Liberty and Slavery

European Separatists, Southern Secession, and the American Civil War

Niels Eichhorn

• Publisher: LSU Press
• Year: 2019
• Topic: Social Sciences
• eBook ISBN:
  9780807171820
• Subtopic: American Civil War History
• Index: Social Sciences

In Liberty and Slavery, Niels Eichhorn examines the language of slavery, which he considers central to revolutionary struggles, especially those waged in Europe in the nineteenth century. Eichhorn begins in 1830 with separatist movements in Greece, Belgium, and Poland, which laid the foundation for rebellions undertaken later in the century, and then shifts focus to the 1848 uprisings in Ireland, Hungary, and Schleswig-Holstein. He argues that revolutionaries embraced or rejected the language of slavery as they saw fit, using it to justify their rebellions and larger goals. The failure of these insurgencies propelled a wave of revolutionary migrants across the Atlantic world. Those who journeyed to the United States felt the need to adjust to the political and sectional divisions in their new home. Eichhorn shows that separatism was widespread during this period; the secessionist aims of the American Confederacy were by no means unique. Additionally, Eichhorn explores these migrants' motivations for shunning the Confederacy during the American Civil War. Having been steeped in the language of slavery and separatism, they naturally sided with the Union when the sectional crisis culminated in civil war in 1861.

1

THE REVOLUTIONS OF 1830

“Brave Belgians, you gloriously defeated. Know how to enjoy the victory. Your cowardly enemies shall be astonished. Do not waste a moment. . . . Freedom for all! Equality before the supreme power: the nation; before his will: the law. You crushed despotism; your faith is in the power that you have created; you will protect yourselves against anarchy and its fatal consequences. The Belgians should shake their enemies.”¹ With these words, Louis Joseph Antoine de Potter, a prominent Belgian pamphleteer and thinker, announced Belgium’s independence from the Netherlands, on September 28, 1830. He asked his fellow countrymen to focus on the struggle for freedom and to oust the oppressive Dutch. Belgians should not accept defeat, he argued, and should use the overconfidence of their enemy to push for independence.

The Belgian nation demanded freedom and a new political system. Belgians used the national and political arguments of previous revolutions to justify their own bid for independence. The French Revolution of 1789 laid the foundation for liberalism, republicanism, and nationalism. Since all three required time to mature and spread among people, the desire for liberal nation-states remained restricted to the upper intellectual strata. Students and professors believed that a constitutional government built by a people with a shared ethnic, cultural, or historical identity provided a stronger basis for a state than did monarchy. The imagined community these thinkers envisioned was slow to form, and few were prepared to challenge the reactionary order in 1830. Nevertheless, challenges appeared when Belgium, Greece, Ireland, Poland, Rio Grande do Sul, Texas, Yucatan, and many other parts of the Atlantic region rose up to demand the restoration of constitutional rights and redress for other specific grievances.² When governments and kings ignored, refused, or brushed aside those requests, conflict followed and calls for independence appeared.

The first separatist challenge came in Greece. After more than three hundred years of Ottoman rule, the Greek elite perceived the religious differences between themselves and their Islamic overlords, the heavy burden of taxation, and the legal oppression as significant enough to demand autonomy. The rebellion started in 1821. Faced with an impossible military situation, the Ottoman sultan enlisted the help of his vassal Muhammad Ali, the pasha of Egypt, whose involvement elevated the conflict from a domestic uprising to an international conflict. As a result, Russia and Great Britain offered their good office. After the unfortunate incident in the Bay of Navarino, the European powers actively supported the Greek cause, which allowed Greece to claim its independence in 1832, a separatist success.³

Inspiration for other uprisings came not only from Greece but also from France. In the 1820s, Charles X had restored the Catholic Church to a place of prominence, reimbursed French nobles who had lost property in the process of the French Revolution, and embraced a reactionary political agenda. On March 17, 1830, the chamber of deputies passed a motion of no confidence against the Jules Auguste Armand Marie de Polignac ministry. In response, the king dissolved the chamber and called for new elections. Making matters worse, on April 30, Charles X dismissed the national guard, a popular military organization among the middle strata. The king issued Les Ordonnances de Saint-Cloud on July 25, 1830, severely restricting the freedom of the press, limiting the electoral franchise, and reducing the power of the chamber of deputies.

On the following day, Paris disintegrated into barricade fighting. The Trois Glorieuses, or the three days of violence, forced Charles X into exile. At the Hôtel de Ville, moderate liberals worked feverishly to counterbalance the perceived despotism emanating from monarchy, mob, and democratic government. The leaders adopted a limited republican–monarchical system of government, which embraced aspects of democracy but remained conservative. Louis-Philippe of the House of Orléans became the new constitutional monarch.⁴ The revolution sent shockwaves through Europe.

