named

Religion James Batchelder. – As but two of the persons of the crowd had effected an entrance into the building, and these were compelled immediately to retreat by the police force outside, who arrived at the very moment the door was broken down, there is every reason to believe that Batchelder fell by the demonstration made upon the door, and there can be little doubt, that in the darkness, confusion, and terror, that prevailed inside at the time, he received the fatal shot from one of the bungling assistants of the Marshall, who report says, had been supplied with an abundance of Dutch courage [liquor] from a neighboring restorator.24

Massachusetts was bound to return escaped slaves by the U.S. Constitution25 as was the rest of the country. But, because of the shift in religious attitudes, returning Burns in accordance with the law inspired many to discuss leaving the union so that they would no longer have to perform an act in violation of their consciences.

Questions

What recent events have marked a substantial change in the attitude of the people? How should the Massachusetts government have responded to the widespread view of its citizens that the United States law should not have been upheld?

Further Study

Introduction to Death of Death in the Death of Christ by J. I. Packer Complete Canons of Dort Complete letters to Wesley and Whitefield On Revivals of Religion by Albert B. Dod George Whitefield: The Life and Times of the Great Evangelist of the Eighteenth-Century Revival by Arnold Dalimore Avaliable online at www.DiscerningHistory.com/Causes

Causes of the Civil War

Footnotes 1 Romans 1:25: “Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.” 2

The Calvinistic Concept of Culture by Henry Van Til (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House,

The Death of Death in the Death of Christ by John Owen (London: Banner of Truth, 1958) p. 5.

1972), p. 39-44.

4 Westminster Shorter Catechism, Question 1. 5

A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs by David Bercot (Hendrickson Publishers) p. 288.

6 Romans 3:23. 7 Romans 5:12-19. 8 Psalm 51:4-5. 9 Galatians 2:19-20. 10 John 6:39-40. 11 Galatians 5:1 “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.” 12 Wesley was quoting the psalter from the Book of Common Prayer. Psalm 145:9 in the King James Version says “The LORD is good to all, And His tender mercies are over all His works.” 13 The Works of the Reverend John Wesley by John Emory (New York: B. Waugh and T. Mason, 1835) vol. 1, p. 482-490. 14 The Works of Benjamin Franklin by Benjamin Franklin (Boston: Hilliard Gray, and Company, 1840) vol. 1, p. 136. 15 Charles G. Finney: An Autobiography by Charles G. Finney (Westwood, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1908) p. 51. 16 Ibid, p. 60. 17 Lectures on Systematic Theology by Charles G. Finney (Oberlin:Oberlin Press, 1846) p. 454. 18 Essays, Theological and Miscellaneous, Reprinted from the Princeton Review (New York and London, Wiley and Putnam, 1847) second series, p. 111-112. 19 Works of Ralph Waldo Emerson by Ralph Waldo Emerson (London: George Routledge and Sons 883) p. 561. 20 Ibid, p. 564. 21 Ibid, p. 547. 22 Ibid, p. 543. 23 N.Y. Tribune, n.d., in the Liberator, March 9, 1855. 24 Massachusetts Spy, May 31, 1854. 25 US Constitution, Article 4 Section 2 “No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under

the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.”

C h a p t e r

Slavery O

ur society has rejected slavery as cruel and immoral. But instead of being our own source of authority for what is good and evil, we need to be looking at the Bible for that authority. The Bible has much to say about slavery as a means of judgment on an individual or a nation, but we should also consider what those who have gone before us and have experienced slavery first hand thought about whether it is inherently sinful to be a slave owner.

George Whitefield’s Position on Slavery

When George Whitefield came to Georgia on his first trip to America in 1738, slavery was illegal in that state. James Oglethorpe, the most active of the trustees of Georgia, did not ban slavery because he saw it as immoral. It was banned because the colony was intended to be a place where the working class could establish themselves and they did not want the competition of cheaper slave labor. Also, Georgia was bordering on Florida which was part of Spain at the time. A large number of slaves in the colony could undermine its security by being led to rebellion by Spain. In the 1740s, resistance to the ban began to build. One of those advocating the legalization of slavery was George Whitefield. It can be hard for us to understand in the 21st century, but Whitefield believed it was good to introduce slavery into that state. Whitefield, the man who had changed the way America thought about Christianity, actually advocated legislation legalizing slavery in 1749. Before we condemn him for this position, we should first consider his explanation. He wrote this in a 1751 letter: As for the lawfulness of keeping slaves, I have no doubt, since I hear of some that were bought with Abraham’s money, and some that were born in his house.—And I

Causes of the Civil War cannot help thinking, that some of those servants mentioned by the Apostles in their epistles, were or had been slaves. It is plain, that the Gibeonites were doomed to perpetual slavery, and though liberty is a sweet thing to such as are born free, yet to those who never knew the sweets of it, slavery perhaps may not be so irksome. However this be, it is plain to a demonstration, that hot countries cannot be cultivated without negroes. What a flourishing country might Georgia have been, had the use of them been permitted years ago? How many white people have been destroyed for want of them, and how many thousands of pounds spent to no purpose at all? Had Mr [Matthew] Henry been in America, I believe he would have seen the lawfulness and necessity of having negroes there. And though it is true, that they are brought in a wrong way from their own country, and it is a trade not to be approved of, yet as it will be carried on whether we will or not; I should think myself highly favoured if I could purchase a good number of them, in order to make their lives comfortable, and lay a foundation for breeding up their posterity in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. You know, dear Sir, that I had no hand in bringing them into Georgia; though my judgement was for it, and so much money was yearly spent to no purpose, and I was strongly importuned thereto, yet I would not have a negro upon my plantation, till the use of them was publicly allowed in the colony. Now this is done, dear Sir, let us reason no more about it, but diligently improve the present opportunity for their instruction. The trustees favour it, and we may never have a like prospect. It rejoiced my soul, to hear that one of my poor negroes in Carolina was made a brother in Christ. How know we but we may have many such instances in Georgia ere it be long?1

Savannah, Georgia

Slavery While we might condemn his pragmatism in saying that bringing enslaved negroes was necessary to work the fields because they were better adapted for the Southern colonies, we also must understand that he saw slavery as a way for their lives to be more comfortable. If you can control your sin, either through training or the Holy Spirit changing your heart, it is better to be free than to be a slave. But what about a man who has no understanding of what God would have him do and is completely without self control? It can be a great blessing to that man to help him constrain the damage he would do to himself. This is why in the Bible, slavery is associated with helping the poor. Because of what we have been taught about the abuses of slavery, it is easy for us to ignore the benefits of slavery for the Africans: their food was provided, their evil was constrained and many had the gospel of Jesus Christ preached to them. Many of the 18th and 19th century authors thought the heathen negroes needed someone to protect them, instruct them and correct them, much like a child who, left to his own devices, would harm himself. Sometimes this was because of racism, but other times it was an understanding of the lifestyle of the person. We also need to understand why the great evangelist saw slavery as a means for evangelism. Whitefield considered the negroes’ enslavement to a man to be minor compared to their enslavement to sin. If physical enslavement produced spiritual freedom, the gain was great. If physical enslavement put them in a place where instead of the animism of their ancestors, they were taught the gospel of Jesus Christ, they gained much by slavery.

Questions

What advantages did Whitefield see slavery bringing to the slaves? What advantages did Whitefield see slavery bringing to the slave owners?

Indentured Servants

When we think of slavery, we might think of people who are owned completely and can be treated like any other property, that they can be damaged or destroyed according to the will of their master. That is called chattel slavery, which was never legal in America. The idea of slavery starts with the idea of purchasing all of a person’s labor. When the first settlers sailed to America and landed at places such as Jamestown, they brought people with them from England who experienced a form of slavery. But these are probably not the type of slaves you are thinking of. They were English, not African. They were voluntary, not captured. Their slavery was temporary, not permanent. These people were called

Causes of the Civil War indentured servants, but they were treated very similar to how Hebrews were enslaved in the Bible. In the 1600s and beyond America was seen as a land of opportunity. There were large expanses of fertile land that could be obtained fairly inexpensively. Many of the poor in England believed that if they could be established in the New World, they would make their fortune. However, the cost of transportation was so high that they could not possibly afford the trip. Sailing was dangerous and expensive; it would have taken up to four or five years of a laborer’s low wages to pay for it. A system was needed that would allow the poor to find a way to pay their passage. Once over the ocean, land was cheap and easy to obtain. The challenge in America was for a farmer to find workers to hire to extend his operation. Labor was scarce. Instead of working for him, someone could just start out on their own. To resolve the problem, the farmers paid the fare for people who could not afford the passage to America, in exchange for them becoming their servant for a set term of years. Before the future servant left for the New World, he would sign an agreement such as this one: This indenture made the 21st February 1862/3 Between Rich. Browne aged 33 years of the one party, and Francis Richardson of the other party, witnesseth, that the said Rich. Browne doth thereby covenant, promise, and grant to & with the said Francis Richardson his Executors & Assigns, from the day of the date hereof, until his & next arrival att New York or New Jersey and after, for and during the term of foure years, to serve in such service & imployment, as he the said Francis Richardson or his Assigns shall there imploy him according to the custom of the country in the like kind - In consideration whereof, the said Francis Richardson doth hereby covenant and grant to and with the said Richard Browne to pay for his passing, and to find and allow him meat, drink, apparrel, and lodging, with other necessaries, during the said term, & at the end of the said term to pay unto him according to the Custom of the country In witness thereof the parties above mentioned to these Indentures have interchangeably set their Hands and Seals the day and year above written.2

Slavery During his servitude, the servant would be restricted in many areas of life. He could not marry without his owner’s permission, as that would affect his work. In many places he was not allowed to trade, as it was assumed that he would not own any property other than things which he had stolen from his master. His master could sell or lend him to another planter. But all in all, the servants were fairly well provided for. They were normally well fed and clothed, and were given time to rest. When the servant reached the end of his term of service he would be given “freedom dues.” These varied according to the terms of the indenture, but they were the things that would enable the freed servant to get a good start in a life of freedom. The dues included such things as money, clothes, farm tools, food, or land. One proposed law in Maryland would have given servants without an indenture at least, “one new Cloth sute one new Shirt one pair of new Shews one pair of new stockins and a new monmoth Capp... three barrels of Corne a hilling hoe and a weeding hoe and a felling axe.”3 The indentured servant system was very similar to how a Hebrew slave was to be treated according to the Bible. For a Hebrew, it was an act of mercy to enslave someone who had financial problems, either because of their sin or because of the circumstances God chose to put them in. That slavery was for six years, about the same Indenture as indentured servitude, and after that period was expired, they were not to be sent out empty handed. The purpose of Hebrew slavery was to train the slaves and to put them on a better financial footing when they were sent out.

Problems

Even though God clearly gave the law for good, man does not like the idea of not being able to do whatever pleases him. So like the later system of slavery, many accusations have been made of the abuses of the indenture system. These poor wretches were not, indeed, sold into slavery, but they passed into a state of servitude which might easily be prolonged almost indefinitely by avaricious or cruel masters. ... Their lives were in theory protected by law, but where an indented servant came to his death from prolonged ill-usage, or from excessive punishment, it was practically impossible to get a verdict against the master.4

Causes of the Civil War Some of those accusations were based on fact. Some servants were actually kidnapped in Europe and sold in America, although this did not occur nearly as frequently as in the African slave trade.5 Some masters practiced various deceitful practices upon their servants to trick them into longer terms of service or deprive them of their freedom dues. Sometimes servants tried to escape from their indentures. Some pleaded deception or cruelty, but many were convicts and others were just trying to use the system to get free transportation to America. In the instances of cruelty that actually did take place, the servants were protected by laws which were typically enforced by the courts. To condemn the entire system because of the actions of the time is hardly more just than to judge our own state of civilization by the numerous murders and other crimes that are daily committed in our midst. Like all other systems of bondage this had a tendency to develop the brutal nature of both master and servant, but a careful study of the institution reveals much that is good as well as much evil.6

The system of indentured servitude was actually very helpful for the servants. Many came to America lazy and untrained, or even convicts, and left servitude having learned a trade or at least how to work. One historian said: In general, the effect of this system of labor on the servant himself was beneficial. Five years’ experience under the rule of an exacting master converted many an indolent immigrant into an industrious and prosperous citizen.7

Because of the hard conditions in the new world, many of the indentured servants probably died before they completed their servitude, but for those who did survive there were great opportunities available.

Importance

The indentured servant system was very important to the foundation of America. At its height from 1630-1660, around three-quarters of the immigrants to America came and served for a time as indentured servants.8 Not only was this class of immigrants of great importance while actually serving, but when free many of them became prosperous citizens and assisted materially in developing the resources of the colony. Had it not been for the institution of servitude, many a prosperous planter and tradesman would have been forced to remain in Europe and eke out a miserable existence. Without this method of transportation, the number of immigrants would have been small indeed, and the development of the colony retarded.9

The system of indentured servitude began to decline in the eighteenth century. With the

Slavery American Revolution it stopped entirely, and those few who still desired to enter into indentured servitude were discouraged by their government. This pressure, along with the end of the most urgent need for outside labor, ended the system of indentured servitude, although it did continue in other forms, such as redemptioners and apprentices.

Questions

What advantages did indentured servitude provide? What were the similarities and differences between indentured servitude and Biblical Hebrew slavery?

Slave Trade John Newton

In the South, the use of indentured servants as unskilled labor was replaced over time with African slave labor. One reason for the transition was the belief in the South that since the Africans were coming from a hotter climate, they were able to adapt better to the heat in the Southern states. Most of the slaves that came to the Americas from Africa went to South America and the Caribbean where the death rate was very high. The demand for slaves created an inhuman trade in slaves. One of the best descriptions of the slave trade is from John Newton, who early in life was a slave trader, but by the end of his life, was working to eliminate the trade. One of the most world’s most famous hymns is Amazing Grace. It is one of the most recognizable songs in the English-speaking world, and is commonly known even among non-Christians. It was written by the Englishman John Newton, a Calvinist minister. Newton did not grow up in a godly home. His father was a sailor, and at the young age of eleven John followed his father into the sailing profession. After making several voyages, John was caught and impressed into the British Navy. He was not happy in the navy, and, after trying to desert, he was flogged before the entire ship. But this still did not turn John into a good sailor, so he was transferred to a slave ship, which in turn left him in Africa to work for a slave trader. John Newton However, the trader’s wife disliked Newton, and she convinced her husband to treat him as a slave. John remained in that condition about a year,

Causes of the Civil War was badly treated, and not given enough food or clothes. He was eventually rescued by a captain whom John’s father had asked to look for him. On his way back to England aboard the Greyhound, Newton was known as the most profane man on the ship, not only using the profanity common among sailors, but inventing his own even more vile words. However, in March, 1748, the ship encountered a terrible storm, it began filling with water, and it seemed that it would sink. Newton cried out to God in fear, and the ship began to weather the storm. Over the next few days, John Newton began reading the Bible and accepting its doctrines. By the time he arrived in England, he had determined to follow in Christ’s ways. He marked this as the beginning of his conversion, but once back in England, after a couple of months, he began to fall back into his former pattern of life. Through his father’s influence, he was appointed the first mate of the slave ship Brownlow. It was on this voyage through a fever, which Newton believed would kill him, he thought he truly believed on Christ and was converted. Although he was converted, he did not immediately reject the slave trade. He continued to work on slave ships, making three voyages as captain of the Duke of Argyle and the African. Newton believed at the time that he had been placed in his profession by God and it was his duty to treat the slaves the best he could where he was. However, he would later change his position. Newton gave up the sea after suffering a stroke in 1754 and become a tax collector in Liverpool. In his spare time he studied Greek and Hebrew, began ministering in his community, and eventually was ordained as a minister in the Anglican church. He began writing with poet William Cowper and produced a book of hymns in 1779, including the favorites Glorious Things of Thee are Spoken and Amazing Grace. Thirty-four years after retiring as the captain of slave ships, Newton published a pamphlet against his former profession entitled Thoughts Upon the Slave Trade. Newton’s purpose for his book was to publicly repent from his involvement with the slave trade, and to aid his friend William Wilberforce and others in their efforts to outlaw the trade. If I attempt, after what has been done, to throw my mite into the public stock of information, it is less from an apprehension that my interference is necessary, than from a conviction that silence, at such a time and on such an occasion, would, in me, be criminal. If my testimony should not be necessary or serviceable, yet, perhaps, I am bound in conscience to take shame to myself by a public confession, which, however, sincere, comes too late to prevent or repair the misery and mischief to which I have, formerly, been accessory. I hope it will always be a subject of humiliating reflection to me, that I was once an active instrument in a business at which my heart now shudders. My headstrong

Slavery passions and follies, plunged me, in early life, into a succession of difficulties and hardships, which at length, reduced me to seek a refuge among the natives of Africa. There, for a space of eighteen months, I was in effect, though without the name, a captive, and slave myself; and was depressed to the lowest degree of human wretchedness. ... This is a bourn from which few travelers return, who have once determined to venture upon a temporary residence there; but the good providence of God, without my expectation, and almost against my will, delivered me from those scenes of wickedness and woe .... I soon revisited the place of my captivity, as mate of the ship, and, in the year 1750, I was appointed commander; in which capacity I made three voyages to the Windward coast for slaves. ...10 [T]he best human policy is that which is connected with a reverential regard to Almighty God, the supreme governor of the earth. Every plan, which aims at the welfare of a nation, in defiance of his authority and laws, however apparently wise, will prove to be essentially defective, and, if persisted in, ruinous. The righteous Lord loved righteousness, and he has engaged to plead the cause and vindicate the wrongs of the oppressed. It is righteousness that exalteth a nation; and wickedness is the present reproach and will, sooner or later, unless repentance intervene, prove the ruin of any people. ...11 The first points I shall mention is surely of political importance, if the lives of our fellow-subjects be so; and if a rapid loss of seamen deserves the attention of a maritime people. The loss, in the African trade, is truly alarming. …

John Newton’s House

Causes of the Civil War A proper shelter from the weather, in an open boat, when the rain is incessant, night and day, for weeks and months, is impracticable. I have, myself, in such a boat, been, five or six days together, without, as we say, a dry thread about me, sleeping and waking. And, during the fair season, tornadoes, or violent storms of wind, thunder, and heavy rain, are very frequent, though they seldom last long. In fact, the boats seldom return, without bringing some of the people ill of dangerous fevers or fluxes, occasioned either by the weather, or by unwholesome diet, such as the crude fruits and palm wine, with which they are plentifully supplied by the natives. ...12 The risk of insurrection is to be added. These, I believe, are always meditated; for the men slaves are not easily reconciled to their confinement and treatment; and, if attempted, they are seldom suppressed without considerable loss; and sometimes they succeed, to the destruction of the whole ship’s company at once. Seldom a year passes, but we hear of one or more catastrophes; and we likewise hear, sometimes of Whites and Blacks involved, in one moment, in one common ruin, by the gunpowder taking fire, and blowing up the ship. ...13 How far the several causes I have enumerated, may respectively operate, I cannot say; the fact, however, is sure, that a great number of our seamen perish in the slave trade. Few ships, comparatively, are either blown up, or totally cut off; but some are. Of the rest, I have known some that have lost half their people, and some larger proportion. I am far from saying, that it is always, or even often thus; but I believe I shall state the matter sufficiently low, if I suppose, that at least one-fifth part of those who go from England to the coast of Africa in ships which trade for slaves, never return from thence. ...14 There is a second, which either is, or ought to be deemed of importance, considered in a political light: I mean, the dreadful effects of this trade upon the minds of those who are engaged in it. … I know of no method of getting money, not even that of robbing for it upon the highway, which has so direct a tendency to efface the moral sense, to rob the heart of every gentle and humane disposition, and to harden it, like steel, against all impressions of sensibility. Usually, about two-thirds of a cargo of slaves are males. When a hundred and fifty or two hundred stout men, torn from their native land, many of whom never saw the sea, much less a ship, till a short space before they had embarked; who have, probably, the same natural prejudice against a white man, as we have against a black; and who often bring with them an apprehension that they are bought to be eaten: I say, when thus circumstanced, it is not to be expected that they will tamely resign themselves

Slavery to their situation. It is always taken for granted, that they will attempt to gain their liberty if possible. Accordingly, we dare not trust them, we receive them on board, from the first as enemies; and, before their number exceeds, perhaps, ten or fifteen, they are all put in irons.... In the night they are confined below; in the daytime … they are brought on deck; and as they are brought in pairs, a chain is put through a ring upon their irons, and this likewise locked them to the ring-bolts, which are fastened, at certain intervals, upon the deck. … One unguarded hour, or minute, is sufficient to give the slaves the opportunity they are always waiting for. An attempt to rise upon the ship’s company, brings on instantaneous and horrid war: for, when they are once in motion, they are desperate; and where they do not conquer, they are seldom quelled without much mischief and bloodshed on both sides. … I have seen them sentenced to unmerciful whippings, continued till the poor creatures have not had power to groan under their misery, and hardly a sign of life has remained. I have seen them agonizing for hours, I believe for days altogether, under the torture of the thumbscrews; a dreadful engine, which, if the screw be turned by an unrelenting hand, can give intolerable anguish. … I have often heard a captain, who has been long since dead, boast of his conduct in a

Chained Slaves

former voyage, when his slaves at-

tempted to rise upon him. After he had suppressed the insurrection, he sat in judgment upon the insurgents; and not only, in cold blood, adjudged several of them, I know not how many, to die, but studied, with no small attention, how to make death as excruciating as possible. For my reader’s sake, I suppress the recital of particulars. Surely, it must be allowed, that they who are long conversant with such scenes as these, are liable to imbibe a spirit of ferociousness, and savage insensibility, of which human nature, depraved as it is, is not, ordinarily, capable. … Accustomed thus to despise, insult, and injure the slaves on board, it may be expected

Causes of the Civil War that the conduct of many of our people to the natives, with whom they trade, is, as far as circumstances admit, very similar; and it is so. They are considered as a people to be robbed and spoiled with impunity. Every art is employed to deceive and wrong them. And he who has most address in this way, has most to boast of. Not an article that is capable of diminution or adulteration, is delivered genuine, or entire. The spirits are lowered by water. False heads are put into the kegs that contain the gunpowder; so that, though the keg appears large, there is no more powder in it, than in a much smaller. The linen and cotton cloths are opened, and two or three yards, according to the length of the piece, cut off, not from the end, but out of the middle, where it is not so readily noticed. The natives are cheated, in the number, weight, measure, or quality of what they purchase, in every possible way: and, by habit and emulation, a marvellous dexterity is acquired in these practices. And thus the natives in their turn, in proportion to their commerce with the Europeans, and (I am sorry to add) particularly with the English, become jealous, insidious, and revengeful. … I verily believe, that the far greater part of the wars, in Africa, would cease, if the Europeans would cease to tempt them, by offering goods for slaves. And though they do not bring legions into the field, their wars are bloody. I believe, the captives reserved for sale are fewer than the slain. With our ships, the great object is, to be full. When the ship is there, it is thought desirable she should take as many as possible. The cargo of a vessel of a hundred tons, or little more, is calculated to purchase from two hundred and twenty to two hundred and fifty slaves. Their lodging-rooms below the deck, which are three (for the men, the boys, and the women), besides a place for the sick, are sometimes more than five feet high, and sometimes less; and this height is divided towards the middle, for the slaves lie in two rows, one above the other, on each side of the ship, close to each other, like books upon a shelf. … Let it be observed, that the poor creatures, thus cramped for want of room, are likewise in irons, for the most part both hands and feet, and two together, which makes it difficult for them to turn or move, to attempt either to rise or to lie down, without hurting themselves, or each other. Nor is the motion of the ship, especially her heeling, or stoop on one side, when under sail, to be omitted; for this, as they lie athwart, or cross the ship, adds to the uncomfortableness of their lodging, especially to those who lie on the leeward or leaning side of the vessel. … The heat and smell of these rooms, when the weather will not admit of the slaves being brought upon deck, and of having their rooms cleaned every day, would

Slavery

be almost insupportable to a person not accustomed to them. If the slaves and their rooms can be constantly aired, and they are not detained too long on board, perhaps there are not many [who] die; but the contrary is often their lot. They are kept down, by the weather, to breathe a hot and corrupted air, sometimes for a week: this, added to the galling of their irons, and the despondency which seizes their spirits when thus confined, soon becomes fatal. And every morning, perhaps, more instances than one are found, of the living and the dead, like the captives of Meaentius, fastened together. Epidemical fevers and fluxes, which fill the ship with noisome and noxious effluvia, often break out, and infect the seamen likewise, and thus the oppressors, and the oppressed, fall by the same stroke. I believe, nearly one-half of the slaves on board, have, sometimes, died; and that the loss of a third part, in these circumstances, is not unusual. The ship, in which I was mate, left the coast with two hundred and eighteen slaves on board; and though we were not much affected by epidemical disorders, I find by my journal of that voyage (now before me), that we buried sixty-two on our passage to South Carolina, exclusive of those which died before we left the coast, of which I have no account. … When the slaves are landed for sale (for in the Leeward Islands they are usually sold on shore) it may, happen, that after a long separation in different parts of the ship, when they are brought together in one place, some who are nearly related may recognize each other. If, upon such a meeting, pleasure should be felt, it can be but momentary. The sale disperses them wide, to different parts of the island or to different islands. Husbands and wives, parents and children, brothers and sisters, must suddenly part again, probably to meet no more.

Causes of the Civil War After a careful perusal of what I have written weighing every paragraph distinctly, I can find nothing to retract. As it is not easy to write altogether with coolness upon this business, and especially not easy to me, who have formerly been so deeply engaged in it; I have been jealous, lest the warmth of imagination might have insensibly seduced me to aggravate and overcharge some of the horrid features, which I have attempted to delineate, of the African trade. But, upon a strict review, I am satisfied … No one can have less interest in it than I have at present, further than as I am interested by the feelings of humanity, and a regard for the honour and welfare of my country. Though unwilling to give offense to a single person, in such a cause, I ought not to be afraid of offending many, by declaring the truth. If, indeed, there can be many, whom even interest can prevail upon to contradict the common sense of mankind, by pleading for a commerce so iniquitous, so cruel, so oppressive, so destructive, as the African Slave Trade!15

After much work by the Englishmen who were opposed to the slave trade, it was finally outlawed in England by the Slave Trade Act of 1807. John Newton himself just lived to see this act passed. He died on December 21, 1807 at the age of 82.

Questions

What were the problems with the slave trade? Why did some Christians remain in the slave trade?

Biblical Slavery

The slave trade was inhumane and had little regard for human life, and most Americans disagreed with the slave trade. Many states even outlawed it before the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, but that did not mean they all disagreed with slavery. There were some in the South who defended their practice of slavery from the Bible. As we will see later, this was not the only argument made for slavery, but it was a prominent one. One who made this argument was Robert Lewis Dabney, a leading Presbyterian theologian in the South in the 1800’s. He served with the Confederate Army during the war, as both the chief of staff to Stonewall Jackson, and a chaplain in the army. After the war he wrote several books, including a biography of Stonewall Jackson and A Defense of Virginia, and Through Her, of the South, in Recent and Pending Contests Against the Sectional Party. In A Defense of Virginia he makes many arguments in defense of the Southern cause during the Civil War. He argues from many angles: constitutional, economic, historical, and philosophical. Dabney also devotes much of the book to making

Slavery a theological argument in favor of slavery, both from the Old Testament as well as the New Testament. ...That no misunderstanding may attend the discussion, we must define at the outset, what we mean by that domestic slavery which we defend. By this relation we understand the obligations of the slave to labour for life, without his own consent, for the master. The thing, therefore, in which the master has property or ownership, is the involuntary labour of the slave, and not his personality, or his soul. A certain right of control over the person of the slave is incidentally given to the master by his property in the bondsman’s labour; that is, so much control as is necessary to enable him to secure the labour which belongs to him. But we repeat, it is not the person, but the labour of the slave, which is the master’s property. … Let it be understood, then, from the beginning, that we are not inquiring into the moral character of that thing which Abolitionists paint as domestic slavery; a something horrid with the groans of oppressed innocente and the clang of unrighteous stripes; a something which aims to reduce a man to a brute, and denies him his natural right to serve his Creator and save his soul. We begin by asserting that these things, if they ever exist in fact, are not domestic slavery, but the abuses of it. We are not the apologists of them: we no more defend them than do the Abolitionists. In this discussion we have nothing more to do with them, except to express, once for all, our strong abhorrence and reprobation of all such unlawful abuses of a lawful institution. It has been a favourite trick of our opponents, to represent the abuses of the relation so prominently and odiously, that the defender of slavery shall be held up to the abhorrence of the publick as the defender of the abuses. Especially if he is a clergyman, (and necessity has thrown our side of this

Dabney

discussion very much into the hands of Southern clergymen,) do they raise a holy clamour, representing the unnatural wickedness of a desecrating of the sacred office to apologize for such iniquities. Their object is to raise a prejudice against us in advance, which will deprive us of a dispassionate and just hearing. With all dispassionate and just readers, for whom alone we write, it should be enough for us to repeat emphatically, that it is only the relation of domestic slavery as authorized by God, that we defend; and not the abuses it has received at the hands of wicked men. The parental authority, and civil government, and the operations of God’s own church, are often abused also. ... Such argument from abuses can only be just when it is shown that the wrongs pointed out are not incidental abuses, but legitimate, and necessary,

Causes of the Civil War and uniform consequences of the institution itself. But that the incidental evils of African slavery among us are not such, is abundantly proved by the simple fact, that thousands of masters held slaves among us, and yet perpetrated none of these abuses. About the relative frequency of such abuses, we shall have something to say at a subsequent place. Enough now to point to the fact, that by the vast majority of our servants they were unfelt, so that they cannot be necessary parts of the system. We conclude these preliminary definitions by requesting the reader to note well what is the moral character which we understand the Bible to assign to slavery. We do not admit that it is a thing in itself evil, but yet attended with such circumstances, in the eyes of many merciful and humane masters who have found themselves by inheritance unwilling slaveholders, that a change would be attended with still greater mischiefs: so that they are excusable for its continuance for a time. This is the view of many moderate and kind antislavery men; it is not ours. We do not hold that slaveholding is only justified as belonging to that class of wrongs, to which the laws of Moses assigned polygamy, which ought not to have been done, but which, when done, cannot be undone, except by the perpetrating of a greater wrong. We assert that the Bible teaches that the relation of master and slave is perfectly lawful and right, provided only its duties be lawfully fulfilled. When we say this, we shall not be understood as saying that all men ought to live in this relation, notwithstanding the wide diversities of their condition and characters, or that it would be politic, or even right, for all. But we say that the relation is not sin in itself; but may be perfectly righteous and innocent, and not merely excusable. And we are free to confess that unless the Bible taught us this truth, we should be obliged to hold with the decided Abolitionists. We could never be of the number of those, who attempt to transmute the essential traits of moral right and wrong, at the demand of expediency, and to excuse the continuance of a radical injustice, by the inconvenience of repairing it. Duty belongs to man; consequences to God.16

Slavery

The Curse upon Canaan

Dabney then proceeds onto the first of his arguments, the curse upon Canaan. The curse comes from Genesis 9:20-27: And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness. And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

The argument of many other Southern theologians was that the Africans were the descendants of Canaan, and therefore could be made slaves. This was not Dabney’s position. He thought that this passage had a different application to slavery. It does in the first place, what all secular history and speculations fail to do: it gives us the origin of domestic slavery. And we find that it was appointed by God as the punishment of, and remedy for (nearly all God’s providential chastisements are also remedial) the peculiar moral degradation of a part of the race. God here ordains that this depravity shall find its necessary restraints, and the welfare of the more virtuous its safeguard against the depraved, by the bondage of the latter. He introduces that feature of political society, for the justice of which we shall have occasion to contend; that although men have all this trait of natural equality that they are children of a common father, and sharers of a common humanity, and subjects of the same law of love; yet, in practice, they shall be subject to social inequalities determined by their own characters, and their fitness or unfitness to use privileges for their own and their neighbours’ good. But second: this narrative gives us more than a prediction. The words of Noah are not a mere prophecy; they are a verdict, a moral sentence pronounced upon conduct, by competent authority; that verdict sanctioned by God. Now if the verdict is righteous, and the execution blessed by God, it can hardly be, that the executioners of it are guilty for putting it in effect. Can one believe that the descendants of Shem and Japhet, with this sentence in their hands, and the divine commendation just bestowed on them for acting unlike Ham, could have reasonably felt guilty for accepting that

Causes of the Civil War control over their guilty fellow-men which God himself had assigned? For the vital difference between the case of the Assyrians, when their guilty ambition was permissively employed by God to punish the backslidings of his own people, and the case of Shem and Japhet, is this: The Assyrians were cursed by God for doing their predicted work, in the very sentence; Shem and Japhet were blessed by Him in the very verdict which assigns Canaan as their servant. It may be that we should find little difficulty in tracing the lineage of the present Africans to Ham. But this inquiry is not essential to our argument, if one case is found where God has authorized domestic slavery, the principle is settled, that it cannot necessarily be sin in itself. It is proper that we should say, in conclusion, that this passage of Scripture is not regarded, nor advanced, as of prime force and importance in this argument. Others more decisive will follow.17

Abraham the Slaveholder

Dabney gave many references showing that Abraham and his son Isaac had slaves because God blessed them greatly.18 He argues the Hebrew words used show that the slaves were bondsmen, not just poor relatives or servants. He says that Abraham was willing to arm them to rescue his brother Lot, and because slavery was not necessarily evil, they would have obeyed him to the point that he was willing to put weapons in their hands. Abolitionists said that Abraham’s example could be dismissed because the patriarchs did other sinful things, like lying or taking multiple wives, that we are not to emulate today. Dabney’s last argument was that Abraham was commanded to circumcise his slaves. But, last and chiefly, we have a still stronger fact to present. When Abraham was directed in Genesis xvii., 10, etc., to circumcise himself as a sign of the covenant between God and him, he was also directed to circumcise all his male children. The parental relationship was made the ground of their inclusion in the same covenant. And God directed his slaves also, “born in his house, or bought with his money of any foreigner,” to be circumcised along with him. The parental tie brought his children under the religious rite of circumcision; the bond of master and servant brought his servants under it. Here then, we have the relationship of domestic slavery sanctioned, along with the parental and filial, by God’s own injunction, by a participation in the holiest sacrament of the ancient church. Would a holy God thus baptize an unholy relation? Would he make it the ground of admission to a religious ordinance? To see a feeble illustration of the absurdity of such a conclusion, consider what would be thought of a minister of the New Testament, in which our Saviour has forbidden a plurality of wives, if that minister should desecrate the marriage ceremonial of his

Slavery church, knowingly, to sanctify the union of the felon in the act of bigamy? Such a desecration would surely be not less shocking in the Author, than in a minister of religion.19

Hagar remanded to Slavery by God

When God promised Abraham and Sarah a child, Sarah tried to fulfill this prophesy herself by giving Hagar, a slave, to Abraham as a concubine. However, when Hagar conceived, she was no longer respectful to Sarah, so Sarah punished her, causing Hagar to run away. The angel of the Lord appeared to her, and commanded her to return to slavery. And the angel of the LORD found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur. And he said, Hagar, Sarai’s maid, whence camest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai. And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands.20

Dabney wrote this: Here, then, we have God, himself, the Angel Jehovah, who can be no other than the Second Person of the Trinity, Christ, commanding this fugitive to return into the relation of domestic slavery, and submit to it. Can that relation be in itself sinful? To assert this, would make our adorable Saviour particeps criminis.21 He cannot have required a soul to return into a sinful state. He never requires of his servants more than their duty; so that if Sarai had possessed no real and just title to Hagar’s services as a slave—if the claim had been a mere imposition and injustice, she would not have been required to submit to it.22

Causes of the Civil War Slavery in the Laws of Moses

Dabney also uses the Mosaic laws to argue for slavery. He points out that not all Mosaic laws apply today. The reformers recognized three types of Old Testament laws: the Ceremonial, which pointed to Christ; the Moral, which still apply to us today; and the Judicial, which were binding to the nation of Israel and should be used by other civil magistrates as a model for just laws. Dabney said that even if the laws regarding slavery were not moral laws, they would still apply, as the acts they commanded could not have been sin in themselves. For example, animal sacrifices were required by the Mosaic law. Those were ceremonies fulfilled in Christ which it would be wrong for us to try to practice today, but the act of killing an animal today is not sinful, if we are not doing it to worship God. Athough slavery may have been a ceremonial law, Dabney argued that the act of owning slaves could not have been inherently sinful. There were two types of slavery in the Old Testament law, temporary, Hebrew slavery, and permanent, Gentile slavery. The Hebrew slavery is expressed in Exodus 21:2-6: If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

The Gentile slave is described in Leviticus 25:44-46: Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

The slavery of those which were not part of the people of God would be permanent, and it would continue on forever, passing through to the children. The children of Israel were not only permitted to buy slaves from the nations around them, they were also allowed to capture them in war.23 We even see God taking a tribute of the slaves that

Slavery were captured in war. These various passages show that God clearly not only allowed, but commanded, slavery in the Old Testament. Dabney concluded: The divine permission and sanction of slavery to the very people whom God was setting apart to a holy life, the consecration of slaves as property to a sacred purpose, the regulating by law of the duties flowing from the relation, all prove that it was then a lawful and innocent one. Otherwise, we should have the holy God teaching sin. If it was innocent once in its intrinsic nature, it is innocent now, unless it has been subsequently prohibited by God. But no such prohibition can be shown.24

Dabney addressed several objections the Abolitionists made to his arguments in favor of slavery based on the Old Testament. He addressed the differences between Virginian and Biblical slavery, whether or not the law also allowed divorce and polygamy, and the passages forbidding the oppression of the poor, among others. We encourage you to visit our website and read through his answers if you still have questions about Biblical slavery. Dabney concluded his chapter on the Old Testament this way: Although every thing enjoined on the Hebrews is not necessarily enjoined on us, (because it may have been of temporary obligation,) yet every such thing must be innocent in its nature, because a holy God would not sanction sin to his holy people, in the very act of separating them to holiness. But slaveholding was expressly sanctioned as a permanent institution; the duties of masters and slaves are defined; the rights of masters protected, not only in the civic but the eternal moral law of God; and He himself became a slave-owner, by claiming an oblation of slaves for his sanctuary and priests. Hence, while we do not say that modern Christian nations are bound to hold slaves, we do assert that no people sin by merely holding slaves, unless the place can be shown where God has uttered a subsequent prohibition.25

Questions

How did Old Testament slavery compare with Southern slavery? What Bible passages would you use to refute or support Dabney’s arguments?

New Testament Slavery

Dabney next explained what the New Testament says about slavery. He notes that slavery is often mentioned, yet never condemned. It is in fact mentioned in a favorable light. Slavery is used as an example of Christ’s relationship with His people. Jesus is the master who buys Christians from their slavery to sin, and they become His slaves to serve

Causes of the Civil War Him. Paul did say that it was better to be free than a slave, but he did not say that it was sinful either to own, or be, a slave. Paul gave commandments to masters and slaves to act properly in their relationship, not to end it with freedom. Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.26

One of Dabney’s prominent arguments for slavery comes from Paul’s short epistle to Philemon regarding the return of the slave Onesimus: Yet for love’s sake I rather beseech thee, being such an one as Paul the aged, and now also a prisoner of Jesus Christ. I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds: Which in time past was to thee unprofitable, but now profitable to thee and to me: Whom I have sent again: thou therefore receive him, that is, mine own bowels: Whom I would have retained with me, that in thy stead he might have ministered unto me in the bonds of the gospel: But without thy mind would I do nothing; that thy benefit should not be as it were of necessity, but willingly. For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him for ever; Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh, and in the Lord? If thou count me therefore a partner, receive him as myself. If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, put that on mine account; I Paul have written it with mine own hand, I will repay it: albeit I do not say to thee how thou owest unto me even thine own self besides.27

From this passage Dabney made two arguments: First, if the relation is unrighteous, and the master’s authority unfounded, then the only ground upon which the duty of the slave’s submission rests, is that of Christian forbearance. When the wicked bonds were once happily evaded, and the oppressed person in safety, that ground of obligation was wholly at an end. A captive has been unlawfully detained by a gang of highwaymen, for the purpose of exacting ransom. He has given them the slip, and is secure. Is there any obligation to go back, because, while there, there was an obligation to refrain from useless violence and bloodshed? Let us even suppose that the means of the captive’s escape were in some point

Slavery immoral: does this fact make it his duty to go back and submit himself to the freebooters? By no means. To God he ought to repent of whatever was immoral in the manner of his escape: but he is bound to make no reparation for it to the robbers, because they had no right to detain him at all. But we see St. Paul here enjoining on the newly-awakened conscience of Onesimus, the duty of returning to his master. That the apostle sent him, and that he went back under a sense of moral obligation, is proved by two facts: St. Paul had a strong desire to retain him, being greatly in need of an affectionate domestic, in his infirm, aged, and imprisoned condition, but he felt that he must not. (Verse 13.) Paul had no power, except moral power, to make

Colored School Onesimus go back, being himself a helpless captive; so that the latter must have been carried back by a sense of duty. Hence this instance proves, beyond a cavil, that the relation of master and servant was moral; it lies above the level of all those quibbles which we have been compelled to rebut. Second: the transaction clearly implies a moral propriety or ownership in Onesimus’ labour, as pertaining to Philemon; of which the latter could not be rightfully deprived without his consent. For proof, see the fact that Paul says, (v. 14,) “Without thy mind I would do nothing, that thy benefit should not be as it were of necessity, but willingly.” The attendance of Onesimus on Paul, i.e., the bestowal of his labour, would have been, if given, Philemon’s “benefit” to Paul.28

Christian Slavery

Dabney concluded his discussion of the biblical arguments for slavery:

Causes of the Civil War In concluding the biblical part of this discussion, it may be expected that we should indicate more exactly the influence which we suppose Christianity ought to have exerted upon slavery, and its ultimate destiny under pure Bible teachings. It may be asked: “When you claim that slavery is literally and simply a righteous relation, in itself, if it be not perverted and abused; do you mean that this is the normal and perfect relation for the labouring man; that this is to be the fullest and most blessed social development of Christianity: that it ought to subsist in the best states of Christian society, and will endure even in the millennium?” We reply, that one uniform effect of Christianity on slavery, has been to ameliorate it, to remove its perversions and abuses, just as it does those of the other lawful relations among men; to make better masters and better servants, and thus to promote the welfare of both. Domestic slavery has been violently and mischievously ended in the South; and it is doubtless ended here in this form, finally. And it has long been manifest that the radical and anti-Christian tendency of the age is likely speedily to break up this form of servitude in other places where it still prevails. But true slavery, that is, the involuntary subjection of one man to the will of another, is not thereby any more abolished than sin and death are abolished. And least of all will real bondage of man to man be abolished in countries governed by radical democracy. The Scriptural, the milder and more benign form of servitude is swept away, in the arrogance of false political philosophy, to be replaced by more pretentious but more grinding forms of society. But, it may be asked: Will not the diffusion of the pure and blessed principles of the Gospel ultimately extinguish all forms of slavery? We answer: Yes, we devoutly trust it will, not by making masters too righteous to hold slaves, but by so correcting the ignorance, thriftlessness, indolence, and vice of labouring people, that the institution of slavery will be no longer needed. Just so, we hope that the spread of Christianity will some day abolish penitentiaries and jails: but this does not imply that to put rogues into penitentiaries is not now, and will not continue, so long as rogues shall continue to deserve imprisonment, an act which an angel might perform without sullying his morality. So likewise, we hope that our ransomed world will see the day when defensive war and military establishments will be superseded: superseded not because defensive war and the calling of the Christian soldier are immoral when one’s country is wrongfully invaded; but because there will be none immoral enough to commit the aggressions which now justify these costly, though righteous expedients of defence. … Slavery is, indeed, but one form of the institution, government. Government is controul. Some controul over all is necessary, righteous, and beneficent: the degree of it depends on the character of those to be controuled. As that character rises in

Slavery the scale of true virtue, and selfcommand, the degree of outward controul may be properly made lighter. If the lack of those properties in any class is so great as to demand, for the good and safety of the whole, that extensive controul which amounts to slavery, then slavery is righteous, righteous by precisely the same reason that other government is righteous. And this is the Scriptural account of the origin of slavery, as justly incurred by the sin and depravity of man.29

Questions

How is slavery a picture of the gospel?

