A Word to Southern Democrats. [The American Whig review. / Volume 10, Issue 20, Aug 1849]

The National Digital Library ^ | August, 1849 | A Northern Conservative

[William McKinley]

I found this bit of writing to be fascinating, and could literally find dozens of topics to discuss from within it, but at first I think I will step back and see what others find worthy of discussion withing it, save for one observation.

One of the themes of this piece is a conservative northerner telling a conservative southerner that risking all of what the southern conservatives held dear over the slavery question was destined to end with the destruction of all they held dear.

At times, it almost reads like a warning, that "all your culture and conservative ideals will be destroyed if you decide that you can't give in on the issue". The irony is, that due to the Whigs refusing to give in on the issue, they also perished; only the line was different. The southerners line was over, for some, any meddling in their own governance by the other states, and for others it was clearly about preserving slavery. For the Whigs, the line was over not meddling in the governance of other states, even when agreeing the matter at hand was an abomination. The writer warned the southerners not to risk everything over the line they were drawing, yet the Whigs risked and lost everythign over the line they were drawing.

Personally, given the choices, the right side won. While the article here shows slavery wasn't the only issue, it clearly was the issue that could have defused the entire situation, and the groups that would not give on it chose poorly. I wish that some of the principles they held dear had not been casualties of the battle to end slavery, but that choice was theirs. Whining that the radicals were forcing the issue on them wasn't a defense for the Whigs, nor should it have been. One of the morals is, don't sacrifice good ideals in an effort to preserve amorality.

[William McKinley]

I found this letter/article, and found it fascinating, since it shows a better picture of the political forces at play during the pre-Civil war years than we get from either history books or from revisionist websites.

I found myself nodding with the gentleman often, at the start. But over the course of the reading, I found myself getting more and more frustrated with the indifference at actively ending what even he called an abomination. I couldn't help but also think about how another person I admire, Taft, was reluctant to have America take on the evil of the Third Reich.

I believe that this paralysis in the name of principle in the face of abject evil has done a great disservice to some wonderful and correct principles, and to this day the damage has not been overcome.

[William McKinley]

Also, for the few who enjoy reading things from the past, I posted earlier today some satire from some conservative Federalists during the early days of the country here.

[Lael]

Is this 'screed' genuine???

Seriously, McKinley must have edited it in his Playpen.

[William McKinley]

Seriously, McKinley did no such thing. He actually fixed many of the problems. Obviously, when you read it you skipped over what was at the very start:

The text viewable for this collection was generated from the page images by optical character recognition (OCR). No corrections have been applied.

You also didn't check the source link to see the newspaper from which the scanner did its work.

Thanks for the substantive contribution, though.

[Buckeye Bomber]

I often consider this type of question, especially using the same example as you did, Senator Taft of my great state of Ohio. In the end, states rights and local control are all well and good, but sometimes there are circumstances that require bold, national action. I'm not happy with the steps Lincoln took during the Civil War, but I am pretty pleased with the result. Senator Taft, in the end, realized that the tides of history had caught the United States. He unflinchingly voted to declare war on Japan after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

[William McKinley]

Absolutely. It is one reason I still consider Taft a great conservative, but do not hold Charles Lindbergh in the same regard.

War is a destructive force, and destructive forces are an anathema to conservatives. And the golden rule of do unto others does lend itself to a bit of a hands of attitude.

But inaction in the face of evil helps evil. I think Burke said something about this ;-)

[Lael]

Thanks for the substantive contribution, though

First, let me thank you for your reply.

Until now I was unaware of a National Digital Archive at Cornell. I thought documents like this, which point out the broader Sectional differences leading up to the Civil War, would be banned in Ithaca as being non PC.

Abraham Lincoln was NOT the first Republican Presidential Nominee...General Fremont was in 1856, and caused nary a ripple in the National Discourse.

Four years later, the South splits from the Union before Lincoln is elected by formal vote of the Electoral College, and the World prepares to intervene...England and France on behalf of the Confederacy, and Russia on behalf of the Union.

Question...

How did it ALL go to H*LL in just FOUR years???

[William McKinley]

Well, I don't know if you read this guy's letter or not, but if you do you will see that he saw the bulldozer coming down the road. He didn't realize it would hit him as well, but vision is better in hindsight.

One thing this gentleman hit on that I think has gotten lost is the way the anti-capitalist radicals, who have been in this country since day one, were first allied with the south but were going to turn on the south with a vengeance. They played a huge part in things going to hell; they always do, since they want tumult to try to use it to enact their radical, levelling agenda.

