In the late 1820s some Southern leaders began pushing for independence from the United States. These efforts continued and gained more popularity over the course of the following three decades. Many different sectional disputes arose during this time over issues such as the tariff, western expansion, slavery, war, etc. As time went on, the relative strength of the South was weakened as the North filled up with European immigrants and more Northern-aligned States were admitted to the Union. Especially in the US House of Representatives and to a lesser degree in the US Senate and Electoral College, Southerners found themselves at a political disadvantage. Despite ‘firm, uncompromising, and unflinching resistance,’ as advised by South Carolina statesman and early secessionist Robert Barnwell Rhett, the trend was clearly towards a politically weaker South. Some Southerners could plainly see a day in the not too distant future when their concerns would be ignored and the political whims of Northerners on everything from the tariff to slavery would be pushed through the US Congress.
Stephen Fowler Hale (1816-1862) was one of the Southerners who understood that the South was locked in a losing struggle within the Union. He saw the trends and understood where they were leading. Hale, who was born and raised in Kentucky before he moved to Alabama as a young man, was chosen as a secession commissioner from Alabama to Kentucky. Prior to being chosen as a commissioner, Hale had been elected to the Alabama legislature, fought in the Mexican War, unsuccessfully ran for the US Congress and practiced law while operating a small plantation. He was what professor and author Charles B Dew on page 52 of his book Apostles of Disunion called a ‘strong Southern rights Whig’ and an advocate of secession. Hale would go on to sign the Confederate States Constitution and become a lieutenant colonel in the Confederate army. He died of wounds suffered while fighting for Southern independence at the Battle of Gaines’ Mill in 1862.
Part of Hale’s efforts as a secession commissioner included a letter to Kentucky Governor Beriah Magoffin, a Democrat and fellow States’ rights supporter who ultimately attempted to keep his State neutral in the coming war. Hale’s lengthy letter to Magoffin summarised the Southern position on the nature of the Union, the slavery debate, the North’s ‘unrelenting and fanatical war’ on the South, the Republican Party and the election of Abraham Lincoln. Hale was of of the opinion that disunion was inevitable given the different cultures, politics and sectional interests of the North and South. He also understood that the political trends in the Union were moving against the South and believed that the longer that Southerners waited to secede, the worse would be their relative position in any sort of struggle. In the excerpted part of his letter below, Hale makes these very arguments:
Why attempt longer to hold together hostile States under the stipulations of a violated Constitution? It is impossible. Disunion is inevitable. Why, then, wait longer for the consummation of a result that must come? Why waste further time in expostulations and appeals to Northern States and their citizens, only to be met, as we have been for years past, by renewed insults and repeated injuries? Will the South be better prepared to meet the emergency when the North shall be strengthened by the admission of the new Territories of Kansas, Nebraska, Washington, Jefferson, Nevada, Idaho, Chippewa, and Arizona as non-slave-holding States, as we are warned from high sources will be done within the next four years, under the administration of Mr. Lincoln? Can the true men at the North ever make a more powerful or successful rally for the preservation of our rights and the Constitution than they did in the last Presidential contest? There is nothing to inspire hope that they can.
Shall we wait until our enemies shall possess themselves of all the powers of the Government; until abolition judges are on the Supreme Court bench, abolition collectors at every port, and abolition post-masters in every town; secret mail agents traversing the whole land, and a subsidized press established in our midst to demoralize our people? Will we be stronger then or better prepared to meet the struggle, if a struggle must come? No, verily. When that time shall come, well may our adversaries laugh at at our folly and deride our impotence.
I read somewhere that some Southern leaders began advising secession earlier in the first quarter of the 19th century (e.g., prior to 1825), and also counseled that to postpone it would be to court disaster. Perhaps that article was citing Mr. Hale, or perhaps citing a general tone of Southern writers and legislators from the time period without listing individuals. At any rate, disaster is what happened. The South finally realized, too late, that the predictions warning of a sectional party gaining control and what that would mean for the South had come true with the formation of the Republican party prior to 1856, then even more with Lincoln’s election in 1860. The South relied on the democratic process to educate the southern public and to rally men around the cause of Southern survival, which came to be secession from the union. Overcoming the inertia the union held in the minds of most southerners was a monumental task, as most southerners were then and are now descended from people who fought in the Revolutionary War of 1776. Contrast that failed effort, which realized before the Missouri Compromise of 1820 that the writing was on the wall for the South, with the efforts of Charles Martel of France understanding the nature of the muslim threat that had subdued Visigothic Spain. He did not rely on the democratic process to educate and motivate – he used the power of his position to raise an army to meet the crisis. I think Jean Francois Revel has commented on this inherent flaw in _Why Democracies Perish_.