Arguments For Slavery

In the preceding section, Dabney explained what the Bible says about slavery, and how it did and did not align with Southern slavery. It is important to understand that while Dabney uses the authority of Scripture to advocate for slavery, many arguments both for and against slavery started from very different assumptions.

Thomas Cobb

One of the leading lawyers in the South before the Civil War was Thomas R. R. Cobb. Cobb was a Georgian who was the official reporter of the Georgia Supreme Court, a founder of what would become the University of Georgia School of Law and son-in-law to Georgia’s first chief justice. He wrote several books, but the most famous was An Inquiry into the Law of Negro Slavery in the United States of America. This 1858 book was the only treatise on the slavery laws published by a Southerner. In the first chapter, he provides an example of one of the regrettably common arguments in favor of slavery; that it was allowed on the basis of race:

Thomas Cobb

[T]he first question which demands our attention, and necessarily is preliminary to all other investigation, is, what is the nature of the negro? Were this question asked of a mere animal, our inquiry would be confined to his physical nature alone.... But we recognized in the negro a man, endowed with reason, will, and accountability, and in order to justify his subjection we must inquire of his intellectual and moral nature, and must be satisfied that its development is thereby promoted. …

Causes of the Civil War First then is the inquiry as to the physical adaption of the negro to the state of servitude. His black color peculiarly fits him for the endurance of the heat of long continued summers. The arched leg and receding heel seem to indicate a natural preparation for strength and endurance. The absence of nervous irritability gives to him a complete exception from those inflammatory diseases so destructive in hot and damp atmospheres, and hence the remarkable fact, that the ravages of that scourge of the tropics, the yellow fever, never reach the negro race. In other portions of the body, especially the formation of the pelvis, naturalists have discovered a well-defined deterioration in the negro, which, a late learned observer, Vrolik, of Amsterdam, has declared, showed ‘a degradation in type, and an approach towards the lower form of animals.’ … Second. The mental inferiority of the negro has been often asserted and never successfully denied. … Says Lawrence: ‘The mind of the negro is inferior to that of the European, and his organization also is less perfect.’ And this he proves, ‘ not so much by the unfortunate beings who are degraded by slavery, as by every fact in the past history and present condition of Africa.’ Says Charles Hamilton Smith – whose opportunities for observing and judging, for ten years, on the Coast of Africa and in the West Indies (1797 – 1807), were unsurpassed, and whose sympathies he confesses are with the negro, - ‘The typical woolly-haired races have never invented a reasoned theological system, discovered an alphabet, framed a grammatical language, nor made the least step in science or art. They have never comprehended what they have

Battle of Fredericksburg, where Cobb was killed

Slavery learned, or retained a civilization taught them by contact with more refined nations, as soon as that contact had ceased. They have at no time formed great political states, nor commenced a self-evolving civilization; conquest with them has been confined to kindred tribes and produced only slaughter. Even Christianity, of more than three centuries duration in Congo, has scarcely excited a progressive civilization.’30

Cobb’s mistake was that he believed cultural problems were really innate racial shortcomings. To hold the position that Negroes were incapable of being civilized, he had to ignore the wealth and power of the Queen of Sheba recorded in 1 Kings. To hold that they were lacking in mental capacity, he had to ignore the great African theologian, Augustine. By the 19th century, the depravity of men had expressed itself in more obvious ways in the African culture, where the influences of true Christianity were rare. When the war came, Cobb was a secessionist and a delegate to Georgia’s secession convention. He was elected to the Confederate Congress, and after organizing what was called Cobb’s Legion commanded a brigade in Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia. He bled to death from a wound by a Union shell while holding the front line at the Battle of Fredericksburg in December, 1862.

Questions

How were Cobb’s arguments right or wrong?

James Hammond

The same year as Cobb’s Inquiry was published, James Henry Hammond, Senator from South Carolina, gave a famous speech in the United States Senate which made another similar argument for slavery. On March 4, 1858 he rose to defend the admission of Kansas under a pro-slavery constitution. In his speech, he said: In all social systems there must be a class to do the menial duties, to perform the drudgery of life. That is, a class requiring but a low order of intellect and but little skill. Its requisites are vigor, docility, fidelity. Such a class you must have, or you would not have that other class which leads progress, civilization, and refinement. It constitutes the very

James Hammond

Causes of the Civil War mud-sill of society and of political government; and you might as well attempt to build a house in the air, as to build either the one or the other, except on this mud-sill. Fortunately for the South, she found a race adapted to that purpose to her hand. A race inferior to her own, but eminently qualified in temper, in vigor, in docility, in capacity to stand the climate, to answer all her purposes. We use them for our purpose, and call them slaves. We found them slaves by the common “consent of mankind,” which, according to Cicero, “lex naturae est.” The highest proof of what is Nature’s law. We are old-fashioned at the South yet; slave is a word discarded now by “ears polite;” I will not characterize that class at the North by that term; but you have it; it is there; it is everywhere; it is eternal. The Senator from New York said yesterday that the whole world had abolished slavery. Aye, the name, but not the thing; all the powers of the earth cannot abolish that. God only can do it when he repeals the fiat, “the poor ye always have with you;” for the man who lives by daily labor, and scarcely lives at that, and who has to put out his labor in the market, and take the best he can get for it; in short, your whole hireling class of manual laborers and “operatives,” as you call them, are essentially slaves. The difference between us is, that our slaves are hired for life and well compensated; there is no starvation, no begging, no want of employment among our people, and not too much employment either. Yours are hired by the day, not cared for, and scantily compensated, which may be proved in the most painful manner, at any hour in any street in any of your large towns. Why, you meet more beggars in one day, in any single street of the city of New York, than you would meet in a lifetime in the whole South. We do not think that whites should be slaves either by law or necessity. Our slaves are black, of another and inferior race. The status in which we have placed them is an elevation. They are elevated from the condition in which God first created them, by being made our slaves. None of that race on the whole face of the globe can be compared with the slaves of the South. They are happy, content, unaspiring, and utterly incapable, from intellectual weakness, ever to give us any trouble by their aspirations. Yours are white, of your own race; you are brothers of one blood. They are your equals in natural endowment of intellect, and they feel galled by their degradation. Our slaves do not vote. We give them no political power. Yours do vote, and, being the majority, they are the depositories of all your political power. If they knew the tremendous secret, that the ballot-box is stronger than “an army with banners,” and could combine, where would you be? Your society would be reconstructed, your government overthrown, your property divided, not as they have mistakenly attempted to initiate such proceedings by meeting in parks, with arms in their hands,

Slavery but by the quiet process of the ballot-box. You have been making war upon us to our very hearthstones. How would you like for us to send lecturers and agitators North, to teach these people this, to aid in combining, and to lead them?31

Questions

How would you support or refute Hammond’s arguments for slavery from scripture?

Abolitionists William Garrison

Along with people supporting slavery, there were men making arguments against slavery. One of the most significant leaders of the anti-slavery movement was William Lloyd Garrison. He was born on December 10th, 1805 in Massachusetts. His father abandoned the family when William was very young, and the young man was apprenticed to a newspaper at the age of fourteen. He began writing articles, and acquiring skills he would use later in his life. He joined the abolitionist movement when he was about 25. At first he worked with the American Colonization Society, a group of Americans who wished to colonize the freed slaves, so they would not remain in the United States. While he was associated with them, he gave an Address to the Colonization Society on July 4th, 1829 at Parks Street Church in Boston. This was his first major statement against slavery. In it, he said: Every Fourth of July, our Declaration of Independence is produced, with a sublime indignation, to set forth the tyranny of the mother country, and to challenge the admiration of the world. But what a pitiful detail of grievances does this document present, in comparison with the wrongs which our slaves endure! In the one case, it is hardly the plucking of a hair from the head; in the other, it is the crushing of a live body on the wheel—the stings of the wasp contrasted with the tortures of the Inquisition. Before God, I must say, that such a glaring contradiction as exists between our creed and practice the annals of six thousand years cannot parallel. In view of it, I am ashamed of my country. I am sick of our unmeaning declamation in praise of liberty and equality; of our hypocritical cant about the unalienable

William Garrison

Causes of the Civil War rights of man. I could not, for my right hand, stand up before a European assembly, and exult that I am an American citizen, and denounce the usurpations of a kingly government as wicked and unjust; or, should I make the attempt, the recollection of my country’s barbarity and despotism would blister my lips, and cover my cheeks with burning blushes of shame … Suppose that, by a miracle, the slaves should suddenly become white. Would you shut your eyes upon their sufferings, and calmly talk of Constitutional limitations? No; your voice would peal in the ears of the taskmasters like deep thunder; you would carry the Constitution by force, if it could not be taken by treaty; patriotic assemblies would congregate at the corners of every street; the old Cradle of Liberty would rock to a deeper tone than ever echoed therein at British aggression; the pulpit would acquire new and unusual eloquence from our holy religion. The argument, that these white slaves are degraded, would not then obtain. You would say, it is enough that they are white, and in bondage, and they ought immediately to be set free. You would multiply your schools of instruction, and your temples of worship, and rely on them for security … Sirs, the prejudices of the North are stronger than those of the South; —they bristle, like so many bayonets, around the slaves; —they forge and rivet the chains of the nation. Conquer them, and the victory is won. The enemies of emancipation take courage from our criminal timidity. They have justly stigmatized us, even on the floor of Congress, with the most contemptuous epithets. We are (they say) their “white slaves,” afraid of our own shadows, who have been driven back to the wall again and again; who stand trembling under their whips; who turn pale, retreat, and surrender, at a talismanic threat to dissolve the Union … I call upon the ambassadors of Christ everywhere to make known this proclamation: “Thus saith the Lord God of the Africans, Let this people go, that they may serve me.” I ask them to “proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound”—to light up a flame of philanthropy that shall burn till all Africa be redeemed from the night of moral death, and the song of deliverance be heard throughout her borders. I call upon the churches of the living God to lead in this great enter-prise. If the soul be immortal, priceless, save it from remediless woe. Let them combine their energies, and systematize their plans, for the rescue of suffering humanity. Let them pour out their supplications to heaven in behalf of the slave. Prayer is omnipotent: its breath can melt adamantine rocks—its touch can break the stoutest chains. Let anti-slavery

Slavery charity-boxes stand uppermost among those for missionary, tract and educational purposes. On this subject, Christians have been asleep; let them shake off their slumbers, and arm for the holy contest.32

Garrison did not long remain associated with the colonization movement. Not long after giving this speech, he publicly rejected the idea. In 1831 he founded The Liberator, which would become very important as an anti-slavery newspaper. Garrison was very articulate in his denunciation of slavery and his urgings that the slaves be immediately freed, although he did not advocate aggression. He was very fiercely against the U.S. Constitution, which unified them with slaveholders, and he wished to see the Union dissolved rather than retain the connection. He ended the Liberator on January 1st, 1866, having seen the end of slavery. He died on May 24, 1879 and was survived by four sons and a daughter.

Frederick Douglass

Another important abolitionist was an escaped slave, Frederick Douglass. Douglass was born around 1818 as a slave in Maryland. He was able to read and decided to attempt escape. He was sent by his master to a farmer who had a reputation of being able to break slaves, hoping he could make Douglass more obedient. The beatings, however, did not produce their intended result. Douglass tried to escape several times, and, in 1838, he was finally successful. He married a free black woman, Anna Murray, and they settled in Massachusetts. There they met William Lloyd Garrison, and Garrison encouraged Douglass to become an anti-slavery speaker and writer. He traveled the country with his story, and was often before very unfavorable crowds. At one stop in Indiana, he was chased by an angry mob and had his hand broken in the encounter. Nonetheless his popularity grew, and he wrote Frederick Douglass three autobiographies. At the time racism, was very prevalent in the entire United States, both in the North and the South. Many people were surprised that a black man could be as articulate as Douglass. Douglass did not advocate violence as the way to end slavery. He also did not think, as Garrison did, that the Union was inherently pro-slavery and should be dissolved. He was for working within the

Causes of the Civil War Union to end slavery. Douglass continued to be outspoken throughout his life, dying on February 20, 1895.

Further Study

Thoughts Upon the African Slave Trade by John Newton A Defense of Virginia, and Through Her, of the South by R. L. Dabney Defending Slavery by Paul Finkelman 4th of July Address to the Colonization Society by William Lloyd Garrison Avaliable online at www.DiscerningHistory.com/Causes

Slavery

Footnotes 1

The Life and Travels of George Whitefield, M.A. By James Paterson Gledstone (London:

Colonists in Bondage by Alison Smith and Abbot Emerson Smith, p. 18

Ibid, p. 44-45

Harper’s New Monthly Magazine (New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1882) volume 65 p. 901

Colonists in Bondage, p. 43

Ibid, p. 6

White Servitude in Maryland, p. 111

Slavery and Servitude in Colonial North America, p. 8

White Servitude in Maryland, p. 35

Longman’s, Green and Co., 1871) p. 433-434.

10 The Posthumous Works of the Late Rev. John Newton by John Newton (Philadelphia, W. W. Woodward, 1809) vol. 2 p. 227-228 11 Ibid, p. 231 12 Ibid, p. 232-233 13 Ibid, p. 234 14 Ibid, p. 324 15 Ibid, p. 227 - 252 16 A Defence of Virginia, and through Her, of the South, in Recent and Pending Contests Against the Sectional Party by Robert Lewis Dabney (New York: E. J. Hale and Son, 1867) p. 94-100. 17 Ibid, p. 103-104. 18 References include Genesis 14:14, 17:10-12, 18:17-19, 20:14 and 26:12-14. 19 A Defence of Virginia, p. 109. 20 Genesis 16:7-9 21 Accomplice in the crime. 22 A Defence of Virginia, p. 112. 23 Numbers 31:25-30, 40, 46; Joshua 9:20-27 24 Ibid, p. 122. 25 Ibid, p. 145. 26 Ephesians 6:5-9 27 Philemon 9-19 28 A Defense of Virginia, p. 179-181; 29 Ibid, p 205-208. 30 Defending Slavery Proslavery - Thought in the Old South – A Brief History with Documents by Paul Finkelman (Boston: Bedford/ St. Martin’s, 2003) p. 147-149 31 Defending Slavery, p. 86-88 32 William Lloyd Garrison 1805-1879: The Story of his Life Told by His Children (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1894) vol. 1, p. 131 – 136.

C h a p t e r

Economics B

ecause love of money is the root of all kinds of evil, understanding the causes of events includes understanding the economic issues involved. Much of people’s behavior is driven by their financial concerns and desire for money. Leading up to the American Civil War, decisions were made that ended up creating significant differences between the North and the South. Because of climate and other natural resources, some of the differences existed at the founding of the country, but many of them were aggravated by actions taken by the government. Whenever governments try to effect the economy apart from simply constraining theft, false weights and measures, etc., they start to have to pick winners and losers. This creates resentment between those who benefited and those who feel like they are bearing the burden of paying for those benefits. As America developed, the South’s perception became that the national government was choosing the North to win at their expense.

American System

When the United States was founded and the national government was established, there were various views of how that government should be involved in the economy. An early visionary for government involvement was Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury. He advocated the American System, a collection of methods for the government to promote business. It consisted of several main elements: protective tariffs, bounties to encourage trade, a national bank, and federal subsidies for internal improvements. Hamilton expressed his ideas in his Report on Manufactures, which he submitted to Congress on December 5, 1791. His main goal was to increase the manufacturing in America.

Causes of the Civil War His reasons for wanting more manufacturing in America were expressed by Adam Smith in 1776 in his famous Wealth of Nations. In it, Smith said that there are three levels of economic development. The lowest level is agriculture, which, as the nation advances and gains wealth, transforms into the middle level of manufacturing. Finally, because of the amount of manufactured goods, the wealthiest nations are involved with the highest level, the transportation of goods. With America being almost exclusively agricultural at the time of the founding, Hamilton felt that it was important for the future of the nation to establish manufacturing. Farmers could provide food for the nation, but Hamilton believed for America to advance it needed manufacturers to improve the raw materials produced by agriculture. “There seems to be a moral certainty,” Hamilton said, “that the trade of a country, which is both manufacturing and agricultural, will be more lucrative and prosperous than that of a country which is merely agricultural.1”

Questions

Is America today primarily involved in agriculture, manufacturing or transport? Explain why you think Smith’s theory was right or wrong.

Protective Tariffs

In many ways, Hamilton was an elitist who believed the most successful people must direct others, and that industry would not thrive without the help of government. He thought American farmers would continue doing what they knew how to do, instead of changing to a business that would be better for the country in the long term. Therefore, he proposed a plan for the government to encourage industries. One of these was “protecting duties” or tariffs - taxes on certain imports and exports designed to facilitate the growth of manufacturing. In Hamilton’s words: Protecting duties - or duties on those foreign articles which are the rivals of the domestic ones intended to be encouraged. Duties of this nature evidently amount to a virtual bounty on the domestic fabrics; since, by enhancing the charges on foreign fabrics, they enable the national manufacturers to undersell all their foreign competitors. The propriety of this species of encouragement need not be dwelt upon, as it is not only a clear result from the numerous topics which had been suggested, but is sanctioned by the laws of the United States, in a variety of instances; it has the additional recommendation of being a resource of revenue.2

Bounties

Another method Hamilton wished to use was “pecuniary bounties.” This is where

Economics the government, in addition to increasing the price of foreign imports through taxation, would also give money directly to native manufacturers. This has been found one of the most efficacious means of encouraging manufactures, and is, in some views, the best. Though it has not yet been practiced upon by the government of the United States ... and though it is less favored by public opinion than some other modes, its advantages are these: It is a species of encouragement more positive and direct than any other, and, for that very reason, has a more immediate tendency to stimulate and uphold new enterprises, increasing the chances for profit, and diminishing the risk of loss, in the first attempts.3 … Except for simple and ordinary kinds of household manufacture, or those for which there are very commanding local advantages, pecuniary bounties are, in most cases, indispensable to the introduction of a new branch [of manufacturing]. A stimulus and a support, not less powerful and direct, is, generally speaking, essential to the overcoming of the obsta-

Alexander Hamilton

cles which arise from the competitions of superior skill and maturity elsewhere.4

However, there was a problem with these plans. When the states formed the general government, they had explicitly delegated a limited set of powers to that government.5 The powers needed to implement Hamilton’s plans were not in the list enumerated in the constitution. In his argument to justify the national government paying bounties, Hamilton pointed to the General Welfare Clause, which he interpreted as giving the Federal government the ability to pass any law which it saw as promoting the general welfare. From there, holding to this broad interpretation of the General Welfare Clause, Hamilton only had to argue that bounties were, in fact, for the general welfare, not just benefiting the people who received the bounties: There is a degree of prejudice against bounties, from an appearance of giving away the public money without an immediate consideration, and from a supposition that they serve to enrich particular classes at the expense of the community. But neither of these sources of dislike will bear a serious examination. There is no purpose to which public money can be more beneficially applied than to the acquisition

Causes of the Civil War of a new and useful branch of industry; no consideration more valuable than a permanent addition to the general stock of productive labor. As to the second source of objection, it equally lies against other modes of encouragement, which are admitted to be eligible. As often as a duty upon a foreign article makes an addition to its price, it causes an extra expense to the community for the benefit of the domestic manufacturer. A bounty does no more. But it is the interest of the society, in each case, to submit to the temporary expense - which is more than compensated by an increase of industry and wealth, by an augmentation of resources and independence, and by the circumstances of eventual cheapness.6

Hamilton argued that the bounties would contribute to more national wealth which would be beneficial to all, and that the cost added to the goods would be temporary.

Internal Improvements

Hamilton also called for Congress to pass laws for “the facilitating of the transport of commodities.” He believed the Federal government could encourage industry by building the infrastructure of transportion throughout the country. On this point, as well, there were debates whether the United States government was permitted by the U.S. Constitution to use revenue for this purpose. [I]t were to be wished that there was no doubt of the power of the National Government to lend its direct aid on a comprehensive plan. This is one of those improvements which could be prosecuted with more efficacy by the whole than by any part or parts of the Union. There are cases in which the general interest will be in danger to be sacrificed to the collision of some supposed local interests. Jealousies, in matters of this kind, are as apt to exist as they are apt to be erroneous.7

Many of these, and others of Hamilton’s suggestions, were passed by Congress in the following years. In fact, the American Plan became a major point of debate in Congress for years - whether these plans were Constitutional, and, if so, how to implement them to benefit the entire country, rather than specific individuals, industries or regions. Even today, Hamilton’s ideas still reign supreme in the government, and Congress spends much of its money in a way that a literal reading of the Constitution does not allow.

Questions

Do you think Hamilton’s American Plan was Constitutional? Why or why not?

Economics

The Great Triumvirate

As the next generation started to replace the founders in the national government, new leaders started to emerge, specifically, a group of men called the “Great Triumvirate.” Triumvirate is a Latin term for a political regime dominated by three individuals. There were several of these in Roman history, including the first triumvirate of Julius Caesar, Pompey the Great and Marcus Crassus, and the second triumvirate of Octavian, Mark Anthony and Marcus Aemilius Lepidus. For several decades in the first half of the 19th century, the United States had its own “Great Triumvirate,” composed of Henry Clay of Kentucky, Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and John C. Calhoun of South Carolina. All three were at various times Secretary of State and in both the House and Senate, and each ran unsuccessfully for president. These men, through their oratory skills had great influence in the country, and each was the representative of his section of the Union: Clay the West, Webster the North, and Calhoun the South. Each of these men were widely respected in their section of the country and were able to create compromises and policies that kept the United States together. Knowing who they were and what they stood for gives a good understanding of the issues the country was grappling with through those years.

Henry Clay Early Career

Henry Clay was born in Hanover County, Virginia on April 12th, 1777. His father was a planter, and Henry had eight siblings. He was hired as a secretary by George Wythe, a signer of the Declaration of Independence. Clay studied law under Wythe, as well as under Virginia’s attorney general, and the Chancellor of Virginia. He passed the bar in 1797 at the age of twenty, and moved west to Kentucky where he worked as a lawyer. He prospered, building a plantation called Ashland, and acquiring numerous slaves. He married Lucretia Hart in 1799 and had eleven children, seven of whom outlived him. In 1803 he entered politics, being elected to the Kentucky General Assembly. He quickly gained influence in state

Henry Clay

Causes of the Civil War politics, and after only three years he was appointed to fill a vacancy in the United States Senate. The Constitution requires Senators to be thirty years old, but apparently no one noticed that Clay was only 29. At the end of his term, Clay returned to Kentucky and became the Speaker of its House. One bill he proposed was to require the representatives to wear homespun instead of imported cloth. Humphrey Marshall, one of two men who opposed the measure, got into an argument with Clay. After they almost got into a fight on the House floor, Clay challenged Marshall to a duel. Each fired three times. Clay was hit in the thigh and Marshall in the chest, but neither was mortally wounded.

Speaker of the House

Henry Clay returned to Washington in the summer of 1811, this time as a representative. When he arrived, something unprecedented happened. He was elected Speaker of the House on his first day as a U.S. representative. This had never happened before or since. At the time, the position of Speaker of the House did not involve much real power, but Clay changed that. As Speaker, he was the second most powerful man in America, surpassed only by the President. He took control by immediately appointing members of the War Hawk faction, who were in favor of the War of 1812 against England, to all the important committees. Clay remained Speaker of the House for fourteen years, five terms, all the time remaining one of the guiding forces of the nation. He was one of the commissioners at the Treaty of Ghent, which ended the War of 1812. He was a proponent of the American Plan or System, consisting of internal improvements, a national bank, and protective tariffs. He also helped orchestrate the Missouri Compromise, which settled for a time the issue of slavery in the territories.

The Election of 1824

In 1824 Clay decided to run for president. The Democratic-Republican party had been so successful in the preceding years that the other major party, the Federalists, had collapsed and ceased to exist. However, three other Democrat-Republicans were running for President - John Quincy Adams of Massachusetts, Andrew Jackson of Tennessee and William Crawford of Georgia. Policy was not a major issue in this election, and when the candidates were put up for the vote in November, no one had received the majority of the votes which was required to win. Jackson, a hero of the War of 1812, won 99 electoral votes, Adams 84, Crawford 41 and Clay 37. The Constitution dictates that if no candidate gains a majority, the House of Representatives decides between the top three candidates, voting by states. This is the only time this has ever happened in the history of the United

Economics States. Clay was left out because he came in fourth, but as Speaker of the House, he was in control of the process for who would become president. Jackson expected to win in the House because he had received a plurality of both the electoral and popular vote. However, Clay changed that by throwing his support behind Adams. Adams agreed more closely with the American System, and Clay didn’t think Andrew Jackson should become president just for winning the Battle of New Orleans. On the final vote, Clay’s influence prevailed and Adams won with 13 states, followed by Jackson with 7 and Crawford with 4. After this victory, Adams offered Clay the position of Secretary of State, which he accepted. This led to many cries that Clay had sold the election of Adams in a “corrupt bargain.” This charge would be used four years later in the next presidential election and it was instrumental in allowing Jackson to defeat Adams.

John Quincy Adams

Senate

Clay was elected a Senator from Kentucky in 1831. He was the leader of the National Republicans, which later became the Whig Party, the faction that opposed Jackson. Clay opposed the president because Jackson effectively shut down the Second National Bank, and ran against Jackson for the presidency a second time in 1832. However, Clay lost by a large margin - 55% to 37% of the popular vote. He was proposed as the Whig candidate in 1840, but lost the nomination to William Henry Harrison. Clay was nominated again in 1844, and ran against James K. Polk. Polk was in favor of fighting for a higher northern border with Canada, and of annexing Texas from Mexico. Clay was against the annexation

Causes of the Civil War of Texas, as he thought it would provoke a needless war with Mexico, and would rekindle the argument over slavery in the territories. Polk won in a very close election. Clay probably would have won had it not been for a third party, the anti-slavery Liberty Party, which took enough votes for him to be defeated in the very close election in New York. After losing the Whig party’s nomination in 1848 to Zachary Taylor, Clay retired for a year before being re-elected to the Senate. There, he worked to pass his last important piece of legislation, the Compromise of 1850, with which he hoped to resolve the issue of slavery in the territories which had been won in the recently ended MexicanAmerican War. He created an omnibus bill which would have admitted California as a free state, created Utah and New Mexico as territories which could decide for themselves on the issue of slavery, prohibited the slave trade in Washington DC, created a more strict fugitive slave law, set the boundaries of Texas, and declared that Congress could not interfere with the domestic slave trade. This bill, however, failed to pass. Exhausted from Henry Clay his work and sick with tuberculosis, Clay left the Senate to recuperate while Stephen Douglas, one of the younger generation of leaders of the Senate, worked to pass the pieces of the bill separately. Douglas was successful, and the compromise of 1850 probably delayed secession and war for several years.

Legacy

Henry Clay died from tuberculosis in Washington on June 29, 1852 at the age of 75. His body was laid in state at the Capitol building, allowing the public to walk through and view the body. He was the first man to be honored in this way, and was later buried in his home state of Kentucky. Clay’s greatest legacy was his compromises which helped delay the Civil War. Fittingly, his tombstone reads, “I know no North, no South, no East, no West.” In the debates over the Compromise of 1850, Clay said: I go for honorable compromise whenever it can be made. Life itself is but a compromise between death and life, and the struggle continuing throughout our whole

Economics existence, until the great Destroyer finally triumphs. All legislation, all government, all society, if formed upon the principle of mutual concession, politeness, comity, courtesy; upon these, every thing is based.... Compromises have this recommendation, that if you concede any thing, you have something conceded to you in return.8

Senator Henry Foote of Mississippi, who served in the Senate with Clay, later said, “Had there been one such man in the Congress of the United States as Henry Clay in 1860–’61 there would, I feel sure, have been no civil war.”9

Questions

How did Clay change the role of the Speaker of the House? How did Clay help delay the Civil War?

Daniel Webster Early Life

The second member of the Triumvirate was Daniel Webster. Webster was born on January 18, 1782 in Salisbury, New Hampshire. His father had led the local militia during the War for Independence, and had ten children. Daniel attended Darthmouth College, and after his graduation was apprenticed to a local lawyer. At the age of 22, he moved to Boston and worked for Christopher Gore, a prominent Massachusetts lawyer who had helped negotiate the Jay Treaty with Great Britain. In 1808 Webster married Grace Fletcher, and had four children before her death in 1828. Daniel Webster gained prominence by his opposition to the War of 1812, giving a speech and writing pamphlets against it. New England opposed the war because its commercial interests were hurt by the trade embargo against England and France. Ultimately,

Daniel Webster

Causes of the Civil War he was elected to the Rockingham Convention, which sent the Rockingham Memorial to President James Madison, declaring its opposition to the ongoing war. Webster’s contributions to the debate led to his election to the United States House of Representatives from Massachusetts in 1812. In the House, he continued to oppose the war, as well as the paper money that Madison used to fund it. He was against the protective tariff of the American System authored by Henry Clay, then Speaker of the House, saying it was against the true spirit of the Constitution.

Constitutional Lawyer

Daniel Webster came into national prominence through his work as a Constitutional lawyer. In the first quarter of the 19th century, he argued 223 cases before the Supreme Court, and often the justices would base their decisions on his arguments. He was involved in eight of the leading cases of the time. He became a leading statesman and many people called him the “Great Expounder of the Constitution.” He played a major role at the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention of 1820, where he argued unsuccessfully that voting should be tied to property ownership. He became famous throughout New England and the nation as an orator, giving famous speeches on the anniversary of the landing of the Pilgrims, the Battle of Bunker Hill, and the deaths of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams.

Senator

In 1822 Webster was re-elected to the United States House, and in 1827 moved on to the Senate. When the issue of the tariff was brought up again in 1828, he changed his position from what he had previously argued. Now he was much more supportive of the protective tariff and Clay’s American System. When the tariff passed, South Carolina objected strongly. They began talking of nullification, where a state, if it believes a Federal bill to be unconstitutional, can pass a bill rendering a Federal law null and void. At that point, Webster reversed another position he had held years before. Now he was much less supportive of state’s rights than he had been during the War of 1812. At the time, John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, the leading intellectual of the nullification movement, was Vice President of the United States and, as the head of the Senate, could not address the body. Instead Robert Hayne, Senator from South Carolina, engaged Webster in a famous multi-day debate in January, 1830. Webster ended his Second Reply to Hayne by saying: When my eyes shall be turned to behold for the last time the sun in heaven, may I not see him shining on the broken and dishonored fragments of a once glorious Union; on States dissevered, discordant, belligerent; on a land rent with civil feuds,

Economics or drenched, it may be, in fraternal blood! Let their last feeble and lingering glance rather behold the gorgeous ensign of the republic... not a stripe erased or polluted, nor a single star obscured, bearing for its motto, no such miserable interrogatory as “What is all this worth?” nor those other words of delusion and folly, “Liberty first and Union afterwards”; but everywhere, spread all over in characters of living light, blazing on all its ample folds, as they float over the sea and over the land, and in every wind under the whole heavens, that other sentiment, dear to every true American heart,— Liberty and Union, now and for ever, one and inseparable!10

Webster supported the sending of troops to South Carolina when nullification was enacted, and was wary of the compromise that Henry Clay worked out in 1833 which ended the crisis. Daniel Webster joined Clay in opposing Andrew Jackson’s attempt to shut down the National Bank, of which Webster was the legal counsel and director of the Boston Branch. In 1836 Webster ran for the nomination of the Whig Party, but was unsuccessful in gaining national support. In 1839 he was offered the opportunity to run for Vice President under William Henry Harrison, but he declined and John Tyler of Virginia was chosen instead. Instead, he was appointed Secretary of State in 1840, and continued in that role under John Tyler when he became president after Harrison’s death. Tyler was an unpopular president in most of the country, opposing Clay’s economic plans and supporting state’s rights. Neither political party supported Tyler, and the Whigs began impeachment proceedings Daniel Webster against him based on their view that vetoing bills on policy rather than constitutionality was unconstitutional. Webster, along with all the other Whigs in Tyler’s cabinet, resigned in protest of the president’s actions. Webster was re-elected to the Senate in 1845, and, like Clay, opposed the annexation of Texas and Mexican War as it would reopen the issue of slavery. In 1848, he again sought the presidential nomination of the Whig party and once again failed to receive it. He was offered to run as vice president under Zachary Taylor, but he refused again as he had done with Harrison. Taylor, like Harrison, died soon after being elected. Ironically, Webster had twice been offered the opportunity to become vice president and twice he refused, although both times he would have eventually become president through the death of his running mate.

Causes of the Civil War Compromise of 1850

Webster joined with Henry Clay and Stephen Douglas in pushing for the Compromise of 1850, in an effort to prevent a Civil War which they saw looming in the distance. He gave one of the most famous speeches of his career on March 7th, 1850 which he began by saying: I wish to speak today, not as a Massachusetts man, nor as a Northern man, but as an American, and a member of the Senate of the United States…. I speak today for the preservation of the Union. ‘Hear me for my cause.’11

Webster debating the Compromise of 1850

Webster’s support for the Compromise, which included a more strict fugitive slave law, greatly angered the abolitionists of Massachusetts, his home state. Theodore Parker said that “no living man has done so much to debauch the conscience of the nation; to debauch the press, the pulpit, the forum, the bar!”12 Webster resigned from the Senate in 1850, and accepted the position of Secretary of State under Millard Fillmore. In that position, he strove to enforce the Fugitive Slave Law, which made him unpopular in the North and ensured that he did not receive the presidential nomination of 1852.

Death

Even if he had been nominated in 1852, Webster would not have gotten a chance to be elected. He fell from his horse and suffered a wound to his head, which resulted in a hemorrhage and his eventual death on October 24, 1852. One of Webster’s greatest failings was his poor mangement of money. He maintained a constant debt, which he accrued through land speculation, living beyond his means, and gambling. He often needed

Economics friends to provide money to pay his obligations. Daniel Webster is remembered today for his work to preserve the Union.

Questions

Why would Webster have changed his position on the government’s role in economics? What were Webster’s virtues and flaws?

John Calhoun Early Life

The final member of the Great Triumvirate was John Caldwell Calhoun. He was born to a Scotch-Irish immigrant in South Carolina on March 18, 1782. His father, Patrick Calhoun, was a prosperous planter who supported independence from England, but opposed the ratification of the Constitution. When John was seventeen his father became ill, so John quit school to work on the farm to help support the family. However, he was able to resume his studies with financial help from his brother. He graduated from Yale College in 1804, attended a law school in Connecticut, and was admitted to the bar in 1807. In 1811, he married Floride Bonneau Calhoun, his first cousin once removed. They had ten children, seven of whom lived past infancy.

Congressman

John C. Calhoun

The year before Calhoun’s marriage, he was elected a United States Congressman from South Carolina. Calhoun became a famous intellectual and orator who, although not as charismatic as other politicians, nonetheless became a leading and influential figure. He did not have a naturally pleasing voice, but through much practice and self discipline, he was able to become a good public speaker. Calhoun aligned himself with the War Hawks,

Causes of the Civil War led by the Speaker of the House, Henry Clay. They supported a war with England, which became the War of 1812. In Clay’s policy of appointing those who agreed with him to leading roles, he made Calhoun the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and Calhoun became widely known throughout the country when he led that committee to call for a declaration of war on England. When the war was declared, he continued to work in Congress to support it, improving the military and economy. After the war was won, Calhoun allied himself with Henry Clay in working for the American System of a national bank, internal improvements and a high protective tariff. Calhoun did not want the slavery issue to divide the nation, therefore he supported the Missouri Compromise of 1820, hoping that it would put the question to rest. John Quincy Adams said approvingly of him, Calhoun is a man of fair and candid mind, of honorable principles, of clear and quick understanding, of cool self-possession, of enlarged philosophical views, and of ardent patriotism. He is above all sectional and factious prejudices more than any other statesman of this Union with whom I have ever acted.13

In 1817, Calhoun was appointed Secretary of War under James Monroe, and remained there until 1825. While in Congress during the War of 1812, he had seen that many improvements were necessary in the American military, and now he was in a position to make the improvements. In fact, the American military was in such a bad state that Monroe had to ask four people to become Secretary of War before Calhoun finally accepted. Calhoun worked on building a modern navy and a larger standing army of 11,000 men in case of war. He also continued to push for Clay’s American System, with a desire to build national unity through infrastructure.

Vice President

Calhoun planned to run for president in the campaign of 1824. When he failed to win the nomination of the legislature of his home state, South Carolina, he decided to run for Vice President instead. Although the four-way presidential race was hotly contested and no candidate gained a majority, the election for Vice President was different. Calhoun won easily as he was two candidates’ running mate, and for four years was Vice President under John Quincy Adams, who had been chosen by the House. Calhoun, however, did not like the fact that Adams had won in the House, and thought it was due to the unfair influence of Henry Clay. Therefore, he began opposing Henry Clay’s American System, the nationalist program he had previously been working to enact. In 1828 he again ran for Vice President, this time under Andrew Jackson. He was elected again, and became one of only two vice presidents to serve under two different presidents.

Economics

Nullification

Calhoun and other Southern congressmen wrote what would become the Tariff of 1828, which contained high duties on imports. They wrote it hoping it would not pass. They thought it would offend both the Southerners who did not want tariffs on manufactured goods and the Northerners who did not want high tariffs on the raw materials that they needed. They could then blame the bill’s defeat on the New England Whig congressmen who opposed the bill. Instead, to the chagrin of Calhoun and other southern politicians, the protective tariff passed with a very close vote. Calhoun returned to his home in South Carolina and wrote the South Carolina Exposition and Protest. In it, he repudiated John C. Calhoun the nationalist American System policies he had previously advocated. Now he defended state’s rights and proposed the right of nullification, the doctrine that a state had the power to declare a Federal law null and void which it believed to be unconstitutional: If it be conceded, as it must be by every one who is the least conversant with our institutions, that the sovereign powers delegated are divided between the General and State Governments, and that the latter hold their portion by the same tenure as the former, it would seem impossible to deny to the States the right of deciding on the infractions of their powers, and the proper remedy to be applied for their correction. The right of judging, in such cases, is an essential attribute of sovereignty, of which the States cannot be divested without losing their sovereignty itself, and being reduced to a subordinate corporate condition. In fact, to divide power, and to give to one of the parties the exclusive right of judging of the portion allotted to each, is, in reality, not to divide it at all; and to reserve such exclusive right to the General Government (it matters not by what department to be exercised), is to convert it, in fact, into a great consolidated government, with unlimited powers, and to divest the States, in reality, of all their rights. It is impossible to understand the force of terms, and to deny so plain a conclusion.14

Calhoun also argued that states had a right to unilaterally secede from the Union if they

Causes of the Civil War believed it was necessary. This position was in sharp contrast to that of President Jackson, who, although he was known for supporting state’s rights, was against nullification and secession. Their break was manifest in 1830, when Jackson proposed a toast at a dinner ton “Our federal Union, it must be preserved.” Calhoun responded with, “The Union, next to our liberty, the most dear: may we all remember that it can only be preserved by respecting the rights of the States, and distributing equally the benefit and burden of the Union.”15 The relationship between John C. Calhoun and his president worsened when Jackson learned that many years before, Calhoun, as Secretary of War, had proposed that the President censure Jackson for an unauthorized invasion of Florida. Calhoun would not retract his position, and the argument grew heated. Finally the break became public when the letters were published. Calhoun resigned the vice presidency in 1832 in order to run for the Senate. He recognized that by supporting nullification, he had undermined his reputation through the entire nation, except in his own state, and had destroyed his hope for the presidency. This made him the first vice president in United States history to resign his office. In 1832, the Nullifiers won the state elections in South Carolina, and a convention was called in order to practice nullification, and declared the “Tariff of Abominations,” as they called the Tariff of 1828, null and void. For a time, it looked like there might be a war between South Carolina and the United States government under Andrew Jackson. However, the Compromise Tariff of 1832 was passed, with help from Calhoun, which South Carolina was willing to accept.

Slavery

After the tariff issue was resolved for a time, Calhoun spent his time in the Senate opposing abolitionism and defending the expansion of slavery. Calhoun not only believed that slavery was permissible, he thought it was beneficial to society, I hold that in the present state of civilization, where two races of different origin, and distinguished by color, and other physical differences, as well as intellectual, are brought together, the relation now existing in the slaveholding States between the two, is, instead of an evil, a good—a positive good. … I may say with truth, that in few countries so much is left to the share of the laborer, and so little exacted from him, or where there is more kind attention paid to him in sickness or infirmities of age. Compare his condition with the tenants of the poor houses in the more civilized portions of Europe—look at the sick, and the old and infirm slave, on one hand, in the midst of his family and friends, under the kind superintending care of his master and mistress, and compare it with the forlorn and wretched condition of the pauper in the poorhouse … I hold then, that there never has yet existed a wealthy and civilized

Economics society in which one portion of the community did not, in point of fact, live on the labor of the other.16

When John Tyler became president upon the death of Harrison, Calhoun supported Tyler’s veto of a bill for a national bank, because Calhoun thought it was part of the president’s power to constrain Congress. He believed he had a good chance to be elected president, so he retired from the Senate in 1842 to rest at his Fort Hill Plantation to wait for the results, but events intervened. In March of 1844, Tyler’s Secretary of State died, and Calhoun was appointed in his stead. In that position, he worked to finish the annexation of Texas, which had revolted from Mexico. When James K. Polk was inaugurated the next president in 1845, he did not keep Calhoun on as Secretary of State, so Calhoun returned to the Senate. He would remain there for the next five years, focusing on defending the rights of the South to hold slaves, and expanding with them into new territories. When the Compromise of 1850 was proposed by Henry Clay, Stephen Douglas, and Daniel Webster, Calhoun opposed it. Although he was too physically weak to speak against it, he wrote a speech which he had a friend read: Sir, the day that the balance between the two sections of the country - the slaveholding States and the non-slaveholding States - is destroyed, is a day that will not be far removed from political revolution, anarchy, civil war, and wide-spread disaster.17

The compromise was eventually passed, but Calhoun did not live to see it. He died on March 31, 1850. A brilliant and gifted politician was lost to the South. In 1860, the war which he had predicted a decade earlier began in his own native state – South Carolina.

