Gautam Anubhav
Dr. James Sandy
History 1311
November 25th 2017 Book Review: Apostles of Disunion by Charles B Dew.
Charles B Dew, PHD, a winner of Fletcher Pratt Prize from the Civil War Round table of New York for two of his books: Apostles of Disunion and Iron maker to the confederacy, is a native of St. Petersburg, Florida. A son of the south. His book Apostles of Disunion is a book in an attempt to analyze the question: why did the southern states went to secession? In his book, Dew explains why he is writing it and tries to answer (which I believe he does successfully) the question of was the secession due to state right or was the end motive the institution of slavery? The author clearly mentions that he is writing the book in
…show more content…
He points to events such as the display of confederate symbols in different part of the south even in present day as an example. Dew examines the incidents where these symbols. In his examination Dew points that the neo confederates take pride in these symbols as their heritage while he recognizes other group which directly respond as “Your heritage is my Slavery”. Dew acknowledges that the cause of civil war is not just one issue. To identify the causes, he accounts a deep examination of the speeches given by southern commissioners in the deep south in late 1860-early 1861.
Dew describes the secession commissioners as the appointees by the state who were instructed to travel to other states and spread the secessionist message across the entire region. The author clarifies that these commissioners often explained in detail why their states was exiting the union.
Dew supports his claim that the secession commissioners talked more openly about the issue of white supremacy and slavery than the present neo confederates. On page 70 of the book he quotes, ““Virginians need to look no farther than their northern border for their most recent manifestation of Yankee fanaticism. John Brown and his followers had brazenly “proclaimed the intention of abolishing slavery by the annihilation of slaveholders.” There could be no doubt, he continued “that the conflict between slavery and non-slavery is a conflict for life and death.”
The American Civil War has become a point of controversy and argument when discussing key events in shaping America. The arguments that arise when discussing the war tend to focus on whether the Confederate was constitutionally justified in seceding, or whether the North had the right to prevent the secession. However, when discussing the America Civil War and the idea of separation, it is important to be mindful that separation did not simply end at the state level. Letters written by Jesse Rolston, Jr. and Jedediah Hotchkiss portray two significantly different attitudes toward the war, despite the fact that the writers both fought for the Confederate States and give accounts of the same battle, one of which ended in the Confederate’s favor. When examining the documents, both writers express different viewpoints on life on and off the battlefield. This significant difference represents a division amongst the Confederate army.
Dew takes great care in weaving the evidence to support the thoughts he is presenting with the actual explanation of the evidence. Apostles of Disunion was a very easily read book that was entertaining and educational. I was pleased to find that Dew placed all of the speeches in an Appendix for the reader to read and make his or her own judgements based on the information provided. Dew presented a conclusion to his thesis concisely and adequately. I found it interesting that while South Carolina was the first to actually secede from the Union, it was Mississippi and Alabama that first sent our Commissioners to spread the thoughts of secession. That was a fact that was good for stimulating my own internal musings about the time period and the desire for secession the Southern states had. I found it
In “Apostles of Disunion: Southern Secession Commissioners and the Causes of the Civil War,” Charles B. Dew analyzes the public letters and speeches of white, southern commissioners in order to prove that the Civil War was fought over slavery. By analyzing the public letters and speeches of the commissioners, Dew offers a compelling argument proving that slavery along with the ideology of white supremacy were primary causes of the Civil War. Dew is not only the Ephraim Williams Professor of American History at Williams College, but he is also a successful author who has received various awards including the Elloit Rudwick Prize and the Fletcher Pratt Award. In fact, two of Dew’s books, Tredegar Iron Works and Apostles of Disunion and Ironmaker to the Confederacy: Joseph R. Anderson, received the Fletcher Pratt Award for the best nonfiction book regarding the American Civil War. In his analysis, Dew argues that the fear of eliminating slavery along with the fear of racial equality were both crucial factors regarding the outbreak of the Civil War. By tracing the speeches and public letters of state-appointed commissioners, Dew effectively argues that the white, southern commissioners led the southern states into a Civil War in order to preserve the institution of slavery as well as the ideology of white supremacy.
