division in his cabinet as to the right and expediency of defending the places owned by the Federal government in the seceded States; and it was the belief of the commissioners sent by the Confederate government to negotiate upon this point, that Seward had promised that Fort Sumter would be surrendered.52 Many of the leaders of the Republicans in the North, amongst them Horace Greeley, advised that the seceding States be permitted to depart in peace.53 The South still believed that when she showed she was in earnest, the North would yield; and that even if Lincoln wished to resist, he was powerless to act under existing laws.54 On April 12th, the militia of South Carolina, under the command of a Confederate general, fired upon Fort Sumter, which was held by a small company of the army of the United States, in Charleston harbor, without provisions to endure a siege, and within the range of guns from the shore. After a short resistance to save his honor, Major Anderson two days later surrendered the fort. But the victory was indeed like one by Pyrrhus. The North, roused by this blow, rose to the defense of the flag. On the 15th, Lincoln called for seventy-five thousand troops to defend the Union, and the governors of all the free States at once responded. The North had received the call and refused to lay down her cards. The South had too much pride to recede. Her leaders had raised a storm which it was now too late to cease; and they were carried along by the tide.56

55

56 Although this is not the view usually taken by historians, it is difficult for the writer to see how any student with personal experience in the manœuvres of politics or of litigation can escape this conclusion. Northern writers during the war, and those who are still under the influence of the passions of that time, charge that secession was the result of a conspiracy by a few ambitious men for the permanent disruption of the Union and the establishment of a great slave empire. The evidence collected by Rhodes in his History of the United States,* vol. iii, pp. 272-280, 381-385,

* Rhodes, however, does not seem to agree with the present writer as to the original intentions of the Southern leaders.

On May 13th, the people of North Carolina elected a convention, which, on the 21st, passed an ordinance of secession. The Legislature of Tennessee, at a secret session on May 7th, passed a declaration of independence, and an ordinance dissolving the Federal relations between the State and the United States, which was submitted to the people, and adopted the 8th of June. In Virginia, which had at first proposed a compromise between the two sections of the country, on April 17th, an ordinance of secession was passed in convention, and, June 25th, was adopted by a popular vote;57 there being an understanding with the other seceded States that they would, as hostages for her protection, remove their President and Congress to Richmond, which was, on May 21st, made the capital of the Confederacy.58 Her people on the west of the Alleghanies, however, who abutted on the free States of Ohio and Pennsylvania, knew that their interests as well as their sympathies were on the Northern side, and broke away from the rest of the State. Two years later, June 20th, 1863, Congress admitted West Virginia into the Union, after her citizens had

404-408 (see also Stephens, Constitutional View of the War between the States, vol. ii, p. 389), proves conclusively that after the movement was under way, the people of the South went faster than their leaders wished. Jefferson Davis urged them to go more slowly, and said in private conference and by letters and telegrams that he was "opposed to secession as long as the hope of a peaceful remedy remained" (Letter of O. R. Singleton, quoted by Davis, Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, vol. i, p. 58; see also ibid., pp. 201, 227; Life of Davis, by his wife, vol. i, p. 697). Even Toombs was accused by his constituents of brandishing a tin sword (see citations by Rhodes, ibid., vol. iii, p. 213). The evidence cited in note 24, supra, as well as all the contemporary reports, prove that, had the Crittenden compromise been adopted, secession would have been abandoned. On the other hand, the addresses to their constitu

ents by the delegations at Washington show that the movement was directed by the Southern members of Congress. And the whole order of procedure, with its dramatic situations, threats by word and action, accompanied by offers of mediation by Virginia and Kentucky, in imitation of former precedents; and the measures adopted by the seceding States, even after the adoption of the permanent Constitution of the Confederacy, to make no change in the existing order and create no obstacles to a return to the Union, show that the object of the proceedings was to scare the North into further concessions, not to tear the United States apart.

57 McPherson, History of the Rebellion, pp. 3-8.

58 The first capital was Montgomery, Ala. See Davis, Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, vol. i, pp. 339, 648.

expressed their wish, through a convention, and the form of obtaining the consent of the mother State had been transacted by the vote of a so-called Virginia Legislature, chosen under the control of the Union army by a minority of the whole, few if any of whom claimed to represent constituencies out of the new State, and in no manner representing the wishes of Virginia. This was, in fact, a revolutionary proceeding, justified only by the exigency of the situation.59

The South had relied upon the common interests of the border slave States for protection against invasion by their neutrality, if not alliance. But, ground as they were between the upper and the nether millstone, all except Virginia refused to incur martyrdom for the sake of slavery, and, after some hesitation, sided with the North.