Questions

How would the doctrine of nullification affect the U.S. if it had been widely adopted? In what areas did Calhoun agree with Clay and oppose Webster? In what areas did Calhoun oppose both Clay and Webster?

Andrew Jackson Settler

In addition to the Great Triumvirate, Andrew Jackson was another politician who was very influential in the politics leading up to the Civil War. In many ways, he was the opposite of the elitist Hamilton. He was a very polarizing figure and was a tough man

Causes of the Civil War willing to fight and take great risks for what he believed was correct. Jackson fought some of the elements of the American Plan. He was born on March 15, 1767 to Scotch-Irish Presbyterian immigrants in the Appalachian Mountains on the border between North and South Carolina. During the American Revolution, he was too young to fight, so he joined the militia as a courier. Andrew and his brother Robert were captured by the British and held as prisoners. In what would become a famous story, a British major ordered Andrew to clean his boots and when the boy refused, the officer slashed him across the head with his sword. The brothers’ captivity ended when their mother secured their release, but Robert died soon afterward from smallpox he contracted while a prisoner. His mother died after serving on a prison ship racked by disease, leaving Jackson an orphan, his father having died before he was born. Jackson began working his way up in the world, learning enough to become a frontier lawyer, and then making his money arguing cases. As he was not from a famous or prosperous family, whatever he gained he got through his own work. He married Rachel Donelson Robards, the daughter of his landlord. However, Rachel had already been married and claimed to be divorced, but there was some debate over the circumstances surrounding her first marriage. Rachel’s lack of an official divorce would later be used against Jackson when he ran for president, the first time the background of a prospective First Lady would be used in a presidential race. Jackson resented any attacks made on his wife. In 1806, Jackson fought a duel with Charles Dickinson over comments about his wife as well Rachel Jackson as horse racing debts. Dickinson was renown as an expert shot, but Jackson was by no means an inexperienced duelist. He had already been involved in at least two other duels. Andrew Jackson believed that Dickinson would outshoot him, so when the word to fire was given, Jackson let him shoot first. Jackson took a bullet to the chest, and then aimed coolly and shot Dickinson dead. Jackson himself had been hit near the heart, but survived. He would carry the bullet with him for the rest of his life. Andrew and Rachel never had any children of their own, but they adopted several children and were guardians for many more. Andrew Jackson continued to prosper and was elected to the Tennessee

Economics Constitutional Convention in 1796. He was elected a U.S. Senator, although he served for only a short time, and was a judge on the Tennessee Supreme Court. He succeeded financially, purchasing his home, the Hermitage, along with slaves to farm it. He embarked in land speculation, trying to buy cheap frontier land which he would sell for a significant profit when the area was settled.

General

He also began his military career, becoming the head of the Tennessee militia in 1801. When the War of 1812 came, he began his combat experience by defeating the Red Stick Indians at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend. He had the Indian camp surrounded and then ordered a bayonet charge on the breastworks. His victory brought an end to the war. He was put in command of the defenses of New Orleans when a British invasion was threatened. Jackson fought the British there on January 8, 1815, after the war had ended, although neither side had gotten the news at the time. Jackson’s men repulsed the British attacks and held their position, inflicting over 2,000 casualties on the British, while losing only 71 themselves. Although this battle was not necessarily decisive, since the war was already over, Jackson became a national hero because of it, and his praise was sung throughout the country. With the war over, Jackson was sent to Georgia to quell attacks from the Seminole and Creek Indians. Jackson believed the best way to do this would be to capture Spanishheld Florida, which is what he set out to do. As he moved through Florida, destroying the homes of the hostile Indians, he found Spanish and British letters encouraging the Indians in their attacks upon the United States. He captured Alexander Arbuthnot and Robert Ambrister, British citizens working with the Indians and tried them in a military tribunal for inciting war against the United States. The tribunal sentenced them both to death. Jackson brought his campaign to an end, after securing what was then called West Florida. Andrew Jackson Negotiations with Spain were ongoing, and after being told that they must either control the Indians in East Florida or sell it over to

Causes of the Civil War the United States, Spain chose to do the latter. Although Jackson’s campaign was successful in putting down the Indians and aiding in the negotiations with Spain, not everyone thought he had done the proper thing, and this issue would come back to haunt him later in his career.

President

Tennessee nominated Jackson for president for the election of 1824, and also elected him to the Senate. When Henry Clay worked to get the House of Representatives to appoint John Quincy Adams president in the inconclusive election, Jackson’s supporters denounced Clay’s appointment as Secretary of State as a corrupt bargain. This helped position Jackson as a man of the people opposing corrupt Washington politicians. Jackson continued to work to be elected president in 1828. His followers became the Democratic Party. Their party symbol, the donkey, also came from Jackson, as he used it for a time as his symbol. In the November 1828 election, Jackson easily defeated Adams for the Presidency.

National Bank

When he became president, Andrew Jackson quickly worked important changes in the Federal government. He paid off the national debt, the first time it had ever been done in United States history. He fought hard to abolish the Second National Bank, which had been established for 20 years in 1816. He thought it was unconstitutional and benefited the rich, as opposed to the common man. This resulted in a fight between the supporters of the bank, headed by Nicholas Biddle, President of the Bank, and Jackson. As Jackson told Martin Van Buren, his right hand man and successor as president, “The Bank, Mr. Van Buren, is trying to kill me, but I will kill it.”18 In a bank veto message to Congress, on July 10, 1832, Jackson said: Experience should teach us wisdom. Most of the difficulties our Government now encounters and most of the dangers which impend over our Union have sprung from an abandonment of the legitimate objects of Government by our national legislation, and the adoption of such principles as are embodied in this act. Many of our rich men have not been content with equal protection and equal benefits, but have besought us to make them richer by act of Congress. By attempting to gratify their desires we have in the results of our legislation arrayed section against section, interest against interest, and man against man, in a fearful commotion which threatens to shake the foundations of our Union. It is time to pause in our career to review our principles, and if possible revive that devoted patriotism and spirit of compromise which distinguished the sages of the Revolution and the fathers of our Union. If we

Economics can not at once, in justice to interests vested under improvident legislation, make our Government what it ought to be, we can at least take a stand against all new grants of monopolies and exclusive privileges, against any prostitution of our Government to the advancement of the few at the expense of the many, and in favor of compromise and gradual reform in our code of laws and system of political economy. I have now done my duty to my country. If sustained by my fellow citizens, I shall be grateful and happy; if not, I shall find in the motives which impel me ample grounds for contentment and peace. In the difficulties which surround us and the dangers which threaten our institutions there is cause for neither dismay nor alarm. For relief and deliverance let us firmly rely on that kind Providence which I am sure watches with peculiar care over the destinies of our Republic, and on the intelligence and wisdom of our countrymen. Through His abundant goodness and their patriotic devotion our liberty and Union will be preserved.19

19th century Washington, DC

Politically, this message was brilliant for Jackson. He was allying himself with the common man, and characterizing his opponents as the corrupt aristocracy who supported the bank in order to enrich themselves at the expense of their countrymen. This was a major issue in the upcoming election of 1832, and Jackson’s opponents called him “King Andrew” for his use of his presidential powers. However, the people supported Jackson, so he won re-election. Jackson took this as an endorsement of his policy, and he worked to destroy the bank before its charter expired. He wanted to do this by removing government funds from the bank. He had to remove two treasury secretaries who would not comply with his wishes, but finally he

Causes of the Civil War appointed Roger B. Taney, who obeyed his instructions and removed the funds. Roger B. Taney went on to become the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and to author the Dred Scott decision. When Congress reconvened there were more protests over the bank, and Henry Clay led an effort which officially censured Jackson for violating the Constitution by destroying the National Bank. However, the deed was done and the Second National Bank was no longer used by the United States Government.

Nullification Crisis

Another issue that Jackson faced was the Nullification Crisis. The issue was over the Tariff of 1828, which, although it had been passed during the presidency of John Quincy Adams, was designed to help Jackson. It was the work of Van Buren. Van Buren counted on the fact that Jackson would win in the South, so he wrote the tariff to favor the Northern states where the race was closer. Jackson had won the election, but the South, especially South Carolina, hated the tariff. They thought that the Constitution allowed them the right to nullify a Federal law if they thought it was unconstitutional. John C. Calhoun, Jackson’s vice president, was a leader of the nullifiers. While Jackson had vetoed elements of Clay’s American System like the internal improvement and bank bills, he thought protective tariffs were necessary to be independent in preparation for the war, and to pay off the national debt. Jackson also was a strong supporter of state’s rights, but he did not think state’s rights extended to nullification or secession. He signed the Tariff of 1832, which South Carolinians still found objectionable. On December 10, 1832, Jackson issued a Proclamation to the People of South Carolina, in which he said, [T]he power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one state, [is] incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which it was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed.20

Assassination Attempts

Political crises were not the only oppositions that Jackson faced. On May 6, 1833, he was sailing to Fredericksburg, Virginia for the dedication of a monument to the mother of George Washington. While the ship was stopped at Alexandria, an attack was made upon him. Jackson had removed Lt. Robert B. Randolph from the navy for embezzlement, and at Alexandria Randolph struck at Jackson, but turned and fled before killing him. He was chased down, but Jackson refused to press charges. This was the first attack made upon a president, but Jackson was not afraid. He did not want a presidential guard, and

Economics instead he expected that he and other government officials would be able to be armed and quickly shoot down an attacker. The first serious attempt on Jackson’s life, while he was president, occurred almost two years later, on January 30th, 1835 by Richard Lawrence. Lawrence was a former painter from England who had gone insane and was convinced that he was the heir to the English throne, and it was Jackson who was keeping him from becoming king. He spent days studying Jackson’s movements, and on January 30th set out to kill him. Jackson, returning from the funeral of a Congressman, was walking to the White House when Lawrence came out from behind a pillar and tried to shoot him. When he pulled out his first pistol and squeezed the trigger, it misfired. Drawing a second, he attempted to shoot Jackson again, but it also misfired. Jackson and the crowd around him, realizing what was happening, rushed to subdue him which they quickly did, with the story spreading that Jackson himself, known as “Old Hickory,” attacked Lawrence with his cane. Lawrence was declared innocent because of insanity, but many people, including Jackson, thought he had been convinced to assassinate the president by some of Jackson’s many political opponents. The president himself thought the real culprit was John C. Calhoun, even though Calhoun publicly denied having been involved. At the end of his second term Jackson retired to his home, called the Hermitage. Van Buren was elected as his successor. He was from New York and had been Jackson’s vice president and Jackson’s influence was instrumental in getting Van Buren elected. In his retirement, Jackson remained influential in politics until his death on June 8, 1845. Andrew Jackson was known as representing the common man, rather than an aristocracy. He overthrew the national bank, vetoed more bills than all the previous presidents combined, resisted internal improvements, and preserved the Union by standing firm in the nullification crisis.

Questions

What were Jackson’s virtues and flaws? Was Jackson right or wrong about the National Bank and the Nullification Crisis?

Economics of the Republican Party

As the Triumvirate and Jackson grew old, new men arose to lead the country. Men that were less constrained than the previous generation about the role of the national government. Men who included Abraham Lincoln.

Causes of the Civil War Lincoln on Tariffs

Although slavery was the highest profile issue in the election of 1860, which resulted in the South’s secession, there were other economic issues involved as well. The Republican Party, which had formed primarily from the anti-slavery elements of the Whig Party, maintained its policy of the American System. Abraham Lincoln had spent a large portion of his earlier career arguing for the American System. He presented these resolutions to a Whig Meeting in Springfield, Illinois on March 1, 1843: Resolved, That a Tariff of duties on imported goods, producing sufficient Revenue, for the payment of the necessary expenditures of the National Government, and so adjusted as to protect American Industry, is indispensably necessary to the prosperity of the American people. Resolved, That we are opposed to Direct Taxation for the support of the National Government. Resolved, That a National Bank, properly restricted, is highly necessary and proper to the establishment and maintainance of a sound currency; and for the cheap and safe collection, keeping, and disbursing the public revenue. Resolved, That the distribution of the proceeds of the sales of Public Lands, upon the principles of Clay’s bill, accords with the best interests of the Nation, and particularly with those of the State of Illinois.21

Lincoln had not changed these views by the time of his election to the presidency. He affirmed his views in 1859 to Edward Wallace of Pennsylvania, where the tariff was a major issue: Clinton, October 11, 1859 Dr. Edward Wallace. My dear Sir: I am here just now attending court. Yesterday, before I left Springfield, your brother, Dr. William S. Wallace, showed me a letter of yours, in which you kindly mention my name, inquire for my tariff views, and suggest the propriety of my writing a letter upon the subject. I was an old Henry-Clay-Tariff Whig. In old times I made more speeches on that subject than any other. I have not since changed my views. I believe yet, if we could have a moderate, carefully adjusted protective tariff, so far acquiesced in as not to be a perpetual subject of political strife, squabbles, changes, and uncertainties, it would be better for us. Still it is my opinion that just now the revival of that question will not advance the cause itself, or the man who revives it. I have not thought much on the subject recently, but my general impression is that

Economics the necessity for a protective tariff will ere long force its old opponents to take it up; and then its old friends can join in and establish it on a more firm and durable basis. We, the Old Whigs, have been entirely beaten out on the tariff question, and we shall not be able to re-establish the policy until the absence of it shall have demonstrated the necessity for it in the minds of men heretofore opposed to it. With this view, I should prefer to not now write a public letter on the subject. I therefore wish this to be considered confidential. I shall be very glad to receive a letter from you. Yours truly, A. Lincoln. 22

Questions

Why wouldn’t Lincoln have wanted his tariff views publicized?

Lincoln on Internal Improvements

The protective tariffs were not the only part of the Whig’s economic policies that Lincoln favored. On June 20, 1848, Lincoln rose in the U.S. House of Representatives to give a speech in favor of internal improvements. The president, James K. Polk, had vetoed a bill to build a canal between the Illinois River and Lake Michigan. Lincoln proceeded to answer five positions against the plan. The first was that the improvements would overwhelm the treasury because every congressman would want improvements for his district. Lincoln answered this by saying that the Congress and Treasury would not have to grant more improvements than they could pay for. The second was that the improvements were paid for by the entire nation, but the benefits were localized to certain sections of the country. This Lincoln acknowledged as unavoidable, but he said that although the benefits were greatest in the Abraham Lincoln immediate vicinity of where the improvement was made, it had some benefit everywhere because the prices would go down with the transportation costs falling. “I hope and believe,” Lincoln said, “that if both the nation and the states would, in good faith, in their respective spheres, do what they could in the way of

Causes of the Civil War improvements, what of inequality might be produced in one place, might be compensated in another, and that the sum of the whole might not be very unequal.”23 The third issue was whether it was constitutional. On this point Lincoln did not “have much to say.” The arguments had already been made and Lincoln’s conclusion was that “this constitutional question will probably never be better settled than it is, until it shall pass under judicial consideration; but I do think no man, who is clear on the questions of expediency, needs feel his conscience much pricked upon this.” Fourth, Lincoln dealt with the suggestion that tolls on existing infrastructure be used to build the new, but he did not think that was a proper means to pay for the improvements. Lastly, Lincoln handled the issue of a constitutional amendment specifically authorizing the Federal government to pay for internal improvements. He had already said that he thought no one needed to be uneasy about the constitutionality of the issue, and he continued along that train of thought and said that the Constitution need not be modified, and it was best to leave it as it was.

United States Congress

Questions

In what ways were Lincoln’s arguments rebutting the positions against internal improvements valid and invalid based on the Constitution?

Free Soil

In Lincoln’s campaign in 1860, the Republican slogan was “Vote yourself a farm, vote yourself a tariff.” One part of the platform Lincoln was running on was free soil. Free soil was a major issue in the Northwest. The Free Soil party of the 1840s and 50s was

Economics one of the predecessors of the Republican Party. Its name had a dual meaning – they advocated free farms be given to settlers from the public land in the east, as well as opposing slavery primarily on economic grounds. In their party platform of 1852, the Free Soil Party said this: That all men have a natural right to a portion of the soil; and that as the use of the soil is indispensable to life, the right of all men to the soil is as sacred as their right to life itself. ... That the public lands of the United States belong to the people, and should

Lincoln Campaign Button not be sold to individuals, nor granted to corporations, but should be held as a sacred trust for the benefit of the people, and should be granted in limited quantities, free of cost, to landless settlers.24

The Free Soil party took as its motto “Free Soil, Free Speech, Free Labor, and Free Men.”25 It was an influential third party for a time, Martin Van Buren losing a bid for re-election under its banner, and it was successful in electing two senators and fourteen representatives in 1848. In 1854, the Free Soil Party joined with several other anti-slavery elements to form the Republican Party. During the war, it gained success in the free farms issue with the passage of the Homestead Act, which gave 160 acres of public land to settlers who would use and improve the land.

Economic and Cultural Differences

As can be seen from the above examples of the men who were the significant leaders in the decades leading up to the war, the divisions were not just differences of ideology. They were also reflected as regional differences. One of the causes of the Civil War was the cultural differences between the North and the South. It did not have the same importance as religion, slavery or state’s rights. Rather, it created animosity between the two sections of the country because of the differences in their modes of living. These differences could have been accepted for a long time, if anger had not been stirred by other perceived wrongs. In the decades leading up to the Civil War, the sections of the country became increasingly divided on the issues of the day. Politics was no longer divided just

Causes of the Civil War into parties based on national issues, but also into sectional parts, divided over issues such as the protective tariffs and the expansion of slavery into the territories. This led to growing tension between the regions of the United States. Each side argued that its economic system was better and wiser, and everyone else was uncivilized. On September 10, 1856, the Herald, of Muscogee, Georgia, published an editorial containing this tirade against the economy of the North: Free society! we sicken at the name. What is it but a conglomeration of greasy mechanics, filthy operatives, small-fisted farmers, and moon-struck theorists? All the northern, and especially the New England states, are devoid of society fitted for wellbred gentlemen. The prevailing class one meets with is that of mechanics struggling to be genteel, and small farmers who do their own drudgery, and yet are hardly fit for association with a southern gentleman’s body servant.26

These criticisms only grew harsher when secession began to be seriously considered. Both sides claimed that their section was the most prosperous. The Southern states said that the Yankees were greedy and ruthless, and the Northern section said the Southerners were cruel slave drivers, lazy and corrupt. The Chicago Tribune on February 21, 1861, blamed the looming war on Southern envy of the North’s prosperity: [The] incitements of envy have much to do with the revolution. The North is prosperous and the South is not. The one increases and multiplies by a process which freedom and civilization constantly accelerates. The South goes far backward by a process which ignorance and slavery inaugurate. The wealth, the power, the intelligence, the religion and advanced civilization are with the first. The last is stationary and retrograde. It is the infirmity of semi-barbarous men to hate what they cannot imitate; hence the bitterness which marks the utterances and emphasizes the actions of the rebels. Dislike of what is above and beyond them is at the bottom of this.27

Sectional insults were not restricted to rabble-rousing newspapers. It could be found even in the highest magistrates of the land. On December 4, 1860, United States Senator Alfred Iverson of Georgia pointed in a speech to the animosity that had built up between the countrymen: Sir, disguise the fact as you will, there is an enmity between the northern and southern people that is deep and enduring, and you never can eradicate it – never! You sit upon your side, silent and gloomy; we sit upon ours with knit brows and portentous scowls.... We are enemies as much as if we were hostile States. I believe that the northern people hate the South worse than ever the English people hated France; and I can tell my brethren over there that there is no love lost upon the part of the South.28

Economics A Northern man by the name of Franklin Livingston wrote this in a letter on March 6, 1861: There is not sett of People on Gods Earth that I despise and hold in such contempt as I do those Southern Rebels … and I would rather meet them in deadly conflict than any other sett of men in [the] world, in fact I am at peace with the whole world, except them, and with them I confess, I have a deadly hatred. I have no compromise to make, short of a fulfillment of the penaltys of the violated laws.29

Historian Allan Nevis wrote this regarding the cultural differences between North and South: The schism in culture struck into the very substance of national life. Differences of thought, taste, and ideals gravely accentuated the misunderstandings caused by the basic economic and social differences; the differences between a free labor system and a slave labor system, between a semi-industrialized economy of high productiveness and an agrarian economy of low productiveness. An atmosphere was created in which emotions grew feverish; in which every episode became a crisis, every jar a shock.30

Questions

How were the cultural differences related to slavery and economics? Are there still regional cultural differences in America today?

Further Study

Abraham Lincoln’s Internal Improvement Speech Documents of the Nullification Crisis How Capitalism Saved America by Thomas Dilorenzo Andrew Jackson’s Bank Veto Message Avaliable online at ww.DiscerningHistory.com/Causes

Causes of the Civil War

Footnotes 1

Alexander Hamilton’s Famous Report on Manufactures - Made to Congress December 5, 1791 in his Capacity as Secretary of the Treasury (Boston, Potter Publishing Co, 1892) p. 43.

Ibid, p. 51.

Ibid, p. 42.

Ibid, p. 54.

5 U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 8; 10th Amendment. 6

Ibid, p. 54.

Ibid, p. 60.

Henry Clay: Statesman for the Union (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Ltd, 1991) p. 745.

Ibid, p. 761-761.

10 Personal Memorials of Daniel Webster including a Sketch of his Public Life and the Particulars of his Death by Charles Lanman (Philadelphia: Lippincott, Grambo, and Co, 1852) p. 52. 11

Speech of the Hon. Daniel Webster upon the subject of Slavery; Delivered in the United States Senate on Thursday, March 7, 1850 by Daniel Webster (Boston: Redding & Company, 1850) p. 3.

12 The Collected Works of Theodore Parker edt. Frances Power Cobbe (London: Trubner & Co, 1865) vol. 12 p. 98. 13 Memoirs of John Quincy Adams comprising portions of his Diary from 1795 to 1848 edt. Charles Francis Adams (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co., 1875) vol. 5, p. 361. 14 The Works of John C. Calhoun (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1888) vol. 6, p. 41-42. 15 General Jackson by James Parton (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1912) p. 292. 16 Life of John C. Calhoun: Presenting a Condensed History of Political Events from 1811 to 1843 by Robert Mercer Taliaferro Hunter (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1843) p. 225. 17 The Works of John C. Calhoun, vol. 4, p. 343. 18

Martin Van Buren by Ted Widmer (New York: Times Books, 2005) p. 85.

19 The Addresses and Messages of the Presidents of the United States, from Washington to Tyler (New York: Edward Walker, 1842) p. 430-431. 20

Ibid, p. 447.

21 Abraham Lincoln: Complete Works, Comprising His Speeches, Letters, State Papers, and Miscellaneous Writings, by John G. Nicolay (New York: The Century Co, 1920) vol. 1 p. 72. 22 Ibid, p. 585. 23 24 25

Ibid, p. 126. A History of Political Parties in the United States by James H. Hopkins (New York: G. P.

Putnam’s Sons, 1900) p. 283.

Ibid, p. 76.

26 Causes of the Civil War, p. 210. 27 Causes of the Civil War, p. 208-209. 28 Causes of the Civil War, p. 210. 29 Causes of the Civil War, p. 209-210. 30 Ibid, p. 221.

C h a p t e r

John Brown O

ne of the most important events leading to the Civil War was John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry, Virginia in October, 1859. This attack had an important impact by turning the debates in America into violence, and changing a war of words into a war of weapons. John Brown is frequently portrayed as a religious Calvinistic zealot, who, while he may have acted foolishly, heroically desired to do the right thing no matter what sacrifices were necessary. His actual story is more complex. His life led him to the point where he would kill innocent men believing that he was being a blessing to society.

John Brown Early Life

John Brown’s attacks were not random murders of a raging madman. They came from the beliefs he was trained in from his childhood. John was born on May 9th, 1800 into an old New England family. An ancestor, Peter Brown, was a carpenter who had landed at Plymouth in 1620. Both of John Brown’s grandfathers fought with Washington in the War for American Independence. One of them, Captain John Brown, died while in the army. The younger John Brown’s father, Owen Brown was relatively wealthy, and lived in Ohio. He was a religious man, and although he is called a Calvinist, he believed the theology of Charles Finney. In fact, he was very involved in Oberlin College, where Finney was first Professor of Theology and then President. Owen Brown was a founder of Oberlin and was a trustee of the college when Finney was made a professor. Owen was an ardent abolitionist. Although he supported Finney’s revivalism, he did not agree with the perfectionist theology Finney developed, which said that it was necessary for a Christian to live

Causes of the Civil War in perfect obedience. However, Owen Brown and his family continued to support Oberlin College. On July 15, 1857 John Brown wrote an autobiographical letter to Henry L. Stearns, the young son of George Luther Stearns, one of his financiers. In it, he described how he became an abolitionist: During the war with England [the War of 1812] a circumstance occurred that in the end made him a most determined Abolitionist: & led him to declare, or Swear: Eternal war with Slavery. He was staying for a short time with a very gentlemanly landlord since a United States Marshall who held a slave boy near his own age very active, inteligent [sic] and good feeling; & to whom John was under considerable obligation for numerous little acts of kindness. The master made a great pet of John: brought him to table with his first company: & friends; called their attention to every little smart thing he said or did: & and to the fact of his being more than a hundred miles from home with a company of cattle alone; while the negro boy (who was fully if not more than his equal) was badly clothed, poorly fed; & lodged in cold weather; & beaten before his eyes with Iron Shovels or any other thing that came first to hand. This brought John to reflect on the wretched, hopeless condition, of Fatherless & Motherless slave children: for such children have neither Fathers or Mothers to protect, & provide for them. He sometimes would raise the question is God their Father?1

Slavery

Like his father, John Brown was very religious. Central to his beliefs was his opposition to slavery. Even though slavery is allowed in the Old Testament, Brown held it was an abomination. It was an issue that was very important to him, and he and his family were willing to part company with other Christians over it. “I cannot abide them,” he once said, “My knees will not bend in prayer with them, while their hands are stained with the blood of souls.”2 His daughter, Ruth, wrote of one such occurrence: When I was six or seven years old, a little incident took place in the church at Franklin, Ohio (of which all the older part of our family were members), which caused quite an excitement. Father hired a colored man and his wife to work for him, - he on the farm, and she in the house. They were very respectable people, and we thought a great deal of them. One Sunday the woman went to church, and was seated near the door, or somewhere back. This aroused father’s indignation at once. He asked both of them to go the next Sunday; they followed the family in, and he seated them in his pew. The whole congregation were shocked; the minister

John Brown looked angry; but I remembered father’s firm, determined look. The whole church were down on him them. ... My brothers were so disgusted to see such a mockery of religion that they left the church, and have never belonged to another.3

As John Brown’s children grew older, some of them departed from his faith, even calling the Bible a fiction. He wrote of his anxiety in a letter to his children on September 23, 1853: I hope that through the infinite grace and mercy of God you may be brought to see the error of your ways, and be in earnest to turn many to righteousness, instead of leading astray.... I do not feel ‘estranged from my children’ but I cannot flatter them, nor ‘cry peace when there is no peace.’4

Brown is called a Calvinist by many historians, but if he was, it seems he would have been more of the “New School Calvinists” such as Charles Finney or Lyman Beecher, who rejected the doctrines of grace and believed man was saved by adding his work to Christ’s. For all of his religious zealotry, John Brown did not make distinction based on belief. He did not have a problem with working with Unitarians like Theodore Parker, for although their theology was different than his, they were united on the fundamental issue - slavery. It is hard to know what Brown’s actual theological beliefs are because historians have written little about them, but he believed he had a divine mission Charles Finney to destroy slavery, and was willing to even kill in his holy war to free the slaves. Historians blame this upon his Calvinism. Many say with David Reynolds, “He was a terrorist because of his own interpretation of Puritan beliefs.”5 However, his violent actions were the antithesis of the Puritan, Calvinistic theology, for they were in flagrant violation of the Old Testament, as John Brown ignored the laws against murder and stealing to end slavery, which itself is never condemned as a sin in the Bible.

Questions

How did Arminian theology lead to opposition to slavery?

Causes of the Civil War Business

In his business dealings, John Brown was markedly unsuccessful. Time after time, he failed in business; whether it was tanning, land speculation, or the wool business. He was declared bankrupt in 1842, because he was unable to pay back the loans he had taken out to buy land, which he had hoped to sell at a profit. He recognized that his problems were because of his debts. He wrote that his mistakes grew out of one root, - doing business on credit. Where loans are amply secured, the borrower, not the lender, takes the risks, and all the contingencies incident to business; while the accumulations of interest and the coming of pay-day are as sure as death. Instead of being thoroughly imbued with the doctrine of pay as you go, I started out in life with the idea that nothing could be done without capital, and that a poor man must use his credit and borrow; and this pernicious notion has been the rock on which I, as well as so many others, have split. The practical effect of this false doctrine has been to keep me like a toad under a harrow most of my business life. Running into debt includes so much of evil that I hope all my children will shun it as they would a pestilence.6

John Brown’s business problems were not caused by laziness. He was always working on a get rich quick scheme, but he was injudicious. He ran up large debts, and at times even stole money to pay them. Colonel Simon Perkins of Akron, Ohio was a partner with Brown in a wool business. The business was a failure, and Perkins, who provided the finances, lost much money. He did not have a good opinion of John Brown: Brown managed according to his own impulses: he would not listen to anybody, but did what he took into his head. He was solicitous to go into the business of selling wool, and I allowed him to do it; but he had little judgment, always followed his own will, and lost much money.7

One amazing thing about John Brown was how persuasive he was. Even after a failed business scheme with someone like Perkins, John Brown could often convince them to forgive his debt, or even try again and lend him even more money.

Bleeding Kansas

Brown did not content himself with just speaking against slavery, he acted on his own words. “Talk! talk! talk!” he said, “that will never set the slaves free.”8 He did this through peaceful means, including helping any slaves who escaped to the North, but he also was willing to use violence to end slavery, as he had taken an oath in the 1830s to end

100

John Brown it by any means in his power. He thought it was such a heinous sin that there were no limits on the methods used to stop it. He said, I believe in the Golden Rule and the Declaration of Independence. I think they both mean the same thing; and it is better that a whole generation should pass off the face of the earth, - men, women, and children, - by a violent death, than that one jot of either should fail in this country.9

John Brown’s opportunity to strike a blow for slavery came with the admission of Kansas into the Union. The territory was formed on the principle of popular sovereignty, that the people would choose whether to be free or slave. Tensions ran high as both sections of the country encouraged immigrants to move there so they would gain political power. First, a pro-slavery government was organized, but the vote was stacked by voters coming across the line from Missouri. Rumors circulated throughout the nation that large parties were coming to Kansas from North and South, armed to the teeth and ready to take over the government with violence. John Brown, hearing stories like these from his sons who had moved to Kansas, decided to go defend them if necessary, and to fight against the pro-slavery forces.

Wakabusa War

Conflict in Kansas broke out in the winter of 1856 in what was called the Wakabusa War. John Brown wrote back to his family with his version of the events: Osawatomie, K. T., Dec. 16, 1855. Sabbath Evening. Dear Wife And Children, Every One, — I improve the first mail since my return from the camp of volunteers, who lately turned out for the defence of the town of Lawrence in this Territory; and notwithstanding I suppose you have learned the result before this (possibly), will give a brief account of the invasion in my own way. About three or four weeks ago news came that a Free-State man by the name of Dow had been murdered by a proslavery man by the name of Coleman, who had gone and given himself up for trial to the proslavery Governor Shannon. This was soon followed by further news that a Free-State man who was the only reliable witness against the murderer had been seized by a Missourian (appointed sheriff by the bogus Legislature of Kansas) upon false pretexts, examined, and held to bail under such heavy bonds, to answer to those false charges, as he could not give; that while on his way to trial, in charge of the bogus sheriff, he was rescued by some men belonging to a company near Lawrence; and that in consequence of

101

Causes of the Civil War the rescue Governor Shannon had ordered out all the proslavery force he could muster in the Territory, and called on Missouri for further help; that about two thousand had collected, demanding a surrender of the rescued witness and of the rescuers, the destruction of several buildings and printing-presses, and a giving up of the Sharpe’s rifles by the Free-State men, — threatening to destroy the town with cannon, with which they were provided, etc.; that about an equal number of FreeState men had turned out to resist them, and that a battle was hourly expected or supposed to have been already fought. These reports appeared to be well authenticated, but we could get no further account of matters; and I left this for the place where the boys are settled, at evening, intending to go to Lawrence to learn the facts the next day. John was, however, started on horseback; but before he had gone many rods, word came that our help was immediately wanted. On getting this last news, it was at once agreed to break up at John’s camp, and take Wealthy and Johnny to Jason’s camp (some two miles off ), and that all the men but Henry, Jason, and Oliver should at once set off for Lawrence under arms; those three being wholly unfit for duty. We then set about providing a little corn-bread and meat, blankets, and cooking utensils, running bullets and loading all our guns, pistols, etc. The five set off in the afternoon, and after a short rest in the night (which was quite dark), continued our march until after daylight next morning; when we got our breakfast, started again, and reached Lawrence in the forenoon, all of us more or less lamed by our tramp. On reaching the place we found that negotiations had commenced between Governor Shannon (having a force of some fifteen or sixteen

John Brown

hundred men) and the principal leaders of the Free-State men, they having a force of some five hundred men at that time. These were busy, night and day, fortifying the town with embankments and circular earthworks, up to the time of the treaty with the Governor, as an attack was constantly looked for, notwithstanding the

102

John Brown negotiations then pending. This state of things continued from Friday until Sunday evening [December 7-9]. On the evening we left Osawatomie a company of the invaders, of from fifteen to twenty-five, attacked some three or four Free-State men, mostly unarmed, killing a Mr. Barber from Ohio, wholly unarmed. His body was afterward brought in and lay for some days in the room afterward occupied by a part of the company to which we belong (it being organized after we reached Lawrence). ... I will only say of this scene that it was heart-rending, and calculated to exasperate the men exceedingly, and one of the sure results of civil war. After frequently calling on the leaders of the Free-State men to come and have an interview with him, by Governor Shannon, and after as often getting for an answer that if he had any business to transact with any one in Lawrence, to come and attend to it, he signified his wish to come into the town, and an escort was sent to the invaders’ camp to conduct him in. When there, the leading Free-State men, finding out his weakness, frailty, and consciousness of the awkward circumstances into which he had really got himself, took advantage of his cowardice and folly, and by means of that and the free use of whiskey and some trickery succeeded in getting a written arrangement with him much to their own liking. He stipulated with them to order the proslavery men of Kansas home, and to proclaim to the Missouri invaders that they must quit the Territory without delay, and also to give up General Pomeroy (a prisoner in their camp), — which was all done; he also recognizing the volunteers as the militia of Kansas, and empowering their officers to call them out whenever in their discretion the safety of Lawrence or other portions of the Territory might require it to be done. He (Governor Shannon) gave up all pretension of further attempt to enforce the enactments of the bogus Legislature, and retired, subject to the derision and scoffs of the Free-State men (into whose hands he had comitted the welfare and protection of Kansas), and to the pity of some and the curses of others of the invading force. So ended this last Kansas invasion,—the Missourians returning with flying colors, after incurring heavy expenses, suffering great exposure, hardships, and privations, not having fought any battles, burned or destroyed any infant towns or Abolition presses; leaving the Free-State men organized and armed, and in full possession of the Territory; not having fulfilled any of all their dreadful threatenings, except to murder one unarmed man, and to commit some robberies and waste of property upon defenceless families, unfortunately within their power. We learn by their papers that they boast of a great victory over the Abolitionists; and well they may.

103

Causes of the Civil War Free-State men have only hereafter to retain the footing they have gained, and Kansas is free.10

While in Lawrence John Brown had become Captain of the 5th Regiment, Kansas volunteers, and he would bear this title for the rest of his life. The federal government in Washington recognized the pro-slavery government under Governor Shannon, but the Free-Staters had their own government which they claimed was properly elected.

1859 Map of Kansas

Pottawatomie Massacre

The proslavery government of Kansas tried to exercise its authority in April 19, 1856 and a sheriff tried to make arrests, but he was shot and slightly wounded. A court indicted the Free-State leaders, declaring, as had the president of the United States, that if they continued to resist and act as a government they would be deemed as traitors. Indictments were also issued ordering that two inflammatory anti-slavery newspapers in Lawrence be shut down. However, the execution of these orders got a bit out of hand. The possee had destroyed a hotel, burned the two newspapers, threw the type into the river, got drunk and created havoc in the town, though only one man was hurt in an accident. At this event, the Free-Staters of Lawrence again sent out a cry for help, and again John Brown and his sons responded, as he reported in a letter home in June, 1856: We were called to go to the relief of Lawrence, May 22, and every man (eight in all), except Orson, turned out; he staying with the women and children, and to take care

104

John Brown of the cattle. John was captain of a company to which Jason belonged; the other six were a little company by ourselves. On our way to Lawrence we learned that it had been already destroyed, and we encamped with John’s company overnight. Next day our little company left, and during the day we stopped and searched three men. Lawrence was destroyed in this way: Their leading men had (as I think) decided, in a very cowardly manner, not to resist any process having any Government official to serve it, notwithstanding the process might be wholly a bogus affair. The consequence was that a man called a United States marshal came on with a horde of ruffians which he called his posse, and after arresting a few persons turned the ruffians loose on the defenceless people. They robbed the inhabitants of their money and other property, and even women of their ornaments, and burned considerable of the town. On the second day and evening after we left John’s men we encountered quite a number of proslavery men, and took quite a number prisoners. Our prisoners we let go; but we kept some four or five horses. We were immediately after this accused of murdering five men at Pottawatomie, and great efforts have since been made by the Missourians and their ruffian allies to capture us. John’s company soon afterward disbanded, and also the Osawatomie men.11

Although in his letter to his family he did not admit it, the accusations of murder were completely true. The Browns’ party received word that the Free-Staters of Lawrence did not want their help, as the posse had already left town, so they needed to decide what to do. The party split, and John Brown set out in a wagon with four of his sons, Frederick, Owen, Salmon, and Oliver, along with two others, Thomas Weiner and James Townsley. Staying undercover until the evening of May 24th, that night they went out on an expedition, going first to the Doyle family. Knocking on the door, they asked, “What way to the Wilkinson place?” When James Doyle opened the door, he was faced by a group of armed men, who rushed in, shouting, “We’re the Northern Army! Surrender!”12 Doyle made no resistance, and the party took him, along with his two oldest sons, William and Drury, as prisoners. Taking them out two hundred yards from the cabin, they began executing them in cold blood with their sabers and pistols. Drury tried to run off, but he was overtaken and hacked again and again with sabers. Within minutes, the party was off again, leaving the men where they fell. Next they came to the Wilkinson cabin, and using the same tactics, asked for directions to a neighboring house, that of Dutch Harry. Ascertaining Wilkinson favored the pro-slavery party, they ordered him to surrender and open the door. Having done so,

105

Causes of the Civil War he was taken out to the woods. His throat was slit, and then he was stabbed in the side and slashed on the head. They moved quickly to another cabin, that of James Harris, who had three men staying the night with him, John Wightman, William Sherman and Jerome Glanville. Harris later recorded the experience: On Sunday morning, May 25, 1856, about two A.M., while my wife and child and myself were in bed in the house where we lived, near Henry Sherman’s, we were aroused by a company of men who said they belonged to the Northern army, and who were each armed with a sabre and two revolvers, two of whom I recognized; namely, a Mr. Brown, whose given name I do not remember (commonly known by the appellation of “old man Brown”), and his son Owen Brown. They came into the house and approached the bedside where we were lying, and ordered us, together with three other men who were in the same house with me, to surrender; that the Northern army was upon us, and it would be no use for us to resist. … When they came up to the bed, some had drawn sabres in their hands, and some revolvers. They then took into their possession two rifles and a bowie knife, which I had there in the room (there was but one room in my house), and afterwards ransacked the whole establishment in search of ammunition. ... They then took me out, and asked me if there were any more men about the place. I told them there were not. They searched the place, but found no others but us four. They asked me where Henry Sherman [Dutch Harry] was. (Henry was a brother to William Sherman.) I told them he was out on the plains in search of some cattle which he had lost. They asked me if I had ever taken any hand in aiding proslavery men in coming to the Territory of Kansas, or had ever taken any hand in the last troubles at Lawrence; they asked me whether I had ever done the Free State party any harm, or ever intended to do that party any harm; they asked me what made me live at such a place. I then answered that I could get higher wages there than anywhere else. They asked me if there were any bridles or saddles about the premises. I told them there was one saddle, which they took; and they also took possession of Henry Sherman’s horse, which I had at my place, and made me saddle him. … After old man Brown and his son went into the house with me, old man Brown asked Mr. Sherman to go out with him; and Mr. Sherman then went out with old Mr. Brown, and another man came into the house in Brown’s place. I heard nothing more for about fifteen minutes. Two of the Northern army, as they styled

106

John Brown themselves, stayed in with us until we heard a cap burst, and then these two men left. That morning, about ten o’clock, I found William Sherman dead in the creek near my house. I was looking for him; as he had not come back, I thought he had been murdered. I took Mr. William Sherman out of the creek and examined him. Mr. Whiteman was with me. Sherman’s skull was split open in two places, and some of his brains was washed out by the water. A large hole was cut in his breast, and his left hand was cut off except a little piece on one side. We buried him.13

After raiding these three cabins and murdering their occupants, Brown called an end to the raid. Although it is unclear whether he personally took part in the killings, he admitted responsibility as leader of the party. “God is my judge, - we were justified under the circumstances” he said.14 “It is better that ten guilty proslavery men should die,” he said, “than that one Free-State settler should be driven out.”15

Lawrence, Kansas in 1869

Battle of Black Jack

The news of these five men killed in cold blood by John Brown and his men electrified the nation. Exaggerated or incorrect accounts ran in the Northern and Southern papers. Jason Brown turned himself in to the government, and John Jr. was captured. A party went out to bring in John Brown Sr. and his men. Brown continued his letter to his family with a description of what was called the Battle of Black Jack. On learning that [a party was] in pursuit of us, my little company, now increased

