I’m in a western Maryland frame of mind. So…
…the following comes from the Herald and Torch (Hagerstown, Md.), March 13, 1861:
Will Secession Preserve Slavery?
The Baltimore Sun, which is the exponent of the extreme sentiments of the Southern rights men of Maryland, as they call themselves, says that “secession and union with the South is the only thing that can preserve” the institution of Slavery in Maryland. Thus, the cloven-foot is very plainly shown by the Metropolitan organ of the BRECKINRIDGE politicians. It virtually assumes as a fact that the North has become permanently Republicanized in the partizan acceptation of that term, and from this very questionable hypothesis, proceeds to argue that slavery will be insecure in the Border States if they remain in the Union with that North as an insignificant minority, but it utterly fails to show how that institution in Maryland would be more secure in a Southern Confederacy. We do not believe that a majority of the Northern people have willfully and deliberately determined to crush out Slavery, or that they are not prepared at this very moment, could they be heard through their ballot-boxes, to do us ample justice. But suppose the Sun is right in its uncharitable opinion of those people, what protection can JEFF. DAVIS’ Confederacy extend to the institution of Slavery in Maryland that it does not now enjoy under the Constitution and in the Union which our forefathers framed and cemented and bequeathed to us as the most priceless of legacies? Release those Northern people from their constitutional obligations to us, and what is to prevent them from striking down Slavery wherever it can be reached? and what is to prevent them from reaching it in Maryland but an imaginary division line of nearly two hundred miles in length? We think the people of this State will require some further information upon this subject from the Sun – some additional rays of light from this great Southern luminary – because they are prepared to accept its proposition that “secession and union with the South is the only thing that can preserve the institution of slavery in Maryland,” or before they are willing to believe that such a suicidal step would not put that institution in the course of very rapid extinction in all the border States.
*Follow-up: This post really isn’t looking for an answer to the question presented in the title of the post. Note first, that the title is a quote.
The quote, as used here, is to be considered from the angle it was presented at that particular time in March 1861 (as well as from whom it was presented, and why they presented it to their readers). As I mentioned, the Torch and Herald took the quote from the Baltimore Sun, clearly stating that the Sun was “the exponent of the extreme sentiments of the Southern rights men of Maryland, as they call themselves”. The Torch and Herald, on the other hand, was the Unionist media arm of the Hagerstown/Washington County, Maryland area. Therefore, we have Unionist media, in western Maryland, looking at pro-secesh media, in eastern Maryland. Why? What did they hope to accomplish by presenting this to their readers? By all means, give a shot at an answer to these questions, but not at the question presented in the title. Be sure, however, to understand just where the Hagerstown paper was coming from. Yes, slavery still existed in western Maryland, but the Unionist presence there was much stronger than the pro-secesh. Given careful consideration, this may be an exercise in learning how not to broad-brush. For some great insight into where slavery stood in the mind of these folks in western Maryland, I strongly recommend portions of Kathleen Ernst’s Too Afraid To Cry: Maryland Civilians in the Antietam Campaign. Also, take a little time to look through older posts here, that I have focused on the Hagerstown paper, as well as the perspectives of western Marylanders, at the heart of this situation, at that time. Thanks.
Cenantua's Blog 
Mark
March 27, 2011
Interesting.
You might want to check the Southern Ultimatums — promises of war — if slavery was not SPREAD.
To pretend the Civil War was about saving slavery where it was, is goofy, and not supported by facts, or by the words, documents, speeches, newspapers, and sermons of that time.
The war was a violent attempt to SPREAD slavery — and spread it against the will of the white people in the territories.
The Southern Ultimatums, issued 150 years ago this month, show that conclusively. Southern newspapers called the Ultimatums “The TRUE ISSUE”. All five Southern Ultimatums were about the SPREAD of slavery. See Richmonds newspapers, March 23, 1861.
But it was far more than the rantings of power drunk leaders in Montgomery, or rabid editors in Richmond. These Ultimatums were the same essential demands the SOuth had from 1820 on — spread slavery or else. The “Compromise of 1820” was as much a compromise as a 7-11 stick up, and it didn’t take long for the South not to be satisified with their own demands — they wanted MORE. Hence the “Compromise” of 1850, which spread slavery even further.
Here, however, in 1861, the South didn’t even pretend the absurdity of “states rights” — there was naked demands to spread slavery AGAINST the will of the people in the territories. They MUST accept and respect slavery.