In other parts of the Atlantic World, revolutionaries demanded the creation of nation-states. These new nation-states could embrace constitutional monarchy or radical forms of government. Inspired by France, the people in the southern parts of the Netherlands rose up against the oppressive Dutch king, Willem I. Industrial entrepreneurs perceived the Dutch free trade policy as detrimental. Furthermore, there were the cultural and linguistic differences. On the evening of August 25, 1830, the Théâtre Royal de la Monnaie in Brussels performed Daniel Auber’s La muette de Portici, a play infused with the spirit of rebellion, nationalism, and romanticism. Inspired, the people of Brussels started a separatist uprising. By October 1830, Charles Latour Rogier’s revolutionary government had drafted a constitution and declared Belgium independent. With European assistance, Belgium defeated the Netherlands and found in Leopold of Saxe-Coburg a constitutional monarch.⁵

History, culture, and traditions provided a foundation for an emerging national identity. Oppression gave rise to political and national demands. The American and French revolutions provided inspiration for republican forms of government and confirmed the right of people to rebel. The disparity in nation-state development undermined separatist rebellions. Only Poland violently challenged its oppressors. Irish leaders successfully overcame religious and some political oppression without resorting to violence. Hungarians and Schleswig-Holstein Germans lacked the leadership and national consciousness to start a rebellion in 1830. In South Carolina, leaders were ready to challenge the government over tariff policies, but they had no support. In all five regions, leaders demanded an end to their enslavement and oppression.

Despite a proud history, the Poles lacked a coherent national identity. Divided between Austria, Prussia, and Russia, Poland disappeared in the late 1700s. After a brief reappearance during the Napoleonic Wars, the Congress of Vienna awarded Poland to Russia. The tsar ruled his new realm in personal union as king of Poland. While the tsar created the Polish chancery in Saint Petersburg, Poland had an elected diet with biennial meetings. By the late 1820s, anti-Russianism materialized during the meetings of the Polish diet. Young nationalists, especially students and journalists, cheered speakers who demanded a redefinition of the relationship between Poland and Russia. In response, the tsar and his first minister, Karl Robert Nesselrode, closed the meetings to the public, further alienating young nationalists.

Among members of the military, especially, nationalism found many recruits. Inspired by Mazzini’s Young Italy movement and the secret Carbonari, Major Waleryan Łukasiński of the Fourth Infantry Regiment and staff officer Lieutenant Colonel Ignacy Pantaleon Prądzyński tried, but failed, to create a similar secret organization. The conspiratorial organization of young subalterns of the Warsaw garrison and cadets at the local military academy was more successful.⁶

European revolutionaries such as Harro Paul Harring took an interest in Polish independence. Harring, who had already participated in the Greek uprising, summarized the Polish situation in a poem. He argued that “as long as the slaves do not break the chains” the power of despotism prevailed and there was no “golden light” of freedom. Harring assumed that freedom could not prevail where a “slave/servant” loved his master; the more love, the more the master beats him.⁷ Harring concluded his recollections of the Polish insurrection, “To the happy satisfaction of mankind, in retrospect of the great of past time, the great of lost civilizations will feel strengthened and revived in the knowledge of the inhuman strength of the Poles, in their divine ordained struggle for rights and freedom, against the shame and dishonor of slavery.” Although the term “slave” derived from the often-enslaved Slavic people, Harring meant a state of political slavery. This perception of enslavement, tyranny, and despotism set the tone for separatist movements.

On November 29, 1830, Józef Wysocki, an officer in the Fourth Infantry Regiment, and his coconspirators attacked Belvedere Palace. Though they failed to capture the Russian governor, Duke Constantine, the widespread resentment against Russian rule allowed the uprising to succeed, even if some segments looked more like a plundering mob. Surprised by the rebellion, Constantine ordered the Polish troops from the outlying provinces to cordon off Warsaw. However, with orders from both the revolutionary administrative council and the grand duke, confused officers refused to implement Constantine’s orders. Stalemated, the administrative council and Constantine agreed to a temporary settlement, preventing Russian troops from attacking Warsaw.⁸

Poland immediately faced a political crisis. Political revolutions face the danger not only of the established order regaining power but also of fringe groups, especially republicans and democrats, trying to implement their agendas. In Poland, radicals successfully but temporarily added Wladyslaw Tomasz Rawicz-Ostrowski, Gustaw Małachowski, and Joachim Lelewel to the governing council and demanded independence. For the moment, moderates checked those demands. When the well-respected Józef Grzegorz Chłopicki threatened to resign in protest, radicals accepted that Poland was not yet ready for independence or democracy.⁹ Political division complicated the revolution.

At the same time, negotiations with the tsar went nowhere because the ruler refused to make constitutional concessions. With neither side willing to fire the first shots, Polish radicals questioned Chłopicki’s leadership. The government appointed Michał Gedeon Radziwiłł to command the Polish forces, hoping to silence the radicals. On January 25, 1831, the parliament debated the negotiations in Saint Petersburg. Radicals reacted angrily and forced moderates to surrender the initiative. Poland ousted the tsar and took steps toward independence. The new motto was “Die rather than submit.” Privately, Adam Jerzy Czartoryski asserted, “The nation, carried away by an irresistible torrent, has expressed loudly and unanimously its determination to defend itself; and if ever there were a moment when the destiny of countries depended upon their own exertions, and not upon accidental circumstances, such was the present condition of Poland. The nation ought to enjoy with moderation the liberty she has conquered. . . . Union must be considered as the foundation of all national happiness.”¹⁰ With independence, the diet reorganized as a constitutional assembly. With Russia unrepentant and a growing radical political movement, Poland took its first fateful steps as an independent nation-state.