Despite the differences in the primary reasons for Northerners in the war, Gallagher and Manning’s arguments align on certain aspects of slavery: both argue that in order for the Union to successfully win the war, slavery needed to be abolished. Gallagher argues that many northerners realized that in order to end the war and to rid nation of conflict and threat to the Union, slavery would need to be abolished. He argues, “Without slavery and the various issues related to its expansion, most white northerners could envision no serious internal threat to their beloved union.” Similarly, Manning also argues that there was a threat to the union because of slavery, whether Northerners liked it or not: “In 1861, a large and growing number of ordinary soldiers believed that a war endangering the Union had come about because of slavery. White Southerners’ willingness to destroy the Union over slavery made the war about slavery whether an individual Union soldier wanted it that way or not.” Therefore, Manning’s argument states that there is a need for the end of slavery in order to preserve the Union.
When Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, it was used as a tactical move against the south to stop them from rebelling or their slaves would be emancipated. It was an effort to end the war rather than having it continue, northern states set out to fight the slave states in 1861, not to end slavery, but retain the enormous national territory, market, and resources because it was an economic expansion for free land, free labor, free market, a high protective tariff for manufacturers, and a bank of the United States. The northern states wouldn’t accept the end of slavery, it would end slavery under conditions controlled by whites and only when required by political and economic needs. When Lincoln was elected, eleven southern
The central thesis of this book is that the secession commissioners that were sent Deep South to other slave states in the winter of 1860-1861 played a major role in defending as well as urging people to subscribe to their ideology and follow them out of the Union. This thesis helps in giving insights in the South’s real intention, which can be argued out that it was to defend its slave trade culture that the North was totally against hence the use of secession as a means of convincing people. Even though the historians mostly ignore these men that were involved in the secession, these men played a vital role in the creation of the beautiful country
Throughout history, people have gone to extreme lengths to secure their economic well being. The people in the Southern states were no different in this regard, and for this reason we affirm the resolution that the South was justified to secede from the Union. Before going any farther, we must define key terms in the resolution. The South refers to the 11 states who became the Confederate States of America. The Union was the United States in 1860. Lastly, justified means done for a legitimate reason, in this case in the context of the political and economic circumstances of the time. We support our affirmation with the following contention: that the South’s economic interests were in such danger that they took the only path available to them
In his conclusion, McPherson answer what may lead one to ask if the American Civil War was indeed an extraordinary revolution, one whose likes the world had ever seen. The answer lies in the exact opposite of revolution. Counterrevolution occurred at first chance which in so many ways blanketed the revolutionary characteristics to the best of its applicability. From 1865 to 1866, immediately after the war, black codes began to surface. The purpose of these codes were to keep black labor in a state of dependence and subjection as close to slavery as possible. These codes appeared in the forms of vagrancy laws, contract labor laws the subjected freedmen to peonage and sharecropping, and violence. This code also makes for the final piece of evidence toward support of McPherson’s goal in categorizing the American Civil War as a revolution. Southern redeemers, after the withdrawal of northern Republican interest, went through great lengths to counter evolve them. Why would that be? In order to
The South vs. The South by William Freehling is a narrative that focuses on the civil war that affected a vast number of Southerners who opposed the Confederacy regardless of whether they were white or black. These “anti-Confederates,” as termed by Freehling comprised Slaves and Boarder state whites who together formed half the southern population and were significant to the Union victory. By weakening the Confederacy military, contributing manpower and resources to the Union and dividing the southern home front, the anti-Confederates made a critical contribution to the Union war efforts that hastened the end of the war leading to the Union’s victory. The U.S was not the only house that was divided; Divisions between pro-and anti-Confederates, white and black, and the loyalty of both upper and lower states to slavery contributed a lot to the downfall of the confederates. “Divisions within the South helped pave the path toward war. The same divisions behind army lines helped turn the war against the slaveholders.”(p.10). William Freehling argues that more than 450,000 Union troops from the South, especially southern blacks and border state whites, helped in the defeat of the confederates. Further, when the southern Border States rejected the Confederacy, more than a half of the South’s capacity swelled the North’s advantage.
