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.)
As a result of these measures there now began a general exodus of the
able-bodied Union men. In small bands they crossed over the mountains
into Kentucky. Many of them joined the Federal army, and rendered
valuable service. Others formed camps safely within the Union lines,
and quietly awaited the termination of the war. Their most prominent
leaders made tours of the Northern cities, and raised funds for their
support. Boston alone contributed over one hundred thousand dollars to
this purpose.[8] Vast crowds listened to the eloquent appeals of these
exiled loyalists, and the impression became general in the North that
the Southern authorities were treating the loyal mountaineers of East
Tennessee with the most savage cruelty. Edward Everett, in a brilliant
oration, compared them with followers of William Tell and the
slaughtered saints of Piedmont.
The sacrifices and sufferings of the loyal inhabitants of East
Tennessee were indeed very great, but there is no evidence that they
were treated by the Confederacy in any manner not necessary and
justified by the usages of war. After the failure of its conciliatory
policy, the Confederacy either had to permit the erection of a hostile
State within the heart of its territory, or coerce the loyalists into
submission. It naturally adopted the latter alternative. It is
frequently stated that in thus adopting coercive methods it acted
inconsistently with the principles under which it withdrew from the
Union. Mr. Everett, in the same speech quoted above, said: “One would
suppose that under the usurped rule of men who profess to go to war
for self-government and State rights, the people of East Tennessee, if
for any reason they saw fit to do so, had a right to burn their own
bridges.”
The absurdity of such statements lies in the fact that they confuse
the denial of coercive powers to federal government, with the denial
of coercive powers to all government. The first is State rights, but
the second is anarchy. It was in perfect harmony with the Southern
theory of State sovereignty, that Tennessee should use any means it
saw fit, to force its citizens into obedience to its laws. The
Confederate army acted as the agent of the State in quelling
insurrection and rebellion in East Tennessee.
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