What do you think?
Secessionist Impulse: Alabama and Mississippi in 1860
The classic study of the cultural and economic politics that allowed "fire-eaters" to triumph over Unionists in the Deep South
In The Secessionist Impulse William L. Barney explores the forces and individuals behind both the 1860 presidential election and the subsequent push for secession. Barney contends that, despite the efforts of revisionist historians to show otherwise, pro-slavery factions existed among all of the major presidential candidates supporters.
The most vociferous and important faction of politics in Mississippi and Alabama were the supporters of Breckinridge. These men tended to be far younger in age and had either just recently joined or where on the cusp of joining the slave holding planter class. These young men would be most affected by increased restriction of slavery, and as such not only sought for its continued existence, but its expansion in the form of Caribbean annexations and the reopening of the Atlantic slave trade. When Lincoln won the election, it was also these young men that lead the charge for Secession. To further their cause they resorted to scare tactics about abolition and upheaval of the existing social order and Southern culture that would take place at the hands of a Lincoln presidency.
For the most part the proponents of secession targeted the individuals that had supported Bell. These men tended to be older, more conservative, and already established. They had voted for Bell as a compromise candidate that sought simply to maintain the status quo and avoid the major divisive issues for as long as possible. With Lincoln soon to be in office though, supporters of secession could resort to simple scare tactics to motivate the Bell supporters to their side. Thus while the more to secession was largely supported by supporters of slavery, those that held slaves already and those that wished too in the future, the election of 1860 was far more diverse in its political geography.
Barney builds his argument through voluminous quantitative studies of manuscript collections, census reports, and newspaper accounts. The result is a detailed topography of the political leanings of Mississippi and Alabama. It is certainly a product of its time in the 1970’s when cliometrics and statistical examination of evidence were en vogue.
In The Secessionist Impulse William L. Barney explores the forces and individuals behind both the 1860 presidential election and the subsequent push for secession. Barney contends that, despite the efforts of revisionist historians to show otherwise, pro-slavery factions existed among all of the major presidential candidates supporters.
The most vociferous and important faction of politics in Mississippi and Alabama were the supporters of Breckinridge. These men tended to be far younger in age and had either just recently joined or where on the cusp of joining the slave holding planter class. These young men would be most affected by increased restriction of slavery, and as such not only sought for its continued existence, but its expansion in the form of Caribbean annexations and the reopening of the Atlantic slave trade. When Lincoln won the election, it was also these young men that lead the charge for Secession. To further their cause they resorted to scare tactics about abolition and upheaval of the existing social order and Southern culture that would take place at the hands of a Lincoln presidency.
For the most part the proponents of secession targeted the individuals that had supported Bell. These men tended to be older, more conservative, and already established. They had voted for Bell as a compromise candidate that sought simply to maintain the status quo and avoid the major divisive issues for as long as possible. With Lincoln soon to be in office though, supporters of secession could resort to simple scare tactics to motivate the Bell supporters to their side. Thus while the more to secession was largely supported by supporters of slavery, those that held slaves already and those that wished too in the future, the election of 1860 was far more diverse in its political geography.
Barney builds his argument through voluminous quantitative studies of manuscript collections, census reports, and newspaper accounts. The result is a detailed topography of the political leanings of Mississippi and Alabama. It is certainly a product of its time in the 1970’s when cliometrics and statistical examination of evidence were en vogue.
- GenresHistory
386 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1974
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1 review
October 3, 2020
Interesting to see how southern "fire eaters" and "ultras" -- the far right-wing radicals of the 1850s -- prevailed over traditional unionist conservatives to effect a revolution in 1860. The book focuses on two states, Alabama and Mississippi, because, along with South Carolina, were the two most rabid for secession. But the insights here apply to the whole South before the Civil War. Also, Alabama and Mississippi were newly settled areas, where land and slave prices were high. But yet, in only a few decades, cotton fever had driven planters to exhaust the soil, leading to cycles of land boom and land bust. Those two states were the South on steroids, where capitalism met commodity agriculture and slavery in a massive get-rich-quick scheme.
The white South had felt under attack since the birth of modern abolitionism in the 1830s. By 1850, younger southern partisans were calling for secession, and only the moderating influence of older southern conservatives, working with their northern counterparts, produced enough delay for tempers to cool and the Compromise of 1850 to be concluded, putting off the crisis for another decade. This time, in 1860, the radicals were not about to lose control of the narrative.
Even before the presidential election, younger southern elites, many of them attorneys aspiring to become planters, were prepared to push hard for secession if their preferred candidate, Breckenridge, lost. When Lincoln won, these secessionists swung into vigorous action, fomenting fear of "Black Republican" (abolitionist) rule and the end of the white southern way of life, based as it was, on racial hierarchy.
Fascinating parallels to today's politics suggest themselves on almost every page, hard as it is sometimes to read, especially to see how the dominant class of large planters convinced the larger group of southern poor whites, who didn't own slaves, that slavery was the best system for poor white people too, preserving their symbolic racial status as white over black and also keeping free blacks from competing with white workers in the labor market. This sounds a bit like what people on the far right still say about black and white people, as well as immigrants.
The white South had felt under attack since the birth of modern abolitionism in the 1830s. By 1850, younger southern partisans were calling for secession, and only the moderating influence of older southern conservatives, working with their northern counterparts, produced enough delay for tempers to cool and the Compromise of 1850 to be concluded, putting off the crisis for another decade. This time, in 1860, the radicals were not about to lose control of the narrative.
Even before the presidential election, younger southern elites, many of them attorneys aspiring to become planters, were prepared to push hard for secession if their preferred candidate, Breckenridge, lost. When Lincoln won, these secessionists swung into vigorous action, fomenting fear of "Black Republican" (abolitionist) rule and the end of the white southern way of life, based as it was, on racial hierarchy.
Fascinating parallels to today's politics suggest themselves on almost every page, hard as it is sometimes to read, especially to see how the dominant class of large planters convinced the larger group of southern poor whites, who didn't own slaves, that slavery was the best system for poor white people too, preserving their symbolic racial status as white over black and also keeping free blacks from competing with white workers in the labor market. This sounds a bit like what people on the far right still say about black and white people, as well as immigrants.
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1 review