With the title of this post in mind… this editorial comes from the Staunton Vindicator, December 14, 1860 (courtesy the Valley of the Shadow site).
Now, I realize, as an editorial, it is, or may be, just one man’s opinion, but, there appear to be reflections of the attitudes of others. I’ve placed emphasis in a few key sections that should strike a chord.
The historical truth that the negro slave and the acquisition of Territory constitute the rock which will eventually break asunder the Union of the States, affords us a gleam of light as to the pat “Manifest Destiny,” marching before us like a pillar of cloud by day and fire by night, is pointing out for the Southern Confederacy. We have ever believed that the genius of American liberty was destined to overspread the Mexican Republic, and thus pave the way for the triumph of Christianity over the religious superstition of that benighted and priest-ridden people–wresting one of the loveliest countries beneath the sun from the rule of ignorance, tyranny, and wickedness, and making her beautiful valleys to blossom as the rose, and her auriferous mountains to yield up their immense treasures, under the magic touch of Anglo-Saxon energy and industry.
The question presents itself, is this possible so long as the enemies of the expansion of negro slavery have the numerical power in our national councils? We think not, for it is a conclusion fortified by the most powerful arguments– adaptation of soil and climate–which can be adduced, that negro slavery is destined to be established in old Mexico, if ever that country passes from the ruse of the race that at present governs it, and becomes a part of the American domain. This being admitted, then it follows, the antipathy of the Northern mind to the expansion of slavery being greater than a desire for territorial acquisition, that no scheme, however plausible, could ever be carried into successful operation, the object of which would be the possession of Mexico, so long as the Union of these States continues.
But establish a Southern Confederacy, then the difficulty arising from division of sentiment on the negro question would be removed, for there would be but one opinion in common with all the component parts of such a government, and that, the dedication of all territory to slavery where it could be made profitable.
May it not be, then, an arrangement in the economy of Providence–an unfolding in the “Manifest Destiny” of our race–that from the rending asunder of the bonds that unite these States, is to be accomplished the peaceful religious and political regeneration of that land of beauty, mystery and romance, around whose history is thrown a charm and attraction unsurpassed by the most fascinating pictures of modern fiction? Under the auspices of a Southern Confederacy, this could be attained without the fear of violent controversies, sectional wars, and personal hatreds; while, if attempted by a Confederacy united in name, but divided in sentiment, a scene of strife and crimination would follow, shocking to the civilized world, and a libel upon the name of an enlightened patriotism. The history of Kansas, written in tears and blood, is a fearful warning against the acquisition of more territory as an united people.
We have implicit faith that it is the “Manifest Destiny” of this country, under Providence, to absorb the chaotic, torn and tattered powers of the North American Continent, and bring them under the genial sway of Republicanism and Christianity. If the union of these States lies in the way of the accomplishment of that end, then we believe there will be a peaceable and permanent separation, each Confederacy contributing its quota to carrying out the grand scheme of reformation.
It is very evident, too, that the moral and religious conviction of the South is better adopted to the dissemination and inculcation of the simple truths of free government regulated by law, and the Bible, than the North. There, the great substratum of society is corrupt and polluted, sending forth a stream of infidelity, heresy and blasphemy unparalleled in the history of the world.–With no permanent rule of moral action, but liable to break out in the assertion of some monstrous doctrine of religious and political fanaticism, such as Millerism, Foreurism, Woman’s Rightism, &c., the respect and confidence of an inferior people could not be commanded, for the example of immorality and radicalism would successfully estop the enforcement of virtuous precepts.
The social and moral status of Southern society is of more substantial character, and better adapted to the great work of implanting the living truths of free government and christian religion and virtue, in the minds of an inferior race. The steady political conservatism, the firm morality, and elevated conscientiousness of Southern character, would at once revolutionize, by the silent, yet potential agencies of precept and example, the social structure of that unhappy and misguided people.
