Slave States Research Articles

The Majority Principle: Calhoun and His Antecedents

A reading of John Calhoun's speeches, state papers, and formal writings leaves a clear impression of masterly intellect.1 From his earliest days as congressman from South Carolina to his last years as genius of the slave states, Calhoun spoke and wrote with a rare force and elegance. One might almost say that his words were in excess of the occasions; he philosophized, he generalized, he expressed himself as if his audience were made up of political scholastics. For this quality of irrepressible intellectual excess the idle student of political ideas should be grateful. More to the point, however, is the capacity of his thought to demoralize all those who subscribe to the principles of democratic government. For it is not easy to repel Calhoun's arguments, to repel his theory of concurrent majority. His thought is so elevated, so cunningly contrived, the values he invokes are so compelling that at times it seems nearly impossible to resist him. The embarrassment becomes more acute when one recalls the tribute

The Antislavery Movement in the Upper South Before 1840

BENJAMIN LuNDY, THE ABOLITIONIST EDITOR OF THE Genius of Universal Emancipation, estimated that there were in 1827 a total of 106 antislavery societies with 5,150 members in the slave states, whereas there were no more than 24 such organizations with 1,475 members in the free states.' These statistics have frequently been used by scholars to support the thesis that there was a strong antislavery movement in the South before an alleged reaction in the 1830's repressed a rising tide of antislavery feeling and transformed it into a positive defense of the institution of slavery.2 Since most Southern antislavery sentiment was in the upper slave states, this paper seeks to determine the validity of this interpretation by a survey and analysis of the antislavery movement in these states.

The Arm-in-Arm Convention

the: arm-in-arm convention Thomas Wagstaff Seven thousand delegates and spectators, packed into a hastily constructed board "wigwam" on Philadelphia's Girard Avenue, shook the rickety structure with applause. James L. Orr, the massively framed governor of South Carolina, late senator in the Congress of the Confederate States of America, ostentatiously clasped the arm of Massachusetts ' short, stocky General Darius N. Couch; together they led the delegations of their respective states solemnly down the center aisle to their seats. When the wild cheering began to subside, General Richard Taylor, only a year before commander of the last Confederate army to surrender its arms, stood on his chair to send it roaring up afresh with a lusty cry for "three cheers for the thirty-six states of the Union." It was August 14, 1866. Alexander W. Randall, former War Governor of Wisconsin, rapped for order, using a gavel wrought from the timbers of the U.S.S. Constitution, "Old Ironsides." The "Arm-inArm Convention," the political culmination of Andrew Johnson's reconstruction policy, had begun.1 Organized by Johnson's Conservative Republican supporters in the North and the representatives of his restored governments in the South, the National Union movement that called the Philadelphia Convention aimed at the formation of a national political coalition that would control the congressional elections in 1866 and elect Johnson President in 1868.2 In 1864 the Republican party had retitled itself the Union party and successfully increased its influence among War Democrats and in the border slave states. The nomination of the nation's best known southern loyalist, Andrew Johnson, as Abraham Lincoln's running mate symbolized that purpose . Following Lincoln's assassination and the closing of the military phase of the Civil War, Johnson moved to perfect the political coalii Harper's Weekly, Sept. 1, 1866; New York Herald, Aug. 15, 1866; Richard Taylor, Destruction and Reconstruction, ed. by Richard B. Harwell (New York, 1955), pp. 310-311. 2 John and LaWanda Ck)X, Politics, Principle and Prejudice, 1865-1866 (New York, 1963), pp. 31-33, 46-47, strongly supports the view that Johnson attempted a reorganization of national political parties in 1865-1866. The same idea is considered, but rejected, by Eric L. McKitrick, Andrew Johnson and Reconstruction (Chicago, I960), pp. 13, 397-403. 101 102CIVIL WAR HISTORY tion that had won him the Vice-Presidency and to extend it into the defeated Confederacy. He hoped to bring the reconstructed South into the Union coalition, read the Radicals out of the Republican party and then merge its Conservative and Moderate wings with defecting sections of the Democratic party to form an unbeatable political combination .5 In the first six months of Johnson's administration the movement progressed rapidly. By the end of 1865 it had begun to achieve formal organization in the shape of Union-Johnson political clubs springing up throughout the country.4 Southern state governments had been reorganized under Johnson's sole influence. Full congressional delegations from every former Confederate state, including several would-be United States senators who had been hand-picked by Johnson, and all voicing full support for the President and his policies, stood ready to take their seats.5 The Radical counterattack mustering strength in Congress first to block the admittance of the southern representatives and to pass the Freedmen's and Civil Rights BiUs over Johnson's vetoes, then checked the momentum of the National Union movement. As the strength of the opposition increased, Johnson and his supporters concentrated their efforts on the crucial congressional elections to be held in the fall of 1866. Sometime early in June they decided to hold the National Union convention and to make it the focal point of their campaign. Shortly thereafter Secretary of State William H. Seward discussed the plans for the convention with Thurlow Weed, who in turn conferred 3 Edward Stanwood, A History of the Presidency (Boston, 1904), pp. 301304 ; William Best Hesseltine, Lincolns Phn of Reconstruction (Tuscaloosa, I960), passim, details Republican attempts to infiltrate the southern and border states during the war; Cordon S. P. Kleesburg, The Formation of the Republican Party as a National Organization (New York, 1911), p. 225; Cox, Politics, Principle and...

