On January 7, 1861, Robert Toombs of Georgia delivered his speech explaining why he was leaving the United States Senate. I had originally planned on writing a few hundred words about this speech, with a few extended quotes, however, I thought it better to give an extended look at the oration, letting Toombs detail the objections the Confederates had to remaining in the Union. Those interested in reading Toombs’s entire speech, and the speeches of all of the departing Southern senators, can find them here.
In the past, when I have summarized the speeches of Secessionists and Confederates, even though I have offered footnotes and/or links to the full documents and provided extended quotations, some folks still accused me of “cherry picking” the speeches and distorting their meaning. This speech took a couple of hours to deliver and I will not reproduce all of it here, but you now have the link to the the full speech and I will offer the complete text of most of the first part of this speech.
Robert Toombs was the U.S. Senator from Georgia. He was born in 1810 to a wealthy planter family. He attended college at what is now the University of Georgia, Union College in New York State, and the University of Virginia’s School of Law. He was admitted to the Bar when he was only twenty and he won election to the Georgia legislature when he was 28. He was initially a Whig and, unlike many other slave owners, he opposed the Mexican War. In 1853 he became one of Georgia’s senators and, with the collapse of the Whig Party, he followed a trail that led him to join the Democratic Party. At the same time, he favored the extension of slavery into the territories and opposed the emancipation of Washington, D.C.’s slaves.
During the 1850s, Toombs advocated policies opposed to immediate secession. He believed that slavery was better protected within the Union. However, by 1860 Toombs was a convert to the Secessionist cause. After Lincoln’s election, Toombs advocated secession by Georgia. When Jefferson Davis was selected president of the Confederacy, he chose Toombs to be his Secretary of State. Toombs resigned as Secretary of State and became a Brigadier General in the Confederate Army. In 1863, he resigned that commission and became a Colonel in the Georgia militia. Toombs fled the United States at the end of the war and went to live in France. He returned in 1867 and, while excluded from holding office because he refused to request a pardon, he became a force in the Reconstruction Era Democratic Party of Georgia and helped pass the 1877 Constitution which mandated racial segregation in education. Toombs died in 1885.
After a brief introduction at the start of his 1861 speech, Toombs explained why he was resigning.
As you can see, Toombs details the five demands that the “rebels” of the South made upon the United States, the ignoring of which had led to secession. They are:
- That Southern whites have the right to bring slaves into the territories. (p. 147)
- That property in slaves be protected by the Federal government. (pp. 148-149)
- People committing “crimes against slave property” and fleeing to another state shall be extradited to the slave state. (pp. 149-150)
- Fugitive slaves will be surrendered by Northern states without having recourse to the Write of Habeas Corpus or Trial By Jury. (pp. 151-152)
- Congress shall pass laws to punish people who invade states to “disturb the tranquility of the people.” Here he uses John Brown as an example of the target of such a law. (p. 156)
Read about Robert Toombs’s view after the end of the Civil War.
Follow Reconstruction Blog on Social Media:
First off, I hope the Admin will accept my thanks for his excellent scholarship.
I want to assure the Admin simultaneously that at no time have I ever put the charge to him that he is guilty of ‘cherry picking’; known by other terms in historical circles around the world, this means to dishonestly and intentionally put forth in isolation certain pieces of evidence that lend disproportionate weight to the argument that the involved historian is making. What makes this practice dishonest is when the same historian is aware of the existence of other evidence that challenges the basis of the argument they are making and either pretends it does not exist or attempts to hide it, or aggressively refuses to make concessions when it is brought forth.
A such researcher in question must have ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE of the existence of challenging evidence, and/or, certain contextual information that is pertinent to an accurate understanding and choose to withhold this. It is physically impossible to literally have absolute knowledge of all pertinent evidence/information/etc, on a historical topic, and one can put an argument forth that in good faith lacks awareness of pertinent evidence, etc.
Thereby, no argument can be put forth in good faith to the Admin towards doing this. This page has some of the best history about the Civil War/War Between The States that’s out there and I’ll back him on that, bar none.
Well, the evidence is pretty clear here that this particular piece of evidence shows that Toombs made an argument in this speech on the importance of the issue of slavery to the decision making of the South to secede and arraign a new nation.
This evidence, and that which the Admin links provide a clear challenge to the long assertion of the Lost Cause school of CW/WBTS studies that slavery had little to nothing with regards to the war coming. This said evidences present a formidable challenge to that historical argument.