Another thing that helped it all go to hell is that the President before Lincoln was a weak man, a shape shifting politician when the world needed a statesman, an emotional invalid who relied on his neice to fill part of the role of a wife. The wrong man at the wrong time.

[liberallarry]

ping

[Lael]

Another thing that helped it all go to hell is that the President before Lincoln was a weak man, a shape shifting politician when the world needed a statesman, an emotional invalid who relied on his neice to fill part of the role of a wife. The wrong man at the wrong time.

You might also enquire as to the Role of Category Three Hurricanes on a Gold Standard based Banking System during a period (Spring 1857) of exceptionally tight money.

[William McKinley]

Thanks, but if we start getting into the weather being the cause of cataclysmic events, I'll instead put the blame on the things that brought us to the brink, where the whims of Mother Nature could cause upheaval to turn into war.

[FierceDraka]

I believe you will not contradict me whcn I say that republicanism is the effort of the individual to free himself, in his own personality and independently of all others, from the oppressions of party, the fear of society, and the terror of one or of a number. The entire system of our government is clearly founded in a declaration of individual liberty, a declaration which those only can read intelligently to whom Heaven has granted a real independence. A republican soldier, while he fights in rank, fights in his own behalf, he fights not for king or council. Hence the military prowess and invincible valor of republics. Societies constructed upon this principle are properly self-governed, and their governments are called agency governments. The laws which they impose are made by the wisdom, not by the will, of their legislative bodies, under the mighty guardianship and enforcement of a constitution which annihilates individual domination, and for oligarchy and autocracy substitutes the acknowledged rights and necessities of the people. This is conservative Whig doctrine, as I understand it.

Man, that's powerful stuff! Haven't read the rest of it yet, just thought I'd highlight that paragraph ;-)

[William McKinley]

And on the men who were elected to defuse situations but were unable to do so, particularly through their own failings, especially since their failings in this regard speak to a failing of the people in general to do their job as job screeners when heading to the voting booth.

[Lael]

Thanks, but if we start getting into the weather being the cause of cataclysmic events, I'll instead put the blame on the things that brought us to the brink, where the whims of Mother Nature could cause upheaval to turn into war.

Yet, as Fremont's non-election proves, merely having the potential for conflict doesn't yield a "go for the throat enthuiasm" for WAR!

Unbeknownst untill Richard Nixon was forced to 'come clean' about ALL U.S. Official Gold Holdings...in the wake of the collapse of Bretton Woods...the U.S. Banking System was the intended receipent of some 15 Tonnes of Secret, "off the books" Gold Bullion, which Bullion resided in 8,000+ feet of water of North Carolina in 1971.

The loss of that infusion caused EVERY Bank in the North to fail.

Farmers in the future Confederacy pledged every bale of Cotton, every pound of Tobacco and Indigo, to reliquify the Banking System. Thus, the normally Debtor South and Creditor North switched positions, and neither was happy.

But, it was the North's plan to bail itself out by passing The HIGHEST PROTECTIVE TARIFF in History, enraging the South...stirred in with widespread Celebrations of "John Brown's Body" in 1959-1860...that whipped the States of the future Confederacy to White Heat of Pure Hatred!

Take away the Worst Maritime Disaster in American Merchant Marine history ( the Titanic and Luisitania were foreign flagged ships), what would have ended Slavery???

Probably Time.

Brazil, the Nation which had the friendliest attitude toward the Institution of Slavery, abolished it in 1886 without a shot being fired!!

But History is far more interesting when the obvious is obscured by the 'Gorilla Dust' of Academics engaged in a "dustup"!!

[William McKinley]

I am having a bit of a hard time following what your real argument here is. If it is that had there not been the civil war, slavery would eventually been abolished, I tend to agree.

I also believe that Saddam would eventually have died, as would have Hitler, had we not gotten involved there.

I resent those who risked great ideals to hold onto corrupt and evil institutions.

[Buckeye Bomber]

Yes, but isn't Brazil also far worse off as far as racial divisions go than the United States is? It's hard to imagine, but I don't think we'd want the situations Brazil has. The whiter people are rich and live lives on par with the rest of advanced Western society, protected by private police forces. On the other hand, the browner peoples are crammed into the horrific slums of Rio, Sao Paolo and their other major cities. I'll take our current system, forged with blood in the Civil War, over the system the Brazilians formed when slavery died a slow, gasping death.

[cornelis]

Man, that's powerful stuff!

All the more reason for caution. The siren call that tempts hubris is very powerful

[m1911]

Dang, you post up long articles. If they weren't so darn good I wouldn't mind.

Have to finish this one later.

BTW- thanks also for the bit on the Hurricanes...

[billbears]

bump