Disunion and Restoration in Tennessee: Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Political Science, Columbia UniversityNeal, John Randolph
History
Disunion and Restoration in Tennessee: Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Political Science, Columbia University
Neal, John Randolph
Reconstruction (U.S. history, 1865-1877) -- Tennessee; Tennessee -- Politics and government -- 1861-1865; Thesis (Ph. D.)
The recognized leader of the Whig party was John Bell. Throughout his
long career in the service of the national government, he had
consistently opposed the doctrine of secession. In the presidential
election of 1860, he, even more than Mr. Lincoln, was the Union
candidate. When the question of holding a convention was submitted to
a vote of the people, he vigorously opposed it. In this opposition he
was joined by Neil S. Brown, Cave Johnson, Ewing, and other
distinguished Whig politicians. It was due to their efforts that the
Convention proposal was defeated. The vote against the Convention was
91,803. This represented the entire Whig party, and the Democrats of
East Tennessee. The votes cast for the Convention came almost wholly
from the Democrats of Middle and West Tennessee. In short, the
election of February was a division along party lines. Its result was
simply an indication that the Whig party of Tennessee was still
opposed to the doctrine of secession.
In June, party lines had been obliterated. For only a few weeks
elapsed after the defeat of the Convention, till a majority of the
Whig leaders, either in public addresses or through the public press,
counselled withdrawal from the Union. The contest now became
sectional; it was East Tennessee against Middle Tennessee and West
Tennessee. Governor Harris, in his negotiations with the Confederate
authorities, was counselled and supported by both Whigs and Democrats.
Although the unfavorable verdict of the people upon secession had not
been formally reversed, he was conscious that a real change had taken
place in their sentiments, and that he was, in fact, executing their
will by concluding a military league with the Confederacy.
CHAPTER III
LOYALTY OF EAST TENNESSEE
While we have attempted to show the untenable position of those who
maintain that the majority of the people of Tennessee were opposed to
separation and it was only a _coup d’état_ of Governor Harris that
carried the State into the Confederacy, it is, however, true that a
great number of her inhabitants did resist withdrawal and remain
openly loyal. This was especially the case with East Tennessee. Her
persistent loyalty is a striking illustration of the physical
conditions and causes which lay behind the Civil War. Tennessee had
been settled by a common stock of pioneers from North Carolina. Many
of these, attracted by the beautiful scenery and genial climate, had
found homes east of the Cumberland Mountains, while others had crossed
the mountains and taken possession of the rich tablelands and the
alluvial bottoms of Middle and West Tennessee. When the State was
admitted into the Union, in 1796, her population was homogeneous. The
institution of slavery existed in all sections of the State.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account