Cinaed57, Hale was only born in 1816 so he was much too young to be one of the early secessionist leaders. Robert Barnwell Rhett was calling for secession by 1828. He’s the earliest elected Southern leader I know of, but as I dig more I imagine I’ll find that he wasn’t the first.
http://southernnationalist.com/blog/2012/03/26/the-birth-of-southern-nationalism-rhett-emerges-from-the-lowcountry/
Your mention of Charles Drew’s book “Apostles of Disunion” caught my attention. I heard some time last year that a rebuttle to Dew’s book, by non other than Dr. Clyde Wilson, was in the works. However, as of today’s date, I have been unable to find evidence that such a rubuttle has yet materialised. Does anyone know anything about this? I have not read the book but it is my understanding that it is anti-southern in that its intended purpose is to impugn the motivations of the secession commissions and the cotton States in general.
Irondutch, the book was written by a self-hating Southerner (loaded with White guilt) with the intention of proving that secession was a racially motivated movement based around the defense of secession. Despite this, it’s a good book. Let me explain why. A lot of people, especially online, who claim to be pro-South are actually what we derisively Rainbow Confederates. And sadly, the mainstream ‘conservative’ movement in the South is very much in line with the Rainbows, just without the Confederate symbolism. At any rate, if such a book were written today by a ‘conservative’ Southerner it would probably be extremely defensive, trying to ‘prove’ throughout that Confederates were not ‘racists.’ Dew’s book mostly just quotes real Confederates. He makes it clear from their words that Southern conservatives in 1860-61 were convinced the White South and its social order could not survive Northern Republican rule. They believed that one of two things would happen: either a Republican-instigated racial war in the South (on the model of what had happened in Haiti that resulted in White genocide and the subsequent total collapse of civilisation in Haiti after the French were killed off by the Africans there). What had been perhaps the wealthiest society in the world became a Third World society in a matter of a few years. Southerners saw that as one possible outcome of Republican government. The other possibility they saw was gradual emancipation (beginning in the border States, then moving to the Upper South and eventually the Lower South). This, they believed, would lead to political and social equality which would result in an amalgamation of the races – meaning the destruction of the White South. The Secession Commissioners all pretty much repeated these points. And Dew simply quotes them. This is why I like the book. It’s better, I think, that it was written by someone trying to ‘expose’ the radical nature of the secessionists. I’ve got no desire to read another apologetic, defensive book about how egalitarian and democratic Confederates were.
I have plans at some point to write a book myself about the Southern nationalist tradition, which is not exactly the same thing as what is called ‘Confederate heritage’ (because the Confederacy was largely led by Southern conservatives, not Southern nationalists like Yancey and Rhett). Anyhow, this is something I have been developing on SNN over the last year. HW at OD has been doing basically the same thing. He’s in the process of writing a book about the rise of abolition, equality and democracy in Dixie and the Golden Circle region and the subsequent collapse of prosperity and civilisation. I think his book will definitely help to further establish the Southern nationalist tradition.
When youre manuscript is published, I expect an autographed copy! Your reply was as helpful as it was timely. It is plain that I need to spend more time perusing SNN material and less time in front of the idiot box. (T.V.) I feel that your ability to consider and appreciate the merits of such a book manifests an intellectual honesty in which enhancement of the authoritative weight of all your work is its corrolary. Regarding Southern Nationalism and the richness & depth of Southern history, philosophy,statesmanship and culture, what I possess at this stage,at very best, is an “informed ignorance” that is not developed enough to enable me to be conscious of the distinction you mention in your last paragraph. What bothers me,and what I think stands to reason, is that what the book reveals is seen by the uninformed (and promoted by the antagonistic)as the “smoking gun” that exposes some sort of nefarious purpose or egregious guilt though the North was no more egalitarian than they were. In football, I believe they call it “offseting penalties”.
Irondutch, you’re probably right that many view his book as a smoking gun. A few years back I would have dismissed it. This is a problem in the Southern movement in general, I would say. Many in the movement dismiss quotes by Confederates that are very plainly stated and often passionately argued. There is a ton of speeches, articles, books, pamphlets, etc. by Southern nationalists and Confederates – far too much to ignore. We have a tremendous tradition that should be embraced and built upon. But it first has to be re-discovered by even many in the Southern movement. Let me also say that this tradition can not be divorced from the efforts of the Confederate fighting man. Many Rainbows try to do this. They ignore the Southern tradition or basically re-write history to make it more egalitarian, democratic and universalist.
As far as an autographed copy of any book I may write… lol… sure. No problem. I’m looking forward to the project but still have some more research to do. I ordered 3 more books this part week – all of which will help with the project and make for many good future articles on SNN, I believe. You say that you are coming from a position of ‘informed ignorance.’ In my view, that’s starting from an infinitely better position than even many in the Southern movement. It shows the right attitude, I would say. That is the attitude I try to keep as well.