The politics of war
National Perspective
After the founding of the Republic, there arose a strong political tradition (that remains to this day) that opposed the power of a strong federal government. In the decades prior to the Civil War, the Democrats opposed all legislation and federal efforts that they interpreted as eroding local control. The “proslavery cast” of this approach to government gave the Democrats broad popularity in the South. The other major national political party was the Whigs party. The Whigs believed in a strong national government to be strengthened in a political program called the “American System.” The “American System” emphasized investment in manufacturing, tariffs (much to the chagrin of southerners), a national bank, and internal transportation and infrastructure development (Masur, 2011).
Historian Louis P. Masur opines that one of the long-term causes of the U.S. Civil War was the political doctrine of state interposition, or nullification. In the early years of the Republic, the majority of citizens, especially southern whites, were loyal to their state, and vaguely mistrustful of the federal government. The doctrine of nullification held that states could opt out of the Union if they chose. The Democrats used the doctrine of state interposition as a political threat, and withdrawing from the Union was the subject of many political conventions (2011).
Popular Sovereignty
As new territories were annexed through the Louisiana Purchase and the Mexican War, there were several political crises over whether or not the new states that grew out of these territories would be slave states or free states. After the addition of the Mexican territories, Northern Democrats decided that “popular sovereignty” should be used to decide whether or not the states would be slave states or free states. Under popular sovereignty, new states would hold referendums to determine whether or not slavery would be permitted in the states. Unfortunately, the language of popular sovereignty confused more than clarified. It was unclear whether or not, for example, the referendum would occur immediately or after enough slaveholding voters arrived to swing the referendum (Masur, 2011).
Popular sovereignty came to a political standoff during the Kansas-Nebraska crisis, in which local governments with pro- and anti-slavery bents fought, in what Masur calls a “rehearsal for the Civil War,” for their state to be either a slave state or a free state. When Congress passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act, it essentially nullified the Missouri Compromise’s rule that slavery would not exist above the 36th parallel. Northern anger at this extension of slavery led to the collapse of the Whig party and to the rise of the Republican Party. The Republican Party became the party of anti-slavery, and it was a strictly northern party, unlike the Whigs party, which had southern elements.
After the founding of the Republic, there arose a strong political tradition (that remains to this day) that opposed the power of a strong federal government. In the decades prior to the Civil War, the Democrats opposed all legislation and federal efforts that they interpreted as eroding local control. The “proslavery cast” of this approach to government gave the Democrats broad popularity in the South. The other major national political party was the Whigs party. The Whigs believed in a strong national government to be strengthened in a political program called the “American System.” The “American System” emphasized investment in manufacturing, tariffs (much to the chagrin of southerners), a national bank, and internal transportation and infrastructure development (Masur, 2011).
Historian Louis P. Masur opines that one of the long-term causes of the U.S. Civil War was the political doctrine of state interposition, or nullification. In the early years of the Republic, the majority of citizens, especially southern whites, were loyal to their state, and vaguely mistrustful of the federal government. The doctrine of nullification held that states could opt out of the Union if they chose. The Democrats used the doctrine of state interposition as a political threat, and withdrawing from the Union was the subject of many political conventions (2011).
Popular Sovereignty
As new territories were annexed through the Louisiana Purchase and the Mexican War, there were several political crises over whether or not the new states that grew out of these territories would be slave states or free states. After the addition of the Mexican territories, Northern Democrats decided that “popular sovereignty” should be used to decide whether or not the states would be slave states or free states. Under popular sovereignty, new states would hold referendums to determine whether or not slavery would be permitted in the states. Unfortunately, the language of popular sovereignty confused more than clarified. It was unclear whether or not, for example, the referendum would occur immediately or after enough slaveholding voters arrived to swing the referendum (Masur, 2011).
