University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan the ÜNIVERSITT of OKLAHOMA
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
This dissertation has been microfilmed exactly as received 66-14,193 BECK, Don Edward, 1937- THE RHETORIC OF CONFLICT AND COMPROMISE: A STUDY IN CIVIL WAR CAUSATION. The University of Oklahoma, Ph.D., 1966 Speech-Theater University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan THE ÜNIVERSITT OF OKLAHOMA GRADUATE COLLEGE TÜK IttUSi’ORlC Qÿ- COWLIGT AWD CWKOHlSEj A STUDY IN C i m WAR CAUSATION A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY iTi partial fulfilliwnt of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY by DON SEWARD BECK Norman* Oklahoma 1966 IHË RHETORIC OF CONFLICT AND COMPROMISE: A STUDY IN CIVIL WAR CAUSATION APPROVm BY 1 s / . 1 dissertation COMMITTEE PLEASE NOTE: Mot original copy. Several pages throughout have some blurred and indistinct print. Filmed as re ceived. University Microfilms, Inc. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The following individùals made substantial contributions to the conçletion oÊ this dissertation and should be recognized. Dr. Roger E. Nebergall and Dr. David M. Berg, co-chairmen of the Advisory Committee, worked closely with the writer in the organi zation and composition of this study. Dr. Jack E. Douglas, Dr. John S. Ezell, and Dr. William R. Brown, also members of the committee, were helpful in suggesting textual and stylistic changes. Dr. Wayne E. Brockriede, now of the University of Colorado, contributed significantly to the original conception of this study and instilled in the writer an appreciation for scholarship. Finally, Patricia Jane Beck, the writer’s wife, provided the kind of understanding and atmosphere necessary to make this dissertation a reality. To her this study is dedicated. ill TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS «««,««»«««, LIST OF TABLES .......... ............ Chapter I. INTRODUCTION..................... Purposes of the Study Approaches to the Study Sources of Material Plan of the Study n. THE SOCIAL JDDGMENT-INVOLVEMENT APPROACH....... 30 The Cognitive Process of Perception-Judgraent Impact of Ego-Involveaent Impact of Social Judgment on Group Theory Inpaot of Social Judgment on Rhetorical Theory m. RHETORIC AND COMPRCRESE: A THEORETICAL APPROACH , 6? Relationship between Conflict and Compromise Relationship between Rhetoric and Compromise Effect of Efeo-Involvement IV. BACKGROUND TO THE i860 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION . 97 Historical Influences Political Background Social and Cultural Background Rhetorical Background V. ATTITUDES TOWARD SLAVERY IN I860 ......... 151 Positions on Slavery Assimilation and Contrast Effects VI. BIPQLARIZATION IN i860 .............. 193 The Nature of Bipolarization The Causes of Bipolarization The Effects of Bipolarization V U . CONCLUSION .................. 225 BIBLIOGRAPHY ................. ........... 231 iv LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Mean Sizes of latitudes of Acceptance, Rejection, and Noncoimitment: Oklahoma, I 9 6 0 ............... hi THE RHETORIC OF CONFLICT AND COMPROMISE: A STUDY IN C i m WAR CAUSATION CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Philosophers and statesmen across the Atlantic in i860 and l86l asked one another why twenty-five million intelligent Americans oonld not settle the condition of four million uneducated Africans without tearing one another's throats. Over one hundred years later Professor J, Jeffrey Auer, in his Preface to Anti-slaverv and Disunion. 1858-1861. asked: "Why did the Americans, trained in the democratic tradition of free speech and compromise, ultimately fail to talk out their differences?”^ The rejection of compromise in the ante helium struggle was reflected in the failure of the rhetoric of conciliation as a rational 12 instrument in the "energizing of knowledge and the humanizing of truth.” The alternative was a bloody war resulting in over one million casualties and a total monetary cost well in excess of eight billion dollars.^ ^John Jeffrey Auer (ed.), Anti-slaverv and Disunion. 1858-1861 (New York: Harper and Row, 1963), p. x. ^This definition of rhetoric by Charles S. Baldwin is cited in Marie Hochmuth Nichols, Rhetoric and Criticism (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 19^3), P. 70. ^David M. Pottor, "Why the Republicans Rejected both Compromise and Secession,” in The ^^ieis ^f th^ ioojj—xooji, eo. vjeorge narmon Knoles (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1965), p. 105, points out that the war cost the life of one soldier, either Rebel or 2 This dissertation will focus on the development of a theoretical approach to conflict and conflict resolution. An analytical model, re flecting current thought from several disciplines, will be applied in an historical analysis of the factors which brought on the American Civil War. This interaction of the theoretical with the historical is both deductive and inductive. This study performs a deductive function in that the basic principles of the eclectically-derived construct will be superimposed on the historical context. This dissertation follows an inductive pattern in that some of