What I will put to the Admin, is that it is true that in THIS piece of evidence Toombs’ shows a strong predilection to stand for slavery. There is no denying that.
However, I am going to put, ‘Why is THIS piece of evidence taken to be the ‘true’ proof of motive, or the implied only such piece of evidence demonstrating this and not taken in holistic and rigorous examination?’ For when I do that, the argument that ‘this alone shows what the Confederates were motivated by’, or arguments of like substance, is itself severely challenged.
On 13 November 1860, Toombs made another speech that has become unfortunately diminished over time. Therein, while certainly giving speak to slavery, Toombs also articulated at great length the issue of the nature of American federalism/Constitutional interpretation and application diverged from slavery.
“…Above eighty-four years ago our fathers won that by the sword from Great Britain, and above seventy years ago Georgia, with the twelve other confederates, as free, sovereign, and independent States, having perfect governments already in existence, for purposes and objects clearly expressed, and with powers clearly defined, erected a common agent for the attainment of these purposes by the exercise of those powers, and called this agent the United States of America.
The basis, the corner-stone of this Government, was the perfect equality of the free, sovereign, and independent States which made it. They were unequal in population, wealth, and territorial extent – they had great diversities of interests, pursuits, institutions, and laws; but they had common interests, mainly exterior, which they proposed to protect by this common agent – a constitutional united government – without in any degree subjecting their inequalities and diversities to Federal control or action. Peace and commerce with foreign nations could be more effectually and cheaply cultivated by a common agent; therefore they gave the Federal Government the sole management of our relations with foreign governments. The conflicts of interests and the passions of rulers and people bring wars – their effectual prosecution and the common defence could be more certainly and cheaply attained by putting the power of each under the control of a common agent; hence the power of peace and war was given to the Government. These powers made armies, navies, and foreign agents necessary – these could only be maintained by a common treasury. Besides, we had a large debt, contracted at home and abroad in our War of Independence; therefore the great power of taxation was conferred upon this Government. Conflicting commercial regulations of the different States shackled and diminished both foreign and domestic trade; hence the power to regulate commerce was conferred. We had a large common domain, already added by the several States for the common benefit of all; purchase and war might make large additions to this common domain; hence the power over existing and future territories, with the stipulation to admit new States, was conferred. Being independent States, in such close proximity, acts seriously affecting the tranquility of some might be done by others; fugitives from labor and justice in one might seek sanctuary in others, producing strife, and bloodshed, and insecurity; therefore the power was conferred in the common agent, and the duty imposed by the compact upon each confederate to remedy these evils. These were the main objects for forming the Federal Government; the powers it possesses were conferred chiefly with the view of securing them…”
http://civilwarcauses.org/toombs.htm [Accessed 21-11-22]. And notice in there, Toombs articulates the Southern view of the US Constitution and American federalism, diverged from slavery, as being a ‘cornerstone’. This speech is often cited today as, ‘The Other Cornerstone Speech’.
(Shrug) Should THIS be considered the ‘real motives’ of the Confederates? Is it a motive? He also cites economics/tariffs in here. Do we discount these?
Or ought we to consider BOTH speeches and their contents in holistic fashion, openly and in scrutinizing fashion?
In 1859, Toombs made another speech wherein he spoke about the abolishing of slavery and enactment of emancipation. These would make their way around the globe and be cited in world newsprint. The 12th & 30th, November 1861, ‘London Express’, and, ‘Once A Week’-
“Slavery is doomed, on any supposition, and the Confederate authorities are already saying publicly that the power of emancipation is one which rests in their hands; and that they will use it in the last resort. This is a disclosure full of interest and hope.”
Does THIS have a part in understanding Toombs’ statements on slavery? They certainly do.
As with Jefferson Davis, it shows that Toombs could foresee, (albeit, likely very reluctantly on the latter’s part), a future w/o slavery. Consideration of this evidence forces a different overall conclusion than the one that the evidence presented in isolation would consider.
