| Secession and civil war in the United States did not spontaneously happen. They were the result of a collision of ideals and perspectives that had developed in the North and the South over several decades in response to a complex interplay of politics, economics, contemporary events, and important personages.;This study examines the antecedents and evolution of this ideological development in Alabama. It begins by discussing the background of Jeffersonian and Jacksonian democracy in the territorial years and the first decade of statehood, and the reaction of the white male electorate to perceptions of aristocratic exploitation. The paper analyzes how state and national events in the late 1820s and early 1830s combined to create a defensive mood among the citizenry that intensified from conflict over nullification, Indian removal, and federal economic policy. It identifies how growing antislavery feelings in the North added to the concern of Alabamians.;The study then moves to the 1840s, where it highlights the importance of local developments that increased the receptiveness of the citizenry to the appeals of a new breed of politician who had less of an attachment to the Union than their predecessors. It then describes the reaction of these men and the populace to the Texas statehood controversy, the Wilmot Proviso, and the possible acquisition of land from the war with Mexico.;With the end of the Mexican War, growing northern opposition to slavery in the territories raised fears in the South for its equality in the Union; even strongly Unionist personalities concluded there was a real threat. The study analyzes how this thinking continued to evolve and the response of Alabamians as they joined to resist encroachments on what they perceived to be southern rights. It shows how the Compromise of 1850 prevented disunion, but concludes that in the process the ideological rationale for secession fully developed. Energized by events and personalities in the 1850s, the mature southern rights ideology ultimately provided the justification for secession. |
