Like
many Southerners, Whig Congressman Thomas L. Clingman of North Carolina
was shocked at the Northern support for the post-Mexican War Wilmot
Proviso and asserted that its passage would compel the South to
reconsider its relationship with the Union. Along with Robert Toombs of
Georgia, Clingman was a vocal opponent of President James Polk, who
many believed to have maneuvered the United States into war with Mexico.
Both would live to see “a bold man, as well as a bad one, in the White
House.”
Bernhard Thuersam, Chairman
North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission
"Unsurpassed Valor, Courage and Devotion to Liberty"
"The Official Website of the North Carolina WBTS Sesquicentennial"
Southerners Demand Political Equality in the Union
“[During]
the last and short session of the Twenty-ninth Congress . . . [Toombs]
made only one speech, which the continued Whig opposition to the
prosecution of the Mexican War was reflected. The immediate occasion was
the proposed bill authorizing ten additional regiments of regular
soldiers for the war. Toombs opposed the bill for several reasons.
First,
he preferred the use of volunteer to regular soldiers. They elected
their own officers, whereas the President appointed the officers to
command regulars. In Toombs’ mind the volunteers had acted in this
capacity “with much greater judgment, skill, and patriotism” than Polk.
The
President throughout the war had played politics in appointments and
would doubtless continue to do so. Furthermore, said Toombs, the
“battles of the republic ought to be fought by its citizens soldiery”
who were faithful to its institutions and interested in good government.
He was not implying that the present administration was looking toward a
Caesar-type dictatorship but the time might come when “you have a bold
man, as well as a bad one, in the White House.”
After
his remarks on the “ten-regiment bill,” Toombs launched into a review
of the war itself. He again charged the President with provoking
hostilities and with attempting to discourage freedom of debate in the
House by charges of disloyalty toward those who questioned war policy.
Toombs desired peace, but he wanted no dismemberment of Mexico to
accompany it. We have territory enough, he said, and should improve
what we have.
Although
as a unionist he deplored the agitation engendered by the principle of
the Wilmot Proviso, he warned that as a Southerner he would not stand
idly by and see his section shut out of any acquired territory [from the
Mexican cession].
He
stood firmly on the right [of Southerners] “wherever the American flag
waved over American soil to go with their flocks and their herds, their
maid servants and their men servants.” Southerners, “would be degraded,
and unworthy of the name of American freemen, could they consent to
remain, for a day or an hour, in a Union where they must stand on ground
of inferiority, and be denied the rights and privileges which were
extended to all others.” Almost fourteen years later Toombs was to say
virtually the same thing in the Senate and then help lead his State out
of the Union.”
(Robert Toombs of Georgia, William Y. Thompson, LSU Press, 1994 (original 1966), pp. 41-42)
The more things change, the more they remain the same, you could bring the characters from the past and it would be the same play...
ReplyDeleteAlmost exactly what I was thinking. How apropos.
Delete