Kansas had just voted an astonishing 98% -2% against slavery! No place else on earth was so ardently anti slavery as Kansas. Yet the Southern Ultimatums demanded, under promise of war, that these people must accept and respect slavery.
Nothing shows the gross, violent, almost insane hubris of the Southern leaders. And they not only admitted what their goal was — they BRAGGED about it. In their own Ultimatums, in their own speeches, in their own documents.
You can pretend all you want, but at the time, theSouthern leaders were screaming “SPREAD SLAVERY” from the rooftops. The war was not about the protection of slavery — it was the South’s violent attempt to SPREAD slavery against the will and clear votes of the people in the territories.
Any other interpretation is just goofy — because the South said this over and over and over, in their own documents, in their own speeches, in their own headlines, proudly and loudly.
Robert Moore
March 27, 2011
First, this was not a “question” presented looking for an answer. It was presented to be considered for what it was, at the time. It’s a quote, used by Hagerstown’s Herald and Torch (in March 1861), as taken from the Baltimore Sun. Furthermore, the Herald and Torch, was a Unionist paper. While clearly anti-secession, the Hagerstown paper originated from a community that was gradually moving away from slavery (unlike many areas in the eastern part of the state).
And, what’s this “goofy” stuff, and “you can pretend all you want”? Who are you addressing, exactly?
Clearly, you have overshot this post, and muddied an effort to respond by adding far too much information than that needed which was needed.
Robert Moore
March 29, 2011
Ok, just got your latest comment, Mark, and guess what? Your done commenting here. The ax you apparently feel you have a need to grind blurs your ability to see CW history beyond your blinders. You definitely have no ability to distinguish between Unionist and abolitionist. Goodbye…
Bill Newcomer
March 27, 2011
Though there is merit in the view of how the issue of the spreading of slavery in the territories was a contributor to secession and eventual war, that is a different question from the one raised in the quote from the pro-union Hagerstown newspaper; what would have happened to slavery if there had been no secession. I’ve always thought that if the Confederate states had stayed in the Union, Lincoln would have gone down in history as a one term “do little or nothing” president. Of course history took a different turn and we will never know. The Emancipation Proclamation was aimed at states that were in rebellion and not at those border states loyal to the Union… In that, the editorial’s assessment of the impact of secession on slavery was on target…
Robert Moore
March 27, 2011
I think you’re on the mark there, Bill. There were a fair number of slaveholders in western Maryland at the time, and the strength of the Bell vote in the area, in the 1860 election, shows (I think) that they were able to see that secession was the worst way to go about preserving the institution of slavery. On the other hand, the matter of slaveholding in that area of Maryland was a bit complicated. It was on the decline in that area (since 1850), and there were some (those of the Brethren faith come to mind, as one example) who were buying slaves with intent to provide them with a trade, and then free them. One of the most interesting studies of western Maryland slaveholders can be found in one Otho Nesbitt. I’ve been planning on writing a post about him for some time, but need to access one more piece of information before I make that commitment. Still, I might give a few snippets, here and there, about him as a slaveholder… and a Unionist.
Ron
March 27, 2011
Great post. This paper was on to something. I am by no means an expert on Maryland during the secession crisis, but is it possible that the Unionist paper wanted to win over those moderates from Western Maryland who might be inclined towards seeing secession and the Confederacy as the only way to preserve the peculiar institution? I have seen similar skepticism towards secession from Northern Virginian Unionists. (I recently did a post on Alexandrian George Brent, Unionist delegate to the Virginia Convention, who thought secession and eventual civil war would lead to the destruction of slavery; he told fellow delegates as much! http://dclawyeronthecivilwar.blogspot.com/2011/03/alexandrias-delegate-unionist-for-all.html) The persvasive argument throughout the South, or at least the Deep South, was that slavery would be destroyed if the slave states remained in the Union. This paper was perhaps casting doubt on that “conventional wisdom.” Of course, unlike in Virginia, the pro-slavery moderates in Maryland never pushed their state into leaving the Union.
Robert Moore
March 28, 2011
Thanks, Ron. I agree. I do believe the Hagerstown paper was doing that, exactly. I’ve also seen the paper mock and ridicule secesh types. It’s somewhat of a mirror image of the same tactics that can be found in secesh-leanibg Virginia newspapers.
For a number of reasons, I think studying Maryland’s pro-slavery Unionists gives us a better understanding of Virginia’s various sentiments. For one, I find it puts things in perspective.
Regarding Brent, my third great grandfather said things in much the same way. H wasn’t a delegate to the Virginia Convention, but he stumped against secession in Page County on the same platform. Irony was, while he had slaves on 1850, he had none ten years later.
