43 pages • 1 hour read
Charles B. DewA modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
By February 1, seven Deep South states had left the Union: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, Georgia, and Texas. Alongside these secessions, Alabama’s commissioners redoubled their efforts to complete their mission and “to bring the rest of the slave South into the fold” (51). Throughout January, Alabama’s commissioners in Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Delaware, and Virginia made their case for a swift and unified exit from the Union. Their rhetorical tactics echoed those of those of the commissioners from South Carolina; they warned of humiliation and “subjugation,” imagining the many ways abolitionists and slaves might rise against the white South in insurrection. They continued to villainize Lincoln and his supporters as aggressive villains with no regard for Southern ways of life.
Dew centers this chapter on a letter sent by commissioner Stephen F. Hale to the governor of Kentucky, Beriah Magoffin, on December 27. This document encapsulates nearly all the arguments made across the South by other commissioners. Hale addresses constitutional justifications for secession and the region’s economic stake in slavery. He narrates the difficulties of the sectional crisis already endured by the South throughout the 1850s, culminating in Lincoln’s election in 1860, which, secessionists believed, was a sign of hostile intention, if not outright declaration of war. In the second half of the letter, Hale argues vehemently in racist terms that Lincoln’s presidency will spell ruin for the South, describing “the horror of negro equality,” the threat of “amalgamation or elimination,” offering secession as the only path to preserving “the heaven-ordained superiority of the white over the black race” (55-6). Hale paints a picture for the governor of two differing possible paths: one of prosperity and a flourishing society under a Southern Confederacy, and another of humiliation and social decay if the South did not secede. While Kentucky, being sharply divided, did not ultimately secede as hoped, the letter stands as strong, undeniable evidence of the driving reasoning and white supremacist logic underpinning the push for secession.
Virginia held unique importance for advocates of secession. Its location, abundant resources, and symbolic status as the cradle of American civilization made it a powerful prospective ally. However, the state was much more moderate than some of the states in the Deep South; fewer than 40 delegates out of the 152 total favored secession. The state passed legislation to hold a secession convention on January 14 and began its convention on February 13, as three commissioners arrived to make the case for secession: Fulton Anderson of Mississippi, Henry Lewis Benning of Georgia, and John Smith Preston of South Carolina. They arranged to speak to the delegation on February 18. Contemporaneous letters sent by Preston show that the commissioners were aware of the uphill battle they would have in persuading the moderate delegation. Prior to their speeches, the commissioners met privately to build a strategy for their presentations. They determined their own speaking order: Anderson, the most moderate of the three, would speak first, and Preston, a renowned Southern orator, would speak last.
The formerly Unionist Anderson described the path by which, under Lincoln’s government, slavery would be progressively abolished; in Anderson’s view, Northerners were fanatics who saw the South as inferior. The South had to protect the institution “at the core of its political and social fabric” (63) by seceding and, if necessary, taking up arms. The delegates listened attentively to this but did not appear swayed. Benning, a staunch Southern rights defender, stood and made an emotionally charged appeal to Virginians’ sense of honor and purity, vividly describing the dark future that might descend upon the South without a move to secede: “[W]e will have black governors, black legislatures, black juries, black everything” (66). White Southern men would become vagabonds, women would be endangered or violated, and land in possession of black slaves would “go back to a wilderness and become another Africa or St. Domingo” (67). He lifted the cause of secession as the way to save the South.
Preston gave his eagerly anticipated speech the next day, February 19. He first named the North’s aversion to slavery as the driving force of South Carolina’s actions. He flattered his audience, casting Southerners as faithful upholders of the Constitution, while Republicans were violent, rebellious, antagonists of the white South. He spoke in vivid heightened language, stirring the crowd to tears. He called upon Virginia to join the secessionist cause: “Would the sons of the Old Dominion stand idle at this moment of supreme peril?” (71). In closing, he invoked the “two civilizations” argument put forth by Spratt in Florida, noting, “The South cannot exist without African slavery […] None but an equal race can labor at the North” (72). These differences would never be resolved; secession was the only way to preserve the South. Preston’s oratory moved his audience to wild applause, with praise following in newspaper reports on the event. Virginia’s secessionists remained a minority, but after the shot at Fort Sumter that April, the Convention moved to secede, as the commissioners had hoped.
Chapters 4 and 5 summarize the events that followed the “first wave” of the conventions and secessions. Commissioners continued traveling and appearing before delegations into February 1861, hoping to convince moderate states, such as Kentucky and Virginia, to secede. In each chapter Dew narrows his scope to focus on specific occasions of secessionist rhetoric. Hale’s letter to Governor Magoffin contains almost every major argument made in favor of secession in a single document, providing an outline of secessionist logic for the reader to follow. The Virginia commissioners’ attempt to persuade the delegation gives further opportunity to examine rhetorical strategies and underlying arguments. Both chapters continue to show the pattern of racist language revealed in previous chapters. Each provides further evidence for Dew’s overarching argument that preserving the institution of slavery was fundamental to the arguments for secession.
Earlier chapters survey many speeches to establish pace and display a consistent pattern of racist logic. Dew shifts to a close reading of Hale’s letter in Chapter 4, allowing a more nuanced examination of his rhetoric. In Chapter 5, Dew gives a detailed narration of one series of speeches in Virginia, concluding the narrative of the secession commissioners on this single dramatic event. Dew shows how the language of Hale’s letter is initially restrained, focused on the constitutionality of secession, followed by a shift in tone as “Hale took the rhetorical gloves off” and began to forcefully denounce Lincoln, abolitionists, and the notion of racial equality (54).
Hale offers apocalyptic prophecies of race war, “extermination” of the white race, or “amalgamation” should the South not secede. Dew points to similar tactics put forth in Virginia. He also notes the commissioners’ departures from typical performance style, using gestural flourishes: “[T]o emphasize his point, he turned dramatically to John Janney, the president of the convention, and handed him a copy of Georgia’s Ordinance of Secession” (67). The audience’s reactions offer further insight into these techniques: “[A] listener described Preston as a master of three different manners—the calm, slow, didactic style—then the impetuous and vehement—and at last the solemn and pathetic” (72).
Through both chapters, Dew again demonstrates a persistent pattern of pro-slavery sentiment in commissioners’ rhetoric. The rhetoric itself displays more disturbing and fervent racism than in the first chapters and exposes that the commissioners’ fears would dismantle the white supremacist society from which they’d greatly benefited. Also, with a focus on language and presentation technique, Dew highlights the creative, emotional, and cultural investment of the men in the words they delivered. This anticipates and refutes any possible arguments that these words he quotes were not genuine or widely felt.