Popular sovereignty came to a political standoff during the Kansas-Nebraska crisis, in which local governments with pro- and anti-slavery bents fought, in what Masur calls a “rehearsal for the Civil War,” for their state to be either a slave state or a free state. When Congress passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act, it essentially nullified the Missouri Compromise’s rule that slavery would not exist above the 36th parallel. Northern anger at this extension of slavery led to the collapse of the Whig party and to the rise of the Republican Party. The Republican Party became the party of anti-slavery, and it was a strictly northern party, unlike the Whigs party, which had southern elements.
The Dred Scott Decision
The morality of slavery in a country based on political freedom became an increasingly political issue. It became a particular point of contention between northern and southern Democrats. But any discussion of political discourse in the period leading up to the Civil War requires an investigation of the Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court. Dred Scott was a slave and the descendent of African slaves who lived in Illinois (a free state) and in other sections of the Louisiana Territory where there was no slavery under the Missouri Compromise. He sued for his freedom against his white master, claiming that his residency in a free state made him a citizen under Article III of the Constitution. Chief Justice Roger Taney, writing for the majority of a divided Court, found that Scott was a slave, and that for the purposes of Article III, no one ever descended from an African slave could be a citizen of the United States, and, moreover, had “no rights that the white man was bound to respect” (oyez.org, 2014). Due to the this ruling, the Missouri Compromise ban on slavery became unconstitutional. It was the Dred Scott Decision that, in part, radicalized the Republican Party, who saw in the ruling a pro-slavery conspiracy. Now, in addition to the South, the North was beginning to speak in terms of opposing the federal government (Masur, 2011). |
Charlotte Politics
Charlotteans, like their fellow countrymen, went to the polls in 1860 to cast their vote for president. On their ballot was Stephen Douglas, a Senator and North Democrat, and Vice President John C. Breckenridge, a Southern Democrat. A third party was the Constitutional Union Party, led by John Bell, which advocated for adherence to the Constitution and to the preservation of the Union. Absent from the ballot was Republican Abraham Lincoln. Many in the South believed that the election of a Radical Republican would lead to the collapse of the Union. The white, male citizens of Mecklenburg cast 1,101 votes for Breckenridge; 826 for Bell; and 135 for Bell (Hardy, 2012). An analysis of this vote reveals that not all Charlotteans supported a split with the Union. The votes for John Bell show that, although many were invested in maintaining the economic status quo, there was a middle ground that did not want to leave the Union. The votes in Charlotte confirm that the newly created, anti-slavery Republican Party truly was a regional party because it was not even represented in the South.
Charlotteans, like their fellow countrymen, went to the polls in 1860 to cast their vote for president. On their ballot was Stephen Douglas, a Senator and North Democrat, and Vice President John C. Breckenridge, a Southern Democrat. A third party was the Constitutional Union Party, led by John Bell, which advocated for adherence to the Constitution and to the preservation of the Union. Absent from the ballot was Republican Abraham Lincoln. Many in the South believed that the election of a Radical Republican would lead to the collapse of the Union. The white, male citizens of Mecklenburg cast 1,101 votes for Breckenridge; 826 for Bell; and 135 for Bell (Hardy, 2012). An analysis of this vote reveals that not all Charlotteans supported a split with the Union. The votes for John Bell show that, although many were invested in maintaining the economic status quo, there was a middle ground that did not want to leave the Union. The votes in Charlotte confirm that the newly created, anti-slavery Republican Party truly was a regional party because it was not even represented in the South.
Charlotte: The Last Capital of the Confederacy
In 1865, as the Confederate government was in retreat, it moved to Charlotte from Richmond. President of the Confederacy Jefferson Davis and his cabinet met for the final time in Charlotte. They shipped via train all of their state documents and treasury records. When Jefferson Davis arrived in Charlotte, he was greeted with cheers and fanfare, but only one family was willing to house him for fear that their house would be burned. It was while Davis was in Charlotte that he learned of the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. In Charlotte, the spot where he heard this is marked on a sidewalk on South Tryon Street (Hardy, 2012). The Cabinet of the Confederacy never reconvened after its final meeting in Charlotte, giving Charlotte the name “The Last Capital of the Confederacy.” |