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 — John Shaqi
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.)
Only a few days intervened between the passage of the Convention Bill
and the day appointed for taking the popular vote; nevertheless, an
exciting canvass of the State ensued. The people came together in vast
crowds to hear the question debated. The Whig leaders were almost
unanimous in their opposition. They were joined by the Democrats of
East Tennessee. The vote was taken on the fifth of February, 1861. The
result was: 24,749 for the Convention; and, 91,803 against it.
This defeat put a stop for the moment to all official action, as the
Legislature had adjourned, but the public agitation and discussion
continued. The disunion sentiment began to grow very rapidly as a
result of events which were transpiring outside the State. Amid the
intense excitement which followed the taking of Fort Sumter, Governor
Harris issued a call for a second extra session of the Legislature. On
the 18th of April he had replied to President Lincoln’s call for
troops: “Tennessee will not furnish a single man for coercion, but
fifty thousand, if necessary, for the defence of our rights and those
of our Southern brothers.”
The Legislature convened on the twenty-seventh of April. The public
were excluded from its meeting, and its members were pledged to
secrecy. The session opened with the reading of the gubernatorial
message,[4] which asserted that the President of the United States had
wantonly inaugurated an internecine war upon the people of the slave
States. “This war,” he said, “is likely to assume an importance,
nearly, if not equal to the struggle of our revolutionary fathers in
their patriotic efforts to resist usurpations and throw off the
tyrannical yoke of the British Government.
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