RICE UNIVERSITY WITH HESITANT RESOLVE: ARKANSAS MOVES TOWARD SECESSION AND WAR BY JAMES WOODS A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE MASTER OF ARTS Dr.. Frank E. Vandiver Houston, Texas ABSTRACT This work surveys the history of ante-bellum Arkansas until the passage of the Ordinance of Secession on May 6, 186i. The first three chapters deal with the social, economic, and politicai development of the state prior to 1860. Arkansas experienced difficult, yet substantial .social and economic growth during the ame-belium era; its percentage of population increase outstripped five other frontier states in similar stages of development. Its growth was nevertheless hampered by the unsettling presence of the Indian territory on its western border, which helped to prolong a lawless stage. An unreliable transportation system and a ruinous banking policy also stalled Arkansas's economic progress. On the political scene a family dynasty controlled state politics from 1830 to 186u, a'situation without parallel throughout the ante-bellum South. A major part of this work concentrates upon Arkansas's politics from 1859 to 1861. In a most important siate election in 1860, the dynasty met defeat through an open revolt from within its ranks led by a shrewd and ambitious Congressman, Thomas Hindman. Hindman turned the contest into a class conflict, portraying the dynasty's leadership as "aristocrats" and "Bourbons." Because of Hindman's support, Arkansans chose its first governor not hand¬ picked by the dynasty. By this election the people handed gubernatorial power to an ineffectual political novice during a time oi great sectional crisis. In the Presidential race of 1860, Hindman and the dynasty joined in an uneasy alliance to carry Arkansas for Breckinridge, the most radical -ii- pro-southern candidate. In voting for Brecxinridge, the state expressed its belief in slavery and its legitimate expansion into the territories. With Lincoln's election, the question of secession rearranged traditional political alignments , and a geo-political division between a secessionist- southeastern Arkansas against a Unionist northwestern region emerged. These new alignments became evident in February, 1861, with the election •*. of delegates to the Secession Convention. So heated did these geo-political differences become that there was talk of splitting Arkansas in half. Until Fort Sumter the state refused to secede, but once war became inevitable, Arkansas's cultural, geographical, economic, and political ties to the South proved too strong to ignore. Arkansas became the ninth state to secede from the Union on May 6, 1861. While narrating Arkansas's political history until secession, particular attention is given the regional, racial, and class antagonisms present within the state during the great national crisis of 1860-61. James Woods ACKNOWLEDGMENTS While I do not know if acknowledgments are proper academic etiquette m a Master's thesis, I feel compelled to express my gratitude to a few oi the many people who have nelped me on this project. I would like to thank Dr. Frank E. Vandiver, Dr. Sanford Higginbotham, -.and Dr. Allan J. Matusow, all of Rice University, for their advice and suggestions. Special thanks are also due to Dr. John B. Boies, now of Tulane University, and Dr. C. Fred Williams of the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Dr. Walter L. Brown of the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville gave me some valuable information on Arkansas from the Census. Dr. June R. Welch of the University of Dallas encouraged'me early in this project and throughout my academic career. Outside academia, many people have aided in the completion of this thesis. My mother laboriously typed the early drafts. Mrs. Kerry Harrison typed its final form. My father was a sharp and constructive critic of my writing style. John W. Sanders III and Fred Sexton nelped me with my calculations. Mrs. Margaret Ross of the Arkansas Gazette Foundation Library gave advice and loaned me rare materials. Special thanks should also go to the staff of the Arkansas History Commission in Little Rock who were patient with my many requests and inquiries. • I also want personally to thank Miss Becky Williams for praying for me, encouraging me, and for preparing an illustration for the Appendix. I am also grateful to other friends and acquaintances who helped me in small ways throughout these many months. James Woods TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 The Social and Economic Development of Ante- Bellum Arkansas Page 1 Chapter 2 Origins of Arkansas Politics: The Foundation of a Dynasty, 1819-49 Page 22 Chapter 3 Challenged, Yet Never Conquered: Family Rule, 1849-59 Page 35 Chapter 4 Beyond His Merest and Most Sanguine Hopes: Thomas Hindman and the Defeat of the Dynasty, 1859-1860 Page 50 Chapter 5 The People of Arkansas Are with the South: State Politics During the Presidential Election of 1860 Page 76 Chapter 6 Secession Splits the State: Arkansas Politics from