the insights gained from the his torical data modify or replace the theoretical concepts. The deductive and inductive views of conflict, rhetoric, and compromise result in a more sophisticated theoretical approach on one hand and more accurate historical judgment and interpretation on the other. An approach to conflict and conflict resolution which has been developed theoretically and tested historically should prove to be a useful paradigm in the examination of other controversies. Purposes of the Study The intent of this dissertation, therefore, is two-fold. First, this study develops a theoretical construct dealing with the interaction of rhetoric and compromise within a conflict. The main objective is to determine at what point a controveri^ becomes so rigid that it is no longer amenable to some form of peaceful settlement. This approach, which views conpromise as a rhetorical activity, focuses on those factors lank, for every six slaves who ware freed and for every ten white Scuthsrners who were held in the Union. This is not to say, however, AC 4 4-l^a AAwfl 4 «%4» 4 > V a w w wi» w-bwi* wMw WAAA. ■*!ifcw w nwA w c&MOk* w ÿ caw wxxv vxio implications of their decision to resort to arms. 3 within the anatomy of a controversy which either make possible a settlement or deepen the confrontation into an "irrepressible conflict.” The analytical model will be described in Chapters II and H I. Second, the theoretical construct will be applied, in the form of a case=study, to the pre-Civil War controversy in general and to the presi dential campaign and election of i860 in particular. The ante bellum controversy, which has been described by Devote as "the crux of our history,"^ has been selected as a testing-ground for the theoretical approach. Three factors motivated this choice. First, maqy of the issues which caused the disruption of the Union are just an meaningful and important now as they were then. Although the contemporary attitudes do not activate the same degree of intensity as they did in I860, they are still vital to many Americans of this century. The importance of the issues discussed in the sectional conflict has been underlined by EllHns in his study of the problem of slavery. It can hardly be doubted that the estrangement of North and South over slavery, and the consequences of it, offer us what is potent ially the most distinguished subject in our history. That it might have ended otherwise is a shadowy possibility that will trouble our minds forever. That there may have been alternatives— that choices were at least conceiva]?le— makes it a subject not quite foreordained and fatal, but tragic." Second, the student of the prologue to the war is able to observe the development and interaction of various shades of attitudes as the conflict emerges and intensifies. The critic, then, is in a position to study both the rise and fall of ideas and movements related to the ^Bernard Devoto, "Slavery and the Civil War," Slavery as a Cause of the Civil War, ed, Edwin C, Rozwenc (Boston: D, C. Heath and Co., 1 9 W 7 p. 99. 2 _ Stanley K, Elkins, Slavery; A Problem in American institutional and Intellectual Life (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1959)* p. 194, k - sectional confrontation. Third, the various forms of behavior stimulated by the attitudes of that generation can be examined hy the m o d e m critic because of the availability of research materials, both primary and secondary, dealing with that period in American history. For these reasons, then, the theoretical model will be applied to the general area of the causes of the American Civil War. The campaign and election of i860 will be the specific focus of this historical study; both of which were highly significant events along the path that led to war. First, the importance of the campaign was reflected in the nature of the issues discussed and the degree to which they captivated the thoughts and emotions of the voters. Smith claimed that the campaign "became a contest over principles in i860, not one of personalities as it was in 1828, 1840, and 1856."^ The extent of the nation's involvement in these issues was noted by Fite. The whole history of the country and its social, legal and govern mental institutions, %ere searched for proof and refutation; con= temporary society, manners, and customs were rigorously held up to view, analyzed,^and judged. Rarely has the nation taken a broader view of itself.*^ For the first time in the histozy of the slavery controversy the clearly-defined issue was placed before the voters in a national election. For decwies the slavery issue had been temporarily resolved within the halls of deliberative bodies. In i860 the question was put to the people William Ernest amith. The Francis Preston Blair Family in Politics (New York: The Macmillan Cospany, 1933)? I, 503. ^Emerson David Fits, The PMsidential Campaign of i860 (New York; The Macmillan Company, 1911A P. %i. 5 for a verdict. Fish and Smith point out that it is doubtful that ths Aasrican people, unless possibly in l89o, ever partisipatsd in a sa^aign more enlightening than that of I860, It was a cançaign built on six years of constant debate, preceded by another six during which points of view had been sha^ned.