107

Causes of the Civil War to ten in all, started after them in company of a Captain Shore, with eighteen men, he included (June 1). We were all mounted as we traveled. We did not meet them on that day, but took five prisoners, four of whom were of their scouts, and well armed. We were out all night, but could find nothing of them until about six o’clock next morning, when we prepared to attack them at once, on foot, leaving Frederick and one of Captain Shore’s men to guard the horses. As I was much older than Captain Shore, the principal direction of the fight devolved on me. We got to within about a mile of their camp before being discovered by their scouts, and then moved at a brisk pace, Captain Shore and men forming our left, and my company the right. When within about sixty rods of the enemy, Captain Shore’s men halted by mistake in a very exposed situation, and continued the fire, both his men and the enemy being armed with Sharpe’s rifles. My company had no long-shooters. We (my company) did not fire a gun until we gained the rear of a bank, about fifteen or twenty rods to the right of the enemy, where we commenced, and soon compelled them to hide in a ravine. Captain Shore, after getting one man wounded, and exhausting his ammunition, came with part of his men to the right of my position, much discouraged. The balance of his men, including the one wounded, had left the

Jason Brown

ground. Five of Captain Shore’s men came boldly down and joined my company, and all but one man, wounded, helped to maintain the fight until it was over. I was obliged to give my consent that he should go after more help, when all his men left but eight, four of whom I persuaded to remain in a secure position, and there busied one of them in shooting the horses and mules of the enemy, which served for a show of fight. After the firing had continued for some two to three hours, Captain Pate with twenty-three men, two badly wounded, laid down their arms to nine men, myself included, —four of Captain Shore’s men and four of my own. One of my men (Henry Thompson) was badly wounded, and after continuing his fire for an hour longer was obliged to quit the ground. Three others of my company (but not of my family) had gone off. Salmon was dreadfully wounded by accident, soon after the fight; but both he and Henry are fast recovering. A day or two after the fight, Colonel Sumner of the United States army came

108

John Brown suddenly upon us, while fortifying our camp and guarding our prisoners (which, by the way, it had been agreed mutually should be exchanged for as many FreeState men, John and Jason included), and compelled us to let go our prisoners without being exchanged, and to give up their horses and arms. They did not go more than two or three miles before they began to rob and injure Free-State people. We consider this as in good keeping with the cruel and unjust course of the Administration and its tools throughout this whole Kansas difficulty. Colonel Sumner also compelled us to disband; and we, being only a handful, were obliged to submit. Since then we have, like David of old, had our dwelling with the serpents of the rocks and wild beasts of the wilderness; being obliged to hide away from our enemies. We are not disheartened, though nearly destitute of food, clothing, and money. God, who has not given us over to the will of our enemies, but has moreover delivered them into our hand, will, we humbly trust, still keep and deliver us. We feel assured that He who sees not as men see, does not lay the guilt of innocent blood to our charge. I ought to have said that Captain Shore and his men stood their ground nobly in their unfortunate but mistaken position during the early part of the fight. I ought to say further that a Captain Abbott, being some miles distant with a company, came onward promptly to sustain us, but could not reach us till the fight was over. After the fight, numerous Free-State men who could not be got out before were on hand; and some of them, I am ashamed to add, were very busy not only with the plunder of our enemies, but with our private effects, leaving us, while guarding our prisoners and providing in regard to them, much poorer than before the battle. If, under God, this letter reaches you so that it can be read, I wish it at once carefully copied, and a copy of it sent to Gerrit Smith. I know of no other way to get these facts and our situation before the world, nor when I can write again. … May God bless and keep you all! Your affectionate husband and father, John Brown P.S. … The above is a true account of the first regular battle fought between FreeState and proslavery men in Kansas. May God still gird our loins and hold our right hands, and to him may we give the glory! I ought in justice to say, that, after the sacking and burning of several towns, the Government troops appeared for their protection and drove off some of the enemy. J. B.16

109

Causes of the Civil War Osawatomie

After the Battle of Black Jack, John Brown continued to recruit men to fight with him, and the government and pro-slavery militia worked to capture him. In August, several hundred men from Missouri under John William Reid, a veteran of the Mexican War, a lawyer and member of the state House of Representatives came for Brown, who was in Osawatomie with some new recruits. Brown wrote this of the engagement: Early in the morning of the 30th of August the enemy’s scouts approached to within one mile and a half of the western boundary of the town of Osawatomie. At this place my son Frederick (who was not attached to my force) had lodged, with some four other young men from Lawrence.... The scouts, led by a proslavery preacher named White, shot my son dead in the road, while he—as I have since ascertained— supposed them to be friendly. At the same time they butchered Mr. Garrison, and badly mangled one of the young men from Lawrence, who came with my son, leaving him for dead. This was not far from sunrise. I had stopped during the night about two and one half miles from them, and nearly one mile from Osawatomie. I had no organized force, but only some twelve or fifteen new recruits, who were ordered to leave their preparations for breakfast and follow me into the town, as soon as this news was brought to me. As I had no means of learning correctly the force of the enemy, I placed twelve of the recruits in a log-house, hoping we might be able to defend the town. I then gathered some fifteen more men together, whom we armed with guns; and we started in the direction of the enemy. After going a few rods we could see them approaching the town in line of battle, about half a mile off, upon a hill west of the village. I then gave up all idea of doing more than to annoy, from the timber near the town, into which we were all retreated, and which was filled with a thick growth of underbrush; but I had no time to recall the twelve men in the loghouse, and so lost their assistance in the fight. At the point above named I met with Captain Cline, a very active young man, who had with him some twelve or fifteen mounted men, and persuaded him to go with us into the timber.... Here the men, numbering not more than thirty in all, were directed to scatter and secrete themselves as well as they could, and await the approach of the enemy. This was done in full view of them (who must have seen the whole movement), and had to be done in the utmost haste. I believe Captain Cline and some of his men were not even dismounted in the fight, but cannot assert positively. When the left wing of the enemy had approached to within common rifle-shot, we commenced firing, and very soon threw the northern branch of the enemy’s line into disorder. This

110

John Brown continued some fifteen or twenty minutes, which gave us an uncommon opportunity to annoy them. Captain Cline and his men soon got out of ammunition, and retired across the river. After the enemy rallied we kept up our fire, until, by the leaving of one and another, we had but six or seven left. We then retired across the river. We had one man killed—a Mr. Powers, from Captain Cline’s company— in the fight. One of my men, a Mr. Partridge, was shot in crossing the river. Two or three of the party who took part in the fight are yet missing, and may be lost or taken prisoners. Two were wounded; namely, Dr. Updegraff and a Mr. Collis. I cannot speak in too high terms of them, and of many others I have not now time to mention. One of my best men, together with myself, was struck by a partially spent ball from the enemy, in the commencement of the fight, but we were only

John Geary

bruised. ... The loss of the enemy, as we learn by the different statements of our own as well as their people, was some thirty-one or two killed, and from forty to fifty wounded.17 After burning the town to ashes and killing a Mr. Williams they had taken, whom neither party claimed, they took a hasty leave, carrying their dead and wounded with them. They did not attempt to cross the river, nor to search for us, and have not since returned to look over their work.18

Soon after the fight at Osawatomie, order was restored by the United States government by a new governor, John Geary, who ordered that both sides put down their arms on the condition of clemency for all. Brown returned back to New England to raise support, leaving many dead men in Kansas behind him.

Questions

Were Brown’s attacks on civilians justified? Would Brown’s actions have been righteous in other circumstances? Was the behavior of the proslavery faction righteous or unrighteous? What recent events had the press blown out of proportion?

111

Causes of the Civil War

The Secret Six

On his return to New England, Brown began planning his next move and raising funds from his wealthy friends to aid him. He met with men such as Henry David Thoreau, Ralph Waldo Emerson, William Lloyd Garrison and Frederick Douglass. His main funding came from the men known as the Secret Six: Franklin Benjamin Sanborn, Thomas Wentworth Higginson, Theodore Parker, George Luther Stearns and Samuel Gridley Howe. They were wealthy and influential men, mostly Unitarians from Boston. Brown was normally reluctant to reveal his plans, even to the Six. However, they trusted him, even though they knew his plan would involve violence. He did share his plans with Richard Realf, an English poet who had been with Brown in Kansas, and was to be his Secretary of State when he set up a new nation of freed slaves. Realf remembered: John Brown stated that for twenty or thirty years the idea had possessed him like a passion of giving liberty to the slaves; that he had made a journey to England, during which he had made a tour upon the European continent, inspecting all fortifications, and especially all the earthwork forts he could find, with a few of applying the knowledge thus gained, with modifications and inventions of his own, to a mountain warfare in the United States. … He supposed that [the slaves] would come into the mountains to join him, where he purposed to work, and that by flocking to his standard they would enable him … to act upon the plantations on the plains lying on each side of that range of mountains; that we should be able to establish ourselves in the fastness. And if any hostile action were taken against us, either by the militia of the States or by the armies of the United States, we purposed to defeat first the militia, and next, if possible, the troops of the United States; and then organized the free blacks under the provisional constitution, which would carve out for the locality of its jurisdiction all that mountainous region in which the black were to be established, in which they were to be taught the useful and mechanical arts, and all the business. Schools were also to be established, and so on. The negroes were to be his soldiers.19

Another man that Brown took into his confidence was a Colonel Hugh Forbes, a British officer who had been involved in European revolutions. This officer was hired by Brown to train his men in Kansas. Forbes quarreled with Brown over his payment, and turned against the revolution. He tried to blackmail the abolitionists, including the Secret Six, into paying him to stop him from revealing the plan to the government. This commotion scared the Secret Six, and through their urging the attack was postponed from 1858 to 1859.

112

John Brown In the meantime, Brown had traveled to Ontario, Canada, a refuge for escaped American slaves. There he held a Constitution Convention, with 34 blacks and 12 whites, to adopt the Provisional Constitution he had written to govern the new nation he hoped to start. The nation would be founded on opposition to slavery and the laws of the United States. Whereas slavery, throughout its entire existence in the United States, is none other than a most barbarous, unprovoked, and unjustifiable war of one portion of its citizens upon another portion-the only conditions of which are perpetual imprisonment and hopeless servitude or absolute extermination-in utter disregard and violation of those eternal and self-evident truths set forth in our Declaration of Independence: Therefore, we, citizens of the United States, and the oppressed people who, by a recent decision of the Supreme Court,20 are declared to have no rights which the white man is bound to respect, together with all other people degraded by the laws thereof, do, for the time being, ordain and establish for ourselves the following Provisional Constitution and Ordinances, the better to protect our persons, property, lives, and liberties, and to govern our actions.21

To throw Forbes, or anyone he may have informed, off the trail, Brown returned to Kansas for several months. There he joined with other violent abolitionists, and launched a raid in December into the southern state of Missouri. On the raid, he liberated eleven slaves, captured two whites and stole horses and wagons. He embarked on a long journey to take the fugitive slaves to safety, then headed south to Virginia, where he would make his raid.

Harper’s Ferry

113

Causes of the Civil War Brown rented the Kennedy House in Maryland just across the river from Harper’s Ferry, which was in Virginia, now in West Virginia. He did this under the pseudonym of Isaac Smith to avoid suspicion of anyone who had heard of his deeds in Kansas. Then he waited for the recruits he expected to arrive. The number of men that joined him were much fewer than he expected. He had 21 men with him, 16 white and 5 black. Three were his sons, Owen, Watson and Oliver. Two more, William and Dauphin Thompson were related, a brother and sister having married into the Brown family. John Henry Kagi was Brown’s second in command. He had fought in Kansas in a raiding party led by another of Brown’s men, Aaron Stevens, who had fought in the Mexican War, but barely escaped a death sentence for striking an officer. Of the blacks, three were born free, one had been freed by his master, and another was a fugitive. They were well supplied with weapons, having 200 rifles and 950 pikes, and the opportunity to capture 100,000 additional rifles in Harper’s Ferry.

Questions

Why would the Secret Six have funded Brown? Was Brown acting righteously or unrighteously? Why?

Harper’s Ferry Raid

On Sunday, October 16th, everything was ready. The newest recruits were read the Provisional Constitution and administered an oath. Then John Brown, his men and a wagon of weapons set off for Harper’s Ferry. He began by capturing the bridge and arsenal, then moving out to secure prisoners. One prisoner they took was John Daingerfield, Paymaster at the Arsenal. He was woken by a servant early on the morning of October 17th and told there was fighting in the town. Dressing, he hurried out to see what was the matter.

A Prisoner’s Account of the Raid

I walked towards my office, then just within the armory enclosure, and not more than a hundred yards from my house. As I proceeded, I saw a man come out of an alley, then another and another, all coming towards me. I inquired what all this meant; they said, “Nothing, only they had taken possession of the Government works.” I told them they talked like crazy men. They answered, “Not so crazy as you think, as you will soon see.” Up to this time I had not seen any arms. Presently, however, the men threw back the short cloaks they wore, and disclosed Sharp’s rifles, pistols, and knives. Seeing these, and fearing something serious was going

114

John Brown on, I told the men I believed I would return home. They at once cocked their guns, and told me I was a prisoner. This surprised me, but I could do nothing, being unarmed. I talked with them some little time longer, and again essayed to go home; but one of the men stepped before me, presented his gun, and told me if I moved I would be shot down. I then asked what they intended to do with me. They said I was in no personal danger; they only wanted to carry me to their captain, John Smith. I asked them where Captain Smith was. They answered at the guard house, inside of the armory enclosure. I told them I would go there; that was the point for which I first started. (My office was there, and I felt uneasy lest the vault had been broken open.) Upon reaching the gate, I saw what indeed looked like war, negroes armed with pikes, and sentinels with muskets all around. I was turned over to “Captain Smith,” who called me by name, and asked if I knew Colonel Washington and others, mentioning familiar names. I said I did; and he then said, “Sir, you will find them there,” motioning me towards the engine room. We were not kept closely confined, but were allowed to converse with him. I asked him what his object was. He replied, “To free the negroes of Virginia. ~He added that he was prepared to do it, and by twelve o’clock would have fifteen hundred men with him, ready armed. Up to this time the citizens had hardly begun to move about, and knew nothing of the raid. When they learned what was going on, some came out with old shotguns, and were themselves shot by concealed men. All the stores, as well as the arsenal, were in the hands of Brown’s men, and it was impossible to get either arms or ammunition, there being hardly any private weapons. At last, however, a few arms were obtained, and a body of citizens crossed the river and advanced from the Maryland side. They made a vigorous attack, and in a few minutes caused all the invaders who were not killed to retreat to Brown inside of the armory gate. Then he entered the engine house, carrying his prisoners along, or rather part of them, for he made selections. After getting into the engine house, he made this speech: “Gentlemen, perhaps you wonder why I have selected you from the others. It is because I believe you to be more influential; and I have only to say now, that you will have to share precisely the same fate that your friends extend to my men.” He began at once to bar the doors and windows, and to cut portholes through the brick wall. Then commenced a terrible firing from without, at every point from which the windows could be seen, and in a few minutes every window was shattered, and hundreds of balls came through the doors. These shots were answered from within whenever the attacking party could be seen. This was kept up most of the day,

115

Causes of the Civil War and, strange to say, not a prisoner was hurt, though thousands of balls were imbedded in the walls, and holes shot in the doors almost large enough for a man to creep through. At night the firing ceased, for we were in total darkness, and nothing could be seen in the enginehouse. During the day and night I talked much with Brown. I found him as brave as a man could be, and sensible upon all subjects except slavery. He believed it was his duty to free the slaves, even if in doing so he lost his own life. During a sharp fight one of Brown’s sons was killed. He fell; then trying to raise himself, he said, “It is all over with me,” and died instantly. Brown

John Brown’s Fort

did not leave his post at the port-

hole; but when the fighting was over he walked to his son’s body, straightened out his limbs, took off his trappings, and then, turning to me, said, “This is the third son I have lost in this cause.” Another son had been shot in the morning, and was then dying, having been brought in from the street. Often during the affair in the engine house, when his men would want to fire upon some one who might be seen passing, Brown would stop them, saying, “Don’t shoot; that man is unarmed.” The firing was kept up by our men all day and until late at night, and during that time several of his men were killed, but none of the prisoners were hurt, though in great danger. During the day and night many propositions, pro and con, were made, looking to Brown’s surrender and the release of the prisoners, but without result. When Colonel Lee came with the Government troops in the night, he at once sent a flag of truce by his aid, J. E. B. Stuart, to notify Brown of his arrival, and in the name of the United States to demand his surrender, advising him to throw himself on the clemency of the Government. Brown declined to accept Colonel Lee’s terms, and determined to await the attack. When Stuart was admitted and a light brought, he exclaimed, “Why, aren’t you old Osawatomie Brown of Kansas, whom I once had there as my prisoner?” “Yes,” was the answer, “but you did not keep me.” This was the first intimation we had of Brown’s real name. When Colonel

116

John Brown Lee advised Brown to trust to the clemency of the Government, Brown responded that he knew what that meant, a rope for his men and himself; adding, “I prefer to die just here.” Stuart told him he would return at early morning for his final reply, and left him: When he had gone, Brown at once proceeded to barricade the doors, windows, etc., endeavoring to make the place as strong as possible. All this time no one of Brown’s men showed the slightest fear, but calmly awaited the attack, selecting the best situations to fire from, and arranging their guns and pistols so that a fresh one could be taken up as soon as one was discharged. During the night I had a long talk with Brown, and told him that he and his men were committing treason against the State and the United States. Two of his men, hearing the conversation, said to their leader, “Are we committing treason against our country by being here?” Brown answered, “Certainly.” Both said, “If that is so, we don’t want to fight any more; we thought we came to liberate the slaves, and did not know that was committing treason.” Both of these men were afterwards killed in the attack on the engine house. When Lieutenant Stuart came in the morning for the final reply to the demand to surrender, I got up and went to Brown’s side to hear his answer. Stuart asked, “Are you ready to surrender, and trust to the mercy of the Government?” Brown answered, “No, I prefer to die here.” His manner did not betray the least alarm. Stuart stepped aside and made a signal for the attack, which was instantly begun with sledge hammers to break down the door. Finding it would not yield, the soldiers seized a long ladder for a battering ram, and commenced beating the door with that, the party within firing incessantly. I had assisted in the barricading, fixing the fastenings so that I could remove them on the first effort to get in. But I was not at the door when the battering began, and could not get to the fastenings till the ladder was used. I then quickly removed the fastenings; and, after two or three strokes of the ladder, the engine rolled partially back, making a small aperture, through which Lieutenant Green of the marines forced his way, jumped on top of the engine, and stood a second, amidst a shower of balls, looking for John Brown. When he saw Brown he sprang about twelve feet at him, giving an under thrust of his sword, striking Brown about midway the body, and raising him completely from the ground. Brown fell forward, with his head between his knees, while Green struck him several times over the head, and, as I then supposed, split his skull at every stroke. I was not two feet from Brown at that time. Of course I got out of the building as soon as possible, and did not know till some time later that Brown was not killed. It seems that Green’s sword, in making the thrust, struck Brown’s belt and did not penetrate the body. The sword was bent

117

Causes of the Civil War double. The reason that Brown was not killed when struck on the head was, that Green was holding his sword in the middle, striking with the hilt, and making only scalp wounds.22

Report of Col. R. E. Lee

Another first hand report was made by Col. Robert E. Lee, who happened to be on leave at Arlington, Virginia when the raid on Harper’s Ferry took place. Lee, who would command the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia through most of the Civil War, was commanded by the authorities in Washington D.C. to handle the situation. Volunteering as his aid was Lieutenant J. E. B. Stuart, who during the war would fight under Lee as one of the Confederacy’s most brilliant cavalry officers. After the raid was ended, Lee sent the following report to the Secretary of War: HEADQUARTERS HARPERS FERRY: COLONEL: I have the honor to report, for the information of the Secretary of War, that on arriving here on the night of the 17th instant, in obedience to Special Orders No. 194 of that date from your office, I learned that a party of insurgents, about 11 p. m. on the 16th, had seized the watchmen stationed at the armory, arsenal, rifle factory, and bridge across the Potomac, and taken possession of those points. They then dispatched six men, under one of their party, called Captain Aaron C. Stevens, to arrest the principal citizens in the neighborhood and incite the Negroes to join in the insurrection. ... As day advanced, and the citizens of Harper’s Ferry commenced their usual avocations, they were separately captured, to the number of forty, as well as I could learn, and confined in one room of the fire engine house of the armory, which seems early to have been selected as a point of defense. About 11 a. m. the volunteer companies from Virginia began to arrive, and the Jefferson Guards and volunteers from Charlestown, under Captain J. W. Rowen, I understood, were first on the ground. The Hamtramck Guards, Captain V. M. Butler; the Shepherdstown troop, Captain Jacob Rienahart; and Captain Alburtis’s company from Martinsburg arrived in the afternoon. These companies, under the direction of Colonels R. W. Baylor and John T. Gibson, forced the insurgents to abandon their positions at the bridge and in the village, and to withdraw within the armory enclosure, where they fortified themselves in the fire-engine house, and carried ten of their prisoners for the purpose of insuring their safety and facilitating their escape, whom they termed hostages.... Later in the evening the companies from Baltimore, under General Charles C. Edgerton, second light brigade, and a detachment of marines, commanded by Lieutenant J. Green

118

John Brown accompanied by Major Russell, of that corps, reached Sandy Hook, about one and a half mile east of Harper’s Ferry. At this point I came up with these last-named troops, and leaving General Edgerton and his command on the Maryland side of the river for the night, caused the marines to proceed to Harper’s Ferry, and placed them within the armory grounds to prevent the possibility of the escape of the insurgents. Having taken measures to halt, in Baltimore, the artillery companies ordered from Fort Monroe, I made preparations to attack the insurgents at daylight. But for the fear of sacrificing the lives of some of the gentlemen held by them as prisoners in a midnight assault, I should have ordered the attack at once.

Their safety was the subject of painful consideration, and to prevent, if possible, jeopardizing their lives; I determined to summon the insurgents to surrender. As soon after daylight as the arrangements were made Lieutenant J. E. B. Stewart, 1st cavalry, who had accompanied me from Washington as staff officer, was dispatched, under a flag, with a written summons.... Knowing the character of the leader of the insurgents, I did not expect it would be accepted. I had therefore directed that the volunteer troops, under their respective commanders, should be paraded on the lines assigned them outside the armory, and had prepared a storming party of twelve marines, under their commander, Lieutenant Green, and had placed them close to the engine-house, and secure from its fire. Three marines were furnished with sledge-hammers to break in the doors, and the men were instructed how to distinguish our citizens from the insurgents; to attack with the bayonet and not to

119

Causes of the Civil War injure the blacks detained in custody unless they resisted. Lieutenant Stewart was also directed not to receive from the insurgents any counter propositions. If they accepted the terms offered, they must immediately deliver up their arms and release their prisoners. If they did not, he must, on leaving the engine-house, give me the signal. My object was, with a view of saving our citizens, to have as short an interval as possible between the summons and attack. The summons, as I had anticipated, was rejected. At the concerted signal the storming party moved quickly to the door and commenced the attack. The fire-engines within the house had been placed by the besieged close to the doors. The doors were fastened by ropes, the spring of which prevented their being

John Brown

broken by the blows of the hammers. The men were therefore ordered to drop the hammers, and, with a portion of the reserve, to use as a battering-ram a heavy ladder, with which they dashed in a part of the door and gave admittance to the storming party. The fire of the insurgents up to this time had been harmless. At the threshold one marine fell mortally wounded. The rest, led by Lieutenant Green and Major Russell, quickly ended the contest. The insurgents that resisted were bayoneted. Their leader, John Brown, was cut down by the sword of Lieutenant Green, and our citizens were protected by both officers and men. The whole was over in a few minutes. After our citizens were liberated and the wounded cared for, ... Lieutenant J. E. B. Stewart, with a party of marines, was dispatched to the Kennedy farm, situated in Maryland, about four and a half miles from Harper’s Ferry, which had been rented by John Brown, and used as the depot for his men and munitions. Lieutenant Stewart found ... at the Kennedy farm a number of sword pikes, blankets, shoes, tents, and all the necessaries for a campaign. … I must also ask to express my thanks to Lieutenant Stewart, Major Russell, and Lieutenant Green, for the aid they afforded me, and my entire commendation of

120

John Brown the conduct of the detachment of marines, who were at all times ready and prompt in the execution of any duty. The promptness with which the volunteer troops repaired to the scene of disturbance, and the alacrity they displayed to suppress the gross outrage against law and order, I know will elicit your hearty approbation. Equal zeal was shown by the president and officers of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company in their transportation of the troops and in their readiness to furnish the facilities of their well ordered road. ... I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, R. E. Lee, Colonel Commanding. Colonel S. Cooper, Adjutant General U. S. Army, Washington City, D. C23

Question

Why did Lee use these tactics in the attack on the engine house? What mistakes did Brown make in his tactics?

Response of the Press

When John Brown was removed from the engine house of the Harper’s Ferry arsenal, he had been a decided failure to the abolitionist cause. Instead of forming a new nation of escaped slaves, his raid had been a complete failure, and his small group of followers were killed, wounded, captured or scattered. At first almost all of the press, both in the North and the South, responded in widespread condemnation of Brown’s attack. However, as the weeks passed between his raid, trial, and hanging, the opinion of the press and the people of the North changed. This change was driven by the writings and speeches of men like Emerson, Thoreau, Douglass, and others.

Chicago Press and Tribune

Reading the newspapers during this time the change is very apparent. The same paper published editorials just weeks apart that were opposed to one another. Take, for example, a Republican anti-slavery paper, the Press and Tribune of Chicago, Illinois. On October 20th it published a harsh condemnation of Brown, who it called an “insane old man:” Holding to the doctrines of the Revolutionary fathers and the earlier statesmen of this country on the subject of slavery -- that it is a moral, social and political evil; that it is a creature of local law, to be controlled exclusively by the States, in which

121

Causes of the Civil War it exists, and that its area ought not to be extended, for its accompanying evils be fastened upon our new frontier communities -- the Republican party depreciates, no less than these worthies would have done, everything looking towards violent measures for the enfranchisement of the slaves of the South. The opposition to slavery is based upon moral and economic considerations, and the only action it proposes or that it would countenance, with respect to the institution, is to confine it to its present limits, leaving the problem of “what will they do with it?” to the solution of the people of the slaveholding States.24

Just over a month later, on December 2nd, they printed an article which, although still condemning Brown’s methods, painted him as a hero and a martyr: John Brown dies to-day! As Republicans, maintaining as we do, that neither individuals nor parties in the North have a right to interfere with slavery where it exists under the sanction of positive law in the States, we cannot say that he suffers unlawfully. The man’s heroism which is as sublime as that of a martyr, his constancy to his convictions, his suffering, the disgraceful incidents of his trial, the poltroonery of those who will lead him forth to death, have excited throughout all the North strong feeling of sympathy in his behalf, but no where, within our knowledge, is the opinion entertained that he should not be held answerable, for the legal consequence of his act. … We are not debarred, however, the right of praising the inherent though mistaken nobleness of the man, of pitying the fanaticism which led him into his present strait, of regretting that a character which might have been so illustrious in the history of his country, must be loaded with the consequences of his errors.25

A Plea for Captain John Brown

This change was wrought in large part by the writing of the Unitarian and Transcendental intellectuals of New England such as Henry David Thoreau, who was a disciple of Emerson and gained fame with his book Walden. In a famous speech called A Plea for Captain John Brown, he began with the brief story of Brown’s life, and then proceeded to his defense of Brown. 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 agree with him. They who are continually shocked by slavery have some right to be shocked by the violent death of the slaveholder, but no others. Such will be more shocked by his life than by his death. I shall not be forward to think him mistaken in his method who quickest succeeds to liberate the slave. … We preserve the so-called peace of our community by deeds

122

John Brown of petty violence every day. Look at the policeman’s billy and handcuffs! Look at the jail! Look at the gallows! Look at the chaplain of the regiment! We are hoping only to live safely on the outskirts of this provisional army. So we defend ourselves and our henroosts, and maintain slavery. I know that the mass of my countrymen think that the only righteous use that can be made of Sharps rifles and revolvers is to fight duels with them, when we are insulted by other nations, or to hunt Indians, or shoot fugitive slaves with them, or the like. I think that for once the Sharps rifles and the revolvers were employed in a righteous cause. The tools were in the hands of one

Henry David Thoreau

who could use them.

Thoreau continued until he even compared John Brown to the Lord Jesus Christ: I am here to plead his cause with you. I plead not for his life, but for his character, — his immortal life; and so it becomes your cause wholly, and is not his in the least. Some eighteen hundred years ago Christ was crucified; this morning, perchance, Captain Brown was hung. These are the two ends of a chain which is not without its links. He is not Old Brown any longer; he is an angel of light. I see now that it was necessary that the bravest and humanest man in all the country should be hung. Perhaps he saw it himself. I almost fear that I may yet hear of his deliverance, doubting if a prolonged life, if any life, can do as much good as his death. … I foresee the time when the painter will paint that scene, no longer going to Rome for a subject; the poet will sing it; the historian record it; and, with the Landing of the Pilgrims and the Declaration of Independence, it will be the ornament of some future national gallery, when at least the present form of Slavery shall be no more here. We shall then be at liberty to weep for Captain Brown. Then, and not till then, we will take our revenge.27

Questions

Was it right for Thoreau to compare John Brown to Christ? What are some modern examples of the press shaping public opinion?

123

Causes of the Civil War

John Brown’s Body

When less than two years later the Northern armies were marching south, their connection to John Brown was clear. He had been glorified by the literary men of New England, and he was seen by many as a martyr to emulate in their attack upon the South. In fact, one of their marching songs, John Brown’s Body, was very clear about that. John Brown’s body lies a-mouldering in the grave; John Brown’s body lies a-mouldering in the grave; John Brown’s body lies a-mouldering in the grave; His soul is marching on! Chorus Glory, glory, hallelujah! Glory, glory, hallelujah! Glory, glory, hallelujah! his soul is marching on! John Brown’s knapsack is strapped upon his back! John Brown’s knapsack is strapped upon his back! John Brown’s knapsack is strapped upon his back! His soul is marching on!

The song originally came from a unit of Massachusetts militia, which contained a Scotsman named John Brown. He received many jokes from his comrades about the famous abolitionist by the same name. Someone wrote a song about it to the tune of a revival hymn of the time. It spread through the army, detached from the joke about the Scotsman, and became a common marching song. It was rewritten by William Weston Patton in 1861 and published in the Chicago Tribune in December: Old John Brown’s body lies moldering in the grave, While weep the sons of bondage whom he ventured all to save; But tho he lost his life while struggling for the slave, His soul is marching on. John Brown was a hero, undaunted, true and brave, And Kansas knows his valor when he fought her rights to save; Now, tho the grass grows green above his grave, His soul is marching on. He captured Harper’s Ferry, with his nineteen men so few, And frightened “Old Virginny” till she trembled thru and thru; They hung him for a traitor, they themselves the traitor crew, But his soul is marching on.

124

John Brown John Brown was John the Baptist of the Christ we are to see, Christ who of the bondmen shall the Liberator be, And soon thruout the Sunny South the slaves shall all be free, For his soul is marching on. The conflict that he heralded he looks from heaven to view, On the army of the Union with its flag red, white and blue. And heaven shall ring with anthems o’er the deed they mean to do, For his soul is marching on. Ye soldiers of Freedom, then strike, while strike ye may, The death blow of oppression in a better time and way, For the dawn of old John Brown has brightened into day, And his soul is marching on

It was rewritten again into the Battle Hymn of the Republic by Julia Ward Howe. Although the words are different, the message was still the same. Julia was the wife of one of the Secret Six, and her song portrayed the northern armies as crusaders prosecuting a holy war, a war which John Brown had begun in 1859.

Further Study

The Secret Six by Otto Scott Provisional Constitution by John Brown John Brown’s Letters The Life and Letters of John Brown by Franklin Benjamin Sanborn Avaliable online at www.DiscerningHistory.com/Causes

125

Causes of the Civil War

Footnotes 1

The Life and Letters of John Brown: Liberator of Kansas, and Martyr of Virginia by Franklin Benjamin Sanborn (Boston: Roberts Brothers, 1891) p. 14-15.

2 Ibid, p. 598. 3 Ibid, p. 37. 4 Ibid, p. 51. 5

John Brown, Abolitionist: The Man who Killed Slavery, Sparked the Civil War, and Seeded Civil Rights by Davis S. Reynolds (New York: Vintage Books, 2006) p. 19.

6 The Life and Letters of John Brown, p. 88. 7

Ibid, p. 57.

8 Ibid, p. 131. 9

Ibid, p. 122.

10 Ibid, p. 217-220. 11 Ibid, p. 236-237. 12 The Secret Six, p. 6. 13 The Life and Letters of John Brown, p. 265-266. 14 Ibid, pp. 273. 15 Ibid, p. 270. 16 Ibid, p. 238-241. 17 The casualty numbers were in dispute. A Missourian reported that Reid met a force of 200 abolitionists and killed 31 and captured seven, loosing only five wounded themselves. 18 The Life , p. 318-319. 19 Ibid, p. 137. 20 The Dred Scott Decision which held that slaves were not freed when they entered free territories. 21 Ibid, p. 469-470. 22 Ibid, p. 556-560. Originally printed in the Century Magazine for June of 1885. 23

Message from the President of the United states to the Two Houses of Congress at the Commencement of the First Secession of the Thirty-Sixth Congress (Washington: George W. Bowman, 1860) vol. 1, p. 229-233.

24 “Where the Responsibility Belongs”, Chicago Press and Tribune, 20 October 1859. 25 “The Fatal Friday”, Chicago Press and Tribune, 2 December 1859. 26 The Writings of Henry David Throeau, (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1906) vol. 4, p. 433-434. 27 Ibid, p. 438-440.

126

C h a p t e r

Secession T

he differences between the North and the South did not mean that the United States could not remain united. Even within a family there are differences in understanding, interests, abilities and convictions, but that does not mean that every family splits into individuals. One of the things that is required in life is to learn how to deal with people who do not see things the same way. For many years, politicians worked to stop the nation from splitting because of the differences over religion, slavery and economics. There were many debates in Washington over how these issues should effect governing. These debates resulted in compromises in order for groups with different beliefs to live peacefully under the same government. These compromises stretched all the way back to the Constitution, with the threefifths compromise, where slaves would be counted as three-fifths of a person when counting representation. They continued on with debates over whether new territories would be slave or free, from the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, to the Missouri Compromise of 1820, to the attempted passage of the Wilmot Proviso in 1846, to the Compromise of 1850, to the concept of popular sovereignty. Popular sovereignty is the belief that the national government should not force a state to be either slave or free, but that each state must decide for itself. Popular sovereignty was legislated with the Kansas Nebraska Act of 1854, creating “Bleeding Kansas,” where violence occurred as each section of the country tried to settle Kansas as fast as possible so they would control the government. As these elements worked toward disunity, there were other things still unifying the country. Some of those things were the religious denominations and the political parties. As the denominations began to split in the 1840s, the political parties were still working on compromises to keep the nation together. The Southern states began to really consider secession with the emergence of the

Causes of the Civil War Republican Party out of the ruins of the Whig party. It was solely a Northern party, and the issues it stood for were only acceptable to the North: high tariffs and abolitionism. Abraham Lincoln, who came to prominence after the Lincoln - Douglas debates while running for the Senate, was chosen as their presidential candidate for 1860. For that election, the Democratic party also experienced a split and fielded two candidates, causing Lincoln to win with a plurality of the votes. Because the Republican party did not even get on the ballot in the Southern states, the South saw Lincoln’s election as proof that the North was going to dictate to the Southern states what they were allowed to do, so the Cotton States, or the Lower South, seceded from the Union. They formed their own government, the Confederate States of America, and elected Jefferson Davis to be their president. Considering the differences between the North and the South, it is not surprising that since shortly after the founding of the Union desires to separate were expressed by some factions. It is worth considering the means used to maintain the unity during the years before the Civil War, especially as new states were being added and political power was shifting.

Territories and Compromise Northwest Ordinance

The first bill regulating slavery in the territories was passed even before the United States, as we know it, was formed. The Treaty of Paris, which ended the War for Independence, turned over to the United States the unsettled land east of the thirteen colonies. The United States Government, organized under the Articles of Confederation, opened it to settlement without an organized local government. Various states laid claim to parts of the territories in their jurisdictions, but these claims were often competing. In 1784 the Land Ordinance was passed to organize the territory, removing the state’s competing land claims. Thomas Jefferson tried forbidding slavery in the territory after 1800, but he was unsuccessful. This bill was superseded and expanded by the Northwest Ordinance in 1787. It laid the foundation for how the United States would

128

Northwest Ordinance

Secession handle territories under both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. Most important for the movement toward civil war was the last article, which dealt with slavery: There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted: Provided, always, That any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the original States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid.1

This article said that slavery would be forbidden in these new territories, although it gave the right to have fugitive slaves returned to their masters, a right later codified in the Constitution itself. There was no opposition to the measure from the Southern states, and it passed with a unanimous vote, save one, with the only opposing vote coming from a New Yorker. There were several reasons for this. One reason was that at the time some Southerners, such as Thomas Jefferson, saw slavery as an evil that should be contained. Another reason the Southern representatives would have voted to contain slavery was that it was believed that tobacco could only be grown profitably with slave labor and the Southerners did not want competition on their major cash crop. With no slaves in the Northwest Territory, tobacco could not be grown, and without tobacco, the newly settled land would pose less of an economic threat to the Southern states.

Tabacco

Missouri Compromise

Much of the land to the west of the thirteen English speaking colonies, including the town of New Orleans, was claimed by Spain. In 1800 they sold this territory to France, and Napoleon began making plans for the now French section of the new world. However, these plans soon collapsed due to developments in Haiti and Europe. When Napoleon

129

Causes of the Civil War seemed willing to sell the territory to the United States, Thomas Jefferson, president at the time, was willing to accept the opportunity. He did not want the land to develop into a dangerous neighbor which would limit American expansion. He was prepared to pay $10 million dollars for the area very close to New Orleans. However, France offered to sell a much larger area, stretching from the Gulf of Mexico to the Rocky Mountains for only $15 million. The Louisiana Purchase went into effect October 1, 1804, and the territory of the United States officially doubled. As this Louisiana Territory, or the Territory of Missouri as it was later renamed, was settled, issues arose whether this new land would be slave or free. The issue came to a head in 1820 with what would become the Missouri Compromise. At the time, the number of slave and free states was equal, and the issue had become divisive to the point where neither side was willing to admit a state which disagreed with them, as it would disrupt the political power. Therefore, a compromise was formed which organized what would become Missouri as a slave territory, and admitting Maine as a free state. It further drew a line across the continent parallel 36°30’ north, in an attempt to settle the issue about whether new states would be slave or free.

Missouri Compromise Line in 1850 When the Missouri Compromise was passed, Thomas Jefferson was 77 years old, retired at his home Monticello in Virginia. He saw the compromise as very dangerous, and wrote several letters warning of the destruction he believed it would bring. He wrote this letter to William Short, a close friend. Short had been his secretary, and Jefferson sometimes referred to him as his adopted son:

130

Secession Altho’ I had laid down as a law to myself, never to write, talk or even think of politics, to know nothing of public affairs & therefore had ceased to read newspapers, yet the Missourie question aroused and filled me with alarm. The old schism of federal & republican, threatened nothing because it existed in every state, and united them together by the fraternism of party. But the coincidence of a marked principle, moral & political with a geographical line, once concieved, I feared would never more be obliterated from the mind; that it would be recurring on every occasion & renewing irritations until it would kindle such mutual & mortal hatred, as to render separation preferable to eternal discord. I have been among the most sanguine in believing that our Union would be of long duration. I now doubt it much, and see the event at no great distance, and the direct consequence of this question: not by the time which has been so confidently counted on. The laws of nature controul this, but by the Potomack Ohio, and Missouri, or more probably the Missisipi upwards to our Northern boundary, my only comfort & confidence is that I shall not live to see this: and I envy not the present generation the glory of throwing away the fruits of their fathers sacrifices of life & fortune, and of rendering desperate the experiment which was to decide ultimately whether man is capable of self government? This treason against human hope will signalize their epoch in future history, as the counterpart of the medal of their predecessors.2

A few days later he wrote to John Holmes, who had just resigned as a U.S. Representative from Massachusetts. Jefferson wrote: Monticello Apr. 22. 20. I thank you, Dear Sir, for the copy you have been so kind as to send me of the letter to your constituents on the Missouri question. It is a perfect justification to them. I had for a long time ceased to read the newspapers or pay any attention to public affairs, confident they were in good hands, and content to be a passenger in our bark to the shore from which I am not distant. but this momentous question, like a fire bell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror. I considered it at once as the knell of the Union. it is hushed indeed for the moment. But this is a reprieve only, not a final sentence. a geographical line, coinciding with a marked principle, moral and political, once conceived and held up to the angry passions of men, will never be obliterated; and every new irritation will mark it deeper and deeper. I can say with conscious truth that there is not a man on earth who would sacrifice more than I would, to relieve us from this heavy reproach, in any practicable way. the cession of that kind of property, for so it is misnamed, is a bagatelle which would not cost me in a second thought, if, in that way, a general emancipation and expatriation could be effected: and, gradually,

131

Causes of the Civil War and with due sacrifices, I think it might be. but, as it is, we have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other. of one thing I am certain, that as the passage of slaves from one state to another would not make a slave of a single human being who would not be so without it, so their diffusion over a greater surface would make them individually happier and proportionally facilitate the accomplishment of their emancipation, by dividing the [burden] on a greater number of co-adjutors. an abstinence too from this act of power would remove the jealousy excited by the undertaking of Congress, to regulate the condition

Monticello

of the different descriptions of men composing a state. this certainly is the exclusive right of every state, which nothing in the constitution has taken from them and given to the general government. could congress, for example say that the Non-freemen of Connecticut, shall be freemen, or that they shall not emigrate into any other state? to yourself as the faithful advocate of union I tender the offering of my high esteem and respect. Th. Jefferson3

Questions

Why did Jefferson think that the Missouri compromise would end in dividing the nation? What did he see as the role of the general government in the issue?

Mexican War

Because slavery was an issue which was dividing the country, how to deal with new territories being added created new tensions. In 1836, the American settlers in Mexican owned Texas declared independence, and established their own republic. They were successful in beating off the Mexican armies, but they did not want to remain independent, they wanted to become part of the United States. In 1845, the United States, with the agreement of the Texans, annexed the small republic, and, as had been expected, border

132

Secession disputes soon led to war with Mexico. The United States won this war with little difficulty, and in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848, it received a large section of Mexican land to the west of Texas. This resulted in another struggle over whether slavery would be permitted in this new territory. David Wilmot introduced what would be called the Wilmot Proviso, an amendment to the treaty that would prohibit slavery in the new land: Provided, That, as an express and fundamental condition to the acquisition of any territory from the Republic of Mexico by the United States, by virtue of any treaty which may be negotiated between them, and to the use by the Executive of the moneys herein appropriated, neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever exist in any part of said territory, except for crime, whereof the party shall first be duly convicted.4

The Southerners would not permit that, as it would limit the further expansion of their economic system, which was based on slavery. After days of debating the proviso, and others like it, they were voted down, and the treaty was passed with no reference to slavery. One idea introduced in these debates by the Democrats Lewis Cass and Stephen Douglas, was the concept of popular sovereignty, that the people of the territory should be able to decide whether it was slave or free, similar to Jefferson’s position stated earlier. Cass wrote: Leave it to the people, who will be affected by this question to adjust it upon their own responsibility, and in their own manner, and we shall render another tribute to the original principles of our government, and furnish another for its permanence and prosperity.