And, if one speech alone enables us to understand the entirety of the Confederate war cause, then why not to look at THIS speech by Jefferson Davis when he was innaugurated as Confederate President in 1861-
https://www.houstonisd.org/cms/lib2/TX01001591/Centricity/Domain/9764/Jefferson%20Davis%20First%20Inaugural%20Address.pdf
There is only the absolute barest implication of slavery therein, (by mentioning such things as ‘agriculture’, etc), and the issue of federalism, diverged from slavery, is the strongest measure put forth. Did Davis make other speeches/evidences wherein slavery is put forth in acute terms? Definitely, see here, 29 April 1861, http://civilwarcauses.org/davis.htm
Now, which speech do I present to depict ‘the reason/s for the Confederate war cause?’ Or, am I obliged to present BOTH, and on top, all the evidence otherwise I can find, or at least, (to have a parsimonious approach), to give ‘summary or exemplar’ methodology, (show a couple of examples of all ‘types’ of evidence and disclose that these are such and how).
What’s more…if slavery is to be the focal point that ‘proves’ that slavery was the main driving cause that brought forth the war, then the door swings both ways on this. All one must do is look at the political stance, and American future, that the country, (regionally expressed in the elections concerned as the choice of most people in the North), of Abraham Lincoln.
Compare his 1st Inngrl. Address to his 2nd; what is constant is this, which he freely admitted to both in the world, with no hesitation in 1861 and quiet courage of shame in 1865; the North had been completely willing to reconvene all the rights to slavery as they already existed in 1861 at war’s start and guarantee them for all perpetuity.
I thank the Admin for his efforts.
I know the Admin to never be guilty of the dodgy methodology he has been wrongly accused of, (cherry picking), as I’ve always known him to welcome other arguments/evidence being brought openly to those of his own.
That is the difference between making a historical argument and cherry picking.
First off, I hope the Admin will accept my thanks for his excellent scholarship.
I want to assure the Admin simultaneously that at no time have I ever put the charge to him that he is guilty of ‘cherry picking’; known by other terms in historical circles around the world, this means to dishonestly and intentionally put forth in isolation certain pieces of evidence that lend disproportionate weight to the argument that the involved historian is making. What makes this practice dishonest is when the same historian is aware of the existence of other evidence that challenges the basis of the argument they are making and either pretends it does not exist or attempts to hide it, or aggressively refuses to make concessions when it is brought forth.
A such researcher in question must have ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE of the existence of challenging evidence, and/or, certain contextual information that is pertinent to an accurate understanding and choose to withhold this. It is physically impossible to literally have absolute knowledge of all pertinent evidence/information/etc, on a historical topic, and one can put an argument forth that in good faith lacks awareness of pertinent evidence, etc.
Thereby, no argument can be put forth in good faith to the Admin towards doing this. This page has some of the best history about the Civil War/War Between The States that’s out there and I’ll back him on that, bar none.
Well, the evidence is pretty clear here that this particular piece of evidence shows that Toombs made an argument in this speech on the importance of the issue of slavery to the decision making of the South to secede and arraign a new nation.
This evidence, and that which the Admin links provide a clear challenge to the long assertion of the Lost Cause school of CW/WBTS studies that slavery had little to nothing with regards to the war coming. This said evidences present a formidable challenge to that historical argument.
What I will put to the Admin, is that it is true that in THIS piece of evidence Toombs’ shows a strong predilection to stand for slavery. There is no denying that.
However, I am going to put, ‘Why is THIS piece of evidence taken to be the ‘true’ proof of motive, or the implied only such piece of evidence demonstrating this and not taken in holistic and rigorous examination?’ For when I do that, the argument that ‘this alone shows what the Confederates were motivated by’, or arguments of like substance, is itself severely challenged.
On 13 November 1860, Toombs made another speech that has become unfortunately diminished over time. Therein, while certainly giving speak to slavery, Toombs also articulated at great length the issue of the nature of American federalism/Constitutional interpretation and application diverged from slavery.
“…Above eighty-four years ago our fathers won that by the sword from Great Britain, and above seventy years ago Georgia, with the twelve other confederates, as free, sovereign, and independent States, having perfect governments already in existence, for purposes and objects clearly expressed, and with powers clearly defined, erected a common agent for the attainment of these purposes by the exercise of those powers, and called this agent the United States of America.