Lincoln's Election to His Inauguration, 1860-61 Page 100 Chapter 7 "Coerced" into Secession: Arkansas and the Union, March - May 6, 1861 Page 122 Conclusion Page 147 Footnotes Bibliography INTRODUCTION In 1970 the noted historian, William Freehling, wrote a review of editor George Reese’s Proceedings of the Virginia State Convention. In this essay Freehling suggested themes of "internal conflicts" and "sectional-class division" within the seceding southern states. Freehling argued that disunion in the South sprang from a "fear that the border planters would sell out, that non-slaveholding whites would turn against the institution if they had no freed Negroes to worry about, that the cotton South and border South were 1 two different lands." Freehling called for an "editorial revolution" by scholars in order to focus on "the social and class divisions of the Old South . only such analysis can explain the profound suspicion between the Deep South and border South, between eastern and western Virginia, between planters and non-slaveholders which are so evident in the Virginia 2 Secession Convention." Freehling's essay has apparently had some influence in historiography, for two works have appeared since 1970, one on the disunionism in the middle Atlantic states, and the other a major study of the Georgia secession 3 movement by Michael Johnson. Emory Thomas of the University of Georgia says, in a review of Johnson’s book: "Toward a Patriarchal Republic is an important book. Johnson's emphasis upon Georgia's internal conflict and its influence upon secession adds a necessary dimension to the understanding 4 of the secession process in Georgia and elsewhere." -II- In this study of the secession movement in Arkansas, I have endeavored to follow the suggestions of Freehling and the example of Johnson in studying the internal conflicts within Arkansas's politics immediately before and during the great national crisis of 1860-1861. These political struggles reflected the social, cultural, economic, and class diversities present within Arkansas at the end of the ante-bellum era. Like states of the upper South, Arkansas experienced a plantation slaveholding regime in the lowlands, as well as a mostly non-slaveholding small farmer society in the mountains. While both Delta and upland Arkansas consistently supported the political and moral legitimacy of slavery, suspicious antagonisms persisted between the two *regions. These became most, acute after Lincoln's election in 1860, when the .... state finally faced the secession question head-on. Since historical movements have not been understood without background information on social, economic, and political factors, a substantial portion of this paper deals with these themes. In the half century before 1860, Arkansas experienced steady but difficult growth. (See Chapter 1.) On the eve of the war, the state had begun to emerge as one of the major cotton ; producers, and a railroad and a telegraph line had made their appearance. Territorial Arkansas saw the rise of a political dynasty which controlled every branch of state government through statehood until the eve of the Civil War. (See Chapters 2 and 3.) -III- The four remaining chapters focus on the two political crises in Arkansass politics between 1859-1861. Internally, the state's political dynasty faced a dangerous threat to its rule when a revolt broke out within its ranks led by the shrewd and ambitious Thomas C. Hindman. In these, the final stormy years oi ante-bellum Arkansas, Hindman always played a central role. Outside the state, the nation was splitting apart over slavery, forcing Arkansas to choose its true allegiance to the Union or to the South. Arkansas would not make her decision until three weeks after hostilities had begun. This work seeks to shed new light on Arkansas's road to secession by emphasizing the social and class conflicts and the geographical differences that played a major role in state politics just prior to.the nation's greatest ordeal. One final note of explanation is necessary with respect to the title of this work, "With Hesitant Resolve: Arkansas Moves Toward Secession and War." It is not easy to find an expression that can adequately and succinctly summarize the complexity of Arkansas's move out of the Union. On the one hand, the word "hesitant" suggests doubt, caution, and un¬ certainty, while "resolve" infers strength, assurance, and determination. If these terms are contradictory, so too was the state's posture during the secession crisis of 1860-61. The state loved the old Union, and refused to secede because she did not want to precipitate its breaicup. At the same time, the state was fully resolved to preserve slavery, and the sacred ideal of state's rights. The latter was regarded as fundamental to the retention of "white-folks'" democracy in Arkansas. This state -IV- voted for Breckinridge in 1860 to express its belief in the legitimacy of slavery; it then refused to secede upon Lincoln’s election because of its great love for the Union.