The Civil War—Russian Version (I): from the Soviet Encyclopedia

THE CIVIL WARRUSSIAN VERSION (I): FROM THE SOVIET ENCYCLOPEDIA Translated by Ada M. Stoflet [EDITOR'S NOTE: Foreign commentaries on our Civil War are of continuing fascination. In this issue Civil War History affords a rare opportunity to glimpse the cunent Russian view. The following article, taken from the official Soviet encyclopedia, the Bolshaia Sovetskaia Entsiklopedia (2nd ed; Moscow, 1949-1958), XII, 408-412, represents a version of the Great Conflict approved for all Soviet citizens. Although a translation of the Entsiklopedia's general summary of American history has already been published (see Ann E. Yanko, et al., A Soviet View of the American Past [Madison, Wis., 1960] ), this is the first time the Civil War article has appeared in English. [Except for the exclusion of a short bibliography and several crossreference notations, the text presented here is unabridged. Source citations , however, have been changed into footnotes keyed to Englishtranslation editions instead of the Russian-language volumes originally fisted. A temptation to encumber the nanative with editorial notes qualifying the many highly questionable points of interpretation was resisted. Marxist distortions and oversimplifications, as well as occasional enors of fact, will be apparent to anyone generally familiar with the literature on the war. Possibly surprising, however, will be the role of Marx and Engels—the fathers of communism—as Civd War armchair strategists, their comments having originally appeared in the New York Tribune and the Vienna Presse (1861-1862) as well as in conespondence with one another. [The translator, Ada M. Stoflet, is currently a member of the Reference Department at the State University of Iowa Library. She gratefully acknowledges help provided by the late Dr. Margaret Rempel in checking certain portions of the text.] THE CIVIL WAR IN THE U.S.A., 1861-1865 The war between the Northern states and the rebellious Southern slave states exhibited the struggle of two social systems—the system 357 358ADA M. stoflet of slavery and the system of free labor.1 By the middle of the nineteenth century, conflicts between Northern manufacturing states and Southern slave states had sharply increased. Slavery was impeding the economic development of the U.S.A. Employing their political sway in Congress and in the executive branch of the federal government, the slaveowning planters seized the unsettled western lands which the farmers of the Northern states also hastened to take up. In the North the movement for the abolition of slavery made great progress, profiting by wide support in farm circles and among the business class, which saw in slavery an obstacle to the development of capitalism in the nation. Some big businessmen of the North, closely linked economically to the South, came out against abolitionism. The Democratic party, which represented the interests of the Southern planters, approved Negro slavery and its spread throughout the country. In 1854, the Republican party was organized in the North. It demanded , in the interests of the business class and the farmers, the opening of western lands for free settlement, and also came out against slavery. From 1854 to 1856, clashes between farmers and planters in Kansas, then being settled, turned into an armed struggle which was, in reality, the beginning of the Civil War. Having attempted to touch off a Negro uprising in Virginia, John Brown, that white farmer and wrestler against slavery, faded and was executed by the slaveholders. The Southern slaveowners strove to retain political power in their hands so as not only to maintain slavery in the Southern states but also to extend it throughout the U.S.A. Nevertheless, the movement against slavery continued to spread. In 1857 the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the Dred Scott decision, which stripped slaves of all rights and declared them to be the property of their owners, even in Northern states where slavery did not formally exist. The election of the Republican party candidate, A. Lincoln, as President of the U.S.A. in 1860 served as a signal for secession and open rebellion by the Southern slaveowners. On December 20, 1860, South Carolina proclaimed its secession from the Union. Other slave states followed her example. At the convention held at Montgomery in February , 1861, the slaveowners proclaimed the...