There’s a great deal to digest in this quote (which is actually the tail-end of a larger quote found in the Vindicator, on page 2, column 3, under the title “Manifest Destiny”), ranging from the future of women’s suffrage in the Confederacy, to expansionism, and etc., etc., but I’m just focusing on the assumption that a free and independent Confederacy still permeates the mentality of many a contemporary Confederate celebrationist.
After reading this piece, I’m left wondering if there is evidence of mutual sentiment in other documents out there, generated from other Southerners, favoring many of the ideas brought out in this editorial. Was expansionism on the agenda of the Confederacy? Indeed, not just territorial expansionism, but the expansion of slavery… as well as the expansion of a few other ideals.
Secede and be left alone in peace? Indeed…
Andy Hall
December 12, 2010
Great post.
The notion that the institution of slavery would have died a gradual, peaceful death on its own within a generation or two is absolutely central to the Lost Cause. It’s even included as a throw-away line in Gods and Generals. But I don’t recall seeing a speech or editorial by any prominent Southerner willing to say so publicly in the run-up to the war. To the contrary, the C.S. constitution was hard-wired to protect and expand the institution at all costs. The idea that slavery would’ve gone away on its own is a grand what-if proposition, and (in my opinion) not a terribly plausible one, at that.
But American designs on Mexico didn’t end with the war. In the mid-1870s, amid the chaos of the cross-border raids by Mexican bandits, the U.S. Navy bought a crapped-out civilian riverboat, christened it Rio Bravo, and sent it to the Texas/Mexico border. At the urging of local Anglo merchants in Brownsville, the boat’s commander, DeWitt Kells, conspired with a famous Texas Ranger, Leander McNelly, to stage an incident where the boat would be “attacked” by “bandits” from the Mexican side, providing an incident to incite an escalation that would eventually lead to war and a U.S. takeover of Mexico, or at least its northern reaches. Fortunately the U.S. consul at Matamoros got wind of it, Kells was sacked, and McNelly had to go off killing Mexicans and stealing livestock on his own.
Robert Moore
December 13, 2010
True, American designs on Mexico didn’t end, but have you ever seen another source in which the designs, as illustrated in this editorial, have been outlined? I wonder if the opinions expressed in this editorial may have been found in others. I see an Anglo-Saxon, Protestant white-washing in the making… while expanding slavery… and secession (at least to this fellow) was the means to that end… not to mention a disdain for the rights of women.
Sherree
December 13, 2010
Hi Robert,
Fascinating.
The westward expansion of the nation did not bode well for Mexico or for Indigenous nations in the path of that expansion, no matter what the outcome of the Civil War. “Manifest destiny” was a concept that informed much of American history in one way or another, and which I have never heard stated quite so succinctly as in this editorial, particularly in connection with the idea that slaveowners would better know God’s supposed plan for not only enslaving other human beings, but for stealing the land of and killing the children of still other human beings. It is quite incredible how readily men and women of any era and in all areas of the world manufacture elaborate justifications for the most immoral of actions committed in the name of God.
There is a powerful post on the new blog “Crossroads” that examines what might be termed a third, or even fourth rail view of the Civil War rarely considered, if the separation of interpretations into the broad categories of Union, Confederate, and African American is accepted–the view of the war by men and women of Indigenous ancestry. (The title of the post is “Contested History: Waziyata Win and the Dakota”) What a breath of fresh air. Too often the voices of Indigenous men and women are lost in the discussion of American history and relegated to mention in discussions of “Indian Wars” , as if the dispossession of the men and women of the Plains Nations had nothing to do with the Civil War, or the violence committed against the Lumbee in the eastern theatre was incidental to the war. (Your post on the Lumbee is excellent, btw) I think that this unintended oversight was best expressed by David Blight in one of his lectures in which he mused something to the effect, “We (meaning historians and Americans in general) just sort of skip over the Indians, don’t we?” Yes, don’t we?