Compromise of 1850

The Missouri Compromise line of 1820 had only applied to the land obtained through the Louisiana Purchase. Another agreement was necessary for the land obtained in the Mexican War, and the Compromise of 1850 was proposed to settle the issue. Brokered by Henry Clay and Stephen Douglas, it dealt with five different issues. First, it clarified the border of Texas, and in exchange for land claims the Texans gave up, the Federal government took over all the state debt from the revolution. Second, California was admitted to the Union as a free state, not divided, as some hoped, into two, free and slave. Third, the land which now makes up Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah was organized with Douglas’s idea of popular sovereignty, that the settlers would be able to decide whether they would be free or slave. Fourth, a stricter fugitive slave law was passed, and lastly, the internal slave trade was abolished in the District of Columbia. Although no one was completely satisfied with every element of the compromise, it was generally popular as each side had gained success on issues they considered most significant.

133

Causes of the Civil War

Henry Clay debating the Missouri Compromise

Kansas-Nebraska Act

The last of the bills passed before the Civil War relating to slavery in the territories was the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. Stephen Douglas took the popular sovereignty contained in the Compromise of 1850 one step further. There it had been applied to new territories, not those under the Louisiana Purchase and the Missouri Compromise. But now he wanted to apply the same doctrine to what would become Kansas and Nebraska. He said his previous bills were intended to have a far more comprehensive and enduring effect than the mere adjustment of the difficulties arising out of the recent acquisition of Mexican territory. They were designed to establish certain great principles, which would not only furnish adequate remedies for existing evils, but, in all time to come, avoid the perils of a similar agitation, by withdrawing the question of slavery from the halls of Congress and the political arena, and committing it to the arbitrament of those who were immediately interested in, and alone responsible for its consequences.5

The debate over Douglas’ bill was very fierce. It was supported by most of the representatives of the Southern states, as it would allow them to expand into more territories, as well as the Northerners, like Douglas, who supported popular sovereignty. There was a large section of the North which opposed opening the possibility of any expansion of slavery, and it was largely this section that would form the Republican Party. The debate got very

134

Secession heated, a filibuster was attempted and, at times, weapons were drawn on the floor of the house. However, the bill finally passed over the objections. The Kansas-Nebraska act was monumental in shaping the course of the country. Both political parties, Whig and Democrat, split over the issue. Lincoln gained fame through his debates with Douglas on the issues while running for a Senate seat in Illinois. It was the issue upon which the Republican party was founded, and it paved the way for Bleeding Kansas, where John Brown would first turn to violence.

Stephen Douglas

Stephen Douglas was able to succeed in getting the bill passed, because he was one of the most important politicians during the two decades leading up to the Civil War. Today he is mostly known as the rival of Abraham Lincoln, but he was an important leader in the Senate. He was instrumental in passing bills which changed the course of history. He was known as the Little Giant, because, although he was short in stature, he was a giant in politics.

Early Life

Stephen Arnold Douglas was born on April 23, 1813 in Vermont. As a young man, he became a cabinet-maker, and spent time avidly studying politics. He abandoned cabinetry, and after attending school, immigrated west at the age of 20. He settled in Illinois and taught school while he studied to become an attorney. After getting his license, he opened a law office. His friends used their influence to gain him the appointment to county attorney. He was soon elected to the Illinois legislature. He was an active member of the Democratic Party, and was appointed Illinois Secretary of State for his work in the party. As Secretary of State, he had the time, and resources, to continue deeper in his law studies, which he wished to pursue further. His next appointment was to the Illinois Supreme Court. By eastern standards, he would not have been seen as qualified, but Illinois was still the frontier, and the court was conducted differently.

135

Stephen Douglas

Causes of the Civil War House of Representatives

With the census of 1840, Illinois was given several more representatives in the House, and Douglas was elected to one of the seats. At the age of 30, he became a member of Congress. Douglas was likeable and intelligent. He gained notoriety through his defense of Andrew Jackson, his boyhood hero. While a general, Jackson had proclaimed martial law in New Orleans, and was fined $1000 for contempt of court. Douglas later met Jackson who said to him: I never could understand how it was that the performance of a solemn duty to my country - a duty which, if I had neglected, would have made me a traitor in the sight of God and man, could properly be pronounced a violation of the Constitution. … I thank you, sir, for that speech. … Throughout my whole life I never performed an official act which I viewed as a violation of the Constitution of my country; and I can now go down to the grave in peace, with the perfect consciousness that I have not broken, at any period of my life, the Constitution or laws of my country.6

When it was proposed to annex Texas, there were debates over whether the Constitution allows Congress to annex territory. Douglas argued it did, because it was necessary to add new states. He pushed for territorial expansion of the United States, saying on the floor of Congress: Our federal system is admirable adapted to the whole continent; and while I would not violate the laws of nations, nor treaty stipulations … I would exert all legal and honorable means to drive Great Britain and the last vestiges of royal authority from the continent of North America, and extend the limits of the republic from ocean to ocean.7

Douglas began to gain influence in Congress, and was made the chairman of the Committee on Territories. When the Mexican War came, Douglas supported it as well.

Senate

In 1846 the Illinois legislature prompted him to run for the Senate. He continued to rise to prominence in that body as well. Being from the rough, western part of the country, he was at times offensive to other Senators and Representatives. However, this was in some part the character of Congress at the time. In just a few years, Charles Sumner would be caned on the floor ozf the Senate. One man recorded that the only people in Congress “who do not have a revolver and a knife are those who have two revolvers.”8 In 1847 Douglas married Martha Martin from North Carolina, who was the cousin of a Congressman. When his father-in-law died, his wife inherited a plantation with 100

136

Secession slaves, and later these were used to accuse him of hypocrisy. Douglas was worried that the Union might be dissolved. There were many disagreements between the North and South over slavery, and Douglas worked to keep the nation unified through compromise bills. He was instrumental as one of the main authors of the Compromise of 1850. Douglas believed in what was called Popular Sovereignty. He believed that each territory should have the right to decide to be free or slave. He argued in the Senate: I am not … prepared to say that under the constitution, we have not the power to pass laws excluding negro slaves from the territories.... But I do say that, if left to myself to carry out my own opinions, I would leave the whole subject to the people of the territories themselves.... I believe it is one of those rights to be conceded to the territories the moment they have governments and legislatures established for them.9

Douglas, as with many others at the time, believed that slavery was on its way out. He did not think that the slaveholders would settle new territories. Indeed, he thought that eventually the entire South would emancipate its slaves. Douglas’ rapid ascension in the leadership of the Democrat party led to his being suggested as a presidential candidate in 1850. He ended up not winning the nomination, but was reelected to the Senate in 1852. In 1854 Douglas designed the Kansas-Nebraska act, which was an application of Popular Sovereignty to organize the territories of Kansas and Nebraska. In a speech in favor of his bill, Douglas pointed back to the founding of the country as an example of Popular Sovereignty: This was the principle upon which the colonies separated from the crown of Great Britain, the principle upon which the battles of the Revolution were fought, and the principle upon which our republican system was founded.10

He concluded by saying this: I have not brought this question forward as a Northern man or as a Southern man. I am unwilling to recognize such divisions and distinctions. I have brought it forward as an American Senator, representing a State which is true to this principle, and which has approved of my action in respect to the Nebraska bill. I have brought it forward not as an act of justice to the South more than to the North. I have presented it especially as an act of

137

Stephen Douglas

Causes of the Civil War justice to the people of those Territories, and of the States to be formed therefrom, now and in all time to come.11

Douglas contrived to get his bill passed, but not everyone agreed with him. He was called a traitor and Judas by those in the North who said he was turning the territory over to slavery, and opposed by Southerners who wanted guarantees of slave-holding territories. Stephen Douglas was a popular leader. His followers were not bought, they were loyal to him personally. He made friendships with many, and by using his excellent memory, he was able to make many who helped in him in small ways feel important. In Congress, he was a skilled debater. He often gave very powerful speeches without notes. Harriet Beecher Stowe described him: This Douglas is the very ideal of vitality. Short, broad, and thick-set, every inch of him has its own alertness and motion. … His forte in debating is his power of mystifying the point. With the most off-hand assured airs in the world, and a certain appearance of honest superiority, like one who has a regard for you and wishes to set you right on one or two little matters, he proceeds to set up some point which is not that question, but only a family connection of it, and this point he attacks with the very best logic and language....12

Douglas was again proposed to be the Democratic nominee for president in 1856, but again he was not chosen, and James Buchanan was elected to the presidency. In Kansas, Douglas’s law was not having its intended effect. Instead of a simple vote on slavery, both sections were racing to see which side would gain the majority. A Kansas Constitution was proposed which had Buchanan’s support, but Douglas did not believe it was fair or the true will of the people of Kansas. So he revolted from the President’s leadership and stood up to him in the Senate. Douglas returned home from Washington to campaign for re-election to the Senate. He was being challenged by Abraham Lincoln. They agreed to a series of debates throughout the state of Illinois to clarify their positions, even though the appointment was made by the legislature and not by the votes of the citizens. These debates were printed and distributed through the nation and read by many. Douglas prevailed by being re-elected to his Senate seat.

Election of 1860

Two years later, the Democratic convention was held to determine the presidential nominee for 1860. The debates were heated. The Southerners wanted their property in slaves protected by the federal government even if they moved into the territories.

138

Secession Douglas wanted the people of the territories to be able to decide for themselves. Douglas’ platform was adopted by a majority, but the Southern representatives left the convention. The “Rump Convention,” consisting of those who remained was not able to get enough agreement on a single candidate. The convention adjourned after it became clear that Douglas would not be able to get fifty more votes. When they met again in Baltimore, the Southern delegates were not counted, so Douglas was appointed the nominee, but the split in the convention destroyed the Democrat’s chance for either of their nominees to be elected. As nominee, Douglas broke tradition by campaigning for himself. The practice at the time was to send out representatives to argue your merits on the campaign trail. Douglas lost the election to Lincoln, and states began to secede because of it. Douglas, who believed the disagreements could be worked out, saying, “I hold that there is no grievance growing out of a non-fulfillment of constitutional obligations, which cannot be remedied under the Constitution and within the Union.”13 Douglas did not believe in secession. He thought the Union could not be dissolved, but he believed that all peaceful means must be used before resorting to war to restore the Union. He said: We can never acknowledge the right of a State to secede and cut us off from the ocean and world, without our consent. But in the question of force and war until all efforts at peaceful adjustment have been made and have failed. The fact can not longer be disguised that many of the Republican leaders desire war and disunion under pretext of saving the Union. They wish to get rid of the Southern senators in order to have a majority in the Senate to confirm Lincoln’s appointments; and many of them think they can hold a permanent Republican ascendancy in the Northern States, but not in the whole Union.14

Douglas’s efforts to preserve the Union through Constitutional agreements failed, partly, as he said, because of the influence of the Republican leaders. Eventually, Douglas believed that war was justified to preserve the Union. He worked with Lincoln, even though a few months before they had been running against each other. Douglas returned to Illinois and encouraged the people of his state to gather to support Lincoln. He fell sick there, and after a few weeks of illness he died on June 3rd, 1861. When asked what he wished to tell his sons, he said, “Tell them to obey the laws and support the Constitution of the United States.”15

Questions

Would you support Popular Sovereignty? Why or why not? What were Douglas’ good and bad traits?

139

Causes of the Civil War

Charles Sumner Early Life and Education

Another important figure in the Senate was Charles Sumner. He was born in Boston on January 6, 1811, the oldest of nine children. He was not good at sports, and instead spent his time reading and studying. He read Latin and Greek extensively, and studied history as well. His father was appointed sheriff and was able to send his son to Harvard. He did not do well there because of his poor skills in mathematics. However he continued to read, borrowing more books from the library than anyone else in his class. After graduating, he decided to go to Harvard Law School for lack of anything else to do, but he found he enjoyed it. He studied under Joseph Story at Harvard Law School, who was a Charles Sumner Supreme Court Justice. Sumner became one of Story’s favorite pupils. After school, he was more distinguished in his writing and teaching on law than his actual handling of cases. He traveled through Europe from 1837 - 1840. Upon returning home he had difficulty settling down to practice law. He disliked the drudgery of a normal law practice. Long before, he and five of his close friends had formed the “Five of Clubs,” a literary group that met once a week which included Sumner; Sumner’s law partner George Hillard; Henry Cleveland, an author; Cornelius Felton, a Harvard professor; Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, the famous poet; and later Samuel Gridley Howe, future member of the Secret Six and a social reformer. Sumner fell into depression after several of his friends married, and he turned to social reform. He wrote in 1845, “My name is connected somewhat with two questions, which may be described succinctly as those of peace and slavery. To these may be added prison-discipline.”16

Orator

He really began his advocacy for universal peace by giving a speech entitled The True Grandeur of Nations at a large Fourth of July Celebration in 1845. In that speech, Sumner spoke against the Mexican-American war which was about to start, and passionately proposed peace between all nations. Although Sumner’s speech was fundamentally flawed because universal peace is impossible to obtain, he was bold in speaking for what

140

Secession he believed was right. He proclaimed that, “respectable citizens volunteer to look like soldiers, and to affect in dress, in arms and deportment, what is called ‘the pride, pomp and circumstance of glorious war,’” with the officers of the Massachusetts militia sitting nearby. Although he became very popular with the radicals, he lost much by giving this speech. He was alienated from most of Boston society, where he previously had a high standing. He was not appointed as a Professor in the Harvard Law School, which had been anticipated for years. It was explained: Sumner has become an outrageous Philanthropist - neglecting his Law, to patch up the world - to reform prisoners and convicts - put down soldiers and wars - and keep the solar system in harmonious action.... The conservative Corporation of Harvard College...consider Sumner in the Law-school, as unsuitable as a Bull in a china-shop.17

Slavery

Sumner was also active in the anti-slavery movement. He stood in the middle of two sections of abolitionists. On the one hand was most of Massachusetts, who were opposed to slavery, but were not willing to press the issue hard upon the South, and on the other the radical abolitionists, such as William Lloyd Garrison, who wished to dissolve the Union rather than be affiliated with the slave holding states. Sumner summarized his position in 1846: I think Slavery a sin, individual and national; and think it the duty of each individual to cease committing it, and, of course of each State, to do likewise. Massachusetts is a party to slave-holding, and is responsible for it, so long as it continues under the sanction of the Constitution of the United States. I would leave it to the local laws of each State. If the South persists in holding slaves let it not expect Massachusetts to aid or abet in the wrong. I cannot be a slave-holder; nor can I help upholding slaveholding.18

Sumner did not believe the federal government should force the states to abolish slavery. However, he believed that the North should, in as many ways as possible, attempt to convince the South to abolish it with a “moral blockade.” He wanted the federal government to stifle it in its role by making no Fugitive Slave laws, by outlawing slavery in the District of Columbia, and by outlawing slavery in new territories.

Free Soil Party

Sumner was a member of the Whig Party, which was one of the two main political parties along with the Democrats. He was part of the faction called the Conscience Whigs, who were opposed to slavery. Although he said he had no ambitions for a higher political office, he was politically active. The Conscience Whigs published a newspaper, and

141

Causes of the Civil War became popular in their disapproval of the Mexican War. Sumner became a disciple of John Quincy Adams, who had been president and was serving in the House of Representatives. Adams noted Sumner after his Independence Day speech, and, although he did not agree with his position, he respected his courage. Sumner became Adam’s student, and Adams saw him as his successor. He told Sumner, “You will enter public life; in spite of yourself.”19 In 1848 Sumner helped lead a split off of the Conscience Whigs to join with other anti-slavery groups to form the Free Soil Party. The Free Soil Party wanted to prevent the spread of slavery into the territories, and instead leave free soil for free white labor.

Charles Sumner Sumner held his positions firmly, and had virtually ceased his practice of law in order to work in politics and reform movements. Even when wrong, he held his positions staunchly, even to the point of losing many of his friends. Fulton, one of the “Five of Clubs” said about him, “It almost seems as if the love of man meant the hatred of men.”20

Senate

As part of the Free Soil Party, Sumner ran for public office several times. As a third party, they did not have nearly enough votes to elect him, so it was more to spread his message to a wider audience. But in Massachusetts in 1850, the Free Soilers formed a coalition with the Democrats, and gained a majority in the Massachusetts legislature. Sumner was put forward as the candidate for the United States Senate. There were difficulties in convincing the entire Democratic section to support him. They were a few votes short, and it took three months to finally get him appointed with the majority of one vote. Sumner accepted the position, but was more saddened than elated by it. He had remained aloof from the contest, and when elected, wrote, “For myself, I do not desire public life; I have neither taste nor ambition for it; but Providence has marked out my career, and I follow.”21 Sumner arrived in Washington and took the desk that had previously belonged to Jefferson Davis. The Senate at the time did not contain many notable men. The only one who has gone down in history was Stephen Douglas, who was advocating for his doctrine of Popular Sovereignty. Sumner looked the part of a dignified Senator. He was six feet four inches tall, and would never sit in a position at home in which he would not sit on the floor

142

Secession of the Senate. Sumner, being a Free Soiler, did not identify with either of the main political parties. He was one of only two Senators who did not get a committee appointment, because he was “outside of any healthy political organization.” Sumner was most famous for his long orations on the floor of the Senate. He rarely interacted in debates, but instead spent many hours preparing long speeches. He memorized these long speeches so he would be able to speak without notes. At the time, he was considered a very powerful orator, primarily for four reasons. He used many statistics to prove his points. He picked very succinct and memorable titles, which were widely adopted by abolitionists, such as The Barbarism of Slavery, or Crime Against Kansas. He used many quotations and analogies from history, the classics and the Bible, often from different languages. And last, he employed much rhetorical exaggeration. It got his point across, but his personal attacks angered many. Sumner’s speeches were very long, some stretched to four hours. Audiences of the time listened carefully, and were not tired by his orations. He had no sense of humor, and used no jokes in his speeches or in personal conversations. He himself once said, “you might as well look for a joke in the Book of Revelation.”22 In 1854 the Free Soil party joined with anti-slavery sections of Whigs and Democrats to form the Republican Party, and Sumner followed suit. When Douglas proposed the Kansas-Nebraska act, which said that the people of new territories could decide by vote whether to be free or slave, Sumner became the leader of the opposition. Many Southerns and Northerners who wished to compromise were angered by Sumner’s fierce attacks. He received death threats, but was not afraid. He said, “I am here to do my duty and shall continue to do it without regard to personal consequences.”23

Crime Against Kansas

When Kansas sent a pro-slavery constitution to Congress to become a state, Sumner again jumped into action. He again opposed Stephen Douglas, believing that the convention which wrote the Constitution was not freely elected. One historian wrote: Certain that Douglas’s picture of events in Kansas was totally incorrect, Sumner did not pause to consider that his own version of happenings on that remote frontier might be equally distorted. Like the rest of the senators, he was unaware that the Kansas struggle involved not merely freedom and slavery, but also land speculations, bitter rivalries over the location of the territory capital, and personal ambitions of would-be congressmen from the territory.24

Sumner began to prepare a speech called Crime Against Kansas to oppose this constitution. Over the last few years, his support from his home state had come and gone. Massachusetts loved his long and passionate orations against slavery. Sumner would be

143

Causes of the Civil War coming up for re-election soon, so he was driven to write this speech to please the people of his state. He included very harsh personal attacks on fellow Senators, because his constituents loved those as well. In his multi-hour speech given on May 19th and 20th, 1856, he pushed for Kansas to be immediately admitted to the Union as a free state. He went on to deal with what he called Slave Power, a conspiracy of sorts, to enslave the North one step at a time. He said this: The wickedness which I now begin to expose is immeasurably aggravated by the motive which prompted it. Not in any common lust for power did this uncommon tragedy have its origin. It is the rape of a virgin Territory, compelling it to the hateful embrace of Slavery; and it may be clearly traced to a depraved desire for a new Slave State, hideous offspring of such a crime, in the hope of adding to the power of Slavery in the National Government. Yes, Sir, when the whole world, alike Christian and Turk, is rising up to condemn this wrong, making it a hissing to the nations, here in our Republic, force -- ay, Sir, Force -- is openly employed in compelling Kansas to this pollution, and all for the sake of political power. There is the simple fact, which you will vainly attempt to deny, but which in itself presents an essential wickedness that makes other public crimes seem like public virtues.25

Sumner also blazed with insults for his opponents, especially Stephen Douglas and Andrew Butler of South Carolina. When he was finished, Lewis Cass pronounced Sumner’s speech “the most un-American and unpatriotic that ever grated on the ears of the members of this high body.”26

Bleeding Sumner

The South was very angry at Sumner’s speech, especially Preston Brooks, a Congressman from South Carolina. He was a moderate, but he was angry that Sumner had “insulted South Carolina and Judge Butler grossly.”27 Butler was his cousin, and after waiting to read the published version of Sumner’s speech, he decided that according to the South’s code of honor, he needed to physically punish Sumner for his vicious attacks upon his relative and state. Brooks decided not to challenge Sumner to a duel because he did

144

Secession not see him as his social equal. Sumner was stronger than Brooks, so Brooks decided to beat him with his wooden cane. Just after the Senate adjourned on May 22nd, Brooks approached Sumner who was writing at his desk. After waiting for all the women to leave the chamber, Brooks told Sumner, “I have read your speech twice over carefully. It is a libel on South Carolina, and Mr. Butler, who is a relative of mine.” He poked Sumner with the cane to give notice of the attack, and then as Sumner brought up his hands to guard against the attack, began to beat him with his cane. As he was being struck, Sumner attempted to stand and ripped the desk out of the floor before staggering back as Brooks beat him as hard as he could. The cane quickly shattered, and in a minute it was over, and Sumner was left on the ground, unconscious and covered in blood.

Brooks caning Sumner There were two vastly different reactions to this “Bleeding Sumner” as it was called. The North saw the attack as the South turning the violence they used upon slaves on an innocent politician. The South saw it as a justified reply to the verbal attacks. One historian has said: In Southern parlance, Preston Brooks had inflicted a caning, or a whipping, upon the blackguard Sumner in order to chastise him for his unprovoked insults to the hoaryheaded Senator Butler and for his foul-mouthed denunciation of South Carolina. … He acted not for political reasons, but solely to redress a personal wrong. In caning Sumner, he neither violated the privileges of the Senate nor broke the constitutional guarantee of free speech to congressmen. His weapon was nothing but a common walking stick, such as gentlemen frequently use. … Though Sumner suffered only flesh wounds, he absented himself from the Senate because of the mortification of

145

Causes of the Civil War feeling and wounded pride. Brooks, with conspicuous gallantry, promptly reappeared in the House of Representatives, ready to face all accusers. In Northern language, the affair bore an entirely different aspect. Bully Brooks had made a brutal assault upon Sumner with a bludgeon. The act had no provocation; on the contrary, Sumner for years had silently endured a harsh stream of unparliamentary personalities from Butler and other defenders of slave power. The alleged cause of the assault, Sumner’s speech, was marked by the classic purity of its language and the nobility of its sentiments. … Brooks was the mere tool of the slave-holding oligarchy. … Though Sumner courageously tried to defend himself, the ruffian took advantage of his defenseless position and of the surprise, beat Sumner senseless, and continued to strike him after he collapsed on the floor.28

Charles Sumner remained out of the Senate for the next three years because of alleged health problems. Although his wounds were not serious and healed relatively quickly, he continued to suffer many problems. He believed that he had suffered brain damage because of the severe beating, but that is unlikely. He was probably experiencing what is today called post-traumatic stress disorder. Over the three years, he spent much time in Europe and seemed to be mostly healed, but when he tried to resume his duties, his symptoms reappeared. He underwent a very painful treatment which was supposed to fix his damaged spinal cord, which involved severely burning the skin upon his back. Although doctors then and now would say that this treatment had no medical effect, it worked as a placebo and his symptoms did not return.

Return to the Senate

When he resumed his Senate seat in 1859, the Republican party had begun to focus on issues other than abolitionism. Sumner, who wished to preserve the rabidly antislavery tone of the party, prepared another of his vicious attacks on slavery. Called the Barbarism of Slavery, it contained even more violent language towards the South than his previous speeches. Most of the Republicans believed that in giving it he had gone overboard. James Grimes of Iowa said, “[I]t sounded harsh, vindictive, and slightly brutal.... His speech has done the Republicans no good.” Charles Sumner had no desire to attempt a compromise with slavery. Instead, he launched harsh and offensive attacks on the South. He was “the most perfect impersonation of what the South wanted to secede from.”29 When the first states began to secede, Sumner would make no compromises to prevent a civil war. He worked to defeat efforts such as the Crittenden Compromise, which he believed compromised his abolitionist principles. Sumner was very influential as one of the leaders of the Republican party.

146

Secession Sumner continued in the senate for the rest of his life. Throughout the Civil War, Sumner was in a position of influence in the Senate. One congressman said, “Sumner’s influence is very potential - more than any body’s else put together.”30 He was a part of the radical Republicans and wanted Lincoln to immediately emancipate the slaves. After the war, he pushed for black suffrage and other civil rights. Sumner married Alice Hooper in 1866 at the age of 55. However, they separated within a year and were eventually divorced, which was very rare for the time. Sumner died of a heart attack on March 11, 1874.

Questions

Which of Sumner’s traits were good, and which bad?

Election of 1860

Democratic Convention of 1860

With these debates in the Congress, the tension in the country grew, but the Civil War undoubtedly came in response to the election of 1860. That year because of the party fragmentation there were four candidates running for the White House from four different positions on slavery in the territories. For decades the Whig and Democrat parties had ruled the day, but in the 1850s the Whig party crumbled. Out of its ashes rose the Republican Party, an explicitly Northern and anti-slavery party. In 1860 Abraham Lincoln was running as a Republican, and his position was that the Federal government should outlaw slavery in the territories. In choosing a candidate for the election of 1860, the Democrats experienced a split of their own over the issue of slavery. The Democrats supporting Stephen Douglas held his doctrine of Popular Sovereignty, that the people of the

147

Causes of the Civil War territory should choose whether to be free or slave. The other part of the Democrats supported John C. Breckinridge of Kentucky. He was currently serving as vice president under James Buchanan, the youngest vice president even to this day. His platform was in favor of slavery in the territories. The fourth position was held by John Bell, a former Whig from Tennessee, running from the new Constitutional Union Party. His position on slavery was to have no position, hoping to pass by the issue by simply ignoring it with the motto “the Union as it is, and the Constitution as it is.” In the North, the contest was between Lincoln and Douglas, while in the South it was between Breckinridge and Bell, because Douglas had only a small following there, and Lincoln was not even on the ballot. It was the custom of the time that the candidates waited at home and left their campaigning to others. Douglas bucked this trend, the first presidential candidate in American history to do so, traveling through the country reputedly on family visits, but not refusing the many requests of crowds to speak to them.

In the election on November 6, 1860, Lincoln easily won in the electoral college, although he won a minority of the popular vote. With 39.8% of the popular vote, he got 180 electoral votes, winning Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, California and Oregon. Breckinridge gained 18.1% of the popular vote, carrying the 72 electoral votes of the Southern states of Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Maryland and Delaware. John

148

Secession Bell gained 12.6% of the popular vote and 39 electoral votes, winning the border states of Tennessee, Kentucky and Virginia. Stephen Douglas came in second in the popular vote, with 21.5%. He was the only candidate to receive votes in every state, except South Carolina, where the electors were chosen by the legislatures. This spread out his support so that, while coming in second many times, he only won the 12 electoral votes of Missouri and half of New Jersey.

Secession Slavery

The election of Lincoln caused a serious disturbance in the Southern states. They knew from speeches and the party platform that the Republican Party would not permit slavery in the territories. Until a new pro-slavery candidate was elected, it was clear that any new territories would be free. However, their fears went beyond this. Many believed that Lincoln would make an attempt to destroy slavery in the states where it already existed. This concern came from comments such as this one by Lincoln’s law partner, William H. Herndon, in a letter to Charles Sumner on December 10, 1860: Liberty and slavery – Civilization and barbarism are absolute antagonisms. One or the other must perish on this Continent.... If we make a thousand Compromises this civilization, or that higher and grander one just springing up... will spring at the throat of its foe, and choke the life out of it or die in the attempt. Compromise – Compromise! Why I am sick at the very idea. Fools may compromise and reason that all is peace; but those who have read human history – those who know human nature, … know that Compromise aggravates in the end all our difficulties. The pathway of the sweep of man is paved with the fragments of blasted agreements, which were made to impede the progress of right,

Abraham Lincoln

or to bolster up despotism; and will not men learn a lesson from all this? … There is no dodging the question. Let the natural struggle, heaven high and “hell” deep, go on …. I am thoroughly convinced that two such civilizations at the North and the South cannot co-exist on the same soil and be co-equal in the Federal brotherhood. To expect otherwise would be to expect the Absolute to sleep with and tolerate “hell.” …

149

Causes of the Civil War I helped to make the Republican party; and if it forsakes its distinctive ideas, I can help to tear it down, and help to erect a new party that shall never cower to any slave driver. Let this natural war – let this inevitable struggle proceed – go on, till slavery is dead – dead – dead.31

While it was clear that Lincoln hated slavery and would outlaw it in the territories, not everyone was sure what he would do with slaves in the territories. The Republican Party platform addressed the issue: That the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom; that as our republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national territory, ordained that no “person should be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law,” it becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation is necessary, to maintain this provision of the constitution against all attempts to violate it; and we deny the authority of congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to slavery in any territory of the United States.

Whether or not the Republicans would make an attempt to abolish slavery in the states where it existed, one thing was clear. A man had been elected to the white house who was diametrically opposed to their social and economic system, and would fight to contain it, if not destroy it, with all his strength. Many of the Southern states decided it was time to secede, and in the months before Lincoln’s inauguration South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia and Texas did so.

Texas’ Declaration of Causes

Several of the states published their equivalent of the Declaration of Independence. They saw themselves as repeating the actions of their forefathers of 1776, and, like them, they would tell the world their reason. The Texas secession convention adopted this Declaration of Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union: The government of the United States, by certain joint resolutions, bearing date the 1st day of March, in the year A.D. 1845, proposed to the Republic of Texas, then a free, sovereign and independent nation, the annexation of the latter to the former, as one of the co-equal states thereof, The people of Texas, by deputies in convention assembled, on the fourth day of July of the same year, assented to and accepted said proposals and formed a constitution for the proposed State, upon which on the 29th day of December in the same year, said State was formally admitted into the Confederated Union.

150

Secession Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

Georgia Secedes The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States. By the disloyalty of the Northern States and their citizens and the imbecility of the

151

Causes of the Civil War Federal Government, infamous combinations of incendiaries and outlaws have been permitted in those States and the common territory of Kansas to trample upon the federal laws, to war upon the lives and property of Southern citizens in that territory, and finally, by violence and mob law, to usurp the possession of the same as exclusively the property of the Northern States. The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refused reimbursement therefore, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas. These and other wrongs we have patiently borne in the vain hope that a returning sense of justice and humanity would induce a different course of administration.

South Carolina secession convention When we advert to the course of individual non-slave-holding States, and that a majority of their citizens, our grievances assume far greater magnitude. The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the

152

Secession 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article [the fugitive slave clause] of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions-- a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation. Some of those States have imposed high fines and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal laws enacted in accordance therewith. In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States. For years past this abolition organization has been actively sowing the seeds of discord through the Union, and has rendered the federal congress the arena for spreading firebrands and hatred between the slave-holding and non-slave-holding States. By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress, and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments. They have proclaimed, and at the ballot box sustained, the revolutionary doctrine that there is a ‘higher law’ than the constitution and laws of our Federal Union, and virtually that they will disregard their oaths and trample upon our rights. They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture, and have repeatedly murdered Southern citizens while lawfully seeking their rendition. They have invaded Southern soil and murdered unoffending citizens, and through the press their leading men and a fanatical pulpit have bestowed praise upon the actors and assassins in these crimes, while the governors of several of their States have

153

Causes of the Civil War refused to deliver parties implicated and indicted for participation in such offenses, upon the legal demands of the States aggrieved. They have, through the mails and hired emissaries, sent seditious pamphlets and papers among us to stir up servile insurrection and bring blood and carnage to our firesides. They have sent hired emissaries among us to burn our towns and distribute arms and poison to our slaves for the same purpose. They have impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance. They have refused to vote appropriations for protecting Texas against ruthless savages, for the sole reason that she is a slave-holding State. And, finally, by the combined sectional vote of the seventeen non-slave-holding States, they have elected as president and vice-president of the whole confederacy two men whose chief claims to such high positions are their approval of these long continued wrongs, and their pledges to continue them to the final consummation of these schemes for the ruin of the slave-holding States. In view of these and many other facts, it is meet that our own views should be distinctly proclaimed.

Cotton Plantation

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable. That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations

154

Secession between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states. By the secession of six of the slave-holding States, and the certainty that others will speedily do likewise, Texas has no alternative but to remain in an isolated connection with the North, or unite her destinies with the South. For these and other reasons, solemnly asserting that the federal constitution has been violated and virtually abrogated by the several States named, seeing that the federal government is now passing under the control of our enemies to be diverted from the exalted objects of its creation to those of oppression and wrong, and realizing that our own State can no longer look for protection, but to God and her own sons-- We the delegates of the people of Texas, in Convention assembled, have passed an ordinance dissolving all political connection with the government of the United States of America and the people thereof and confidently appeal to the intelligence and patriotism of the freemen of Texas to ratify the same at the ballot box, on the 23rd day of the present month. Adopted in Convention on the 2nd day of Feby, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one and of the independence of Texas the twenty-fifth.32

Many point out that in this declaration, and others like it, the delegates barely mention state’s rights or economics, and therefore conclude that the Civil War was caused only by slavery. This view is too simplistic. First, state’s rights and economics were implicitly tied to the issue of slavery. In the South, it was considered an economic question, not a moral one, because they did not hold that owning slaves was immoral. Also, the institution of slavery was directly related to the South’s economy, and it was in conflict to the free white labor system of the North. Secondly, secession did not necessarily mean war. Slavery may have caused secession, but state’s rights caused the war. Also, notice that all the states did not secede before Lincoln’s inauguration. Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, Missouri and Kentucky all remained in the Union until after Lincoln’s inauguration. They held slaves, but did not believe, like those further South, that Lincoln’s election necessitated secession. They would not make an attempt to secede until later, and at that time, the reasons were very different than those before Lincoln’s inauguration.

Questions

How did Texas’s Declaration of Secession compare with the Declaration of Independence? Would you support Texas’ reasons for secession? Why or why not?

155

Causes of the Civil War

Further Study

Crime Against Kansas by Charles Sumner The Causes of the Civil War by Kenneth Stampp Declaration of the Causes of Secession Avaliable online at www.DiscerningHistory.com/Causes

156

Secession

Footnotes 1

A Digest of the Laws of the United States by Thomas F. Gordon (Philadelphia: Thomas F. Gordon, 1851) 4th edt. p. 438.

2 Thomas Jefferson to William Short, April 13, 1820. 3 Thomas Jefferson to John Holmes, April 22, 1820. 4

The True History of the Missouri Compromise and Its Repeal by Mrs Archibald Dixon

The Nebraska Question (New York: Redfield, 1854) p. 35.

Stephen A. Douglas: A Study in American Politics, by Allen Johnson (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1908) p. 82.

Ibid, p. 88.

(Cincinnati, Robert Clarke Company, 1899) p. 180.

8 James Hammond to M. C. M. Hammond, April 22, 1860. 9

Stephen A. Douglas: A Study in American Politics, p. 185.

10 Ibid, p. 253. 11 Ibid, p. 253-254. 12 Ibid, p. 295. 13 Ibid, p. 445. 14 Ibid, p. 447-448. 15 Ibid, p. 489. 16 Charles Sumner and the Coming of the Civil War by David Herbert Donald (Naperville,

Illinois: Sourcebooks Inc, 2009), p. 109.

17 Ibid, p. 108. 18 Ibid, p. 112. 19 Ibid, p. 129. 20 Ibid, p. 144. 21 Ibid, p. 173. 22 Ibid, p. 184. 23 Ibid, p. 218. 24 Ibid, p. 234-235. 25 The Works of Charles Sumner (Boston: Lee and Shepard, 1875) vol. 4, p. 140. 26 Charles Sumner and the Coming of the Civil War, p. 240. 27 Ibid, p. 243. 28 Ibid, p. 258-259. 29 As quoted in Ibid, p. vii. 30 Ibid, p. 320. 31 Causes of the Civil War, p. 141. 32 History of Texas, From 1685 to 1892 by John Henry Brown (St. Louis: L. E. Daniell, 1893) vol, 2, p. 391-397.

157

C h a p t e r

Fort Sumter O

nce the states of the deep South decided to secede, the question became whether they should be allowed to leave peacefully, or should they be forced to remain part of the Union? Many people in the North were not supportive of using violence to maintain the Union. To understand how the bloodshed started, we need to understand what triggered the conflict in the first place – the Battle of Fort Sumter.

Battle of Sullivan’s Island

Charleston was the most militarily significant target in South Carolina. It did not suddenly rise to importance with the Battle of Fort Sumter. It had been an important port city for years, there had been forts built to guard it and battles had been fought to protect it. In the American Revolution, Charleston was attacked several times. The first was on June 1, 1776. A British fleet under Henry Clinton and Admiral Sir Peter Parker anchored off of the harbor. Their plan was to capture Charleston and use it as a bridgehead for an invasion of the southern colonies. Clinton had heard that the American defenses on Sullivan’s Island were incomplete, so he planned to start by capturing it. He then hoped to be reinforced, at which point he could capture Charleston itself. The American commander in Charleston was Charles Lee. Lee was an experienced officer, who had fought in the French and Indian War and then went over to the continent and fought in Portugal and Poland. He hoped to be named commander in chief of the Continental Armies instead of George Washington, and, when he was not chosen, he was very bitter towards Washington and tried to usurp his position. The defenses on Sullivan’s Island were begun on January 10th. A fort was built of spongy palmetto logs. The walls were built 20 feet high, and then the spaces in between the

Causes of the Civil War logs were filled with packed sand. At each corner of the square was a bastion containing a gun platform. When completed, the fort could hold up to 1000 men and guns. However, by the time of the British attack, the fort was not yet completed. Thirty-one guns of different sizes were in the fort, but only 25 of these could fire at once. It was in a position that it would be able to fire at any British ships entering the harbor, sending smooth cannon balls skipping across the water to punch through at the waterline, sinking the ships. The American commander of the fort was Colonel William Moultrie, a native of Charleston with some military experience from Indian fighting. When Lee arrived in Charleston and looked over the defenses, he was very concerned about the fort on Sullivan’s Island. With the rear walls incomplete, it would turn into a slaughter pen if any British troops could fire into its rear. He urged Moultrie to abandon the position, but he was determined to hold out to the last. On June 7th, a small boat was sent by Clinton under a flag of truce. The American sentry, not being familiar with military protocol, fired on the vessel, sending it fleeing quickly away from land. Moultrie sent a letter apologizing for the mistake. The next day the boat returned, but it only warned the patriots of the dangers of resisting British authority.

William Moultrie

Clinton’s plan for the attack was to land his troops on Long Island to avoid a fight on the beach, and then march them across a shallow inlet to Sullivan’s Island and attack the fort in the rear, supported by a bombardment by the naval force in the harbor. The 2,200 redcoats landed on June 8th. Lee ordered Moultrie to resist the landing, but he was not a good disciplinarian, and by the time he executed the order, it was too late. On the morning of June 28th, Colonel Moultrie, while reconnoitering, saw the British fleet preparing to move. Hurrying back to the fort, he had the alarm sounded and distributed powder to his men. Between 10 and 11 am, the British ships began moving towards the American fort. The Thunder, a bomb ship, anchored with the 22-gun Friendship a mile off of Sullivan’s Island and proceeded to shell the fort. The rest of the fleet proceeded into range of the fort’s guns, the 28-gun Active and Solebay, and the 50-gun Bristol and Experiment.

160

Fort Sumter A fierce cannonade was begun by the fleet, and the fort soon responded. The British had 270 guns, plus the bomb ship, and the patriots had only 25 guns. The British infantry movement was not going well. American infantry drove off the small flotilla that was to support the army, and Clinton decided not to attempt a crossing, as he found the water deeper than reported. Apparently, although he had been on the island for over two weeks, he had not tested the depth of the water to see if his plan would work. The battle would depend on whether the British fleet could overcome the fire of the fort. At this point, Lee ordered Moultrie to spike his guns and pull back, abandoning the fort. However, Moultrie was determined to continue to hold on. He slowed down his cannon fire to avoid running down his small store of powder. The fire on the fort was fierce. When the broadsides struck the fort it shivered to its core, but the spongy log walls absorbed the balls. Col. Moultrie wrote this of the battle: During the action, thousands of our fellow-citizens were looking on with anxious hopes and fears, some of whom had their fathers, brothers, and husbands in the battle; whose hearts must have been pierced at every broadside. After some time, our flag was shot away; their hopes were then gone, and they gave up all for lost! Supposing that we had struck our flag and given up the fort. Sergeant Jasper, perceiving that the flag was shot way, and had fallen without the fort, jumped from one of the embrasures, and brought it up through a heavy fire, fixed it upon a sponge-staff, and planted it upon the ramparts again. Our flag once more waving in the air, revived the drooping spirits of our friends, and they continued looking on till night had closed the scene, and hid us from their view. At length, the British gave up the conflict; the ships slipped their cables, and dropped down with the tide and out of reach of our guns. When the firing had ceased, our friends for a time were again in an unhappy suspense, not knowing our fate; till they received an account by a dispatch boat which I sent up to town to acquaint them that the British ships had retired, and that we were victorious.1

161

Causes of the Civil War The battle ended after 9 pm. The nine hour fight had been an incredible victory for the Americans. The British infantry movement had failed, and they had out fought the ships, although outgunned 10 to 1. The patriots lost only 12 men killed and 25 wounded. The loss on the British ships was terrible. On the Bristol 64 were killed and 161 wounded, and the captain lost his arm. The captain of the Experiment was hit as well, and lost 57 of his crew killed and 30 wounded. The Solebay and Active had lost 19 combined. “I was on board the Bristol during the action” a British sailor wrote, “and suffered much from the sight of so much slaughter. I am perfectly satisfied with what I have seen of civil war and devoutly wish that omnipotence would arrest the progress of the destroying angel and say it is enough.”2 The British navy soon sailed, abandoning their attempt at invasion. This victory was one of the most decisive of the entire war. The famous British navy and army had been turned back by a handful of militia, and had been driven away, not to return for several years. The fort on Sullivan’s Island was renamed Fort Moultrie in honor of the hero of the day, and a fort by that name was in the same place during the Civil War. Also, the state flag and seal of South Carolina contain a Palmetto tree to honor the defenders of Fort Moultrie.