Once Poland had declared independence, Nicholas I ordered his armies to attack. In the Battle of Białołęka (February 24 and 25, 1831), many young Poles got their first taste of combat. Lieutenant Gacpar Tochman fought heroically and earned an Order Wojenny Virtuti Militari (Medal for Military Virtue). His contemporary Ignatius Szymański fought with Harro Harring in Adam Woroniecki’s lancer unit. In the Battle of Olszynka Grochowska (February 23 to 25, 1831), the Poles defeated the numerically superior Russian army, but it was a Pyrrhic victory. The Poles could ill afford more than seven thousand casualties. Jan Zygmunt Skrzynecki assumed command of the Polish armies, replacing Chłopicki and Radziwiłł. The military situation caused new protests; among the protesters was the young Adam Gurowski.¹¹

The continued political infighting and military setbacks disillusioned many Poles. By February 28, 1831, the diet could not muster a quorum, which made the conduct of political business and war impossible. The small Polish army could not police the state and fight the superior Russians. Skrzynecki’s defeat of a Russian advance guard on April 1 provided the government some breathing space. Ten days later, he defeated a Russian army in the Battle of Iganie. At the same time, another Polish army, under Józef Dwernicki, retreated into Austrian territory and a third army invaded Lithuania. The successes were short-lived, and in the Battle of Ostrołęka, on May 26, the Russians won.¹² The Polish uprising was in its final stage.

Czartoryski appealed to the Polish people in Lithuania with a carefully drafted proclamation, asking them to join the struggle for independence. He appealed to his “brethren and fellow-citizens”: “United as we are hand and heart, we will henceforth proceed in concert to accomplish the difficult, perilous, but just and sacred work—the restoration of our country.” The Polish leader argued that the Russian tsar would not “regard us as Poles bowed down with injuries—as citizens of a free and independent country—and would treat with us only as slaves who had rebelled against Russia.” He argued that the partition of Poland was illegal and that, therefore, the Polish people “deserve to be a free Nation.” Czartoryski asked for a “general rising to hail you as members of the free and independent nations of Europe.”¹³

By summer, Poland faced disaster. Henryk Dembiński assumed command of the Polish armies. On July 21, Russian troops crossed the strategically important Vistula and marched on the weakly defended Warsaw, where political upheaval, mob unrest, and political murders undermined the government. On August 6, almost eighty thousand Russians approached the outskirts of the Polish capital. When the two commanding officers met, the Russian accused the Poles of being rebels, which the Polish commander refuted. Nevertheless, the two officers agreed to a temporary armistice. Because the diet found the Russian demands offensive, however, it declined to authorize negotiations. Jan Stefan Krukowiecki negotiated on his own initiative. By November 1, 1831, the tsar had reestablished his authority over Poland. Without an amnesty, many Polish leaders went into exile.¹⁴ Polish separatism had failed.

The suffering of the Polish people attracted attention. In the United States, the Buffalo Journal and General Advertiser wrote, “Let the shoulders of our nation be opened for receiving these gallant tatters from the Russian massacres as befits a free and great people who are indebted to the forefathers of those who now expect protection against despotic governments of terror.” Similarly, a correspondent from the Times of London reported from the Prussian-Polish frontier. As the remnants of the Polish army and government crossed the border, an elderly gentleman explained, “Do you imagine that it is not painful to us to take refuge in a country whose Sovereigns were so long vassals to the crown of Poland? Had we to do with the Emperor of Russia alone, and had we not been convinced that all our representations against the willful tyranny of his brother were disregarded, we should never have begun the revolution.”¹⁵ Russian enslavement continued.

Lelewel summarized Poland’s struggle for independence best. Toward the end of his work on Polish history, he wrote, “From the Tagus to the Volga Delta, in France and in Turkey, in Germany as in Greece and Russia, everywhere is the spirit of change, which calls for the improvement and freedom/liberty of the people. . . . Poland had made social improvement before its partition. Once the other European people have successfully gained their freedom, Poland too will rise up and emerge honorable and unharmed from all its social reforms.”¹⁶ While the removal of oppressive political chains was important, there was a need for social change. The Polish people were not alone in their separatist struggle against enslavement.

In contrast to the unsuccessful Polish uprising, the Irish found redress for their limited set of demands. Ireland came under foreign rule in 1536, during the reign of Henry VIII, who completed what the Normans had started two centuries earlier. The island’s inhabitants were reduced to second-class citizenship as colonial subjects. O...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Contents
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction: The Separatist Atlantic World
• 1. The Revolutions of 1830
• 2. 1848 in the North Atlantic Revolutionary World
• 3. European Secessionist Migration
• 4. Antebellum Separatist Interaction
• 5. Secession and a Separatist’s Dilemma
• 6. North America’s Separatist Revolution
• 7. The Defeat of Secession in the North Atlantic
• Conclusion
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index