In Document D, Sam Watkins declares that there should be no sectionalism and his belief that sectionalism was the main cause of war. This can be connected to one of the “good things” the Civil War shaped us into being, which is the United States of America which means that despite the conflict, every state shall be unified as a nation and not as separate sections. The Civil War made us realize that acting as a nation can strengthen, and benefit each and every part of the country, and that we will be stronger when we fight as a
Not every southern Confederate felt this strongly about slavery or desired to go to war. Some southerners, like the Lenoirs, did not necessarily want to have slaves but didn’t really know how to accomplish anything without them on a plantation. Walter Lenoir had planned to move north to be free of the burdens of managing slavery, but with the battle at Fort Sumter, Southerners who were leaning one way or the other were suddenly forced to defend their homes and families from what they considered a declaration of war. Walter had already decided that, “If we are to have disunion, I will cast my fortunes with the South…” (Barney
Alexander H. Stephen, in the ‘Cornerstone Speech’, firmly stated that, the Confederacy was basically on racial inequality and slavery. He clearly outlined the existing differences between the new nation and the American United States. Stephen made it clear that, the Confederacy of the cornerstone was not primarily of chattel slavery, but the black people subordination benefited the white people. Thus, he tied slavery to race. Confederacy was the origin of the era of apartheid in South Africa. Stephen made declarations that the new government was founded on the great truth , that the negro was not equal on the side of the white people and that, slavery which was to be a subordination to the white race which was superior, was a normal and a natural condition. Stephen criticized the claims of the northern that, African enslavement was a law violation nature and that it was a wrong principle, morally, politically and socially. He clearly put across that his new government had an idea which was exactly different from the northern claims. He argued that, it was a kind of insanity to believe that the Negro will be equal between the white and black people and also that, enslaving the blacks was wrong. He made predictions that, the Confederate constitution has settled all the questions relating to the African slavery which existed among the white people. Stephen’s arguments led to the outbreak of the civil war in 1865 (The Teaching AmericanHistory.org, 2017).
South Carolina also accused the Northern states of instigating “a war [that would] be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States,” (South Carolina) through the election of Abraham Lincoln as president. In Georgia’s declaration of secession, the reasons for secession are cited as “numerous and serious causes of complaint” (Georgia) against the non-slave holding states that were centered on “the subject of African slavery” (Georgia). In Mississippi, the consensus in the same; Mississippi’s position in the issue “[was] thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery” (Mississippi) and goes to list many reasons pertaining to slavery for its secession, most notably 1) The North “has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation” (Mississippi), 2) “has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union” (Mississippi), and 3) “advocates negro equality” (Mississippi). For these as well as other reasons all pertaining to slavery, the Confederate States seceded from the Union. In the Southern States, as seen through the declarations of secession from the Confederate States, the people, along with the governments of those states all supported secession based on issues arising from the conflict over slavery.
Before the Civil War started, the North and the South argued on two main topics: slavery and state rights. In my opinion, it was because of slavery that state rights were argued. When Western territories were annexed from Mexico, they were admitted to the Union with the condition that that slavery be banned through the Wilmot Proviso (History.com). Because of this, slave states felt they were unfairly treated and outnumbered. The religious fervor of the Second Great Awakening also gave way to new ideology. Combined with the growing abolitionist sentiment, Northern states began taking action against Southern states. Because their rights as
In the third document, “Border States Are Alarmed ( 1862), a document cited by George D Prentice a South adopted Connecticut Yankee who spoke on behalf of Kentucky and his unwillingness to the emancipation proclamation who claims that the order is unjust and mischievous, that if carried out shall only be harmful, though admitted it would be helpful against the enemy [South]. Prentice speaks thoroughly on his unwillingness as a representative of Kentucky to take on such an order, he believes it is an act that shall never really be abolished, though attempted. He clings to the fact that Lincoln is just a temporary occupant of the executive chair and is of little worth, that slavery is an institution installed from the “government our fathers framed” which will withstand through the emancipation proclamation. The document ended by Prentice stating that Kentucky would resist the act.