Questions

Why did the Americans win the Battle of Sullivan’s Island?

Siege of Charleston

In 1780 the British returned to Charleston. They had been unsuccessful in the North, so Sir Henry Clinton set out on another attempt to invade the South. It was hoped that an attack, once started, would be made successful by the loyalists of the area. When he arrived off of South Carolina in February, he had gathered a force of 90 ships and 14,000 men. The patriots had about 5,000 men. The British landed on John’s Island to prepare for an assault. The Americans could not assault them there, because they were encamped next to a river in which the British ships could be placed to support the infantry. Clinton was able to move his army safely to the Charleston neck, and investing the city on the land side began regular siege lines 1/2 miles from Charleston in the beginning of April. Banastre Tarleton, later called “The Butcher” by the Continentals for his reputed cruelty, wrote this of the patriot’s defenses: The defences of Charles Town on the land side consisted of a chain of redoubts, lines and batteries extending from one river to the other, and furnished with eighty cannon and mortars; the front works of each flank were strengthened by swamps originating in the neighboring rivers, and tending towards the centre, through

162

Fort Sumter

which they were connected by a canal passing from one to the other. Between these outward impediments and the redoubts were two strong rows of abbatis; the trees being buried standing in the earth with their branches facing outwards formed a heavy fraize work against the assailants, and these were further secured by a ditch double picketted. In the centre the natural defences were inferior to those on the flanks; to remedy this defect, and to cover the principal gate, a hornwork of masonry had been constructed, which being closed during the siege formed a kind of citadel. The fortifications facing the two rivers and the harbor had been erected with uncommon labor and expense. Ships with chevaux de fuse, connected by spars and booms, were employed to block up the channels in order to hinder a near approach of the King’s frigates, and piles of pickets were fixed in the ground at all the landing places to prevent any debarkation from boats; the whole extent was likewise covered by batteries formed of earth and pimetto (probably palmetto) wood, judiciously placed and mounted with heavy cannon. The garrison, under the orders of Gen. Lincoln, was composed of ten weak Continental and State regiments of militia drawn from the Carolinas and Virginia, and of the inhabitants of the town, amounting in the whole to near six thousand men, exclusive of the sailors. The body of regular troops destined for this service, though assisted by the militia and by the inhabitants, was scarcely adequate to the defence of such extensive fortifications.3

American Lt. Col. John Laurens described to Washington the British siege works on April 9th: On the night of the 1st inst. the enemy broke ground, and have been working slowly ever since. I scarcely know how to denominate what they have executed hitherto.

163

Causes of the Civil War It consists of several redoubts, with a covered communication from right to left, which is still unfinished. Their nearest work is an enclosed battery on their left, which induces me to believe that they intend the line in question for a first parallel, although some parts of it are rather too remote. Our shells and shot have disquieted them and interrupted their operations; but Gen. Lincoln, sensible of the value of these articles in a siege, economizes them as much as possible. Fatigue parties are constantly employed in improving our works. The whole front of our lines within the abattis is armed with wolf traps. All this affords an excellent defence against storm, but must finally yield to a perseverance in regular approaches, which appears to be Clinton’s present plan, unless we can work under his fire as fast as he can, and afford time for the arrival of your Excellency.4

Siege of Charleston

The British cannon opened on April 13th, throwing balls into the American works, as well as the town. The fire continued for several days, as the English worked on their approaches. The Americans realized that a defense was hopeless. Benjamin Lincoln, commander of the American defense, called a council of war on April 20th and 21st. Lincoln and his officers agreed for Clinton to be asked if he would allow the American army to evacuate the town. Clinton refused, but the Americans continued to hold out, hoping help would arrive. There was no significant change in the progress of the American’s affairs. On May 8th Henry Clinton sent a message through the lines alerting the patriots in Charleston that Fort Moultrie had fallen. They were also running very low on food, and made a pro-

164

Fort Sumter posal for surrender. Sir Henry, however, rejected their offers, and the battle was resumed. William Moultrie, now a general, wrote: After receiving the above letter we remained near an hour silent, all calm and ready, each waiting for the other to begin. At length we fired the first gun, and immediately followed a tremendous cannonade, about 180 or 200 pieces of heavy cannon fired off at the same moment, and the mortars from both sides threw out an immense number of shells; it was a glorious sight to see them like meteors crossing each other and bursting in the air; it appeared as if the stars were tumbling down. The fire was incessant almost the whole night; cannon balls whizzing and shells hissing continually amongst us; ammunition chests and temporary magazines blowing up; great guns bursting and wounded men groaning along the lines. It was a dreadful night. It was our last great effort, but it availed us nothing. After this our military ardor was much abated; we began to cool, and we cooled gradually, and on the 11th of May we capitulated, and on the morning of the 12th we marched out and gave up the town.5

Between 1,500 and 1,600 Continental troops were surrendered. This was the largest capture of American troops until the Civil War. The casualties for the siege were 92 killed and 148 wounded for the United States, and 76 killed and 182 wounded for the British.

Questions

What did the British do differenty in their second attack on Charleston which caused them to be successful?

Building Forts

After gaining independence from England, the need for forts was recognized and there were attempts made to address it. The United States recognized the need for seacoast defenses and created a unit in 1794 to investigate the problem. Forts needed to be built before a war broke out, because it was not practical to build them once the war started. It took time, and the enemy would land too quickly to be able to finish a fort, especially when the nation’s resources were being poured into different parts of the military. This problem had been encountered in Charleston. The Battle of Sullivan’s Island could have very easily turned out differently because the American fort was incomplete. Many of the crucial forts of the American Civil War, such as Forts Sumter, Moultrie and Johnson in Charleston harbor had been built years before.

165

Causes of the Civil War The first attempt in 1794 at a system of forts did not turn out well. Twenty-one locations were selected, and the forts were designed with low, dirt walls to present a small target for opposing ships. The walls were angled, so the enemy shot would glance off, and star-shaped, so there would be converging fire upon attackers, and an assault party could not take shelter directly under the wall. Several good forts were built such as Fort Moultrie, the rest were never finished or deteriorated before the next war, the War of 1812. In 1807-1808, Thomas Jefferson pushed through another group of forts because of a looming War with Great Britain. Known as the Second System, they were built on different principles than their predecessors. The gunners in the earlier star-shaped fortifications were vulnerable because of new exploding shells, and now there was the possibility of a cannon ball running along the wall and taking out an entire row of gunners. The new forts were in accordance with the ideas of the Frenchman Marquis de Montalembert, who promoted forts which protected gunners with casemates and put more firepower in the same space by using multiple levels on the walls. These forts were also designed by the graduates of the newly founded military academy at West Point. This Second System was also never completed. Although some forts, such as Castle Pinckney in Charleston Harbor, were completed, many forts were still unfinished when the War of 1812 came. After the War of 1812, Congress appropriated money to what would be called the Third System of forts. The board of engineers suggested 200 sites, on 42 of which forts were actually built. These were also built upon the Montalembert pattern, with a large number of guns packed on a masonry wall. It was these forts, such as Fort Sumter, combined with the survivors of the previous programs, that comprised the forts in existence at the beginning of the Civil War. The war would bring great changes to the art of fortifications. The guns of stationary forts were much less effective against the new ironclads, and naval captains soon found that they could run the forts with little fear.

Charleston

166

Fort Sumter Forts of Charleston Harbor

When Lincoln was elected and Charleston became the ignition point of the conflict, there were four forts in the Charleston area. The state of those forts at the time of the battle was reported by Captain John G. Foster, an engineer who commanded in Charleston Harbor before Major Robert Anderson took command as his senior officer. Foster reported: Castle Pinckney, Charleston Harbor, South Carolina.—Some necessary repairs were commenced upon this work in December, 1860, but before these were completed the fort was seized by the troops of the State of South Carolina, on the 27th of December. Lieut. R. K. Meade; Corps of Engineers, who was in the immediate charge, was suffered to leave with the workmen; but all the public property in the fort was taken possession of, including the mess property and one month’s provisions for the Engineer force. The armament of the fort was all mounted, except two or three guns on the barbette tier and one 42-pounder in the casemate tier. The carriages were in good order, and pretty good. The magazine was well furnished with implements, and also contained some powder. The fort was repaired three years ago, and was generally in excellent condition, one of the cisterns only wanting repairs. Fort Johnson, Charleston, South Carolina.—The barracks and quarters were in such bad order as to be almost uninhabitable, and a large sum would be needed to repair them. The position was taken possession of by the State troops on the 2d of January, 1801. A small battery of three guns was soon after built, adjoining the barracks. Fort Sumter, Charleston Harbor, South Carolina.—Vigorous operations were commenced on this fort in the month of August, 1860, with the view of placing it in a good defensive position as soon as possible. The casemate arches supporting the second tier of guns were all turned; the granite flagging for the second tier was laid on the right face of the work; the floors laid, and the iron stairways put up, in the east barracks the traverse circles of the first tier of guns reset; the bluestone flagging laid in all the guns rooms of the right and left faces of the first tier and the construction of the embrasures of the second tier commenced at the time the fort was occupied by Major Anderson’s command, on the 26th of December, 1860. The fears of an immediate attack, and disloyal feelings, induced the greater portion of the Engineer employes to leave at this time. But those that remained, fifty-five in

167

Causes of the Civil War number, reduced towards the end of the investment to thirty-five, were made very effective in preparing for a vigorous defense. The armament of the fort was mounted and supplied with maneuvering implements; machicoulis galleries, splinter-proof shelters, and traverses were constructed; the openings left for the embrasures of the second tier were filled with brick and stone and earth, and those in the gorge with stone and iron and lead concrete; mines were established in the wharf and along the gorge; the parade was cleared, and communications opened to all parts of the fort and through the quarters. The fort was bombarded on the 12th and I3th of April by the rebels, and evacuated by Major Anderson’s command on the 14th of April.

Fort Moultrie

During the bombardment, the officers’ quarters were set on fire by hot shot from the rebel batteries, and they, with the roofs of the barracks, were entirely consumed. The magazines were uninjured by the fire. The bombardment dismounted one gun, disabled two others, and ruined the stair towers and the masonry walls projecting above the parapet. No breach was effected in the walls, and the greatest penetration made by successive shots was twenty-two inches. Nearly all the material that had been obtained to construct the embrasures of the second tier, to flag this tier and the remainder of the first tier, and to finish the barracks, was used up in the preparations for defense. Fort Moultrie, Charleston Harbor, South Carolina.—The work of preparing this fort for a vigorous defense commenced in August, 1860, and was diligently prosecuted up to the day of its evacuation, December 26, 1860. In this time the large accumulation of sand, which overtopped the scarp wall on the sea front, was removed to the front and formed into a glacis; a wet ditch, fifteen feet wide, dug around the fort; two flanking caponieres of brick built, to flank with their fire the three water fronts; a bastionet for musketry constructed at the northwest angle; a picket fence built around the fort, bordering the ditch, and protected by a small glacis; merlons constructed on the whole of the east front; communication opened

168

Fort Sumter through the quarters, a bridge built, connecting them with the guard-house, and the latter loopholed for musketry, so as to serve for a citadel. Means were also furnished to transport Major Anderson’s command, and such public property as could be removed before the occupation of Fort Moultrie by the rebels, to Fort Sumter. Before evacuating the fort, the guns were spiked, the gun carriages on the front looking towards Fort Sumter burned, and the flagstaff ’ cut down. A considerable quantity of Engineer implements and materials were unavoidably left in the fort.6

These forts were where the first battle of the Civil War would be fought.

Battle of Fort Sumter Capture of the Charleston Arsenal

When South Carolina seceded, they considered the United States facilities to be occupied by a foreign nation. Before the Battle of Fort Sumter, there were dozens of smaller instances in which United States property was surrendered to the South Carolinians without a defense being made. One of these was the Charleston Arsenal, captured by the rebels in late December. The military storekeeper, F. C. Humpreys, reported on the capture: I will now proceed to make a detailed report of the facts relative to the surrender of this arsenal, which I should have done before but that my time has been fully occupied in getting proper vouchers for the property recently in my charge. On Sunday morning last Colonel Cunningham marched a strong detachment of armed men into this arsenal (having several days before entirely surrounded it outside of the inclosure) and demanded the surrender in the name of South Carolina and by order of Governor Pickens. Having no force to make a defense, I surrendered under a protest, and demanded the privilege of saluting my flag before lowering it and of taking it with me, and that the command should occupy the quarters until instructions could be received from the War Department, which was granted. Soon after, the arsenal and magazine were both opened, and the property has been constantly issued since—arms, ammunition, accouterments, &c.7

The capture of this arsenal provided some of the resources which South Carolina would need to handle the United States troops in Charleston Harbor.

Transfer from Moultrie to Sumter

Major Robert Anderson, commander at Fort Moultrie, knew it was indefensible.

169

Causes of the Civil War It was not in a condition to resist an attack from the landward side. The South Carolinians could easily scale the walls and capture the fort, supported by fire from the surrounding houses. Therefore, on his own authority, he decided to move his small garrison to the uncompleted Fort Sumter in the harbor. One of his officers wrote after the war:

Fort Moultrie It was a few minutes after sunset when the troops left Moultrie; the short twilight was about over when they reached the boats; fifteen or twenty minutes more carried them to Sumter. The workmen had just settled down to an evening’s enjoyment when armed men at the door startled them. There was no parleying, no explaining; nothing but stern commands, silent astonishment, and prompt obedience. The workmen were on the wharf, outside the fort, before they were certain whether their captors were secessionists or Yankees. Meantime the newly arrived troops were busy enough. Guards were posted, embrasures secured, and, as far as practicable, the place was put in a defensible condition against any storming-party which chagrin might drive the guard-boat people to send against it. Such an attempt was perfectly feasible. The night was very dark; the soldiers were on unknown ground and could not find their way about readily; many of the embrasures could not be closed; and there were at least a hundred willing guides and helpers already on the wharf and in a fine frame of mind for such work. But nothing was attempted, and when the soldiers felt themselves in a position to repel any attempt against them that night, two guns were fired as a signal to friends that the occupation had been successfully accomplished, and that they might proceed with their part of the programme. This was the first intimation the guard-boat people had of the transfer; and, indeed, it told them nothing, except

170

Fort Sumter that some soldiers must have got into Sumter. But they blew their alarm-whistle all the same, and burned blue-lights; signal-rockets were sent up from various points, and there was great excitement everywhere in the harbor until morning.8

Once occupying the fort, there was much work to be done to put it in a state of defense. Fort Sumter was unfinished, and the interior was filled with building materials, guns, carriages, shot, shell, derricks, timbers, blocks and tackle, and coils of rope in great confusion. Few guns were mounted, and these few were chiefly on the lowest tier. The work was intended for three tiers of guns, but the embrasures of the second tier were incomplete, and guns could be mounted on the first and third tiers only. The complete armament of the work had not yet arrived, but there were more guns on hand than we could mount or man. The first thing to be considered was immediate defense. The possibility of a sudden dash by the enemy, under cover of darkness and guided by the discharged workmen then in Charleston, demanded instant attention. It was impossible to spread 65 men over ground intended for 650, so some of the embrasures had to be bricked up. Selecting those, therefore, essential to artillery defense, and mounting guns in them, Anderson closed the rest. This was the work of many days; but we were in no immediate danger of an artillery attack. The armament of Moultrie was destroyed; its guns were spiked, and their carriages burned; and it would take a longer time to put them in condition than it would to mount the guns of Sumter. … Moving such immense quantities of material, mounting guns, distributing shot, and bricking up embrasures kept us busy for many weeks. But order was coming

Interior of Fort Sumter

171

Causes of the Civil War out of chaos every day, and the soldiers began to feel that they were a match for their adversaries. Still, they could not shut their eyes to the fact that formidable works were growing up around them. The secessionists were busy too, and they had the advantage of unlimited labor and material.9

Star of the West

With the secession of South Carolina, President Buchanan had a problem. Lincoln was already elected to be his successor, and he neither wanted to start a war with the Confederacy, nor encourage them to think that they would be allowed to leave peacefully. He tried to be careful not to make the situation worse for the incoming president. His decision when South Carolina asked for their territory to be returned to them was to refuse, but he did not want to trigger a war. The garrison of Fort Sumter needed supplies, so Buchanan decided to send them. Just days after the Confederate Star of the West capture of the Charleston Arsenal and the Union transfer to Sumter, the first attempt was made to relieve Fort Sumter by the Star of the West. The United States army lieutenant commanding on the ship wrote: We, went into the harbor with the American ensign hoisted on the flagstaff, and as soon as the first shot was fired a full-sized garrison flag was displayed at our fore, but the one was no more respected than the other. We kept on, still under the fire of the battery, most of the balls passing over us, one just missing the machinery, another striking but a few feet from the rudder, while a ricochet shot struck us in the fore-chains, about two feet above the water line, and just below where the man was throwing the lead. The American flag was flying at Fort Sumter, but we saw no flag at Fort Moultrie, and there were no guns fired from either of these fortifications. Finding it impossible to take my command to Fort Sumter, I was obliged most reluctantly to turn about, and try to make my way out of the harbor before my retreat should be cut off by vessels then in sight.... A brisk fire was kept up on us by the battery as long as we remained within range, but, fortunately, without damage to us, and we succeeded in recrossing the bar in safety, the steamer touching two or

172

Fort Sumter three times. Our course was now laid for New York Harbor, and we were followed for some hours by a steamer from Charleston for the purpose of watching us.10

Although these were the first shots of the Civil War, fired by the Southerners upon the American flag, they did not inspire the North with a zeal for war. This would not come until Fort Sumter itself was fired on by the Confederates. Once Lincoln became president, he was willing to use force to maintain the Union, but he wanted the South to be blamed for firing the first shot. Lincoln knew that without supplies, Fort Sumter could not hold out much longer. He decided to send a resupply fleet and notified the governor of South Carolina that it would be provisions only, and no men, arms or ammunition would be sent. With the fleet on its way which would break what was essentially a siege of the garrison, the South decided to act.

Questions

Why didn’t war break out after the Star of the West was fired upon?

Firing on Fort Sumter

Before firing on Fort Sumter, P. G. T. Beauregard, Confederate commander in Charleston, requested the surrender of Fort Sumter on April 11th: Headquarters Provisional Army, C. S. A. Charleston, S. C., April 11, 1861. SIR: The Government of the Confederate States has hitherto forborne from any hostile demonstration against Fort Sumter, in the hope that the Government of the United States, with a view to the amicable adjustment of all questions between the two Governments, and to avert the calamities of war, would voluntarily evacuate it. There was reason at one time to believe that such would be the course pursued by the Government of the United States, and under that impression my Government has refrained from making any demand for the surrender of the fort. But the Confederate States can no longer delay assuming actual possession of a fortification commanding the entrance of one of their harbors, and necessary to its defense and security.

173

P. G. T. Beauregard

Causes of the Civil War I am ordered by the Government of the Confederate States to demand the evacuation of Fort Sumter. My aides, Colonel Chesnut and Captain Lee, are authorized to make such demand of you. All proper facilities will be afforded for the removal of yourself and command, together with company arms and property, and all private property, to any post in the United States which you may select. The flag which you have upheld so long and with so much fortitude, under the most trying circumstances, may be saluted by you on taking it down. Colonel Chesnut and Captain Lee will, for a reasonable time, await your answer. I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, G. T. Beauregard, Brigadier-General, Commanding. Maj. Robert Anderson, Commanding at Fort Sumter, Charleston Harbor, S. C. 11

Unsurprisingly, Anderson refused to surrender. “[M]y sense of honor, and of my obligations to my Government, prevent my compliance.”12 Anderson was running very low on supplies, and in a later message he agreed to surrender if he received no supplies or further orders by April 15th. However, Beauregard could not afford to wait that long with the relief ships on the way, so he informed Anderson at 3:30 am that he would open fire. At 4:30 am, on April 12, 1861, a mortar was fired by the Confederates, and the first battle of the Civil War was begun. Sergeant James Chester of the 3rd United States Artillery recorded the moments after the opening of the bombardment: [T[he batteries opened on all sides, and shot and shell went screaming over Sumter as if an army of devils were swooping around it. As a rule the guns were aimed too high, but all the mortar practice was good. In a few minutes the novelty disappeared in a realizing sense of danger, and the watchers retired to the bomb-proofs, where they discussed probabilities until reveille.

174

Fort Sumter

Habits of discipline are strong among old soldiers. If it had not been for orders to the contrary, the men would have formed for roll-call on the open parade, as it was their custom to do, although mortar-shells were bursting there at the lively rate of about one a minute. But they were formed under the bomb-proofs, and the roll was called as if nothing unusual was going on. They were then directed to get breakfast, and be ready to fall in when “assembly” was beaten. The breakfast part of the order was considered a grim joke, as the fare was reduced to the solitary item of fat pork, very rusty indeed. But most of the men worried down a little of it, and were “ready” when the drum called them to their work. By this time it was daylight, and the effects of the bombardment became visible. No serious damage was being done to the fort. The enemy had concentrated their fire on the barbette batteries, but, like most inexperienced gunners, they were firing too high. After daylight their shooting improved, until at 7:30 A. M., when “assembly” was beaten in Sumter, it had become fairly good.13

The Federal soldiers attempted to answer the fire, but their shots were ineffective. Most of the fire was directed at Fort Moultrie, but it was covered in sandbags and bails of cotton, which absorbed the shots. Sergeant Chester continued his story: At the end of the first four hours, Doubleday’s men were relieved from the guns and had an opportunity to look about them. Not a man was visible near any of the batteries, but a large party, apparently of non-combatants, had collected on the beach of Sullivan’s Island, well out of the line of fire, to witness the duel between Sumter and Moultrie. Doubleday’s men were not in the best of temper. They were irritated at the thought that they had been unable to inflict any serious damage on

175

Causes of the Civil War their adversary, and although they had suffered no damage in return they were dissatisfied. The crowd of unsympathetic spectators was more than they could bear, and two veteran sergeants determined to stir them up a little. For this purpose they directed two 42-pounders on the crowd, and, when no officer was near, fired. The first shot struck about fifty yards short, and, bounding over the heads of the astonished spectators, went crashing through the Moultrie House. The second followed an almost identical course, doing no damage except to the Moultrie House, and the spectators scampered off in a rather undignified manner. …

Had we been permitted to use our shell guns we could have set fire to the barracks and quarters in Moultrie; for, as it was, we wrecked them badly with solid shot, although we could not see them. Then the cotton-bale shutters would have been destroyed, and we could have made it much livelier generally for our adversaries. This was so apparent to the men, that one of them -- a man named Carmody -stole up on the ramparts and deliberately fired every barbette gun in position on the Moultrie side of the work. The guns were already loaded and roughly aimed, and Carmody simply discharged them in succession; hence, the effect was less than it would have been if the aim had been carefully rectified. But Carmody’s effort aroused the enemy to a sense of his danger. He supposed, no doubt, that Major Anderson had determined to open his barbette batteries, so he directed every gun to bear on the barbette tier of Fort Sumter, and probably believed that the vigor of his fire induced Major Anderson to change his mind. But the contest was merely Carmody against the Confederate States; and Carmody had to back down, not because he was beaten, but because he was unable, single-handed, to reload his guns.14 The second day’s bombardment began at the same hour as did the first; that is, on

176

Fort Sumter the Sumter side. The enemy’s mortars had kept up a very slow fire all night, which gradually warmed up after daylight as their batteries seemed to awaken, until its vigor was about equal to their fire of the day before. The fleet was still off the bar-perhaps waiting to see the end. Fire broke out once or twice in the officers’ quarters, and was extinguished. It broke out again in several places at once, and we realized the truth and let the quarters burn. They were firing red-hot shot. This was about 9 o’clock. As soon as Sumter was noticed to be on fire the secessionists increased the fire of their batteries to a maximum. In the perfect storm of shot and shell that beat upon us from all sides, the flag-staff was shot down, but the old flag was rescued and nailed to a new staff. This, all sides, the flag-staff was shot down, but the old flag was rescued and nailed to a new staff. This, with much difficulty, was carried to the ramparts and lashed to some chassis piled up there for a traverse.15

The greatest danger to the fort was that the magazine would explode. This would destroy the fort and kill or wound its occupants. The fire had now enveloped the magazine, and the danger of an explosion was imminent. Powder had been carried out all the previous day, and it was more than likely that enough had sifted through the cartridge-bags to carry the fire into the powder-chamber. Major Anderson, his head erect as if on parade, called the men around him; directed that a shot be fired every five minutes; and mentioned that there was some danger of the magazine exploding. Some of the men, as soon as they learned what the real danger was, rushed to the door of the magazine and hurriedly dug a trench in front of it, which they kept filled with water until the danger was considered over.16

Although an explosion of the magazine was prevented, Anderson still did not think he had any chance of holding out. The fort was on fire, he was very low on provisions, had no hope of receiving more, and was unable to silence the many batteries brought against him. Therefore, on April 13th, the second day of the bombardment, he was allowed to evacuate the fort and surrender it to Beauregard. Several days later, aboard the S.S. Baltic, he wrote this telegram to Washington telling them of the surrender: S.S. Baltic. Off Sandy Hook Apr. Eighteenth. Ten Thirty A.M. Via New York.

Hon. S. Cameron. Secy. War. Washn.

Having defended Fort Sumter for thirty four hours until the quarters were entirely burned the main gates destroyed by fire, the gorge walls seriously injured, the magazine surrounded by flames and its

177

Causes of the Civil War door closed from the effects of heat, four barrells and three cartridges of powder only being available and no provisions remaining but pork, I accepted terms of evacuation offered by General Beauregard being on same offered by him on the eleventh inst. prior to the commencement of hostilities and marched out of the fort sunday afternoon the fourteenth inst.with colors flying and drums beating, bringing away company and private property and saluting my flag with fifty guns. Robert Anderson Major First Artillery, commanding.

With South Carolina firing on what they considered to be their fort, the North became zealous for war. Lincoln had made his position known, that he would not let the South go peaceably, but with the newspapers declaring the fort captured, the Northerners quickly filled the quotas that Lincoln had requested to force the Confederacy back into the Union.

Questions

Why were the Confederates successful in the Battle of Fort Sumter? Was Fort Sumter ultimately a strategic success for the North or the South? Why?

Jefferson Davis vs. Abraham Lincoln

God raises up men that drive the events of history. To understand the decisions that cause the events, it is important to understand the men making those decisions. The two most influential men in the political side of the Battle of Fort Sumter were Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis, presidents of the United States and Confederate States respectively. These men presented many similarities as well as sharp contrasts, not only in their political positions, but in their lives and careers.

Jefferson Davis

Jefferson Davis was born on June 3rd, 1808 in Kentucky, the youngest of the ten children of Samuel and Jane Davis. Samuel fought in the Continental Army, along with his two half brothers. Although he was born in Kentucky, Davis did not reside there long. He moved to Louisiana in 1811, and then the next year to Mississippi. Three of Jefferson’s brothers fought in the War of 1812, but Jefferson was much too young. He was educated at several local schools. But, because his parents did not consider the schools in the area of sufficient quality, he was sent to a Roman Catholic School in Kentucky. Davis was not

178

Fort Sumter a Catholic, and he was the only Protestant student at the school. At the age of 13, he went to college at Transylvania University in Kentucky. Davis was a diligent and intelligent student, and he moved to West Point when his brother secured a place for him. Davis entered the harsh environment of West Point in 1824. Many of his fellow cadets would fight under him, or against him, during the Civil War. Robert E. Lee and Joseph E. Johnston were one year behind him, and Albert Sidney Johnston and Leonidas Polk, although two years ahead, were his closest friends. One cadet wrote: The exercises of each day, at this time of the year are as follows: at 4:30 a.m. The reveille drum beats, when we all attend roll-call, soon after which, the officer of the day inspects the rooms, sees that beds are made, rooms swept, and none in bed, and reports all those whose beds are not made, whose rooms are not swept, or who are in bed. At six o’clock, we go to breakfast at our boarding-houses, at seven o’clock we attend prayers … after which studies and recitations commence, and continue till one o’clock when we go to dinner; at two o’clock we have another roll-call, when the studies commence again.... At six we have drill, and at seven we sup; at half past eight we have a roll-call in the lecture-room; at nine the inspector sees that all are in their rooms, and reports all who are out and at ten he inspects again, when all are required to be in bed. ... The branches which are taught are Mathematics, Philosophy, Military Science, Ethicks, Belles Lettres, Practical Geometry, Topography, Greek, Latin, French, and Music. Fencing is likewise taught.17

Although Jefferson Davis did not struggle academically, he did have trouble obeying the rules for cadets. He visited Benny Havens’ tavern near the academy, and was caught and court-martialed. He was sentenced to removed from the military, but he was pardoned and allowed to stay. This near escape did not stop Davis. He returned to Benny Havens, was alarmed, and while fleeing along a cliff with several other cadets he fell forty feet, barely surviving with his life. Davis also got in trouble in the “Eggnog Riot” of December 1826. The cadets smuggled in whiskey to make eggnog for Christmas. A riot broke out among the cadets. Nineteen were dismissed, but Davis was not among them and was only placed under house arrest. Jefferson Davis graduated from West Point in June 1828, 23rd in a class of 33. Lieutenant Davis was stationed at Fort Crawford, Wisconsin, where he was involved in what was called the Black Hawk War against a group of Indians. It is likely that is where, based on the records, that he first came into contact with Abraham Lincoln.

179

Causes of the Civil War Abraham Lincoln

Abraham Lincoln was born one year after Jefferson Davis, on February 9, 1809. His grandfather was an early settler of Kentucky, and was killed by Indians in front of his children, including Thomas, Abraham’s father. Thomas prospered, and became one of the richest men in the area. However, in 1816, Thomas lost his land because of faulty property titles and he moved his family to Illinois. When Abraham was nine his mother died, but his father remarried Sarah Bush Johnston, to whom Lincoln became very close. Unlike Davis, Abraham Lincoln did not have the opportunity to attend school, other than a few visits by traveling teachers. However, he learned much by teaching himself and spent much time reading.

Abraham Lincoln, 1846

At the age of 22 Lincoln left home and set off for himself, traveling down the Mississippi River to New Orleans on a flatboat, and then walking back. On his return he was able to borrow money to buy a general store with a partner. It was not a success and Lincoln sold his part of the business. It was at this time that he started to run for his first political office, the Illinois Legislature. At the time, the Black Hawk War broke out. A group of militia was formed, and Lincoln joined and was elected captain. As the story goes, he was sworn into service by none other than Jefferson Davis, who was accompanied by Robert Anderson, who would later command at Fort Sumter. Lincoln did not see any fighting in the Black Hawk War, and was mustered out of service after three months when the army commander decided he had too many militia. Lincoln later flippantly described his service in a speech in Congress by saying: By the way, Mr. Speaker, did you know I am a military hero? Yes sir, in the days of the Black Hawk War, I fought bled, and came away. If General Cass was ahead of me in picking huckleberries, I guess I surpassed him in charges upon wild onions. If he saw any live fighting Indians, it was more than I did, but I had many a bloody struggle with mosquitoes. And although I never fainted from loss of blood, I can truly say I was often very hungry.18

He returned home to continue his campaign for the legislature, but when election time came, he was defeated. Although he was a popular speaker, he and his friends did not have

180

Fort Sumter enough money for a successful campaign. He was 8th out of 13, and only the top four were chosen. He became a postmaster and surveyor, meanwhile studying to become a lawyer, teaching himself by reading books such as Blackstone’s Commentaries, and in 1836 was admitted to the bar. He ran for state legislature again in 1834, and this time was victorious. He was a Whig, supporting Henry Clay upon many issues, including opposition to slavery, supporting the American System of economics, and the American Colonization Society to transport freed slaves back to Africa.

Davis’s Marriage

Jefferson Davis was not present for much of the Black Hawk War, but he was entrusted with the mission of taking Black Hawk, the captured cheif, to Washington. He was assigned this role by Colonel Zachary Taylor, his commanding officer and future president of the United States. Taylor’s daughter, Sarah Knox, was at Fort Crawford with him, and Jefferson Davis wished to marry her. However, Taylor was determined to not have Sarah marry a soldier and he also disliked Jefferson Davis personally. Jefferson and Sarah continued to press and eventually Taylor agreed shortly after Davis left the army. After having waited three years to be married, they finally were on June 17th 1835. Davis took his new bride and traveled to his home state of Mississippi to become a Zachary Taylor cotton planter. They would live at Brierfield Plantation, which was given to him by his older brother Joseph, who was one of the richest men in Mississippi. However, soon after arriving, both of them caught malaria, and Sarah died on September 15, 1835. Jefferson Davis lived in sadness for years after his wife’s early death. He became reclusive and lived with his brother Joseph, while studying and managing Brierfield. He owned slaves, but he treated them in a way very different from our standard conceptions of slavery today. He and his brother believed that it was their duty to elevate the slaves morally. They instituted self government among the slaves, and a slave would only be punished after having been tried by a jury of his peers. Some slaves were taught how to read and

181

Causes of the Civil War write and instructed in more technical professions, such as running a general store or land surveying. While managing his plantation, Davis also studied government and history in his brother’s extensive library, and was surprised to be elected to the state Democratic convention in 1840. He attended the convention for the next two meetings, unsuccessfully running for the state legislature in 1843. In 1844 Davis met 17 year old Varina Banks Howell, who was staying at his brother Joseph’s plantation over Christmas. Varina was a native of Mississippi and from a distinguished family, her grandfather having been the governor of New Jersey. After knowing each other for only one month, they were engaged and married February 26, 1845. They would have six children, the last two being born during the Civil War.

Varina Davis

Lincoln’s Marriage

Not long before Davis’s marriage, Lincoln himself had married. He met Mary Todd in Illinois in December, 1838. Although Mary was from a wealthy, slave owning, Kentucky family, they still were engaged the next December. The wedding was set for January, 1841, but Lincoln broke off the engagement. Almost two years later, they met again, resolved their differences, and they were married on November 4, 1842. They would have four sons, two of whom would die young. Their marriage was generally not happy. Mary was well educated and used to luxury, Abraham had grown up poor and was selftaught. Both were depressed by the death of their sons. Mary Todd Lincoln began behaving more and more erratically after the death of her two sons and husband, and she ended up being institutionalized.

Mary Todd Lincoln

In 1846 Lincoln was elected to the United States House of Representatives. The president at the time was James K. Polk, who Davis campaigned for in Mississippi. Lincoln opposed the Mexican War, which Polk supported, saying he did it only for military glory.

182

Fort Sumter Polk said that a war was necessary because American soldiers had been killed by the Mexicans on United States soil. Lincoln therefore introduced his Spot Resolutions, where he wanted Polk to show exactly the spot where this blood was shed: Whereas the President of the United States, in his message of May 11, 1846, has declared that “the Mexican Government ... has at last invaded our territory and shed the blood of our fellow-citizens on our own soil:” … Therefore, Resolved By the House of Representatives, That the President of the United States be respectfully requested to inform this House -1st. Whether the spot on which the blood of our citizens was shed, as in his messages declared, was or was not within the territory of Spain, at least after the treaty of 1819, until the Mexican revolution. 2d. Whether that spot is or is not within the territory which was wrested from Spain by the revolutionary Government of Mexico. 3d. Whether that spot is or is not within a settlement of people, which settlement has existed ever since long before the Texas revolution, and until its inhabitants fled before the approach of the United States army. ... 5th. Whether the people of that settlement, or a majority of them, or any of them, have ever submitted themselves to the government or laws of Texas or the United States, by consent or compulsion, either by accepting office, or voting at elections, or paying tax, or serving on juries, or having process served upon them, or in any other way. ...19

These resolutions were a flop. They were never voted on by the House and were not even carried by the newspapers. Lincoln had promised to serve only one term in the house, so he did not run for reelection. He supported Zachary Taylor, Davis’s father-in-law, for the presidential nomination, and when he was elected, Taylor offered Lincoln position of secretary or governor of Oregon Territory. Lincoln refused, choosing instead to return to his prairie law practice. He traveled between the county seats of Illinois, handling all cases which came to him, mostly transportation cases. His reputation grew, and he appeared before the United States Supreme Court in a case over a river barge which sank after hitting a bridge. He filed a patent for a device which would lift boats over shallow water with bellows on the side of the boat. The idea was never commercialized, but Lincoln remains the only president to hold a patent.

Davis in the Mexican War

In 1845 Jefferson Davis was also elected to the United States House of

183

Causes of the Civil War Representatives, but soon resigned when war was declared on Mexico, the war Lincoln opposed. He resigned to join the army, traveling south to become Colonel of the Mississippi Rifles. Davis was a professional soldier and trained his men well. Their first battle was three days of fighting during the siege of Monterey, where Davis personally led his men in the charge of a fort, gallantly capturing the position.

Battle of Buena Vista

The Rifles would fight again, and gain their fame, at the Battle of Buena Vista on February 22-23, 1847. The Mexican Army under Santa Anna was attacking a much smaller force under Zachary Taylor. Victory seemed certain for Mexico. Taylor positioned his men in the mountain passes near Bueau Vista. As Davis advanced with his regiment towards the battlefield on the 23rd, he passed many fugitives running from the battle. A force of 4,000 Mexicans was attacking Taylor’s right flank. Davis attacked them, and was able to force them into retreat. However, they were soon charged by a strong force of Mexican lancers. Davis positioned his men with a ravine on each flank, and from there was able to beat back the cavalry charges. Davis received word from Taylor of batteries which needed to be protected. He hurried his men to the spot, jumping his horse across a deep chasm, and formed the regiment. He later wrote: The necessity now was to prevent the cavalry from passing to the rear of our line of battle, where they might have attacked, and probably carried, our batteries, which were then without the protection of our infantry escort. It was our country’s necessity, and not our own, which prompted the service there performed. For this regiment was formed, silent as death, and eager as a greyhound for the approach of the enemy, at least nine times, numerically, their superiors. Some Indiana troops were formed on the brink of the ravine, with the right flank of the Mississippi regiment, constituting one branch of what has been called the ‘V.’ When the enemy

184

Fort Sumter had approached as near as he dared and seemed to shrink from contact with the motionless, resolute, living wall which stood before him, the angry crack of the Mississippi rifle was heard, and as the smoke rose and dust fell, there remained of the host which so lately stood before us but the fallen and the dying.20

Davis beat back the attack, and many believed that he had saved the day. He himself was shot in the foot. Zachary Taylor, congratulating Davis, said, “My daughter was a better judge of men than I.” He wrote in his official report: The Mississippi Rifles under Colonel Davis were highly conspicuous for their gallantry and steadiness.... Brought into action against an immensely superior force, they maintained themselves for a long time unsupported … and held an important part of the field until reinforced. Colonel Davis, though severely wounded, remained in the saddle until the close of the action. His distinguished coolness and gallantry, and the heavy loss of his regiment on this day, entitle him to the particular notice of the government.21

Davis returned to the United States, and was greeted as the Hero of Buena Vista. He was appointed a brigadier-general by Polk, but refused the appointment, as the Constitution did not give the President the power to appoint militia officers, and he was a volunteer and therefore part of the militia. He raised a Second Mississippi Rifles to go to Mexico, and was appointed to fill a vacancy in the Senate from Mississippi. In the Senate, Davis worked to defend state’s rights and the Southern interests in the territories. Because of his military experience, he was appointed Chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs. His support was affirmed when he was reelected by the Mississippi legislature. He opposed the Compromise of 1850, saying that the Constitution gave full protection to the Southerner’s right to own slaves, and take them into the territories: Less than that equal protection the South can never take, unless they are willing to become an inferior class, a degraded caste.... The Government is the agent of all the states; can it be expected of any of them that they will consent to be bound by its acts, when that agent announces the settled purpose in the exercise of its power to overthrow that which it was its duty to uphold? The essential purpose for which the grant was made being disregarded, the means given for defense being perverted to assault, state allegiance thenceforth resumes its right to demand the service, the whole service, of all its citizens.22

Jefferson Davis resigned from the Senate in 1851 to run for governor of Mississippi on the issue of the Compromise. He ran for governor, but was defeated by 999 votes. This

185

Causes of the Civil War slight defeat humiliated him and hurt his pride, so he retired from public office for a few months before campaigning for Franklin Pierce for President. Pierce was victorious, and appointed Davis his Secretary of War. He was remembered by Carl Schurz, later a Union general, as he entered upon his office. His slender, tall and erect figure, his spare face, keen eyes, and fire forehead, not broad but high and well shaped, presented the well-known strong American type. There was in his bearing a dignity which seemed entirely natural and unaffected, that kind of dignity which does not invite familiar approach.23

Jefferson Davis was one of the most important peace-time Secretaries of War in the nation’s history. He increased the size of the army, and implemented the weapon he had his men using in the Mexican War, the rifle musket. He also brought over the cannon from Europe developed under Napoleon III. These changes would be very important in the coming Civil War.

Jefferson and Varina Davis, 1845

While Pierce was not re-elected, Davis was re-elected to the US Senate from Mississippi, taking up his office in 1857. There he continued to support the Southern rights, affirming that they were supporting the Constitution: Why should [the slave states] care whether [the slaves] go into other territories or not? Simply because of the war that is made against our institutions.... Had you made no political war on us, had you observed the principles of our confederacy …

186

Fort Sumter that the people of each state were … to be left perfectly free to form and regulate their institutions in their own way, then, I saw, within the limits of each state the population would have gone on to attend to their own affairs, and have little regard to whether this species of property or any other was held in any other portion of the Union. You have made it a political war. We are on the defensive. How far are you to push us? … I have given evidence in every form in which patriotism is ever subjected to a test, and I trust that, whatever evil may be in store for us by those who wage war on the Constitution and our rights under it, I shall be able to turn at least to the past and say, ‘up to that period when I was declining into the grave, I served a Government I loved, and served it with my whole heart.’24

During the winter of 1857-1858, Davis was seriously ill. He had been having problems with his eye since contracting malaria many years before, but now it caused him severe pain, and he lost all his sight in his left eye. He spent the summer recovering from his sickness in the North, and gave several speeches there defending the South’s right to secede, but urging the preservation of the Union.

Lincoln is Elected President

While Davis was serving as Secretary of War and Senator, Lincoln continued to practice law. However, in 1854, Lincoln resurrected his political career with his Peoria Speech. He was opposing Stephen Douglas’s Kansas-Nebraska Act, which would allow slavery to spread to the territories through popular sovereignty. The doctrine of self government is right---absolutely and eternally right---but it has no just application, as here attempted. Or perhaps I should rather say that whether it has such just application depends upon whether a negro is not or is a man. If he is not a man, why in that case, he who is a man may, as a matter of self-government, do just as he pleases with him. But if the negro is a man, is it not to that extent, a total destruction of self-government, to say that he too shall not govern himself? When the white man governs himself that is self-government; but when he governs himself, and also governs another man, that is more than self-government---that is despotism.

