Heidler and Heidler

[Union8448]

From Essential Civil War Curriculum
The Fire-Eaters - Essential Civil War Curriculum

Part of their thesis is that change itself made southerners alarmed. The rise of the news nation connected to the 5 regional telegraph companies, the sharing of newspaper content, the rise of a national publishing industry, and the rapid decrease in the cost of travel to Washington, D.C. and to NYC, all were taken as evidence that the agricultural way of life tethered to the turn of 18th to the 19th century was endangered. That magnified the small threat posed by abolitionists and created a basis for the rhetoric that the southern way of life was threatened.
The rate of change had accelerated, partially fueled by the Gold Rush. And the influx of Irish and German immigrants was particular noticeable and led to the brief existence of the Know Nothing party.
The constant work of just a few men, like Yancey and Robert Barnwell Rhett, was enough to get men who should have known better, like Alexander Stephens to accept secession as inevitable and somewhat acceptable.

 

[diane]

Thanks for bringing this topic up - the fire eaters were very important. They absolutely fired up the planters and firmly believed in never changing. I do think the California Gold Rush is much under-appreciated for its influence on the war. California's entry into the Union as a free state with more wealth than the agricultural South was pivotal. Mississippi was then the richest state in the Union, and therefore powerful. Then - California appears! Fire-eaters like Yancey began to focus not on South Carolina but Mississippi about then. Very few of these orators put their money (and lives) where their mouths were, however.

 

[5fish]

Here a seed for secession was sowed... Rhett is the Nick Farage of Brexit...

Bluffton Movement - South Carolina Encyclopedia

(1844). On July 31, 1844, under a large oak tree (the “Secession Oak”) in Bluffton, South Carolina, the first organized political movement with the express goal of South Carolina’s independent secession from the Union was born. The “Bluffton Movement,” as it became known, was a call to secession...

www.scencyclopedia.org

Aggrieved by the Tariff of 1842 and the refusal of Congress to annex Texas, St. Luke’s Parish planters formed a committee and called for a meeting of individuals and their local congressman, Robert Barnwell Rhett, to speak about these issues that had plagued the South since the 1820s. Invitations were sent to nearby parishes, prominent men, and area newspapers (including those in Charleston and Savannah). At this dinner and others to follow, Rhett, a longtime nullifier and disunionist, attempted to rally support for a state convention. He hoped such a convention would nullify the Tariff of 1842 or urge South Carolina’s immediate secession from the Union.

 

[Union8448]

Here a seed for secession was sowed... Rhett is the Nick Farage of Brexit...

Bluffton Movement - South Carolina Encyclopedia

(1844). On July 31, 1844, under a large oak tree (the “Secession Oak”) in Bluffton, South Carolina, the first organized political movement with the express goal of South Carolina’s independent secession from the Union was born. The “Bluffton Movement,” as it became known, was a call to secession...

www.scencyclopedia.org

Aggrieved by the Tariff of 1842 and the refusal of Congress to annex Texas, St. Luke’s Parish planters formed a committee and called for a meeting of individuals and their local congressman, Robert Barnwell Rhett, to speak about these issues that had plagued the South since the 1820s. Invitations were sent to nearby parishes, prominent men, and area newspapers (including those in Charleston and Savannah). At this dinner and others to follow, Rhett, a longtime nullifier and disunionist, attempted to rally support for a state convention. He hoped such a convention would nullify the Tariff of 1842 or urge South Carolina’s immediate secession from the Union.

The target audience seems to have been people who had a sense that the US was leaving the south, and South Carolina behind.
By the time there were 33 states, and immigration had stimulated rapid urbanization in the north, So Carolina was becoming a small fish in a much larger pond.
For southern men, it was a disaster. Because they had no way of knowing what war fueled by industry was going to be like. The amount of equipment, food and forage that the US could deliver to the operational areas was beyond imagination, but the US demonstrated a new type of warfare.

 

[5fish]

The Fire-Eaters elected Lincoln... what?

Fire-Eaters Walk Out of the Democratic Convention | Civil War on the Western Border: The Missouri-Kansas Conflict, 1854-1865

civilwaronthewesternborder.org

1860 Democratic National Conventions - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

James M. McPherson suggested in Battle Cry of Freedom that the “Fire-eater” program of breaking up the convention and running a rival ticket was deliberately intended to bring about the election of a Republican as president, and thus trigger secession declarations by the slave-owning states. Whatever the “intent” of the fire-eaters may have been, doubtless many of them favored secession, and the logical, probable, and actual consequence of their actions was to fragment the Democratic party and thereby virtually ensure a Republican victory.[6

 

[O' Be Joyful]

The Fire-Eaters elected Lincoln... what?