My hat is off to you, to Brooks, and to your fellow bloggers who are working to change this and more. Sherree
Robert Moore
December 13, 2010
Hi Sherree, I really need to find an article that I read back in grad school, discussing how Indigenous people were manipulated by both sides… even to the point where tribes were divided between the two sides. Anyway, in addition to the greater story of Indigenous people in the war, yes, the “war” in the Great Plans is hugely overshadowed in our collective “memory” of the Civil War, and that is one of the reasons why I find the story of Galvanized Yankees so much… it seems to merge two rarely discussed aspects of the war… Confederate “converts” and the story of the people of the Great Plains. Do you think the inability of our collective memory to absorb every aspect of these things is reflective of another form of centrism?
Sherree
December 14, 2010
Hi Robert,
Thanks for your response.
You asked the following: “Do you think the inability of our collective memory to absorb every aspect of these things is reflective of another form of centrism?”
My answer is–in a word–yes.
To reimagine American history even moderately incorporating Indigenous perspective requires a mighty reimagining that the nation has yet to do, in my opinion.
To view American history through Indigenous eyes offers no uplifting, redemptive narrative. It requires a truly sobering look at the past of our nation. No group of people from any region of the nation is exempt. Even some abolitionists had no problem forcibly taking the land of Indigenous nations, and killing Indigenous women and children. (Chivington of Sand Creek massacre “fame” was among the most notorious) Both white Southerners and white Northerners wanted western lands; the former group to expand slavery into the territories; the latter group to expand opportunity for free white labor. That meant taking care of the “Indian problem” first. The same with Andrew Jackson and the Creek and the Cherokee prior to the American Civil War. The same repeatedly throughout American history. The same. No rebirth of freedom narrative. No first the white population was anti taking the land, then gradually began to see the error of their ways and lived peacefully beside of their Indigenous neighbors narrative. No second American Revolution narrative. Nothing but more of the same.
I don’t remember which Indigenous Elder said this, but it expresses with eloquence what I am attempting to say: “They (meaning white men and women) promised us many things, but they only kept one promise. They promised to take our land, and they did.”
African American men and women forced a rethinking of American history, and rightfully so. Activist/scholars like Waziyatawin will eventually do the same, I believe, and we will all be better for it.
Waziyatawin has her own website. It is well worth the visit. Needless to say, her view of the “Dakota War” differs greatly from the view of many.
As far as the above cited editorial goes–again, what a piercing look into the mind of a person who obviously believed that his race was superior to all other races because God ordained it. Chilling, no matter what the time period. It reminds me of a quote from the Sacramento Valley Report in 1871 concerning “Indian” children who had been hunted down and cornered in a cave–reminds me, in the sense that a similar philosophy must have been behind such an action, or maybe no philosophy at all:
“Trailed the Indians with dogs, cornered them in a cave and killed about thirty. In the cave were some Indian children. Kingsley could not bear to kill these children with his 56-caliber Spencer rifle. It tore them up so bad! So he did it with his 38-calibre Smith and Wesson Revolver”.
That pretty much sums it all up for me. Much like when I toured a replica of a slave ship and saw a manacle small enough for a six year old child.
As one of your fellow bloggers said, it is time now to get serious. History is not a game. The present and the future really do depend upon us getting it as right as we can.
Thanks, Robert, as always, for your hospitality and for your well reasoned posts.
EarthTone
December 13, 2010
This is from the Democratic Party Platform; June 18, 1860:
5. Resolved, that the Democratic party are in favor of the acquisition of the Island of Cuba on such terms as shall be honorable to ourselves and just to Spain.
I believe this plank was on the platform of the both the Northern and Southern splinter groups of the Democracy.
Robert Moore
December 13, 2010
Thanks for commenting, EarthTone. Interesting, but, as a side-by-side comparison, were thoughts about the expansion into Cuba nearly as aggressive as what we see in the editorial? Also, the person writing the editorial sees secession as a necessity, to expand slavery, and apparently, clear out Catholicism… but, as for slavery, it already existed in Cuba. Were the motivations for expansion into Cuba equal to those expressed in this editorial, for expansion into Mexico?