187

Abraham Lincoln, 1846

Causes of the Civil War If the negro is a man, why then my ancient faith teaches me that “all men are created equal;” and that there can be no moral right in connection with one man’s making a slave of another.25

Although Lincoln was basing his argument against Douglas on the manhood of negros, that did not mean he would grant them voting rights. Free them, and make them politically and socially, our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not. Whether this feeling accords with justice and sound judgment, is not the sole question, if indeed, it is any part of it. A universal feeling, whether well or ill-founded, can not be safely disregarded. We can not, then, make them equals.26

This speech propelled Lincoln into the leadership of the anti-slavery section of Illinois. He attempted to run for Senate as a Whig in 1854, but the Whig party was dying, and Lincoln lost the election. In 1858 Lincoln ran against Douglas as part of the new Republican Party. They undertook a series of seven famous debates across the state. Lincoln’s argument was based on the fact that slavery was evil, and that the North was responsible to prevent its spread, even if the majority of the settlers in a territory supported slavery. That is the real issue. That is the issue that will continue in this country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be silent. It is the eternal struggle between these two principles—right and wrong—throughout the world. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time; and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity and the other the divine right of kings.27

Although Douglas eventually was elected, Lincoln gained greatly by the campaign. It propelled him into national prominence for his opposition to slavery. Lincoln’s reputation was advanced even further by his Copper Union speech in New York City on February 27, 1860. He argued that the Republican position of forbidding the spread of slavery to the territories was Constitutional, and that the founding fathers did not write the Constitution to explicitly affirm and protect slavery. Wrong as we think slavery is, we can yet afford to let it alone where it is, because that much is due to the necessity arising from its actual presence in the nation; but can we, while our votes will prevent it, allow it to spread into the National Territories, and to overrun us here in these Free States? If our sense of duty forbids

188

Fort Sumter this, then let us stand by our duty, fearlessly and effectively. Let us be diverted by none of those sophistical contrivances wherewith we are so industriously plied and belabored — contrivances such as groping for some middle ground between the right and the wrong, vain as the search for a man who should be neither a living man nor a dead man — such as a policy of “don’t care” on a question about which all true men do care — such as Union appeals beseeching true Union men to yield to Disunionists, reversing the divine rule, and calling, not the sinners, but the righteous to repentance — such as invocations to Washington, imploring men to unsay what Washington said, and undo what Washington did.28

This speech was well received and very effective in New York City. Lincoln was not the frontrunner coming into the Republican 1860 Convention. No one gained a majority on the first ballot, but it soon became apparent that all the other candidates had too many enemies to be a good candidate, so Lincoln was nominated on the fourth ballot.

Davis’s State Secedes

After Lincoln’s election, Mississippi seceded on January 9, 1860. Jefferson Davis did not have a doubt about the proper course. Although he may not have believed that it was the proper time to secede, he did not doubt its legitimacy and his duty to follow his state. On January 21st, what he called the saddest day of his life, he rose to give a farewell address to the Senate: Then, Senators, we recur to the compact which binds us together; we recur to the principles upon which our Government was founded; and when you deny them, and when you deny us the right to withdraw from a Government which thus perverted threatens to be destructive of our rights, we but tread in the path of our fathers when we proclaim our independence, and take the hazard. This is done, not in hostility to others; not to injure any section of the country, not even for our own pecuniary benefit, but from the high and solemn motive of defending and protecting the rights we inherited, and which it is our duty to transmit unshorn to our children. I find in myself, perhaps, a type of the general feeling of my constituents towards yours. I am sure I feel no hostility to you, Senators from the North. I am sure there is not one of you, whatever sharp discussion there may have been between us, to whom I cannot now say, in the presence of my God, I wish you well; and such, I am sure, is the feeling of the people whom I represent towards those whom you represent.29

Davis offered his services to his state for whatever role they thought him best qualified to

189

Causes of the Civil War fill. He wished, however, to be appointed commander of the Southern armies. He was surprised when, on February 9th, he was chosen to be the president of the new Confederate States. He was, in many ways, the best fit for the task. He was a moderate, he had spent years defending the South in the Senate, he had executive experience as Secretary of War, and his military experience qualified him for the position as commander in chief. He was inaugurated as the provisional president on February 18th, and was duly elected by the people for a full term in November.

Lincoln’s Inauguration

Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4, 1861. Many doubted whether a good choice had been made for president. He certainly did not have the stately demeanor expected. His law partner wrote: He was not a pretty man by any means- nor was he an ugly one, he was a homely looking man. Mr. Lincoln’s head was long and tall, his forehead was narrow but high. His ears were extremely large and ran out at almost right angles from his head. His hair was dark - almost black and lay floating where fingers or the winds left it, piled up at random. His cheek bones were high- sharp and prominent. His nose was large, long and blunt and a little awry toward the right eye. His eye brows, heavy and jutting out, cropped out like a huge rock on the brow of a hill. His face was long- sallow, cadaverous, shrunk, shriveled, wrinkled and dry. His cheeks were leathery and flabby, falling in loose folds at places, looking sorrowful and sad.

190

Fort Sumter He was ridiculed for his homely appearance and frontier jokes, some calling him the original gorilla.

Comparison

Whatever doubts there may have been upon their assumption of the office of president, both Lincoln and Davis made mistakes and many enemies, but both were generally capable men. In their careers there were both great similarities and great divergences. Both were born in Kentucky around the same time, and both soon moved away. Both fought in the military, but Lincoln was a militia captain who never saw service, and Davis was a combat officer who became one of America’s war heroes. Both held elected office, but Lincoln with only one term in the U.S. House and Davis as one of the nation’s most prominent senators. Lincoln had no executive experience before he became president while Davis had been a very successful Secretary of War. Their views on the Constitution were in sharp contrast. Davis believed that a strict construction of the Constitution was necessary: The Constitution and laws should be masters, and public officers, like private individuals, only their servants. Beyond the lines of their strict constitutional powers such officers are as literally without authority, before the law, as the humblest citizens; for they are, in fact, private wrong-doers, and not public officers, from the moment that they have transgressed those constitutional limits.30

Abraham Lincoln, on the other hand, thought the preamble of the Constitution gave general principles to act by, and he could interpret it at will. One historian has said, “He was ready to violate any specific clause of the Constitution if by so doing he could serve its main purpose; and he interpreted his powers as including anything to save the Union.”31 Both men were religious, but Lincoln, while he frequently attended a Presbyterian church, never joined an established church. Davis, on the other hand, turned to God during the war, joining the Episcopal church during the war and relying much on the Bible and theological writings in his imprisonment upon its conclusion.

Questions

Was Davis or Lincoln more fit to become president? What were Davis’ vices and virtues, and what does the Bible say about them? What were Lincoln’s vices and virtues, and what does the Bible say about them? Who was a more successful president, Davis or Lincoln, and why?

191

Causes of the Civil War

Further Study

From Moultrie to Sumter by General Abner Doubleday Inside Sumter in ‘61 by Captain James Chester Jefferson Davis by Joseph McElroy Compete video with Ed Bearrs Avaliable online at www.DiscerningHistory.com/Causes

Abraham Lincoln

Jefferson Davis

192

Fort Sumter

Footnotes 1

Heroes and Patriots of the South by Cecil B. Hartley (Philadelphia: G G. Evans, 1860) p. 89-90.

2 Touring South Carolina’s Revolutionary War Sites by Daniel W. Barefoot (1999) p. 57. 3 An Account of the Siege of Charleston, p. 14-15. 4 Ibid, p. 19. 5

Ibid, p. 27-28.

War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies by the U.S. War Department (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1880-1901) series 1, volume 1, p. 4-5.

Ibid, p. 8-9.

Battles and Leaders of the Civil War edts. Robert Underwood Johnson and Clarence C. Buel (New York: Thomas Yoseloff, 1956) vol. 1, p. 51-52.

Ibid, p. 52-53.

10 War of the Rebelliion, p. 10. 11

Ibid, p. 13.

12 Ibid. 13 Battles and Leaders, p. 66-67. 14 Ibid, p. 68-69. 15 Ibid, p. 71. 16 Ibid, p. 72. 17

Jefferson Davis: The Unreal and the Real by Robert McElroy (New York: Smithmark, 1995) p. 14.

18 Abraham Lincoln: Complete Works edt. John G. Nicolay and John Hay (New York: The Century Co, 1907), vol. 1, p. 142. 19 Ibid, p. 97. 20 Jefferson Davis: The Unreal and the Real, p. 92. 21 Ibid, p. 94. 22 Ibid, p. 121. 23 Ibid, p. 149. 24 Ibid, p. 176-177. 25 Abraham Lincoln: Complete Works, p. 193. 26 Ibid, p. 187. 27 Ibid, p. 511. 28 Ibid, p. 612. 29 The World’s Best Orations from the Earliest Period to the Present Time edt. David J. Brewer (St. Louis: Ferd. P. Kaiser, 1901) vol. 5, p. 1655. 30 Ibid, p. 310. 31 Ibid, p. 187-188.

193

C h a p t e r

State’s Rights T

he Civil War dramatically changed the relationship between the states and the Federal government. Typically, when American civics are taught, much emphasis is put on the idea of checks and balances. The Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches of the Federal government each have different rights and responsibilities. The founders of the country hoped that each branch would be jealous of their rights and would not allow other branches to overstep their bounds. The depravity of man would be constrained through their abilities to check the other branches, such as with the veto and impeachment. In examining history, we see that this structure has had some success in limiting the corruption in government, but it was never intended to be the primary check on the power of the Federal government. Instead, the states were supposed to take that role, using their militia if necessary to withstand the military of the Federal government. To understand why the government would be structured that way, we need to study the doctrine of interposition.

Doctrine of Interposition

One of the most important concepts in American political history is the doctrine of interposition. Interposition is the idea of lower magistrates interposing between tyrannical higher magistrates and the people. Although it has fallen into disfavor today, it was one of the foundational concepts in the American War for Independence through the Civil War.

Interposition in the Bible

The idea of interposition is originally found in Scripture. The Bible tells us to submit to authorities since they are ordained by God. Romans 13:1-5 expresses this clearly: Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God:

Causes of the Civil War the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: for he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

However, there are times when the civil magistrate oversteps his bounds. The Bible forbids a Christian to obey a law that would require them to break God’s higher law. However, he is not allowed to attempt to overthrow the magistrate. God does make a lawful way to remove magistrates through what is called interposition. With interposition, a lower magistrate, also appointed by God, stands up to his superior magistrate, interposing himself between his superior and the people. There are many examples of interposition throughout God’s word.

Rehoboam and Jereboam

One example is the story of the splitting of Israel between Jereboam and Rehoboam. King Solomon had appointed Jeroboam to be over all of the labor of the house of Joseph. When Solomon died, Rehoboam his son became king. The people came to him to ask that he not continue Solomon’s harsh treatment of them. Rehoboam refused, and so Jereboam led the 10 northern tribes to break off to form a new nation. In response, Rehoboam formed an army to reunify the nation by force. However, he was stopped by God as recorded in 2 Chronicles 11:1-4: And when Rehoboam was come to Jerusalem, he gathered of the house of Judah and Benjamin an hundred and fourscore thousand chosen men, which were warriors, to fight against Israel, that he might bring the kingdom again to Rehoboam. But the word of the Lord came to Shemaiah the man of God, saying, Speak unto Rehoboam the son of Solomon, king of Judah, and to all Israel in Judah and Benjamin, saying, Thus saith the Lord, Ye shall not go up, nor fight against your brethren: return every man to his house: for this thing is done of me. And they obeyed the words of the Lord, and returned from going against Jeroboam.

Jereboam’s splitting of the kingdom was probably sinful, as he was rejecting God’s choice of king in the line of David. However, he followed the process of interposition, and God did not allow Rehoboam to attack him. There are other, however, more righteous examples of interposition in Scripture.

196

State’s Rights Time and again in the book of Judges, divinely appointed judges interposed against pagan and tyrannical rulers. Gideon was chosen to lead a small Israelite force to defeat an army of Midianites and Amalekites who were tyrannizing over Israel.1 Ehud was even raised up by God to assassinate the king of Moab and free the nation of Israel2. During the Babylonian captivity, a law was passed forbidding prayer to anyone but the king. Daniel, who had attained high rank in the government, interposed between the government and the Jews by publicly praying with his windows open, inviting arrest.

Questions

Express the doctrine of interposition in your own words. What are some other examples of the right to interposition in Scripture?

Historical Uses of Interposition

The doctrine of interposition was applied several times in the first millenia and a half after Christ, with the Magna Carta and the Declaration of Arbroath. In 1215 King John of England was forced by the barons, the lesser magistrates, to sign the Magna Carta, which guaranteed the historic rights the English had enjoyed. It was an act of interposition which showed his power was limited, and specified restrictions on his power. Just over 100 years later, the Declaration of Arbroath was written against the English by the Scottish nobles under Robert the Bruce. They were writing to the Pope to protest the English rule and show why Scotland had a right to be free and independent. They said:

Declaration of Arbroath

Yet if [King Robert the Bruce] should give up what he has begun, and agree to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King; for, (as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under

197

Causes of the Civil War English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.)3

Although interposition was applied in these cases, the doctrine was developed in more detail with the Reformation and the coming of John Calvin. Calvinism, which was articulated by John Calvin, a Reformation pastor in Geneva, Switzerland, is essentially the idea that God is the center of creation. This central idea works itself out in many ways, and one of these is in civil government. Calvin wrote in his institutes: Although the Lord takes vengeance on unbridled domination, let us not therefore suppose that that vengeance is committed to us, to whom no command has been given but to obey and suffer. I speak only of private men. For when popular magistrates have been appointed to curb the tyranny of kings (as the Ephori, who were opposed to kings among the Spartans, or Tribunes of the people to consuls among the Romans, or Demarchs to the senate among the Athenians; and perhaps there is something similar to this in the power exercised in each kingdom by the three orders, when they hold their primary diets), so far am I from forbidding these officially to check the undue license of kings, that if they connive at kings when they tyrannise and insult over the humbler of the people, I affirm that their dissimulation is not free from nefarious perfidy; because they fraudulently betray the liberty of the people, while knowing that, by the ordinance of God, they are its appointed guardians.4

Calvin did not spend much of his time speaking on government, but he laid down principles that further generations would apply. Abraham Kuyper, an early 20th century Calvinistic politician, explained how Calvinism applies to government this way: [Calvinism] is … a political faith which my be summarily expressed in these three theses: 1. God only, and never any creature, is possessed of sovereign rights, in the destiny of nations, because God alone created them, maintains them by his Almighty power, and rules them by his ordinances. 2. Sin has, in the realm of politics, broken down the direct government of God, and therefore the exercise of authority, for the purpose of government, has subsequently been invested in men, as a mechanical remedy. 3. In whatever form this authority may reveal itself, man never possesses power over his fellow man in any other way than by the authority which descends upon him from the majesty of God.5

Many of ways that Calvinism was more fully applied to government came from Calvin’s spiritual children and grandchildren. They realized that men are sinful, so God does not entrust them with absolute authority. They took principles from God’s establishment of the government of Israel. Checks and balances were placed in the government,

198

State’s Rights so that the different parts of government would constrain each other’s sin. This is seen in what secular writers have called the social compact theory, where there is a covenant or constitution between the people, the rulers, and God. However, if these contracts are violated, it is not the people that have the duty to resist them. It is the lower magistrates who must stand up to the higher magistrates. One of the men important in further applying Calvin’s ideas to government was John Knox. With a long Scottish heritage, including the Declaration of Arbroath, he stood up to the ungodly queens of his day. Theodore Beza, the coworker and successor to Calvin in Geneva, was prompted to study the doctrine of government by the St. Batholomew’s Day Massacre. Over a few days, 60,000 Protestant French Hugenots were executed by the king of France. In 1574, just two years later, Theodore Beza published a book called The Right of Magistrates. In it, he defended the right of the people to take up armed resistance to tyrannical rulers through the lower magistrates. He said the intermediary magistrates were “duty-bound to repress these tyrants who act wildly and commit outrages. If they do not do so, then they shall answer for their disloyalty before the Lord, as traitors to their own country.”6 The Scottish reformer Samuel Rutherford famously articulated this doctrine Theodore Beza further in 1644, in his book Lex Rex, meaning, in Latin, “the law is king.” Interposition came into action again with the conflict between the Stuart Kings and the English Parliament in the 1600s. When the king became a tyrant, Oliver Cromwell and the Parliament interposed, even going as far as to execute King Charles I.

Interposition in America

The early American settlers brought over Calvinistic views of government. Most of the settlers were the spiritual grandsons of Calvin. Many historians have recognized this, saying, “John Calvin was the virtual founder of America,”7 and, according to George Bancroft, “He who will not honor the memory and respect the influence of Calvin knows but little of the origin of American liberty.”8 Although America was not as firmly Calvinistic by the time of the War for Independence, the worldview and culture was still based largely upon Calvinistic beliefs. The Declaration of Independence is a clear statement of the doctrine of interposition: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are

199

Causes of the Civil War endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The American War for Independence was not a revolt directly by the people. The people were working through their legal representatives in their states to leave the British Empire. It was delegates from the states that had been elected to the Continental Congress, and when they declared the “United States” free and independent, they were not forming a new nation, but rather declaring the independence of the individual states, unified in their resistance to England.

Continental Congress

When the states unified into a nation under the Articles of Confederation and then the U.S. Constitution, they did not lose the right of interposition. The Virginia Resolution of 1798 referenced the concept of interposition by name: That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.9

200

State’s Rights John C. Calhoun pointed to the doctrine of interposition in the Virginia Resolution as the fundamental principle of American government: This right of interposition, thus solemnly asserted by the State of Virginia in the Virginia Resolution be it called what it may, State-right, veto, nullification, or by any other name, I conceive to be the fundamental principle of our system, resting on facts historically as certain as our Revolution itself, and deductions as simple and demonstrative as that of any political or moral truth whatever; and I firmly believe that on its recognition depends the stability and safety of our political institutions.10

Today interposition remains a sound Biblical principle for resisting a tyrannical government.

Questions

What are some other times when interposition has been used in history?

Secession vs. Revolution

While at the time of the founding, many Americans held the doctrine of interposition to be the valid way to overthrow a tyrant, there were also men that believed everyone had the right to resist tyranny directly, without using other government offices. By the time of the Civil War, this debate produced two views on how to deal with tyranny. In the debates over the legality of secession, a distinction was made between the rights to secession and revolution. The terms were not always used consistently, but in general the right to revolution was seen as an inherent right by which the people themselves could at any time throw off the government, while secession was a constitutional remedy whereby the states could leave the Union. The idea of revolution is basically a democratic concept. Democracy is the idea that all the people have authority. The United States was founded as a republic, meaning that representatives are elected and given authority that the common man does not have. In a republic, for a state to leave the Union, the authorities would have to act, because the people do not have the authority to act on their own.

Abraham Lincoln

Abraham Lincoln supported the right of revolution in a speech in Congress about the Mexican War on January 12, 1848: Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,-- most sacred right--a right, which we hope and believe, is

201

Causes of the Civil War to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority, was precisely the case, of the tories of our own revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones.11

However, when the South attempted to exerAbraham Lincoln cise the right of secession, he said secession was unconstitutional and revolutionary, and that revolutions could be opposed. He said in his inaugural address: The Chief Magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they have referred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of the States. The people themselves can do this if also they choose, but the Executive as such has nothing to do with it. His duty is to administer the present Government as it came to his hands and to transmit it unimpaired by him to his successor.12

In a special message to Congress on July 4, 1861, he wrote: The right of revolution is never a legal right. The very term implies the breaking, and not the abiding by, organic law. At most, it is but a moral right, when exercised for a morally justifiable cause. When exercised without such a cause revolution is no right, but simply a wicked exercise of physical power.13

Lincoln said there was no right to secession, but there was an inherent right to revolution. However, he thought that even if the right to revolution was being exercised properly, the government they were resisting still had a right to fight them.

The Bible and Revolution

One way to express the distinction between secession and revolution is that

202

State’s Rights secession is an application of the doctrine of interposition, where the lesser magistrates of the states interpose between the people and the tyrannical higher magistrates. Revolution would be the same as rebellion, where some part of the people attempt to overthrow the government themselves. Noah Webster defined rebellion in his dictionary of 1828 as: 1. An open and avowed renunciation of the authority of the government to which one owes allegiance; or the taking of arms traitorously to resist the authority of lawful government; revolt. Rebellion differs from insurrection and from mutiny. Insurrection may be a rising in opposition to a particular act or law, without a design to renounce wholly all subjection to the government. Insurrection may be, but is not necessarily, rebellion. Mutiny is an insurrection of soldiers or seamen against the authority of their officers. ... 2. Open resistance to lawful authority.

Although the Bible allows, and at times even requires, secession, it forbids rebellion in the strongest terms. 1 Samuel 15:23 says: For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.

This verse, combined with Romans 13, clearly shows that the Bible does not allow citizens to rebel against the government. The right to revolution, defined in this manner, is unbiblical and false. According to this definition, the American Revolution was not really a revolution. America split off from Great Britain as states. The lower magistrates, elected by the people, were the ones making the decision for independence. Contrast the American War for Independence to the French Revolution, which was a true revolution. It was fueled by the anti-god philosophy of Jean Jacques Rousseau, who held that the people should rule by reason. Any resemblance to the American War for Independence was soon lost with the Reign of Terror, in which tens of thousands of citizens were executed by the guillotine and other methods. Because the French were trying to overthrow authority, it was a revolution, instead of lesser magistrates resisting tyranny while still preserving the God-given institution of civil government.

Questions

Do you think there is a right to secession? Why or why not? What about revolution?

203

Causes of the Civil War

View of Secession in America

In the years before the Civil War, the belief that secession was legitimate was very common, although not universal. Unfortunately, politicians were not always consistent in their views. Frequently, their theory of government changed depending on pragmatic considerations. Some would use the threat of leaving the Union as a weapon when they held the minority position, but when they gained a majority of the nation, they would deny the right to others as unconstitutional. Since the Civil War, the standard position is that no state has the right to secede, but before the war, it is important to understand the divergence of views.

Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson, for one, believed that if the Constitutional bounds were overstepped, states had the right to leave the Union. He wrote the Kentucky Resolutions, which, although not advocating secession, declared null and void a Federal law which Kentucky believed was a violation of the Constitution. Later, when he came into power as President of the United States, he supported the right of secession. In his first Inaugural Address he said: If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it.

Thomas Jefferson

Although Jefferson believed the United States was the best government in the world, he thought that if a state wished, they should be allowed to separate in peace. He would remain hopeful that they would return, recognizing their error in separation. In an 1816 letter to William H. Crawford, who was then Secretary of War under President James Madison, he said: If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation with the first alternative, to a continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in saying, ‘let us separate’. I would rather the States should withdraw, which are for unlimited commerce and war, and confederate with those alone which are for peace and agriculture.15

Although Jefferson wished that the Union would continue forever, he would not deny the

204

State’s Rights right of a state to leave the Union if it wished. It should be noted, however, that Jefferson was not always consistent. In other places he wrote that the Federal government had the right to use force to coerce states in the Union to fulfill their obligations. When president, he operated on a much looser interpretation of the Constitution than he required of his opponents when they were in power. Ultimately, it appears that Jefferson believed if a state wished to leave the Union, the United States should do nothing to prevent it.

James Madison

James Madison, fourth president of the United States and father of the Constitution, was alive during the Nullification Crisis of the 1830s and he opposed the action of South Carolina. He wrote to Nicholas P. Trist, a prominent American diplomat, in 1832: Montpellier, Decr 23, 1832. Dr. Sir I have received yours of the 19th, inclosing some of the South Carolina papers. There are in one of them some interesting views of the doctrine of secession; one that had occurred to me, and which for the first time I have seen in print; namely that if one State can at will withdraw from the others, the others can at will withdraw from her, and turn her, nolentem, volentem, [unwilling or willing] out of the union. Until of late, there is not a State that would have abhorred such a doctrine more than South Carolina, or more dreaded an application of it to herself. The same may be said of the doctrine of nullification, which she now preaches as the only faith by which the Union can be saved. I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of –98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice. The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact

205

James Madison

Causes of the Civil War of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created. In the Virginia Resolutions and Report the plural number, States, is in every instance used where reference is made to the authority which presided over the Government. As I am now known to have drawn those documents, I may say as I do with a distinct recollection, that the distinction was intentional. It was in fact required by the course of reasoning employed on the occasion. The Kentucky resolutions being less guarded have been more easily perverted. … It is remarkable how closely the nullifiers who make the name of Mr. Jefferson the pedestal for their colossal heresy, shut their eyes and lips, whenever his authority is ever so clearly and emphatically against them. You have noticed what he says in his letters to Monroe & Carrington Pages 43 & 203, vol. 2,1 with respect to the powers of the old Congress to coerce delinquent States, ... that it was not necessary to find a right to coerce in the Federal Articles, that being inherent in the nature of a compact. It is high time that the claim to secede at will should be put down by the public opinion; and I shall be glad to see the task commenced by one who understands the subject.16

However, James Madison thought that there might be some valid causes for secession. He wrote this letter to Daniel Webster in 1833, commenting on an anti-secession speech Webster had given: I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United [States.] It crushes “nullification” and must hasten the abandonment of “Secession.” But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy. Its double aspect, nevertheless, with the countenance [received] from certain quarters, is giving it a popular currency here which may influence the approaching elections both for Congress & for the State Legislature. It has gained some advantage also, by mixing itself with the question whether the Constitution of the U.S. was formed by the people or by the States, now under a theoretic discussion by animated partizans. It is fortunate when disputed theories, can be decided by undisputed facts. And here the undisputed fact is, that the Constitution was made by the people, but as imbodied into the several states, who were parties to it and therefore made by the States in

206

State’s Rights their highest authoritative capacity. They might, by the same authority & by the same process have converted the Confederacy into a mere league or treaty; or continued it with enlarged or abridged powers; or have imbodied the people of their respective States into one people, nation or sovereignty; or as they did by a mixed form make them one people, nation, or sovereignty, for certain purposes, and not so for others. The Constitution of the U.S. being established by a Competent authority, by that of the sovereign people of the several States who were the parties to it, it remains only to inquire what the Constitution is; and here it speaks for itself. It organizes a Government into the usual Legislative Executive & Judiciary Departments; invests it with specified powers, leaving others to the parties to the Constitution; it makes the Government like other Governments to operate directly on the people; places at its Command the needful Physical means of executing its powers; and finally proclaims its supremacy, and that of the laws made in pursuance of it, over the Constitutions & laws of the States; the powers of the Government being exercised, as in other elective & responsible

James Madison

Governments, under the controul of its Constituents, the people & legislatures of the States, and subject to the Revolutionary Rights of the people in extreme cases. It might have been added, that whilst the Constitution, therefore, is admitted to be in force, its operation, in every respect must be precisely the same, whether its authority be derived from that of the people, in the one or the other of the modes, in question; the authority being equally Competent in both; and that, without an annulment of the Constitution itself its supremacy must be submitted to. The only distinctive effect, between the two modes of forming a Constitution by the authority of the people, is that if formed by them as imbodied into separate communities, as in the case of the Constitution of the U.S. a dissolution of the Constitutional Compact would replace them in the condition of separate communities, that being the Condition in which they entered into the compact; whereas if formed by the people as one community, acting as such by a numerical majority, a dissolution of the compact would reduce them to a state of nature, as so many individual persons. But whilst the Constitutional compact remains undissolved, it must be executed according to the forms and provisions specified in the compact. It must not be forgotten, that compact, express or implied is the vital principle of free Governments as

207

Causes of the Civil War contradistinguished from Governments not free; and that a revolt against this principle leaves no choice but between anarchy and despotism.17

In this letter, Madison clarified his view of secession. He thought that secession was illegitimate, in that a state could not leave the Union at any time for any reason. However, if the Federal government overstepped its bounds, the people of the states could, through their state governments, leave the Union.

Questions

Do you agree or disagree with Madison’s arguments? Why?

John Quincy Adams

John Quincy Adams was a very important politician. Son of John Adams, second president of the United States, he himself was elected as the sixth president, serving one term from 1824 to 1829. After his presidential term, he did something unprecedented. He became one of only two presidents to return back to Congress after his term. Adams remained in Congress for 18 years after serving as president, in 1848 collapsing on the House floor and dying two days later. Adams opposed the movement in the Northern states to secede during the War of 1812. However, many years later, he, along with other prominent politicians, signed A Solemn Appeal to the People of the Free States, which was in favor of secession: We hesitate not to say that annexation of Texas, effected by any act or proceeding of the Federal Government, or any of its departments, would be identical with dissolution. It would be a violation of our national compact, its objects, designs, and the great elementary principles with entered into its formation, of a character so deep and fundamental, and would be an attempt to authorize an institution and a power of a nature so unjust in themselves, so injurious to the interests and abhorrent to the feelings of the people of the Free States, as, in our opinion, not only inevitably to result in a dissolution of the Union, but fully to justify it; and we not only assert that the people of the Free States ‘ought not to submit to it,’ but we say, with confidence, they would not submit to it.18

John Quincy Adams

208

State’s Rights He further clarified his position in a speech in 1839 upon the 50th anniversary of Washington’s inauguration: In the calm hours of self-possession, the right of a State to nullify an act of Congress, is too absurd for argument, and too odious for discussion. The right of a state to secede from the Union, is equally disowned by the principles of the Declaration of Independence. Nations acknowledge no judge between them upon earth, and their Governments from necessity, must in their intercourse with each other decide when the failure of one party to a contract to perform its obligations, absolves the other from the reciprocal fulfillment of his own. But this last of earthly powers is not necessary to the freedom or independence of states, connected together

John Quincy Adams

by the immediate action of the people, of whom they consist. To the people alone is there reserved, as well the dissolving, as the constituent power, and that power can be exercised by them only under the tie of conscience, binding them to the retributive justice of Heaven. With these qualifications, we may admit the same right as vested in the people of every state in the Union, with reference to the General Government, which was exercised by the people of the United Colonies, with reference to the Supreme head of the British empire, of which they formed a part - and under these limitations, have the people of each state in the Union a right to secede from the confederated Union itself. Thus stands the Right. But the indissoluble link of union between the people of the several states of this confederated nation, is after all, not in the right, but in the heart. If the day should ever come, (may Heaven avert it,) when the affections of the people of these states shall be alienated from each other; when the fraternal spirit shall give away to cold indifference, or collisions of interest shall fester into hatred, the bands of political association will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited states, to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint. Then will be the time for reverting to the precedents which occurred at the formation and adoption of the Constitution, to form again a

209

Causes of the Civil War more perfect union, by dissolving that which could no longer bind, and to leave the separated parts to be reunited by the law of political gravitation to the centre.19

Questions

Do you agree or disagree with Adam’s arguments? Why?

William Rawle’s Textbook

In addition to what leading politicians said, we should consider what was being taught in schools. Positions in textbooks take can have a great influence on society. A View of the Constitution of the United States of America, by William Rawle, was a law textbook in the library at West Point which was used officially in classes for at least one year. Rawle was a lawyer from Philadelphia who had been appointed a district attorney in 1791. In his book, Rawle supported the right of secession, by a convention elected by the people: The secession of a state from the Union depends on the will of the people of such state. The people alone as we have already seen, hold the power to alter their constitution. … To withdraw from the Union comes not within the general scope of [the] delegated authority [of the state legislatures.] … A matter so momentous, ought not to be entrusted to those who would have it in their power to exercise it lightly and precipitately upon sudden dissatisfaction, or causeless jealousy, perhaps against the interests and the wishes of a majority of their constituents. But in any manner by which secession is to take place, nothing is more certain than that the act should be deliberate, clear, and unequivocal. The perspicuity and solemnity of the original obligation require correspondent qualities in its dissolution.20

Although Rawle considered that secession was constitutionally allowable, he did not think that it should be done lightly. He vividly described the evils he foresaw from secession: The seceding state, whatever might be its relative magnitude, would speedily and distinctly feel the loss of the aid and countenance of the Union. The Union losing a proportion of the national revenue, would be entitled to demand for it a proportion of the national debt. It would be entitled to treat the inhabitants and commerce of the separated state, as appertaining to a foreign country. … Evils more alarming may readily be perceived. The destruction of the common band would be unavoidable attended with more serious consequences than the mere disunion of the parts. Separation would produce jealousies and discord, which in time would ripen into mutual hostilities, and while our country would be weakened by internal war, foreign

210

State’s Rights enemies would be encouraged to invade with the flattering prospect of subduing in detail, those whom, collectively, they would dread to encounter. … In every aspect therefore which this great subject presents, we feel the deepest impression of a sacred obligation to preserve the union of our country; we feel our glory, our safety, and our happiness, involved in it; we united the interests of those who coldly calculate advantages with those who glow with what is little short of filial affection; and we must resist the attempt of its own citizens to destroy it, with the same William Rawle

feelings that we should avert the dagger of a parricide.21

Questions

Why would it matter if Rawle’s book was used as a textbook at West Point?

John Tyler

Of the ex-presidents who were alive at the time of the Civil War, only John Tyler went with the Confederacy. The only surviving president from the South, he had been retired at his Virginia plantation for many years. When the threat of Civil War loomed, he returned to public life. He was appointed chairman of the Peace Conference of February, 1860. Tyler’s goal was a compromise to reunify the nation. The convention proposed an extension of the Missouri Compromise, however, the Northern representatives in Congress would not allow it to pass. Returning to Virginia, Tyler was elected to a seat in the Virginia secession convention. Tyler’s opinion was that it was time for Virginia to secede. On March 13th, he gave a speech to the convention reporting on the Peace Conference and pushing for secession: When I left the government sixteen years ago, sir, it had not entered into my contemplation that I should ever afterwards appear in a public assembly. I left that government prosperous and happy. The voice which startled me in my retirement, told me of feud, and discontent, and discord of a tearing in twain of that beautiful flag which had floated so triumphantly over us in the days that had gone by, which I had never looked upon but my heart had throbbed with an emotion it is impossible for me to give utterance to. The Father of his Country had left behind an admonition to his children to avoid sectional feuds, but those feuds had arisen and had progressed until they had culminated into disunion. I had seen their beginning, sir, thirty years before,

211

Causes of the Civil War when the dark cloud which now overspreads the hemisphere just rose above the horizon, no bigger than a man’s hand. It was the cloud of Abolitionism. Washington, looking to the probable contingency that has now arisen, warned us against sectionalism and sectional parties. With the tongue and the pen of an inspired prophet, he foretold what has befallen us. From the school-room where the youthful mind was impressed with doctrines in one section, inimical to those of another from the pulpit where traduction and abuse have been levelled at the very memories of the great dead who assisted to build up what was but yesterday a glorious government; desecrating the very altar itself and pronouncing against us anathema and violent vituperation, bidding us “go forth from the communion table, you are miserable slaveholders and we cannot partake with you in the feast of peace and religion.” Such the anathema. And when all is made ready—the masses excited and stirred up with an undefinable love of human liberty the politician, regardless of his country and intent only upon his own elevation, steps forth upon the stage to control those masses and lead them to the disastrous point of sectionalism and separation.

John Tyler Where is that Union now which we once so much loved? Where is its beautiful flag which waved over a land of wealth, of grandeur, and of beauty? Wrong, abuse, contumely, unconstitutional acts, looking to a higher law than the Constitution, thus setting men free from their obligations to society, have cut the ship of state loose

212

State’s Rights from her moorings, and here she is, drifting without helm or compass, amid rocks and whirlpools, her fragments floating in every direction—one part has gone South, while other parts moored for this moment, will probably at the next, break loose from their insecure anchorage. I grieve over this state of things, by day and by night. When I think of the manner in which all this has been brought about by a race of hungry, artful Catilines, who have misled the Northern mind solely for their own aggrandizement, my blood becomes so heated in my veins as to scald and burn them in its rapid flow.22

Tyler urged the convention, for economic reasons, to secede. He believed that secession was a legal remedy and that the actions of the North had broken the nation asunder. At that point, the convention was not ready to follow him. But after Fort Sumter, when they had to make the choice between fighting with the Deep South states or against them, they finally decided to secede. Tyler supported this choice. Just before the vote, he wrote to his wife: The prospects now are that we shall have war, and a trying one. The battle at Charleston has aroused the whole North. I fear that division no longer exists in their ranks, and that they will break upon the South with an immense force. … Submission or resistance is only left to us. … These are dark times, dearest, and I think only of you and our little ones. But I trust in that same Providence that protected our fathers. These rascals who hold power leave us no alternative. I shall vote secession, and prefer to encounter any hazard to degrading Virginia.23

Preservation of the Union by Force

Among those who thought that secession was unconstitutional and was nothing different than revolution, there was still disagreement over whether the Federal government had the power to coerce states which attempted to secede. This was fundamental to the doctrine of interposition. Interposition would hold that if the lower magistrates, through the states, were to resist what they saw as tyranny from the Federal government, the Federal government was still obligated to submit to the Constitution, which did not enumerate a power to coerce a state to remain in the Union. In the Bible, when the nation of Israel split, God stopped Rehoboam from attacking the 10 seceding tribes. There were many in antebellum America who believed that secession was unwise or even unjustified, but still thought it could not legally be stopped. In fact, half of the Southern states only seceded when Lincoln called for them to raise troops to put down the seceded Deep South

213

Causes of the Civil War states. Although they thought it was unwise to secede at that time, they still thought the states had the right to secede. Lincoln forced them to choose to fight for one or the other, and they joined with the South.

James Buchanan

One who believed the states did not have the right to secede was James Buchanan, outgoing president of the United States. In his State of the Union address for 1860, he articulated his position. He believed the North had been guilty of antagonizing the slave states in the agitation of the abolitionists and the refusal to enforce the fugitive slave law. However, he said that did not mean the Southern States could use secession rather than revolution to address those problems. The Southern States, standing on the basis of the Constitution, have right to demand this act of justice from the States of the North. Should it be refused, then the Constitution, to which all the States are parties, will have been willfully violated by one portion of them in a provision essential to the domestic security and happiness of the remainder. In that event the injured States, after having first used all peaceful and constitutional means to obtain redress, would be justified in revolutionary resistance to the Government of the Union. I have purposely confined my remarks to revolutionary resistance, because it has been claimed within the last few years that any State, whenever this shall be its sovereign will and pleasure, may secede from the Union in accordance with the Constitution and without any violation of the constitutional rights of the other members of the Confederacy; that as each became parties to the Union by the vote of its own people assembled in convention, so any one of them may retire from the Union in a similar manner by the vote of such a convention.24

After explaining why he saw secession as unconstitutional, he continued: It may be asked, then, Are the people of the States without redress against the tyranny and oppression of the Federal Government? By no means. The right of resistance on the part of the governed against the oppression of their governments can not be denied. It exists independently of all constitutions, and has been exercised at all periods of the world’s history. Under it old governments have been destroyed and new ones have taken their place. It is embodied in strong and express language in our own Declaration of Independence. But the distinction must ever be observed that this is revolution against an established government, and not a voluntary secession from it by virtue of an inherent constitutional right. In short, let us look the danger fairly in

214

State’s Rights the face. Secession is neither more nor less than revolution. It may or it may not be a justifiable revolution, but still it is revolution.25

Buchanan said that Congress would need to decide how to deal with South Carolina and its fellow states which seceded. However, he gave his opinion: The question fairly stated is, Has the Constitution delegated to Congress the power to coerce a State into submission which is attempting to withdraw or has actually withdrawn from the Confederacy? If answered in the affirmative, it must be on the principle that the power has been conferred upon Congress to declare and to make war against a State. After much serious reflection I have arrived at the conclusion that no such power has been delegated to Congress or to any other department of the Federal Government. It is manifest upon an inspection of the Constitution that this is not among the specific and enumerated powers granted to Congress, and it is equally apparent that its exercise is not “necessary and proper for carrying into execution” any one of these powers.

James Buchanan

So far from this power having been delegated to Congress, it was expressly refused by the Convention which framed the Constitution. It appears from the proceedings of that body that on the 31st May, 1787, the clause “authorizing an exertion of the force of the whole against a delinquent State” came up for consideration. Mr. Madison opposed it in a brief but powerful speech, from which I shall extract but a single sentence. He observed: The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound. Upon his motion the clause was unanimously postponed, and was never, I believe, again presented. Soon afterwards, on the 8th June, 1787, when incidentally adverting to the subject, he said: “Any government for the United States formed on the supposed practicability of using force against the unconstitutional proceedings of the States would prove as visionary and fallacious as the government of Congress,” evidently meaning the then existing Congress of the old Confederation.

215

Causes of the Civil War Without descending to particulars, it may be safely asserted that the power to make war against a State is at variance with the whole spirit and intent of the Constitution. Suppose such a war should result in the conquest of a State; how are we to govern it afterwards? Shall we hold it as a province and govern it by despotic power? In the nature of things, we could not by physical force control the will of the people and compel them to elect Senators and Representatives to Congress and to perform all the other duties depending upon their own volition and required from the free citizens of a free State as a constituent member of the Confederacy. But if we possessed this power, would it be wise to exercise it under existing circumstances? The object would doubtless be to preserve the Union. War would not only present the most effectual means of destroying it, but would vanish all hope of its peaceable reconstruction. Besides, in the fraternal conflict a vast amount of blood and treasure would be expended, rendering future reconciliation between the States impossible. In the meantime, who can foretell what would be the sufferings and privations of the people during its existence? The fact is that our Union rests upon public opinion, and can never be cemented by the blood of its citizens shed in civil war. If it can not live in the affections of the people, it must one day perish. Congress possesses many means of preserving it by conciliation, but the sword was not placed in their hand to preserve it by force.26

Questions

Do you agree or disagree with Buchanan’s arguments? Why?

The Founders on Coercion

As Buchanan said, the founders did not grant the federal government the right to use force upon a state. It was allowed to put down insurrections or rebellions of a portion of the people, but only with the permission of the state government, or if the state no longer had a republican form of government. If it was an act of interposition of the state itself, the Federal government was powerless to act. In a speech pushing for the adoption of the Constitution in 1788, Alexander Hamilton said this about the refusal of a state to comply with monetary requisitions: If you make requisitions and they are not complied with; what is to be done? It has been well observed, that to coerce the States is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised. A failure of compliance will never be confined to a single State: this being the case, can we suppose it wise to hazard civil war? Suppose Massachusetts or any large State should refuse, and Congress should attempt to compel them; would

216

State’s Rights they not have influence to procure assistance, especially from those States who are in the same situation as themselves? What a picture does this idea present to our view! A complying State at war with a non-complying State: Congress marching the troops of one State into the bosom of another: this State collecting auxiliaries and forming perhaps a majority against its Federal head. Here is a nation at war with itself! A government that can exist only by the sword!27

The contingency that Hamilton was speaking of would never occur, as the Constitution gave the Federal government the ability to raise money from Alexander Hamilton the people directly, instead of having to go through the states. However, the same logic would apply in the case of the Federal government trying to coerce states into remaining in the Union against their will.