Fire-Eaters Walk Out of the Democratic Convention | Civil War on the Western Border: The Missouri-Kansas Conflict, 1854-1865

civilwaronthewesternborder.org

1860 Democratic National Conventions - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

James M. McPherson suggested in Battle Cry of Freedom that the “Fire-eater” program of breaking up the convention and running a rival ticket was deliberately intended to bring about the election of a Republican as president, and thus trigger secession declarations by the slave-owning states. Whatever the “intent” of the fire-eaters may have been, doubtless many of them favored secession, and the logical, probable, and actual consequence of their actions was to fragment the Democratic party and thereby virtually ensure a Republican victory.[6

Wouldn't surprise me a bit knowing how those fire-eater bastards 'operated' I read the book , but did not recall that passage. Good catch 5fish.

 

[5fish]

target audience

Here is a listen in what you say will comeback to haunt you later. In the Lincoln / Douglas debates, Lincoln corner Douglas about slavery in the new territories and his answer was called the Freeport Doctrine... The answer got him the senate seat but would cost him the presidency later. The Fire Eaters used it to scuttle the Democratic convention, claiming Douglas could not be trusted...

Freeport Doctrine - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

By taking this position, Douglas was defending his Popular Sovereignty or "Squatter Sovereignty" principle of 1854, which he considered to be a compromise between pro-slavery and anti-slavery positions. It was satisfactory to the legislature of Illinois, which reelected Douglas over Lincoln to the Senate. However, the Freeport Doctrine, or "Freeport Heresy" as Southern Democrats called it, alienated many of them. Douglas had actually stated the essence of the doctrine previous to the debate at Freeport, but its prominent public assertion at Freeport contributed (along with other political disputes, such as over the Lecompton Constitution) to antagonizing those in the Southern United States who were demanding ever-increasing protections for slavery. These Southerners subsequently insisted on the Congressional repudiation of the Freeport Doctrine (i.e., the passage of slave codes for the territories), in order to block Douglas's presidential bid in 1860. This led to the split of the Democratic party in 1860, and Douglas's loss in the 1860 presidential election

 

[5fish]

I want to point out there are moments in history when the world changed and the following date is one of them. August 27, 1858, was the day Lincoln unknown to him ensured he would be president in 1860, and Douglas unknown to him planted the seeds of his 1860 defeat for president. One question from Lincoln and one answer for Douglas and a moment that changed history had come to pass...

The Freeport Doctrine was articulated by Stephen A. Douglas at the second of the Lincoln-Douglas debates on August 27, 1858, in Freeport, Illinois.

 

[Union8448]

I want to point out there are moments in history when the world changed and the following date is one of them. August 27, 1858, was the day Lincoln unknown to him ensured he would be president in 1860, and Douglas unknown to him planted the seeds of his 1860 defeat for president. One question from Lincoln and one answer for Douglas and a moment that changed history had come to pass...

The Freeport Doctrine was articulated by Stephen A. Douglas at the second of the Lincoln-Douglas debates on August 27, 1858, in Freeport, Illinois.

A Democrat couldn't win the north on a position that protected slavery. The publishing industry had tied the nation together and the telegraph wires had tied the nation together. The northern voters could no longer ignore slavery and the enormous power that slavery and its cash crops gave to the big operations in the plantation zone.

 

[Union8448]

The Fire-Eaters elected Lincoln... what?

Fire-Eaters Walk Out of the Democratic Convention | Civil War on the Western Border: The Missouri-Kansas Conflict, 1854-1865

civilwaronthewesternborder.org

1860 Democratic National Conventions - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

James M. McPherson suggested in Battle Cry of Freedom that the “Fire-eater” program of breaking up the convention and running a rival ticket was deliberately intended to bring about the election of a Republican as president, and thus trigger secession declarations by the slave-owning states. Whatever the “intent” of the fire-eaters may have been, doubtless many of them favored secession, and the logical, probable, and actual consequence of their actions was to fragment the Democratic party and thereby virtually ensure a Republican victory.[6

The Heidler post claims the Fire Eaters were good at taking advantage of a crisis, but terrible at governing. Lincoln's administration, in contrast, did not get the best result strategically from the Fort Sumter crisis, but managed the secessionist wave, and policy towards Britain very effectively. Once the border areas were in the US, and British reaction was muted at first, the Confederacy's odds began to decline.