Frederick Law Olmsted and Harvey Wish, ed., The Slave States Before the Civil War.

Frederick Law Olmsted and Harvey Wish, ed., <i>The Slave States Before the Civil War.</i>

Quakers in "Bleeding Kansas"

Notes and Documents QUAKERS IN "BLEEDING KANSAS" By Cecil Currey* Pacifism was a noteworthy force among members of the Society of Friends in Kansas for but a few short years. This period of strength began in 1854 when the first Quakers entered the area and came to an end less than fifteen years later, following the end of the Civil War. Those short years were filled with examples of patience, love, and sacrificial giving for others, non-violent resistance , and heroism as Quaker settlers and their families strove both to remain loyal to their faith and to make a place for themselves on the American frontier. Quaker settlers crossed the Missouri River and entered the hill country of eastern Kansas shortly after the passage of the KansasNebraska Act in May, 1854. This famous Congressional act repealed Henry Clay's Missouri Compromise which had provided for the admission of Missouri as a slave state. This had been acceptable to the North only because slavery was prohibited in areas north of parallel 36° 30' (the southern boundary of Missouri). The KansasNebraska Act was pushed through Congress by Stephen A. Douglas. It opened the territories to slavery, for each was allowed to determine its own status: free or slave. A bloody chapter in American history was written as the foes and friends of slavery poured into the newly organized Territory of Kansas. Each faction was determined to strengthen its respective power in Congress by assuring the "proper" attitude toward slavery in Kansas — the territory most likely to become the next state. Members of the Society of Friends, long antagonistic to the traffic in men's bodies, felt that they could do much to influence the issue's outcome by political and moral force. The promise of good, cheap farmland gave Quakers a second excellent reason for moving into the territory. The first Quaker settler in Kansas Territory was * Cecil Currey is Pastor of the First Congregational Church in Ashland, Nebraska. He has made a study of Quaker pacifism in Kansas. 96 Notes and Documents97 George M. Harvey, who staked his claim on Dragoon Creek, near Leavenworth, in June of 1854. A short time later, his brother, father, and their families joined George. In the fall two more Quaker families "settled up" claims nearby. During Indiana Yearly Meeting in October, 1854, three Friends decided to explore Kansas for suitable farmland. They visited the Territory and in 1855 took up claims on Stranger Creek, near the present-day town of Springdale, Kansas.1 These early Friends did not believe in force of arms. Although abolitionists, they willingly settled in localities where "niggerlovers " were in constant danger. They carried no weapons, for they believed that an attitude of non-resistance, staunch ideals, and arts of kindness toward both pro-slavers and free staters would protect them better than armed force. The Quakers hoped that this witness , coupled with their votes, would aid Kansas to become a free state. The first Quaker families quickly became known to the proslavers through Joel Hiatt. Hiatt was an ex-Quaker who had dropped out of the Society in previous years. Although he moved in proslavery circles, he did his best to safeguard the Friends by circulating the information that they were a "harmless" people. Hiatt informed the slavers that Quakers were peaceable and would be obedient to the law regardless of their own personal feelings and would never interfere with another man's "niggers."2 This defense of his old faith may have reawakened his ideals, for at a later period Hiatt rejoined the Society and remained a loyal member until his death. An election in Kansas Territory under the free-soil Topeka Constitution was scheduled for January 15, 1856. Shortly before it was to be held, attempts were made to intimidate those against slavery. A group of pro-slavers calling themselves the "Kickapoo Rangers" decided to raid the farms of settlers living on Fall and Stranger Creeks. The Rangers felt that the resultant terror and demoralization would cause the election to fail. Many Quakers lived athwart the proposed line of march of the Kickapoo Rangers. A free-soil rider galloped through the night, warning the Friends to arm themselves...

Frederick Law Olmstead and Harvey Wish, ed., The Slave States (Before the Civil War).

Frederick Law Olmstead and Harvey Wish, ed., <i>The Slave States (Before the Civil War).</i>

The Measure of Bondage in the Slave States

The Measure of Bondage in the Slave States

The Cotton Kingdom: A Traveller's Observations on Cotton and Slavery in the American Slave States, Based upon Three Former Volumes of Journeys and Investigations by the Same Author

The Cotton Kingdom: A Traveller's Observations on Cotton and Slavery in the American Slave States, Based upon Three Former Volumes of Journeys and Investigations by the Same Author

The Cotton Kingdom: A Traveller's Observations on Cotton and Slavery in the American Slave States. Based upon Three Former Volumes of Journeys and Investigations by the Same Author. By &lt;italic&gt;Frederick Law Olmsted&lt;/italic&gt;. Edited, with an Introduction by &lt;italic&gt;Arthur M. Schlesinger&lt;/italic&gt;. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 1953. Pp. lxiii, 626, xvi. $6.75.)