Changes in State’s Rights

The Civil War resulted in a great change in the understanding of the rights of a state in America. During the war, there were many more violations of the Constitution. Lincoln revoked the writ of haebeus corpus in an unconstitutional manner, and he introduced paper money and the income tax, which the Constitution did not allow. However, these actions did not cause the major decay in state’s rights. After all, the Confederacy passed similar major violations of its Constitution during the war. America lost state’s rights during the war, because with the Northern victory, the states lost their ability to check the national government in any way. Unless they can ultimately leave the Union through secession, they have no leverage to stop any other unconstitutional abuses of power. Today states can still speak to violations of the constitution, however, they have lost the ultimate method of standing up to a tyrannical federal government. The war showed that the American government would not allow states to practice interposition without the shedding of much blood.

Texas v. White

The removal of the right of secession was made official with the Supreme Court decision Texas v. White in 1869. During the Civil War, the Texas government had sold its United States treasury bonds, and the case was over whether that sale was valid. In

217

Causes of the Civil War deciding the issue, the Supreme Court also spoke to their view of the legality of secession. There was little doubt as to what their decision would be on that point. A majority of the justices were appointed during the war. One, David Davis, had been Lincoln’s campaign manager. Another, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, had been a member of Lincoln’s cabinet. This case was being decided by a court appointed by the anti-secession North, as the South in their secession had left Congress. There was no surprise that they declared unilateral secession illegal.

Salmon P. Chase

The majority opinion of the court, written by Chief Justice Chase, said: The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to ‘be perpetual.’ And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained ‘to form a more perfect Union.’ It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not? ... When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an

218

State’s Rights indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.28

The court held that the American Union was indissoluble, and that there was a continuous Union under the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. This position was not based on sound legal reasoning. The states declared their independence from England as separate entities, not as a unified American nation. When they formed a “perpetual” union under the Articles of Confederation, they found that the government formed was too weak to perform the functions required. However, the amendment process was too difficult to modify the articles, so the government had to be reconstituted. This was not done as a unified nation. Each state returned to independence and then had to readopt the new form of government. Rhode Island and North Carolina even chose for a time to remain independent. The states seceded from the British Empire and the Articles of Confederation, and under the right circumstances, they could secede again. There was even one case where secession was allowed by the United States government. When Virginia voted to secede from the Union after the Battle of Fort Sumter, the decision was not unanimous. Of the 49 delegates representing the northwest portion of the state, only 17 voted for secession. The interests of the people of the area were more aligned with the North than the South. It was not long before several conventions were held in Wheeling, ultimately resulting in the formation of a new state, what is now West Virginia. They had seceded from Virginia, although the Constitution does not allow a state to be formed from the jurisdiction of another state, without the consent of the states involved as well as Congress. Virginia never gave its consent, although a “Restored Government” made up only of the pro-Union minority gave a veneer of legality.

Questions

Do you agree or disagree with the Supreme Court’s arguments against secession?

219

Causes of the Civil War

Further Study

The Real Lincoln by Thomas Dilorenzo Magna Charta Declaration of Arbroath Declaration of Independence Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions Declarations of Secession Avaliable online at www.DiscerningHistory.com/Causes

Footnotes 1 Judges 6-7. 2 Judges 3:15-30. 3

The Scottish Invention of America, Democracy and Human Rights: The History of Liberty and Freedom from the Ancient Celts to the New Millennium by Alexander Leslie Klieforth and Robert John Munfro (Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 2004) p. 191.

Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 4, Chapter 20, 1559 AD

Calvin in the Public Square: Liberal Democracies, Rights and Civil Liberties by David W. Hall (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2009) p. 73-74

A Heart Promptly Offered: The Revolutionary Leadership of John Calvin by David W. Hall (Nashville, TN: Cumberland House Publishing, 2006) p. 169.

Calvinism, Hyper-Calvinism, and Arminianism: A Workbook by Kenneth Talbot and Gary Crampton (Arlington Heights, IL, Christian Liberty Press, 1999) p. 131.

Ibid, p. 132.

Harper’s Encyclopædia of United States History: From 458 A. D. to 1906 by Benson John Lossing, et. al. (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishing, 1906) vol. 5, p. 245.

10 Life of John C. Calhoun: Presenting a Condensed History of Political Events from 1811 to 1843 (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1843) p. 39. 11 Abraham Lincoln: Complete Works edt. John G. Nicolay (New York: The Century Co. 1920) vol. 1, p. 105. 12 Inaugural Addresses of the Presidents of the United States (Bedford, MA: Applewood Books, 2000) vol. 1, p. 127. 13 The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln by Abraham Lincoln (History Book Club, 1953) vol. 4, p. 434. 14 Inaugural Addresses of the Presidents of the United States, p. 15. 15 Correspondence, and Miscellanies, from the Papers of Thomas Jefferson edt. Thomas Jefferson Randolph (Charlottesville: F. Carr and Co, 1829) vol. 4, p. 284. 16 The Writings of James Madison edt. Gaillard Hunt (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1910) vol. 9, p. 489-491. 17 Ibid. p. 604-605. 18 The Political History of Slavery in the United States by James Z. George (New York: The Neale Publishing Company, 1915) p. 58.

220

State’s Rights 19 The Jubilee of the Constitution: A Discourse Delivered at the request of the New York Historical Society, in the City of New York, on Tuesday, the 30th of April, 1839; being the fiftieth anniversary of the Inauguration of George Washington as President of the United States by John Quincy Adams (New York: Samuel Colman, 1839) p. 68-69. 20 A View of the Constitution of the United States by William Rawle (Philadelphia: Philip H. Nicklin, 1829) 2nd edition, p. 302-303. 21 Ibid, p. 306-307. 22 The Letters and Times of the Tylers by Lyon G. Tyler (Richmond: Whittet & Shepperson, 1885) vol. 2, p. 623-624. 23 Ibid, p. 640. 24 Complete State of the Union Addresses, (Forgotten Books, 2008) vol. 2, p. 570. 25 Ibid, p. 574. 26 Ibid, p. 576-578. 27 The Works of Alexander Hamilton edt John C. Hamilton (New York: John F. Trow, 1850) vol.. 2, p. 429430. 28 Texas v. White, 74 US 700 (1869).

221

Conclusion I

n this study guide, we have considered many of the issues that divided the country and led to the Civil War. The Confederate States of America considered themselves undertaking a second America War for Independence, and continuing the founding principles of the country. Just as in the first War for Independence, the idea was not to just throw off authority, but attempt to put that authority into proper constraints. At the same time, they did believe that the North had broken the Constitution, the national convenant, and as they formed a new nation, they wanted to bind the hands of the new Confederate national government so that the same errors would not happen again. The changes that the Confederates made in adopting a new constitution gives us a good summary of the problems and issues that led up to the Civil War.

Contrasting the Confederate and U.S. Constitutions When the first Southern States established the Confederate States of America in early 1861, they needed a constitution to govern the new nation. The constitution they adopted was in most cases word for word the same as the United States Constitution, but it did have some changes. Some were unimportant, such as insignificant changes resulting in the founding of a different nation, or clarifying practices that had already become standard. However, there

Confederate States of America

Causes of the Civil War were some significant, although often subtle, changes that were made, which reveal many of the issues that the South saw as very important.

Preamble United States

Confederate States

We the People of the United States, in

We, the people of the Confederate

Order to form a more perfect Union,

States, each State acting in its sovereign

establish

domestic

and independent character, in order

Tranquility, provide for the common

to form a permanent federal govern-

defense, promote the general Welfare,

ment, establish justice, insure domes-

and secure the Blessings of Liberty to

tic tranquility, and secure the blessings

ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain

of liberty to ourselves and our poster-

and establish this Constitution for the

ity — invoking the favor and guid-

United States of America.

ance of Almighty God — do ordain

Justice,

insure

and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.

They made several important changes in the preamble. First, they stated that the states were a party to the constitution. They held that this was already true under the US Constitution. Even the term “United States” expressed that, as although it is a familiar phrase to us today, its literal meaning is that the people acting through the states were forming this union. The people were not forming the government without the involvement of the states, as some interpret the Constitution. Second, they declared that they were establishing a permanent government. They would not have seen this as disallowing secession. The Articles of Confederation were to establish a permanent union, but it was dissolved to form a new government under the Constitution. If the Confederates believed that the states were violating the Constitution, they would have still upheld the right of secession as the compact had been broken. Third, they removed the general welfare clause. They thought it had been misused to greatly expand the power of the federal government in the antebellum years. Lastly, they directly invoked God. Although they were by no means the ideal Christian nation, they wanted to set themselves apart from the United States as a Christian nation fighting on the side of God.

Questions

How significant were the Confederate changes to the Preamble? Do you agree with the changes that they made?

224

Conclusion

Impeachment United States

Confederate States

The House of Representatives shall

choose

other

choose their Speaker and other offi-

Officers; and shall have the sole Power

cers; and shall have the sole power of

of Impeachment.

impeachment; except that any judi-

their

Speaker

and

cial or other Federal officer, resident and acting solely within the limits of any State, may be impeached by a vote of two-thirds of both branches of the Legislature thereof.

In this clause they expanded the powers of the states to resist incursions of the federal government. Even with the right of secession, they believed there had been a shift in the balance of power toward the national government from the states. To restore some of that power, they gave the state governments the power to remove any federal officer who operated solely in their state. Therefore, if they thought an officer was overstepping his bounds or implementing a policy they disagreed with, which only affected them, they could remove him on the state level.

Questions

How would the states having the right to impeachment change the balance of power?

Line Item Veto

Confederate States The President may approve any appropriation and disapprove any other appropriation in the same bill. In such case he shall, in signing the bill, designate the appropriations disapproved; and shall return a copy of such appropriations, with his objections, to the House in which the bill shall have originated; and the same proceedings shall then be had as in case of other bills disapproved by the President.

Whether or not to give the president the power of the line item veto is a debate that has been going on from the time of the founding of the country up to the present day. The Confederate States decided to allow the president to reject specific appropriations, instead of being forced to decide on a bill as a whole. It was a check on the practice of creating a compromise bill that gave everyone enough of what they wanted, so that the bill passed

225

Causes of the Civil War the Legislature. The line item veto was intended to force every aspect of a bill to stand on its own merits.

Questions

How would a line item veto change the legislative process? How does the line item veto shift the power from the legislative branch to the president? Would that shift be beneficial?

Tariffs United States

Confederate States

The Congress shall have Power To lay

The Congress shall have power To lay

and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and

and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and

Excises, to pay the Debts and provide

excises for revenue, necessary to pay

for the common Defence and general

the debts, provide for the common de-

Welfare of the United States; but all

fense, and carry on the Government of

Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be

the Confederate States; but no bounties

uniform throughout the United States;

shall be granted from the Treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry; and all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the Confederate States.

With this change the Southern States sought to address a problem they had with the United States, that protective tariffs were being passed which specifically favored one section of the country, and that bounties were giving money directly to individuals. Neither of these were constitutional under the United States Constitution, but they had been long practiced. Protective tariffs were against the stated purpose of the tariffs, to raise revenue. The bounties were not legal before, as they were not included in the list of enumerated powers. The Confederate States of America tried to make this even clearer by expressly forbidding these practices which they saw as economically damaging to their section of the country.

226

Conclusion

Internal Improvements United States

Confederate States

To regulate Commerce with foreign

To regulate commerce with foreign na-

Nations, and among the several States,

tions, and among the several States, and

and with the Indian Tribes;

with the Indian tribes; but neither this, nor any other clause contained in the Constitution, shall ever be construed to delegate the power to Congress to appropriate money for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce; except for the purpose of furnishing lights, beacons, and buoys, and other aids to navigation upon the coasts, and the improvement of harbors and the removing of obstructions in river navigation; in all which cases such duties shall be laid on the navigation facilitated thereby as may be necessary to pay the costs and expenses thereof.

Here they addressed another major economic complaint they had before the war – that the federal government was paying for internal improvements, choosing winners and losers and not treating all of those under its authority equally. Again, it was already not allowed under the United States Constitution, but the Confederates wanted to make it explicit that they were forbidden, except in the case of improving water navigation. Even those expenditures, however, were to be paid back by duties laid upon those who actually used the services provided.

Questions

Would the Confederate prohibitions on protective tariffs and internal improvements have stopped the Federal government?

227

Causes of the Civil War Post Office

United States

Confederate States

To establish Post Offices and post

To establish post offices and post

Roads;

routes; but the expenses of the Post Office Department, after the 1st day of March in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and sixty-three, shall be paid out of its own revenues.

This clause was intended to prevent the postal service from being a drain on the nation, instead it would function as much as possible as a private corporation, and was required to make a profit after two years. In this it was successful, even with the turmoil of war. In the United States, one of the largest areas of patronage, the ability to grant favors through appointments to offices, was in the Post Office. Whenever a new president was elected, he would appoint his friends as postmasters. With this clause, there would be pressure for the post office to be run in a more businesslike manner. The postmaster in the Confederacy throughout the war was John Reagan of Texas, a very efficient administrator. He was able to convince most of the staff at the United John Reagan States Post Office Department to come and work for him, and within six weeks he had the Confederate Post Office Department running smoothly. He was able to cut expenses so that the post office turned a profit throughout the war, something the USPS was never able to do.

Questions

Should there be a monopoly for a government post office? Should it be completely privatized? How would reversing the choice to nationalize the post office effect the country?

228

Conclusion

Slave Trade

United States

Confederate States

The Migration or Importation of such

The importation of negroes of the

Persons as any of the States now exist-

African race from any foreign coun-

ing shall think proper to admit, shall

try other than the slaveholding States

not be prohibited by the Congress prior

or Territories of the United States of

to the Year one thousand eight hun-

America, is hereby forbidden; and

dred and eight, but a Tax or duty may

Congress is required to pass such laws

be imposed on such Importation, not

as shall effectually prevent the same.

exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.

Contrary to what most people would think, the Confederate Constitution did not allow the African slave trade. They wrote the law which had forbidden it after 1808 in the United States directly into their own constitution. The majority of Southerners at the time recognized that the trade was an evil in which they did not wish to take part.

Right to Own Slaves United States

Confederate States

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto

No bill of attainder, ex post facto law,

Law shall be passed.

or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

The major cause of the secession of the cotton states was over their right to own slaves, and so they clarified it in their Constitution. They referred to slavery by name in the document, as opposed to the US Constitution which had avoided the term. Here, they forbid the federal government from passing any law impairing the right to own slaves. Alexander Stephens, vice-president of the Confederacy, referred to slavery as one of the cornerstones of the Confederate States of America, and they protected it explicitly in the constitution.

Questions

Should the Confederate Constitution have guaranteed the right to own slaves?

229

Causes of the Civil War Finances

Confederate States Congress shall appropriate no money from the Treasury except by a vote of twothirds of both Houses, taken by yeas and nays, unless it be asked and estimated for by some one of the heads of departments and submitted to Congress by the President; or for the purpose of paying its own expenses and contingencies; or for the payment of claims against the Confederate States, the justice of which shall have been judicially declared by a tribunal for the investigation of claims against the Government, which it is hereby made the duty of Congress to establish. All bills appropriating money shall specify in Federal currency the exact amount of each appropriation and the purposes for which it is made; and Congress shall grant no extra compensation to any public contractor, officer, agent, or servant, after such contract shall have been made or such service rendered.

The Southerners added this phrase to their constitution to limit the corruption and size of the Federal government by requiring that if an appropriation was not explicitly requested by the head of an executive department, it would require a two-thirds majority. This clause makes it more difficult for Congress to pass laws spending money to buy votes, when the executive department did not think that it was necessary. They also required that all government contracts specifically limit the money spent, so that the work would not be half completed and then the contract changed to require more of the public’s money.

Confederate Seal

Subject of Laws

Confederate States Every law, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.

This clause was to prevent Congress from passing bills relating to more than one subject. This would stop them from trying to force the president to sign a bill because it contained some provisions he supported, while he opposed others. Instead, each bill would stand on its own, and the president would be able to sign or veto them separately.

230

Conclusion

President’s Term United States

Confederate States

The executive Power shall be vested

The executive power shall be vested in

in a President of the United States of

a President of the Confederate States

America. He shall hold his Office dur-

of America. He and the Vice President

ing the Term of four Years, and, togeth-

shall hold their offices for the term of

er with the Vice President, chosen for

six years; but the President shall not be

the same Term....

reeligible.

The Confederate Constitution lengthened the term of the president to six years, but did not allow him to run for re-election. George Washington, first President of the United States, had set a historical pattern by only serving two terms, and he had been emulated by all the presidents up until the time of the Civil War. The Confederate government recognized the possibility of a man running for more terms, and wished to put a stop to any problems that would result. That situation occurred, in fact, with Frankin Delanor Roosevelt, who was elected for four terms. After his death, however, the 22nd Amendment to the United States Constitution was passed, which limited the presidents to only two terms.

Questions

How would changing the term of office and the ability to run again affect the presidency?

Territories

Confederate States The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates [sic]; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

231

Causes of the Civil War The United States provided for the admission of new states, but it did not explicitly provide for the United States government to purchase land to be settled, and then become a state. Nevertheless, this power was exercised all the way back to Thomas Jefferson. In the Confederate Constitution, a new clause relating to territories was added, giving the power to purchase land, and clarifying the process of forming that land into states. It also guaranteed that these would be slave territories, trying to establish unity on an issue that had so divided the country.

Questions

Should the federal government have power to purchase new land?

Amendments United States

Confederate States

The Congress, whenever two thirds of

Upon the demand of any three States,

both Houses shall deem it necessary,

legally assembled in their several con-

shall propose Amendments to this

ventions, the Congress shall summon

Constitution, or, on the Application

a convention of all the States, to take

of the Legislatures of two thirds of the

into consideration such amendments to

several States, shall call a Convention

the Constitution as the said States shall

for proposing Amendments, which,

concur in suggesting at the time when

in either Case, shall be valid to all

the said demand is made; and should

Intents and Purposes, as Part of this

any of the proposed amendments to the

Constitution, when ratified by the

Constitution be agreed on by the said

Legislatures of three fourths of the sev-

convention — voting by States — and

eral States, or by Conventions in three

the same be ratified by the Legislatures

fourths thereof, as the one or the other

of two-thirds of the several States, or by

Mode of Ratification may be proposed

conventions in two-thirds thereof — as

by the Congress; Provided that no

the one or the other mode of ratifica-

Amendment which may be made prior

tion may be proposed by the general

to the Year One thousand eight hun-

convention — they shall thenceforward

dred and eight shall in any Manner af-

form a part of this Constitution. But no

fect the first and fourth Clauses in the

State shall, without its consent, be de-

Ninth Section of the first Article; and

prived of its equal representation in the

that no State, without its Consent, shall

Senate.

be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

232

Conclusion The United States Constitution provided that two-thirds of the states could call for a convention to propose amendments. It had not happened up to that point in American history and has not happened since, although every state except Hawaii has at some point requested a convention. The Confederate Constitution made this process much easier, with the application of only three states necessitating the calling of a convention. It would also have made the ratification easier, requiring only two-thirds of the states rather than three-quarters.

Questions

What are the benefits and drawbacks to making it easier to change the Constitution? What amendments should righteously be made to the United States Constitution?

Summary of Differences

Although many of these changes were minor, they made important points. They revealed the causes of the war – slavery, economics and state’s rights. They introduced new ideas to improve the functions of the Federal government. Although separately they might seem minor, they introduced substantial changes to the working of the general government.

Causes of the War

Through this study guide, we have attempted to show how issues arose between 1776 and 1861 which ended up dividing the country. Those issues were primarily driven by religious differences and the differences in culture that were produced by the varying beliefs. The split of the country into a Unitarian Northeast, an Arminian Northwest and a Calvinistic South, set the nation on the path that would manifest itself in very different and conflicting views on political issues.

Slavery

Slavery was a major dividing point with strongly held positions on both sides. How you view slavery depends on how you view man. If you view man as basically good, slavery becomes a cruel institution that represses a man from fulfilling his natural abilities. On the other hand, you can see certain races as lesser types of man, allowing you to enslave them unmercifully. If, however, you hold that man is depraved, you can recognize that there are times when the best thing for a man might be for him to be enslaved. If you believe that

233

Causes of the Civil War God would never force a choice on man, then it becomes evil for a man to force another man to do anything. If you believe that God is sovereign as declared by the Word of God, then you accept that there are times when it is good that God sends an entire people into slavery as a punishment.1 You trust that even in punishment God does it to both chastise and call people to Him. You also have to accept that slavery is typically a punishment on the slave whether for his sin or his culture’s sin, and it was not inherently sinful for the slaveholder to own slaves, especially since slavery is a picture of Jesus Christ’s redemption of his people. If you hate the idea of God as Lord, how can you do anything but hate the idea of slavery?

Economics

Economics also split the North and the South, especially along the lines of what is a legitimate function of government. Again, religion drives the view of what government should do. In the Calvinistic view, the primary purpose of government is to constrain evil. God instituted government in order to punish evil doers and to put evil out from the society, because without constraint man’s foot will run toward evil. For the government to be involved in economic manipulation is to steal from one people to give to another part of the people. If, however, you believe that every man has good in him or, even worse, every man has some divinity in him, then the best men will make the best economic decisions. It would be fine for them to pick winners and losers because the best people will make the best decisions, so Jefferson Davis’s inauguration for the prosperity of the country, the elites should make those decisions. The Bible, on the other hand, says prosperity is from the hand of God and is a sign of blessing or cursing by God, a fruit of obedience and disobedience to the Word of God.2

State’s Rights

The last major area of disagreement between the North and the South was over how much sovereignty did the states retain when they entered into the United States of America. The Calvinists have a covenantal view of government which is reflected in the

234

Constitution of the United States. The powers of the general government were specific and enumerated. But those who think that man does not require constraint think that it was a document that was intended to do what was best for the people and can be modified by whoever is in power to accomplish that end. It is this view that is predominant today and it has created an ever increasing Federal government as they work to make more and more decisions in the best interest of the people. The ability to constrain the Federal government was eliminated by removing the right to secession. The ability to constrain the Federal government is gone and the national covenant becomes an elastic thing. That is not how God treats covenants. Instead, He says he will judge those who will not keep their covenants.3

Conclusion

The same issues that caused war in the 1860s are still in the nation today and the true solution to them has never been to deal with the outworkings. The solution always lies in what is called the Great Commission, to turn people back to the biblical foundations for government and society. First, through the preaching of the gospel and baptizing people in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost; because without knowing and understanding God, no one can properly understand the world. Second, to teach them to obey all things that Christ has commanded us. The problems in the United Stats, and any country, are rooted in man’s rebellion to God and his commands. If we want unity, peace and healing of our land, people must repent and turn back to the living God and desire to obey Him in all things.

Further Study

Complete Confederate Constitution Avaliable online at www.DiscerningHistory.com/Causes

Footnotes 1 Deuteronomy 28:68 “And the LORD shall bring thee into Egypt again with ships, by the way whereof I spake unto thee, Thou shalt see it no more again: and there ye shall be sold unto your enemies for bondmen and bondwomen, and no man shall buy you.” 2 Deuteronomy 28 3 Psalm 15:4 In whose eyes a vile person is contemned; but he honoureth them that fear the LORD. He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not.

Final Exam T

his is the final exam for Discerning History: Causes of the Civil War. It pulls information from both the episodes and the study guide, so you should have completed both before taking the test. The questions require no more than a one sentence answer. A printable version to write on and the answer key are available at www.DiscerningHistory. com/Causes. For questions 1 - 5 choose the doctrine that the question describes from the list below: a. Calvinism b. Arminianism c. Pelagianism d. Interposition e. Revivalism f. Unitarianism. g. Abolitionism H. Transcendentalism 1. The belief that God is only one person. 2. The use of methods to sway people to choose Christ. 3. The idea that God is sovereign in salvation. 4. Opposition to slavery. 5. The theory that Adam’s fall did not taint human nature. 6. Man must freely choose God to be saved.

Causes of the Civil War 7. Which of these were part of the Triumvirate? a) Jefferson Davis b) John C. Calhoun c) Stephen Douglas d) Abraham Lincoln e) John Quincy Adams f ) George Washington g) Daniel Webster h) Henry Clay i) Andrew Jackson 8. Which three of these were Unitarians? a) John Brown b) William Lloyd Garrison c) Louisa May Alcott d) George Whitefield e) Lyman Beecher f ) John Adams 9. Which of these men was NOT present at the capture or hanging of John Brown? a) Robert E. Lee b) Frederick Douglass c) Thomas Jackson d) J. E. B. Stuart e) John Wilkes Booth 10. Who attacked Charles Sumner? a) John C. Calhoun b) Preston Brooks c) Andrew Butler d) Abraham Lincoln e) Stephen Douglass 11. What was the first fort the Confederates ever captured? a) Castle Pinckney b) Fort Sumter c) Fort Moultrie d) Fort Johnson

238

Final Exam e) Fort Pickens 12. Which one of these was not one of the Secret Six? a) Franklin Benjamin Sanborn b) Thomas Wentworth Higginson c) Theodore Parker d) George Luther Stearns e) Frederick Douglass f ) Samuel Gridley Howe 13. Who was the only ex-president who joined the South when they seceded? a) Thomas Jefferson b) Andrew Jackson c) Martin Van Buren d) James Buchanan e) John Tyler 14. What state was both Jefferson Davis and Abraham Lincoln born in? a) Tennessee b) Mississippi c) Kentucky d) North Carolina e) Illinois For questions 15-18 choose from this list: a. Virginia b. New York c. Mississippi d. North Carolina e. Alaska f. Colorado g. Kansas h. Kentucky i. California j. Texas 15. Which state (s) tried to proclaim itself/themselves neutral? 16. Which state (s) seceded after the battle of Fort Sumter? 17. Which state (s) remained in the Union?

239

Causes of the Civil War 18. In which state did fighting take place in 1856? 19. What were the four main causes of the Civil War? 20. How many people did John Brown kill in the Pottawatomie Massacre? a) None b) 2 c) 5 d) 10 e) 50 97. How many people were killed and wounded during the battle of Fort Sumter? a) None b) 1 c) 12 d) 23 e) 52 22. What were the three elements in Hamilton’s American System? 23. What was the problem with Hamilton’s economic plans? 24. What does “Triumvirate” mean? 25. In what position was Clay the second most powerful man in America? 26. What are the 5 points of Calvinism? 27. Which country’s church were the Five Articles of Remonstrance trying to change? 28. Why did Whitefield decide to go to America? 29. What doctrine was Wesley preaching against in his sermon Free Grace? 30. What were the two major theological movements in the 19th century North? 31. What was Finney’s theology, and how did it influence his preaching? 32. How did the universities fall away from the truth? 33. How did Jackson abolish the Second National Bank? 34. What economic system was Abraham Lincoln associated with? 35. Why did John Brown say he failed in business? 36. Why did John Brown first go to Kansas? 37. Was Kansas legally pro-slavery or free after the Wakabusa War? 38. What happened when John Brown was in Lawrence?

240

Final Exam 39. What ended Bleeding Kansas? 40. Why was Harper’s Ferry a strategically important location? 41. What is the difference between guns and mortars? 42. What were the three types of cannon balls used during the Civil War? 43. Who were the Union and Confederate commanders at the Battle of Fort Sumter? 44. How did the Confederates light Fort Sumter on fire? 45. Why did John Brown raid Harper’s Ferry? 46. Why was the Battle of Sullivan’s Island so important? 47. What was the danger of re-boring cannons? 48. Why did Anderson decide to surrender? 49. What state was Major Robert Anderson from? 50. Why was the Kansas-Nebraska Compromise so hotly contested? 51. What were Lincoln and Douglas campaigning for, when they had their famous debates? 52. Why did Charles Sumner get caned in the Senate? 53. What position did Davis want to be appointed in the Confederacy? 54. What is the doctrine of interposition? 55. What was James Buchanan’s view on secession? 56. What is the modern view of secession? 57. What is the importance of the phrase “We the People” in the American Constitution? 58. What is the difference between a Federal Government and a National Government? 59. What two states waited to join the United States until the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution? 60. What were the key elements of the Missouri Compromise of 1820? 61. Who were the three men running against Lincoln in the 1860 election, and what were their positions on slavery in new territories? 62. Why did some of the Southern states secede when Lincoln was elected? 63. What were three of the states which seceded when Lincoln was elected. 64. What was the resolution of the Dred Scott case by the Supreme Court? 65. Why was the Union supply fleet unable to reach the fort to bring them provisions? 66. What was Lincoln’s military experience before the Civil War?

241

Causes of the Civil War 67. Which of the Great Triumvirate did Lincoln’s views most closely align with? 68. Which battle and war turned Jefferson Davis into a military hero? 69. What was a change that Jefferson Davis made as Secretary of War? 70. When did the Confederate states write the Confederate constitution? 71. Where did most of the generals in the Civil War get their prominence from? 72. Why did New England oppose the War of 1812 to the point of considering secession? 73. Why was it important to have forts built before a war broke out? 74. Name the four forts in the Charleston Harbor. 75. Why did the United States Troops move from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter? 76. When did the Confederates first fire upon the American flag? 77. What are the two basic types of artillery? 78. Why were some abolitionists happy when the South seceded? 79. Why did the upper South secede? 80. What rank in the United States Army did Lee hold immediately before the Civil War? 81. Who was the commander of the Union Army before the Civil War? 82. When did the Congress of the United States outlaw the slave trade? 83. What part did Harriet Beecher Stowe have in causing the Civil War? 84. Under what circumstances is it likely that Jefferson Davis met Abraham Lincoln? 85. Why wasn’t Fort Sumter able to hold out? 86. What was the courts decision about the Africans on the Amistad? 87. What are three Biblical examples of slavery. 88. What was the difference between William Garrison’s and Frederick Douglass’s views on abolitionism? 89. Was Clay for or against the Missouri Compromise, and the Compromise of 1850? 90. What battle made Andrew Jackson a national hero? 91. What party supported Jackson’s campaign for president? 92. Why did Whitefield push for slavery? 93. Why would people choose to become indentured servants? 94. What is chattel slavery? 95. What effect did Calvinism have on the doctrine of government?

242

Final Exam 96. What is the difference between revolution and interposition? 97. What was the Military Academy many Civil War leaders attended? 98. Who was Andrew Jackson fighting when he gained his first military experience? 99. What part of the army did P. G. T. Beauregard serve in before the war? 100. What general gained enough fame in the Mexican War that he was later elected the 12th president?

243

Index

abolitionism 28, 29, 61, 62, 63, 78, 82, 98, 103, 128, 146, 153 Adams, John 26, 76, 208 Adams, John Quiincy 142 Adams, John Quincy 26, 72, 73, 80, 86, 208, 209 Africa 39, 41, 42, 44, 58, 62, 39 Alabama 148, 150 Alcott, Louisa May 26 America 4 American Colonization Society 181 American Revolution 84, 159 American System 67, 72, 73, 76, 80, 81, 84, 90, 181 Anderson, Major Robert 167, 168, 169, 171, 174, 176, 177, 178 Arizona 133 Arkansas 148 Arminianism 2, 4, 6, 7, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 233 Arminius, Jacob 4, 12 Articles of Confederation 128, 129, 200, 218, 219, 224 Augustine 3, 59

B Baltimore 119 Beauregard, P. G. T. 173 Beecher, Lyman 99 Belgic Confession 4 Bell, John 148 Beza, Theodore 199 Biddle, Nicholas 86 Black Hawk War 179, 180 Bleeding Kansas 100, 127, 135, 144 Boston 26, 29, 30, 32, 75 bounties 67, 68, 69, 70, 226 Breckinridge, John C. 148 Brierfield Plantation 181 Brooks, Preston 144, 145 Brown, John 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 104, 105, 107, 109, 110, 112, 114, 116, 117, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126 Brown, Oliver 114 Brown, Owen 114

Brown, Peter 97 Brown, Watson 114 Buchanan, James 138, 148, 172, 214, 215, 216 Buren, Martin Van 93 Burns, Anthony 28, 29, 30, 31 Butler, Andrew 144

C Calhoun, John Caldwell 76, 79, 81, 83, 88, 201 California 74, 133, 148 Calvinism 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 24, 26, 28, 97, 99, 198, 233, 234 Calvin, John 198 Canada 73, 113 Canons of Dort 6 Cass, Lewis 133 Castle Pinckney 166, 167 Charleston 159, 160, 162, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 171, 172, 173, 174, 193 Charleston Arsenal 169, 172 Chase, Salmon P. 218 Chester, Sergeant James 174, 175 Chicago 121 Chicago Tribune 94, 121, 124 Clay 73, 74, 76, 77, 80, 86, 88, 90 Clay, Henry 71, 72, 73, 74, 76, 77, 78, 80, 83, 86, 133, 134, 181 Cleveland, Henry 140 Clinton, Henry 162, 164, 165 Cobb, Thomas 57, 59 Compromise of 1850 74, 78, 83, 127, 133, 134, 137, 185 Confederate Constitution 128, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232 Confederate States of America 128, 223, 224, 226, 229, 231 Connecticut 148, 152 Constitution 31, 32, 46, 62, 63, 70, 72, 76, 79, 86, 88, 92, 96, 127, 129, 136, 138, 139, 141, 143, 148, 185, 186, 187, 188, 191, 200, 204, 205, 206, 207, 209, 210, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 221, 223, 224, 226, 227, 229, 231, 232, 233, 235 Constitutional Union Party 148

Crawford, William H. 204 Crittenden Compromise 146

D Dabney, Robert Lewis 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56 Daingerfield, John 114 Davis, David 218 Davis, Jefferson 128, 142, 179, 181, 185, 186, 189, 191 Davis, Varina 182, 186 Declaration of Arbroath 197, 199 Declaration of Independence 101, 113, 123, 150, 199, 209, 214, 220 Delaware 148 Democracy 201 Democratic Party 86, 135, 139, 142, 147 Democratic-Republican party 72 Dod, Albert Baldwin 25 Doubleday, Abner 175 Douglass, Frederick 112 Douglas, Stephen Arnold 74, 78, 83, 133, 134, 135, 136, 138, 144, 147, 149, 187, 188 Dred Scott decision 88 duel 72, 84

E Emerson, Ralph Waldo 26, 112 Emerson, William 26 England 4, 14, 15, 19, 24, 26, 35, 36, 40, 42, 46, 72, 75, 76, 79, 80, 81, 89, 94, 165

F Federalist party 72 Finney, Charles 24, 25, 97, 99 Florida 82, 85, 148, 150 Forbes, Colonel Hugh 112, 113 Fort Crawford 181 Fort Johnson 167 Fort Moultrie 160, 162, 164, 166, 168, 169, 170, 172, 175, 176 Fort Sumter 159, 166, 167, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 176, 177, 178, 180, 219 Foster, Captain John G. 167 Franklin, Benjamin 23 Free Soil Party 92, 93, 141, 142 French Revolution 203

G Garrison, William Lloyd 26, 61, 62, 63, 64, 112, 141

Georgia 33, 34, 57, 59, 72, 85, 94, 148, 150, 151 Glanville, Jerome 106 Great Awakening 14, 23, 24, 26

H Hamilton, Alexander 67, 68, 69, 70, 217 Hammond, James 59, 60 Harper’s Ferry 97, 113, 114, 118, 119, 120, 121, 124 Harris, James 106 Harrison, William Henry 73, 77 Harvard University 26, 140, 141 Hayne, Robert 76 Henry, Matthew 34 Higginson, Thomas Wentworth 112 Hillard, George 140 Holmes, Oliver Wendell 26 House of Representatives 71, 72, 73, 75, 76, 79, 80, 86, 89, 91, 176, 182, 183, 191, 225 Howe, Julia Ward 125 Howe, Samuel Gridley 112, 140

I Illinois 121, 135, 136, 138, 139, 148, 157, 180 indenture 36, 37 indentured servitude 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 Indiana 148 internal improvements 70, 80, 91, 92, 227 Interposition 195, 197, 199, 213 Iowa 148, 152

J Jackson, Andrew 72, 80, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 95, 136 Jackson, Stonewall 46 Jamestown 35 Jefferson Davis 178, 179, 180, 181, 183, 185, 186, 189, 192, 193 Jefferson, Thomas 76, 129, 130, 166, 204 John Brown’s Body 124 Johnston, Albert Sidney 179 Johnston, Sarah Bush 180

K Kagi, John Henry 114 Kansas 100, 101, 103, 104, 107, 109, 112, 114, 116, 127, 134, 135, 137, 138, 143, 144, 152 Kansas-Nebraska Act 127, 134, 143, 187 Kennedy House 114, 120 Kentucky 71, 72, 73, 74, 148, 149, 155, 178, 179, 180, 182, 191, 204, 206

Kentucky Resolutions 204 Knox, John 199 Knox, Sarah 181 Kuyper, Abraham 198

L Lee, Charles 159 Lee, Robert E. 118, 121, 179 Liberty Party 74 Lincoln, Abraham 89, 91, 92, 95, 135, 138, 139, 147, 149, 150, 178, 180, 182, 183, 187, 189, 191, 201, 214, 218 Lincoln, Mary Todd 182 Longfellow, Henry Wadsworth 26, 140 Louisiana 148, 178 Louisiana Purchase 130, 133, 134

M Madison, James 76, 204, 205, 206, 207, 215 Magna Carta 197 Maine 130, 148, 152 Maryland 37, 63, 65, 114, 115, 119, 120, 148 Massachusetts 71, 72, 75, 76, 78, 124, 131, 141, 142, 143, 148, 152 Melville, Herman 26 Mexican-American War 74 Mexican War 110, 114, 132, 133, 136, 140, 142, 182, 183, 186, 201 Mexico 73, 74, 83, 130, 132, 133, 152, 183, 184, 185 Michigan 148, 152 Minnesota 148 Mississippi 148, 150, 178, 180, 181, 182, 184, 185, 186, 189 Mississippi Rifles 184, 185 Mississippi River 180 Missouri 103, 110, 113, 127, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 149, 155, 157 Missouri Compromise 72, 80, 127, 129, 130, 133, 134, 157, 211 Monroe, James 80 Montalembert, Marquis de 166 Monterey, siege of 184 Moultrie, William 161, 165

N National Bank 73, 77, 80, 86, 88, 89, 90 National Republicans 73 Nebraska 127, 134, 135, 137, 143, 157 New England 26, 29

New Hampshire 75, 148, 152 New Jersey 148, 149 New Mexico 74, 133 New Orleans 85, 129, 130, 136, 180 Newton, John 39, 44, 45, 46, 64 New York 17, 74, 89, 96, 148, 152 New York City 188, 189 North Carolina 136, 148, 155 Northwest Ordinance 127, 128 nullification 76, 77, 81, 82, 83, 88, 89 Nullification Crisis 88, 89, 95

O Oberlin College 97 Oglethorpe, James 33 Ohio 148, 152 Oregon 148 Oregon Territory 183 Owen, John 3

P Parker, Theodore 78, 99, 112 Patton, William Weston 124 Peace Conference 211 Pelagius 7 Pennsylvania 90, 152 Perkins, Simon 100 Pierce, Franklin 186 Point, West 179 Polk, James K. 73, 83, 91, 182, 185 Polk, Leonidas 179 Popular Sovereignty 127, 133, 137, 139 Post Office 228 Potomac 118 Presbyterian church 191 President 17 President of the United States 72, 76, 77, 80, 82, 86, 138, 205, 208, 211, 214, 225, 230, 231 Princeton University 25 Puritans 14, 99

R race 49, 57, 58, 60 Ralph Waldo Emerson 28 Rawle, William 210 Reagan, John 228 Realf, Richard 112 Reid, John William 110 republic 201 Republican Party 89, 90, 93, 128, 134, 143, 146,

147, 149, 150, 188, 189 Revolution 201, 202, 203 Rhode Island 148, 152 Robert the Bruce 197 Rockingham Convention 76 Rousseau, Jean Jacques 203 Ruth 98

S Sanborn, Franklin Benjamin 112 Schurz, Carl 186 secession 74, 81, 82, 88, 90, 94, 201, 204, 206, 215, 220 Secretary of State 71, 73, 77, 78, 83, 86, 135 Secretary of War 80, 82, 186, 187, 190, 191 Secret Six 112, 140 Senate 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 82, 83, 85, 86, 96, 128, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 142, 143, 145, 146, 147, 185, 186, 188, 189, 190 Sherman, William 106, 107 slavery 33, 34, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 82, 96, 98, 127, 128, 129, 132, 133, 134, 137, 138, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 153, 154, 155, 39, 229 Slave Trade 39, 40, 46, 64, 229 Smith, Adam 68 Smith, Isaac 114, 115 South Carolina 71, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 88, 144, 145, 148, 149, 150, 152, 159, 162, 167, 168, 169, 172, 173, 178, 193 Spain 33, 85, 86, 129 Speaker of the House 72, 73, 75, 76, 80 Star of the West 172, 173 Stearns, George Luther 98, 112 Stearns, Henry L. 98 Stevens, Aaron C. 114, 118 Stowe, Harriet Beecher 138 Stuart, J. E. B. 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 Sullivan’s Island 159, 160, 162, 165, 175 Sumner, Charles 136, 140, 142, 143, 145, 146, 149 Supreme Court 76, 88, 113, 183, 217, 218 Synod of Dort 4, 6, 9, 11, 13, 14

T Taney, Roger B. 88 tariff 80, 81, 82, 88, 90, 128, 226 Tarleton, Banastre 162 Taylor, Zachary 77, 181, 183, 184, 185 Tennessee 72, 84, 85, 86, 149

Texas 73, 74, 77, 83, 132, 133, 136, 148, 150, 151, 152, 154, 155, 157, 208, 217, 218, 219, 221, 228 Thompson, Dauphin 114 Thompson, William 114 Thoreau, Henry David 26, 112, 122, 123 Til, Henry Van 1 trade embargo 75 Transcendentalism 26, 122 Treaty of Paris 128 Tyler, John 77, 83, 211, 212, 213

U Unitarianism 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 112, 122, 233 Utah 74, 133

V Van Buren, Martin 88, 89 Vermont 135 Vice President 76, 77, 80 Virginia 29, 71, 77, 88, 118, 130, 149, 155, 200, 201, 205, 206, 211, 213, 219 Virginia Resolution 200

W War for Independence 128, 200, 203 War, Mexican 77 War of 1812 72, 75, 76, 80, 85 Washington DC 74, 87, 118, 119, 142, 181 Washington, George 88 Webster, Daniel 71, 75, 76, 77, 79, 83, 206 Wesley, John 15, 16, 18, 21, 23 Westminster Catechism 3 Westminster Confession 24 West Virginia 219 Whig Party 73, 74, 77, 90, 91, 135, 141, 143, 188 Whitefield, George 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 33, 34, 35 Wightman, John 106 Wilmot Proviso 127, 133 Wisconsin 148, 152