././ // 518CB 18CB8B:5D'-) '-, CCB8B:HBCB. 8BH89HC889H 8B:9CBC8 4 CBBC5C82B /CCB6B D.&&:8B:B&('))&') BOSTON UNIVERSITY GRADUA'rE SCHO OL \ t .{I',, D ( : ( I ( Dissertation COTI'ON WillGS AND UHION: Tii--:E OF MASSA.GHIJS.E'T'l1S Al'ID THE ,GOMING OF THE CIVIL WAR . By Thomas Henry O'Connor (A.B., Boston College, 1949; A. M., Boston College, 1950) Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 1958 Approved by First Reader , " . ,, Professor. .of . Histor;. • • .... • • • • • • Second Reader • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Professor of Hist ory TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE Introduction. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • i I . Lords of the Loom • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 I I. Broadcloth and '.J:; otton • • • • • • • • • • • 34 III. Got ton Versus .Conscience. • • • • • • • • • • 69 I V. Gentleman's Agreement • • • • • • • • • • • • 105 v. Awake t he Sleep ing Ti ger. • • • • • • • • • • 135 VI. The Eleventh Hour • • • • • • • • • • 177 Conclusion. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 225 Bi b1iography. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 229 Abstract. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 245 Vita. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 248 INTRODUCTION In 1941J Philip FonerJ in his Business and SlaveryJ made an appeal for a more detailed study of the Northern business man and his reaction to the coming of the Civil War. Countering the popular interpretation that the war was the product of two conflicting economic systemsJ Professor Foner presented his own observations regarding the concerted efforts of the New York financial interests to Check any and all move- ments which tended to precipitate an intersectional struggle. The documented reactions of this particular group of Nor t h ern business men could not be explained in terms of an over- simplified economic interpretation of the Civil War, and for this reason Professor Foner pointed to the need for more intensive research into the economic sources and materials of the ante-bellum period. 1 Foner's challenge has failed to arouse very much historical enthusiasm, apparently, for many recent historical treatments of the critical years before the Civil War continue to generalize upon the essential economic antagonisms of the North and the SouthJ and still look upon the Northern industrialist as the catalytic agent whiCh propelled the sections into bloody warfare. One of the most distinctive presentations of this 1 Philip FonerJ Business and Slavery (Ghapel Hill, 1941), PP• 318-322. i ii economic point of view came into the twentieth century with the writings of Beard. The South, according to Beard, was an area of nplanters operating in a limited territory with 11 incompetent labor on soil of diminishing fertility 1 in contrast .. to the industrial men of the North who "swept forward ••• exulting in the approaching triumph of machine i ndustry, Land 1 wh2( warned the planters of their ultimate subjection.u Not only did Beard consider the Civil War to be an "irrepressible conflict" resulting from the clash of these two conflicting economies, but attributed the immediate cause of the war to 2 Northern 11 capitalism. " So intense was Beard r s criticism of the materialistic greed of Northern 11 capitalism11 and its immoderate demands upon the South, that one commentator remarked that "the Southern planters very nearly became the heroes of the narrative, and Beard very nearly became the ally o f J ohn G.,. • .C a lhoun. u3 This economic interpretation was carried into the twenties by the work of Vernon Farrington, who maintained most of the essential ideas of Be ard regarding the origins of the lcharl.es and Mary Beard, The Rise of Almrican Civilization (2 vola.; New York, 1927), II, 6-7. 2 Ibid. I p. 10. 3 Thomas J. Pressly, Americans Interpret Their Civil (Princeton, 1954), P• 208. iii Ci vil War. Enthusiastic about the "agrarian democracyn of the Y/est, sympathetic at times toward the interests of the South, Parrington had little regard for the ideal s of a middle class which was busily engaged in "creating a plutocracy. ill I n the decades before the war, claimed Parrington, the major parties of t he United States chose to follow the economic interests of "master groups, heedless of all humanitarian issues It; and once the war was over, the 11 slave economy could never again thwart the ambi tiona of the capitalist economy." 2 Widely circulated during the late twenties and early thirties, t he age of the Great Depression, t he economic interpre- tations of Beard and Parring ton f ound obvious acceptance at a time when hostility to American capitalism and business methods was unusually strong. Many Southern historians, in particular, seized upon these idea s to l e nd support to the thesis that war had been thrust upon an unwilling South. Frank L. Owsley, for example, constantly emphasized t he conflict between the agrarian South and t h e industrial North , which resulted in bloodshed when the industrial 11 plutocracyu of the North tried to force its way of life upon t he South . 