The Cotton Kingdom: A Traveller's Observations on Cotton and Slavery in the American Slave States. Based upon Three Former Volumes of Journeys and Investigations by the Same Author. By &lt;italic&gt;Frederick Law Olmsted&lt;/italic&gt;. Edited, with an Introduction by &lt;italic&gt;Arthur M. Schlesinger&lt;/italic&gt;. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 1953. Pp. lxiii, 626, xvi. $6.75.)

The Cotton Kingdom: A Traveller's Observations on Cotton and Slavery in the American Slave States

The Cotton Kingdom: A Traveller's Observations on Cotton and Slavery in the American Slave States

The Cotton Kingdom: A Traveller's Observations on Cotton and Slavery in the American Slave States, Based upon Three Former Volumes of Journeys and Investigations by the Same Author.

The Cotton Kingdom: A Traveller's Observations on Cotton and Slavery in the American Slave States, Based upon Three Former Volumes of Journeys and Investigations by the Same Author.

Frederick Law Olmsted, Edited with an Introduction by Arthur M. Schlesinger, The Cotton Kingdom. A Traveler's Observations on Cotton and Slavery in the American Slave States

Frederick Law Olmsted, Edited with an Introduction by Arthur M. Schlesinger, <i>The Cotton Kingdom. A Traveler's Observations on Cotton and Slavery in the American Slave States</i>

The Course of Peonage in a Slave State

The Course of Peonage in a Slave State

The Slave States in the Presidential Election of 1860

The Slave States in the Presidential Election of 1860

The Slave States in the Presidential Election of 1860.Ollinger Crenshaw

<i>The Slave States in the Presidential Election of 1860.</i>Ollinger Crenshaw

The Slave States in the Presidential Election of 1860.

The Slave States in the Presidential Election of 1860.

The Slave States in the Presidential Election of 1860

The Slave States in the Presidential Election of 1860

Is a Hitler Defeat Essential to the Preservation of Democracy in the Western Hemisphere?

The dictum that we cannot live half slave and half free was more a matter of belief than of fact when it was first formulated. This nation withdrew its legal support from the institution of slavery only within the last century, and many of the vestiges of a masterslave society are still to be found here and in the rest of the world. If it were merely a matter of coexistence, the slave society ruled by Hitler and the free society beyond his reach might well divide the world between them as free and slave states have shared dominion over mankind in the past. But it is not a question of mere coexistence, for Hitler's plan of domination as proclaimed by himself, echoed by his followers, and already partially realized, involves the eventual conquest of the world. Such a world as he and his cohorts seek to mold would reduce our hemisphere to a colony in the New Order-a Goebbels euphemism for the ancient slave state. The Nazis know that the world has not only shrunken but that it is one. Hitler's own braggard slogan that either his world or ours must prevail deserves to be taken seriously in the light of recent events. These incredible events should convince the most skeptical isolationist that a spectre is haunting America, the Western Hemisphere, and the world-the spectre of Naziism-successful, dynamic, arrogant, fanatical, bigoted, efficient, powerful-bent on revolt against the democratic idea and way of life. It has already swept away what there was of democracy on the continent of Europe and is girding for the assault upon the last citadel of free men, realizing full well that its triumph remains incomplete as long as the existence of a free America can give the lie to Hitler's boast that democracy is dead. There can never be conclusive proof of any man's intention, but in Hitler's case we have not merely his own incredible words but their confirmation by an as-yetunended chain of deeds.

1.Max Hirsch: Democracy versus Socialism. A Critical Examination of Socialism as a Remedy for Social Injustice and an Exposition of the Single Tax Doctrine. 3rd ed., New York: Henry George School of Social Science, 1939. Pp. xxx,468. $2.00. - 2.Max Hirsch: Socialism, The Slave State. Rev. ed., edited by Will Lissner, with a Preface by Francis Neilson. New York, 1939.

1.Max Hirsch: Democracy versus Socialism. A Critical Examination of Socialism as a Remedy for Social Injustice and an Exposition of the Single Tax Doctrine. 3rd ed., New York: Henry George School of Social Science, 1939. Pp. xxx,468. 0.25. - Volume 3 Issue 2