Kentucky at first attempted to remain neutral, and her house of representatives so voted in May, 1861.60 On April 15th, the governor, Magoffin, whose sympathies were with the South, and who had previously recommended a convention of the border States at Baltimore, replied to the call for soldiers: "In answer, I say emphatically, Kentucky will furnish no troops for the wicked purpose of subduing her sister Southern States." 62

61

President Lincoln, with his usual tact, at first respected this neutrality, without acknowledging its legality; and sent no new

59 Upon the vote for the admission of the new State, Thaddeus Stevens said: "We know that it is not constitutional, but it is necessary" (Davis, Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, vol. ii, pp. 304-308). The best history of these proceedings is by Nicolay and Hay (Lincoln, vol. iv, pp. 327-340; vol. vi, pp. 297-313). They will be described in more detail in the chapter on the admission of new States.

the best means of preserving the natural peace and securing the laws, liberty, and property of the citizens of the State; therefore, Resolved, by the House of Representatives, That this State and the citizens thereof, should take no part in the Civil War now being waged, except as mediators or friends of the belligerent parties; and that Kentucky should during the contest occupy a position of strict neutrality" (Shaler's Kentucky, p. 243).

61 Stephens, Constitutional View of the War between the States, vol. ii, p. 364.

62 McPherson, History of the Rebellion, p. 114.

troops into the State, although he formed a recruiting camp of Kentucky Union soldiers at Camp Dick Robinson, Garrard County. Jefferson Davis offended the conservatives by the statement, in a letter to Governor Magoffin, "that the Government of the Confederate States will continue to respect the neutrality of Kentucky so long as her people will maintain it themselves." 63 The first invasion of the State's soil, by troops from other States, was made by the Confederate forces under Polk and Zollicofer, September 3d, 1861. Grant's army followed immediately from Ohio. On the 11th, the Legislature passed, over the Governor's veto, a resolution,

"That Governor Magoffin be instructed to inform those concerned, that Kentucky expects the Confederate or Tennessee troops to be withdrawn from her soil unconditionally."

A resolution requesting the Federal troops to withdraw was defeated, and, on the 18th, the Legislature resolved, over the governor's veto, that the Kentucky troops should expel the Confederate invaders. Thereafter, Kentucky co-operated with the other loyal States, although many Kentuckians joined the Southern army. A majority of the population seem to have been always loyal, but those who sympathized with the South were allowed not too much liberty to vote. A so-called "Sovereignty Convention" of persons claiming to represent sixty-five counties of the State, either self-appointed or chosen by Kentuckians in the Confederate army, met for three days, in November, 1861, without any authority from the Legislature; and, on the 20th, passed an ordinance of secession, and elected State officers.66 The Confederacy went through the form of admitting the State into their league; and representatives and senators from Kentucky, chosen by Kentucky soldiers in the Confederate army, sat in the Confederate Congress.67 Once for a few hours the Confederate troops occupied the capital of the State and attempted to perform the ceremonial of the induction of their State government into pos65 Shaler's Kentucky, pp. 320, 334336, 348.

63 Shaler's Kentucky, pp. 235–247. See Davis, Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, vol. 1, pp. 385– 402.

64 Shaler's Kentucky, pp. 248, 250253.

66 Ibid., p. 270. McPherson, Hisof the Rebellion, p. 8.

67 Davis, Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, vol. i, p. 303.

session; but in the midst of their governor's speech he was driven from the city by an attack of the Union troops.68 Meanwhile, the State remained in the Union, and was regularly represented in the Congress and Electoral College of the United States without any intermission.

Missouri, as has been shown above, had prepared for neutrality six years before.69 The Legislature, January 21st, 1861, passed an act for the election of a convention "to consider the relations between the government of the United States" "and the government and people of the State of Missouri; and to adopt such measures for vindicating the sovereignty of the State, and the protection of its institutions, as shall appear to them to be demanded;" but it was expressly provided that "no act, ordinance, or resolution of said convention shall be deemed to be valid to change or dissolve the political relations of this State to the government of the United States, or any other State, until a majority of the qualified voters of this State, voting upon the question, shall ratify the same." 70 In the election of delegates, on February 18th, the people, by a majority of eighty thousand, determined against secession, and not a single secessionist was chosen. The convention resolved, in March, by a vote of eighty-nine to one, that there was no adequate cause to impel Missouri to dissolve her connection with the Federal Union." 72 They also appointed delegates to the proposed convention of the border States, as well as to the Peace Conference. Subsequently, under authority claimed from State militia-laws, some of which were passed for the occasion, the governor attempted to oppose the army of the United States, and left the State to seek aid from the Confederacy. In the meantime he had replied to Lincoln's call for troops: "Your requisition is illegal, unconstitutional, revolutionary, inhuman, diabolical, and cannot be complied with.” 75 The convention reassembled in July, declared his office vacant, appointed a new governor in his place, abrogated the laws under

68 Shaler's Kentucky, pp. 269–272. 69 Supra, note 9.

70 Carr's Missouri, p. 278.

71 Ibid., p. 284.

72 Ibid., p. 289.

73 Ibid., p. 318. See Harper's Maga

zine for 1861, p. 547.

74 Stephens, Constitutional View of the War between the States, vol. ii, p. 364.

75 McPherson, History of the Rebellion, p. 115.