James F. Epperson
March 28, 2011
Is this the entire editorial? I might want to add this to my website.
Robert Moore
March 28, 2011
That’s all there was to the article, as used in the Hagerstown paper.
usc
March 29, 2011
I find it more interesting that the editorial spoke of Slavery as an economic function. You could almost feel the way they were asking about their “livelihoods” and the affects all of this was going to have on protecting or destroying that market system.
To attack Slavery as the purpose of the war was kinda out of touch with the article, but defending “States Rights” would be as well…but I do find it interesting that it was their topic…but not in the “Slavery was the cause of the Civil War” way that the editorial presents, but instead “What will happen to our economy if we go North or go South” way. Which side will protect our economy.
I don’t feel that it was in the North’s interest to remove Slavery from the country…it was in their interest to curtail it’s growth…which does put us on the eventual collision course that the people of Maryland were at the center of. I think it takes a simple person to break down something as complex as the “Civil War” into the black and white of “Slavery or no Slavery” argument. Even that was not so black an white in that newspaper. And it wasn’t in the South either. It was the back bone of their economy. An economy that in one sector, cotton, produced more wealth than all of the Northern states combined. That’s a hard thing for businessmen to be dissuaded from expanding. And a harder thing to give up over night.
In the end, it’s an interesting look into the mind of a State in that time. What will happen to Slavery in Maryland? What will happen to my livelihood? What will happen to my way of life? What will happen to the economic market that I build wealth in? Will I have time to adjust? Can I adjust? What will happen to the capital investment I have put into the slaves? Will I be reimbursed…it was legal when I bought them after all.
Whether or not the moral questions about one man owning another are answered correctly…I can’t imagine a man, providing for a family, with his financial worth tied up in slaves, land, product, housing for slaves, resources, all the capital he has put into these efforts hanging on the brink. We talk of it now in black and white…thank you for that editorial that seems to bring a bit of color to the past.
Out.
Robert Moore
March 29, 2011
Excellent assessment. As for the morality of slavery, I think that’s something we have to detach ourselves from, and try to see it more from their angle, in this particular place. I don’t believe it’s fair to judge them through our “lenses”.
Ron
March 30, 2011
Robert–
It might be bit off point with respect to the main subject of the post, but I wanted to comment further on your last comment about the fairness of judging slavery through the lenses of modern times. I’ve thought about doing a post on that very subject for quite a while now, but have shied away from the possible controversy. I also don’t want to be accused of moral relativism. I am just tryting to put myself in the shoes of folks who lived 150 years ago.
It’s easy to sit here in the 21st century and visit our values on the 19th century. Today, it is unquestionable that slavery is wrong, and only a handful of racists still believe in it. However, at that time, there were two competing views of the subject, with variations within each camp. Even some opposed to slavery were far from tolerant human beings who wanted to accord equal rights to all. And we have to remember that it was legal to own slaves, as abhorrent as that is to us today. Some people could rationalize that there was nothing wrong with human bondage and look at human chattle as mere investments, just like your commenter pointed out above. So, I suppose my point is, we are quick to take the moral high ground, but back then, there was more ambiguity and gray area than perhaps we would like to admit. When you think about it from the standpoint of those who made money off the system, and who grew up around it, and whose preachers told them there was nothing wrong with it, it isn’t difficult to understand how some people would go to war to maintain something that today strikes us as just plain wrong.
Robert Moore
March 30, 2011
Hi Ron,
I agree. I find it far too easy to sit in judgment of these people, when we can’t possibly put ourselves in that time and that place. We have to give more consideration for what they experienced and how they saw it. Clearly, that’s difficult, but necessary in historical analysis. It’s also difficult when we try to turn around and gain perspective from those in bondage.
I think you are also right about writing a post about this topic. I believe it would quickly become a magnet for controversy, but only because people can’t possibly think of it without going into an attack posture. Actually, I’ve tried to figure out a way to write such a post, while planting some sort of “neutralizing statement” in the initial paragraph, but think many would glaze right over such a thing, especially once they got into the meat of the post.
I also believe that some of my posts, pointing out that slavery WAS very much at the heart of secession, are misunderstood as to why I present them. I’m not trying to present these details as a moral beat-down of Southerners (whether they held slaves or not… whether they wore gray, or blue, or no uniform at all), but rather to counter all of the “no it wasn’t about slavery” arguments. I think we can see, from the words of the people who lived it, that it was very much a part of their thinking.
Thanks for the comment, Ron.