3 philosophy of t he North was intolerant, crusading and standardizing, wrote Owsley, and as a result, " Juggernaut drove h is car across the South ."4 1vernon L. Parring tan, Main Currents in American 1hought (3 vola.; New York, 1927-30), !II, xxiv. 2 I bid ., PP• xxiii, 3. 3Frank L. Owsley, "The .ltundamental Cause of t h e ·Civil War: Egocentric Sectionalism," Journal of Southern History, VII (1941), 4-6. 4 Frank L. Owsley, "The Irrepressible Conflict," Twelve Southerners, I'll Take My Stand (New York, 1930), p. 91. iv Although in recent years many of the extreme conclusions of the Beard thesis have been somewhat mbdified, and concessions have been made in the direction of admitting certain points of similarity between North and South, many historians continue to stress the elements of sectional 11 divergencen in the years preceding the Civil War •1 W'ri ters continue to generalize upon New England's "hatred of Southerners and their institutions," and often describe this hatred as so intense that New England would "do everything possible to 2 destroy slavery." The South is still depicted as a "static, agrarian, debtor section,n as opposed to a North which was a "dynamic, commercialized, industrializing, creditor section"; and that because of the presence of these conflicting econo1mc tendencies, there existed a "profound and irrepressible clash of material interests 11 which would inevitably lead to ttwar- fare between the slave industrial system and the f ree industrial system."3 Industrial capitalism, "with the banners of righteousness, patriotism and progress over its head, 11 marched 1Kenneth Stampp, And the War Came (Baton Rouge, 1950), p. 2. 2Roy Nichols, The Disruption of American Demo- cracy (New York, 1948), p. 24. 3Gharles W. Thompson, The Fiery Epoch, 1830-77 (Indianapolis, 1931), p. 25; Henry H. Simms, A Decade of Sectional Controversy, 1851-61 (Chapel Hill, p. 187. v out to triumph over the agrarian ideals of the South.1 "Bourgeois acquisitiveness ••• was in the saddle. Democracy, like the rest of the hindmost, was left for the devil."2 In short, to what Professor Charles Grier Sellers has aptly called the 11 myth of the Monolithic South, n there has been added another myth--that of the Moloch of the North, a huge, mechanical automaton, breathing flame, and moving inexorably forward to devour the hapless planters of the South.3 In reviewing the various economic interpretations regarding the clash of economic interests and the role of the Northern capitalist as the prime mover, one cannot help but compare the sweeping generalities regarding the pre- Civil War business man, with the actual amount of factual data concerning his influence in the history of the period. In recent years the market has been flooded with book titles indicating a widespread interest in almost every aspect of the American business man. Hereditary influences, social 1Avery Graven, The Repressible 1830-61 (Baton Rouge, 1939}, PP• 96-7. 2Avery Craven, Democracy in American Life (Chicago, 1941), PP• 13, 111-12. 3Cb.arles Grier Sellers, "Who Were the Southern Vfuigs?" American Historical Review, LIX (1954), 333-346. vi backgrounds, intellectual qualifications and psychodynanuc motivations have all been statistically recorded, and have provided the background for a plethora of novels, plays and motion pictures pealing with the dramatic involvements of the American man of business.l American historiography, too, has shown a remarkable trend toward re-evaluating and re- assessing the contributions of the American entrepreneur.2 It is almost impossible to recognize the old "robber baronsn of Ida Tarbell, Matthew Josephson and Henry Demarest Lloyd in Allan Nevins' treatment of John D. Rockefeller, or in the recently published study on the Standard Oil of New 3 Jersey. Unfortunately, however, very little of this modern interest in economic operations has been projected back into the War period. The American business man is apparently regarded by many historians and social scientists as a comparatively new phenomenon which made its appearance 1B • .0. Forbes, ed., America's Fifty Foremost Business Leaders (New York, 1948); Erank Taussig and Garl Joslyn, American Business Leaders: A S tud in Social and Social Stratification New York, 1932 ; William Henry, ·The Business Executive: The Psychodynamics of a Social Role,tt American Journal of Sociology, LIV (1949), 286-291; William vi iller, 11 American Historians and the Business Elite," Journal of Economic History, IX (1949), 184-200.