One reason for the fire-eaters' success was that they didn't simply parrot one line of argument. Some stressed slavery and race, while others downplayed them -- especially when the hope of winning English support was still alive -- in favor of economic or constitutional arguments or state sovereignty or Southern nationalism.
We are justified in viewing slavery and the anxieties surrounding its expansion or extinction as the major factors in the coming of war, because other sectional conflicts in American were generally resolved peacefully through the political process, but that doesn't mean slavery was the only topic of conversation or that there weren't other questions at issue. Racial politics would grow more pronounced after the war and the abolition of slavery, once the chains of bondage had been broken and new means of segregation were sought. In the antebellum period race didn't always have to be dealt with so directly. The issue of race was subjected or ordered or contained by the institution of slavery, and slavery and race were an important part of other ideas and watchwords of the time. That's not to say that slavery or race was the key to everything or that people were being deceptive or insincere, or that they didn't pursue their own goals and projects which they understood differently from us, just that one can't wholly dismiss slavery in discussions of the era.
At the time of your quote, Wigfall saluted the new prosperous King Cotton, and spoke of economic obstacles that the North put in the way of Southern economic development. In the same period he talked on several occasions about a state's right to leave the union for any reason or no reason. He also spoke of secret abolitionist societies allegedly stirring up trouble in Texas. He refered to the Republicans -- always the "Black Republicans" -- as a party of the "non-slaveholding states," whose principles were offensive and dangerous to the slaveholding states. If he said North and South or agricultural and industrial one might claim that slavery wasn't on his mind, but to frame the dissention as being one between slaveholding and non-slaveholding states, suggests that he wasn't indifferent or unconcerned about slavery. Some weeks later, in a clash with Stephen Douglas he discursed on colonial history and slavery among the biblical Hebrews, and the biblical support for slavery.
Latter-day Rockwellite free marketeers want to keep secessionist agitation against the tariff and throw away the even more passionate anger at the violations of the Fugitive Slave Law and the demand for still stricter enforcement of slavery. But that can't be done cleanly. The same people were passionate about both questions at the same time and regarded the refusal to return runaways as every bit as much a theft as wholly Constitutional protective tariffs. Even if one gives Wigfall the benefit of the benefit of the doubt, that subjectively slavery wasn't important to him personally -- which is unlikely -- there's still the objective question of just why secession and war came at that moment and not any other time. And those who reduce the Republican belief in Union to the Whig economic program or a scheme for enrichment, surely can't ignore the material interests and conception of property that would underlie and be promoted by the new Confederacy.
If you can argue that subjectively Wigfall had no liking for slavery -- there's no evidence for that -- still, slavery would be the base of the new country he envisioned. Wigfall's desire to create a new country, a powerful new force freed from Northern interference was strongly, overwhelmingly emotional and deeply felt. If he would have been willing to give up slavery, or if he differed in any regard from his fellow militants on the subject, if he would have been any gentler to gradual compensated emancipation than to any other obstacle in the progress of the new cotton empire, he could have given some indication at some time, and so far as I can see he did not.
Our views of the causes of wars tend to be idealistic and rational: our own side fights for ideals, the other for rational calculations of gain. But in fact, emotional and "irrational" factors can be very important. That's certainly true of the Civil War. The 1850s and 1860s saw passions take over from rational factors. Of course there were roughly rational disputes and much idealism, but also pride, anger, arrogance, rage, vengeance and other emotions. Wigfall's taunt to the North, "Your flag has been insulted; redress it, if you will dare. You have submitted to it for two months, and you will submit to it forever," is a pretty good indication of the mentality, or rather emotionality, that produced the war. It's also a good indication of why all our rationalistic arguments and moralistic interpretations don't get at the real atmosphere of the Civil War era.
Were Wigfall truly a leader in Congress, there would have been much more written about him by now. He certainly spoke often in the last pre-Sumter session of the Senate, but he was only in Washington for less than two years. Most of the existing record suggests that Wigfall was too emotional and erratic to play much of a role in government. If you find his ideas palatable today, it may be because his role at the time was rather peripheral and his paper trail more limited than that of his associates.
You said to look at the fire-eater's speeches and named some of them along side Stephens as if there were no distinction between the two.
One reason for the fire-eaters' success was that they didn't simply parrot one line of argument.
Most rational persons would take this as clear evidence of the complex variety of issues involved - a clear slap in the face to the "it was all slavery and nothing else" line of argument.
We are justified in viewing slavery and the anxieties surrounding its expansion or extinction as the major factors in the coming of war, because other sectional conflicts in American were generally resolved peacefully through the political process
You are retreating back to your earlier circular argument of slavery-by-default. Besides, slavery had been resolved peacefully and through the political process as well, just as the tariff nearly led to secession and military deployment in the 1830's.
but that doesn't mean slavery was the only topic of conversation or that there weren't other questions at issue.
And that's a fair statement. Some, including some here, would deny it though.