The basis, the corner-stone of this Government, was the perfect equality of the free, sovereign, and independent States which made it. They were unequal in population, wealth, and territorial extent – they had great diversities of interests, pursuits, institutions, and laws; but they had common interests, mainly exterior, which they proposed to protect by this common agent – a constitutional united government – without in any degree subjecting their inequalities and diversities to Federal control or action. Peace and commerce with foreign nations could be more effectually and cheaply cultivated by a common agent; therefore they gave the Federal Government the sole management of our relations with foreign governments. The conflicts of interests and the passions of rulers and people bring wars – their effectual prosecution and the common defence could be more certainly and cheaply attained by putting the power of each under the control of a common agent; hence the power of peace and war was given to the Government. These powers made armies, navies, and foreign agents necessary – these could only be maintained by a common treasury. Besides, we had a large debt, contracted at home and abroad in our War of Independence; therefore the great power of taxation was conferred upon this Government. Conflicting commercial regulations of the different States shackled and diminished both foreign and domestic trade; hence the power to regulate commerce was conferred. We had a large common domain, already added by the several States for the common benefit of all; purchase and war might make large additions to this common domain; hence the power over existing and future territories, with the stipulation to admit new States, was conferred. Being independent States, in such close proximity, acts seriously affecting the tranquility of some might be done by others; fugitives from labor and justice in one might seek sanctuary in others, producing strife, and bloodshed, and insecurity; therefore the power was conferred in the common agent, and the duty imposed by the compact upon each confederate to remedy these evils. These were the main objects for forming the Federal Government; the powers it possesses were conferred chiefly with the view of securing them…”
http://civilwarcauses.org/toombs.htm [Accessed 21-11-22]. And notice in there, Toombs articulates the Southern view of the US Constitution and American federalism, diverged from slavery, as being a ‘cornerstone’. This speech is often cited today as, ‘The Other Cornerstone Speech’.
(Shrug) Should THIS be considered the ‘real motives’ of the Confederates? Is it a motive? He also cites economics/tariffs in here. Do we discount these?
Or ought we to consider BOTH speeches and their contents in holistic fashion, openly and in scrutinizing fashion?
In 1859, Toombs made another speech wherein he spoke about the abolishing of slavery and enactment of emancipation. These would make their way around the globe and be cited in world newsprint. The 12th & 30th, November 1861, ‘London Express’, and, ‘Once A Week’-
“Slavery is doomed, on any supposition, and the Confederate authorities are already saying publicly that the power of emancipation is one which rests in their hands; and that they will use it in the last resort. This is a disclosure full of interest and hope.”
Does THIS have a part in understanding Toombs’ statements on slavery? They certainly do.
As with Jefferson Davis, it shows that Toombs could foresee, (albeit, likely very reluctantly on the latter’s part), a future w/o slavery. Consideration of this evidence forces a different overall conclusion than the one that the evidence presented in isolation would consider.
And, if one speech alone enables us to understand the entirety of the Confederate war cause, then why not to look at THIS speech by Jefferson Davis when he was innaugurated as Confederate President in 1861-
https://www.houstonisd.org/cms/lib2/TX01001591/Centricity/Domain/9764/Jefferson%20Davis%20First%20Inaugural%20Address.pdf
There is only the absolute barest implication of slavery therein, (by mentioning such things as ‘agriculture’, etc), and the issue of federalism, diverged from slavery, is the strongest measure put forth. Did Davis make other speeches/evidences wherein slavery is put forth in acute terms? Definitely, see here, 29 April 1861, http://civilwarcauses.org/davis.htm
Now, which speech do I present to depict ‘the reason/s for the Confederate war cause?’ Or, am I obliged to present BOTH, and on top, all the evidence otherwise I can find, or at least, (to have a parsimonious approach), to give ‘summary or exemplar’ methodology, (show a couple of examples of all ‘types’ of evidence and disclose that these are such and how).
What’s more…if slavery is to be the focal point that ‘proves’ that slavery was the main driving cause that brought forth the war, then the door swings both ways on this. All one must do is look at the political stance, and American future, that the country, (regionally expressed in the elections concerned as the choice of most people in the North), of Abraham Lincoln.
Compare his 1st Inngrl. Address to his 2nd; what is constant is this, which he freely admitted to both in the world, with no hesitation in 1861 and quiet courage of shame in 1865; the North had been completely willing to reconvene all the rights to slavery as they already existed in 1861 at war’s start and guarantee them for all perpetuity.
I thank the Admin for his efforts
Lol, sorry if my reply above got a bit ‘clunky’ in the text there.
Shoot; sorry all for the ‘double up’ post there.