Well, of course, had the north not cared one whit about slavery there wouldn't have been a war. But, I don't agree that it was the violence against anti-slavery that drove the South to secede. A bitter cold war had been brewing for years over the expansion of slavery into the new territories and states. My view is that given the long history of the sectionalism, war was virtually inevitable. The depth of the animosity, and the level of hatred and mistrust meant that war, and a bloody one, was probably the only way this issue was going to be resolved and remove the sectionalism that would not let the nation grow. I think you can look back and find a million things that could have been done differently that might have prevented the war, and the top of my list was not electing Buchanan. On the other hand, I think war would have broken out eventually.
It might be just as accurate to say that without violent anti-slavery, there would have been no war.
Well, of course, had the north not cared one whit about slavery there wouldn't have been a war.
I can be anti-abortion without feeling the need to bomb abortion clinics. But if I do act violently on my moral convictions against abortion, that doesn’t mean that the residents of, say, Massachusetts must accept being the victims of my violent action, just because my intentions are honourable. They can object strenuously to the means I am using. And if a party assumes control of the Federal government, some of the members of whom have demonstrated a willingness to look the other way in prosecuting violent anti-abortion fanatics, then I believe that they have a legitimate complaint.
Now the analogy to the Republicans of 1860 is not a strict one. Lincoln, for example, had condemned John Brown’s violent means. But there were
But, I don't agree that it was the violence against anti-slavery that drove the South to secede. A bitter cold war had been brewing for years over the expansion of slavery into the new territories and states. My view is that given the long history of the sectionalism, war was virtually inevitable.
But why did it occur in 1860 and not at some earlier date? Why had sectional agitation not precipitated secession in 1850-51 or 1856? In 1850, the Nashville Convention was a secessionist fizzle. In 1856, Gov. Wise’s call on Southern Governor’s to meet at Raleigh to discuss a Southern response to a Fremont victory lead to only 3 Governors showing up (Va, NC, & SC), and they didn’t actually do anything.
I assert that the recent (i.e. post-1856 election) of violence in the political discourse over slavery made the issue relevant to a much broader Southerner audience that just slaveholders. Servile insurrection threatened every white Southerner, not just slaveholders. The winking and nodding by Republicans at violent anti-slavery activists indicated the future attitude of Republican officeholders towards the future perpetrators of anti-slavery violence. In a speech in Washington in 1860, W. L. Yancey made the following comments: “Suppose that party gets into power; suppose another John Brown raid takes place in a frontier state; suppose “Sharpe’s rifles” and pikes and bowie knives, and all the other instruments of warfare are brought to bear upon an inoffensive, peaceful and unfortunate people, and that Lincoln or Seward is in the presidential chair, where will then be a force of United States marines to check that band? Suppose that is the case – that the frontiers of the country will be lighted up by flames of midnight arson; as it is in Texas; that towns are burned; that the peace of our families is disturbed; that poison is found secreted throughout the whole country in immense quantities; that men are found to prowling about in our land distributing that poison in order that it may be placed in our springs and our wells; with arms and ammunition placed in the hands of this semi-barbarous people, what will be our fate? Where will be the United States Marshals to interfere? Where will be the dread of this General Government that exists under this present administration? Where will be the fear of the United States army to intimidate or prevent such movements? Why, gentlemen, if Texas is now in flames, and the peace of Virginia is invaded now under this administration, and under the present aspect of affairs, tell me what it will be when a “higher law” government reigns in the city of Washington?“
That kind of rhetoric resonated with Southerners, slaveholders and non-slaveholders. A government that could not (or would not) provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, etc. seems to have lost functional legitimacy in the eyes of a certain number of its citizens.
The depth of the animosity, and the level of hatred and mistrust meant that war, and a bloody one, was probably the only way this issue was going to be resolved and remove the sectionalism that would not let the nation grow. I think you can look back and find a million things that could have been done differently that might have prevented the war, and the top of my list was not electing Buchanan. On the other hand, I think war would have broken out eventually.
That strikes me as a pretty pessimistic view of human nature and conflict resolution.
Why do you suppose secession happened in 1860 instead of 1850 or 1856?
Northern States (Mass., Connecticut, RI, NY, Penn., NJ, etc.) got rid of slavery in their own good time, and in their own way.