Racial politics would grow more pronounced after the war and the abolition of slavery, once the chains of bondage had been broken and new means of segregation were sought.
Yes, and history tends to evidence the emergence of this segregation was severely exacerbated by the actions of northern radicals during reconstruction.
At the time of your quote, Wigfall saluted the new prosperous King Cotton, and spoke of economic obstacles that the North put in the way of Southern economic development.
Again, evidencing the complex and wide array of issues at stake.
In the same period he talked on several occasions about a state's right to leave the union for any reason or no reason.
Yes. He was tasked with making the legal and political argument for secession's validity before the Senate and enjoyed a unique position to do so, seeing as his state's secession was not formalized until almost a month after the other deep south senators had already left.
He also spoke of secret abolitionist societies allegedly stirring up trouble in Texas.
On a side note, that would be an interesting area to study - what groups existed, where they existed, and to what extent. There is obviously well known historical grounding in the fear of abolitionist terrorism that dominated the period, thanks heavily to John Brown.
He refered to the Republicans -- always the "Black Republicans" -- as a party of the "non-slaveholding states," whose principles were offensive and dangerous to the slaveholding states. If he said North and South or agricultural and industrial one might claim that slavery wasn't on his mind
If I recall correctly, he did say that, proclaiming "We are an agricultural people" or something of the sort.
but to frame the dissention as being one between slaveholding and non-slaveholding states, suggests that he wasn't indifferent or unconcerned about slavery.
I don't hold him to be apathetic to the issue, but rather simply note that it was far from the only thing on his mind or a sole driving cause for his secessionist views. As his speeches evidence, economics weighed in heavily on his position.
Latter-day Rockwellite free marketeers want to keep secessionist agitation against the tariff and throw away the even more passionate anger at the violations of the Fugitive Slave Law and the demand for still stricter enforcement of slavery.
By and large, I don't believe this to be so. Yes, there are probably some. But most of us who take the confederate side simply desire the accurate historical reflection of the complex plethora of issues at hand beyond slavery. There is a crowd out there, including among it some very prominent historians, who spread the line that it was all slavery, only slavery, and nothing other than slavery. This permits the demonization of the South, both then and now, while the North is simultaneously elevated to an idealistic moral good that it is not and never was. At its root such a view is fundamentally dishonest and willfully ignorant of history.
But that can't be done cleanly. The same people were passionate about both questions at the same time and regarded the refusal to return runaways as every bit as much a theft as wholly Constitutional protective tariffs.
And that's fair enough. My issue is with those who purport it to have been all about fugitive slaves and nothing about the tariff.
Even if one gives Wigfall the benefit of the benefit of the doubt, that subjectively slavery wasn't important to him personally -- which is unlikely -- there's still the objective question of just why secession and war came at that moment and not any other time.
Why do you think it came at that time then?
Our views of the causes of wars tend to be idealistic and rational: our own side fights for ideals, the other for rational calculations of gain.
That is often the choice presented, though I'll happily concede that strong rational elements drove both sides in the war.
Were Wigfall truly a leader in Congress
I said that he was a leader of the secessionist faction in Congress. That distinction is key.
there would have been much more written about him by now.
Not necessarily. That he was a vocal advocate of the southern position - the side that eventually lost the war - tends to work against him in the history books as it does any figure of a similar affiliation. Few know much of anything about the southern leaders in Congress at the time of the war beyond Davis. Judah Benjamin pops up from time to time, mostly based on his importance in the confederate government. Toombs is in there on rare occasions. By and large the others are neglected, due largely to the side they were on. But back in 1860, they were in the heat of the ideological battle shaping the course their respective sides took from there on out. Wigfall was at the center of this, being one of the first southerners to put forth the secession call as well as the originator of the Dec. 14th petition of the southern delegation, calling for secession. That Texas had a resolution on secession that didn't take effect until March also kept him in Washington for about a month longer than the rest. This allowed him to weigh in on the late-session debates as what was really the only remaining heavy secessionist view.
Most of the existing record suggests that Wigfall was too emotional and erratic to play much of a role in government.
...except in the heat of battle and controversy. Floor debate was his strength - both oratory and tactical. Many on both sides of the aisle considered him one of the most effective advocates of the Southern cause from the floor. His style certainly didn't make him well situated for hammering out every day legislative amendments, but it did make him well situated for a session that was solidly divided into two hostile sides from day one. When the whole session's a floor fight, you typically want your best debators and procedural tacticians out on the front lines, and that is where Wigfall served.
it may be because his role at the time was rather peripheral
I don't believe that to be the case or a supportable position. His participation in that debate alone placed him in the center of things. His petition of the southern delegations shaped to a good deal the way secession played out. And on top of all that, he made his way down to Charleston after the inauguration just in time to sale out to Sumter and negotiate its surrender during the battle.
and his paper trail more limited than that of his associates.
His papers are all there with plenty to be read...only not electronically. The one exception is his daughter's autobiography about the war, which is online in its entirity.
Oooh, I didn't know that. Send down Uncle Billy.
Walt