EarthTone
December 20, 2010
Robert, my point in mentioning Cuba was not to answer any questions, but rather to raise some. The queries you make are right on point. I have not done enough research to answer them, but I will offer this.
The desire to acquire Cuba was built in large part, as I understand it, on the desire of the slave states to add another slave state into the Union. Thus, the initial desire for acquisition seems to be political, as much much as anything.
A key thing to know regarding Cuban acquisition is the Ostend Manifesto, which was issued by the administration of President Franklin Pierce. As noted in wiki,
“The Ostend Manifesto was a document written in 1854 that described the rationale for the United States to purchase Cuba from Spain and implied the U.S. should declare war if Spain refused. Cuba’s annexation had long been a goal of U.S. expansionists, particularly as the U.S. set its sights southward following the admission of California to the Union. However, diplomatically, the country had been content to see the island remain in Spanish hands so long as it did not pass to a stronger power such as Britain or France. A product of the debates over slavery in the United States, Manifest Destiny, and the Monroe Doctrine, the Ostend Manifesto proposed a shift in foreign policy, justifying the use of force to seize Cuba in the name of national security…
Cuba was of special importance to Southern Democrats, whose economic and political interests would be best served by the admission of another slave state to the Union. The existence of slavery in Cuba, the island’s agrarian economy, and its geographical location predisposed it to Southern influence its admission would greatly strengthen the position of Southern slaveholders, whose way of life was under fire from Northern abolitionists.”
The text of the Ostend Manifesto is here: http://www.historyofcuba.com/history/havana/Ostend2.htm
The reasons cited for acquiring Cuba, from the Manifesto are:
It must be clear to every reflecting mind that, from the peculiarity of its geographical position, and the considerations attendant on it, Cuba is as necessary to the North American republic as any of its present members, and that it belongs naturally to that great family of states of which the Union is the providential nursery.
From its locality it commands the mouth of the Mississippi and the immense and annually increasing trade which must seek this avenue to the ocean. On the numerous navigable streams, measuring an aggregate course of some thirty thousand miles, which disembogue themselves though this river into the Gulf of Mexico, the increase of the population within the last ten years amounts to more than that of the entire Union at the time Louisiana was annexed to it.
The natural and main outlet to the products of this entire population, the highway of their direct intercourse with the Atlantic and Pacific states, can never be secure, but must ever be endangered whilst Cuba is a dependency of a distant power in whose possession it had proved to be a source of constant annoyance and embarrassment to their interests. Indeed the Union can never enjoy repose, nor possess reliable security, as long as Cuba is not embraced within its boundaries.
Its immediate acquisition by our government is of paramount importance, and we cannot doubt but that it is a consummation devoutly wished for by its inhabitants.
The problem, of course, was that the Manifesto was denounced by many Northerners and also European countries. The US did not officially try to acquire Cuba, although there was support for filibuster escapades from private US citizens.
Interestingly enough, several internet sources indicate that Confederate President Jefferson Davis expressed the desire to acquire Cuba, even after the CSA was formed. The prosecution of war would forever put those plans on hold. I have not been able to determine why Davis believed the acquisition was important; but it’s economic value and value as a seaport (for both military and domestic purposes) comes to mind – that is, the reasons cited in the Ostend Manifesto.
But I would invite more knowledgeable folks to provide more info.
****
I would add this. As I understand it, this plank for the acquisition of Cuba was in the platform of both the Northern and Southern Party. As such, it represented the position of a large number of Democrats nationwide, but more important to this discussion, Southern Democrats.
By contrast, the comments in the editorial above represents, as the blogger put it, one person’s opinion.
Thus, if we want to get an understanding of Confederate designs for its own Manifest Destiny, the discussions regarding the gain of Cuba are an important place to look.