http://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths-about-why-the-south-seceded/2011/01/03/ABHr6jD_story.html
Recently, there's been a wealth of good articles about the start of the Civil War, and this is one of them. It does do something that's badly needed, which is dispel some of the "lost cause" myths that pervade much of what's common knowledge about the Civil War. The worst and most laughable trope debunked is that the Civil War represented a struggle for theoretical state's rights on behalf of the South. The article makes the major point on this, that it was the South that most aggressively interfered with states' rights by insisting on the deputization of citizens of Northern states in the return of slaves to their masters, and in demanding the right to travel freely with slaves, even to states where slavery was illegal.
But I think a further illustration of the extent of the South's extremism and paranoia is in the restrictions its advocates put on anti-slavery speech. In the antebellum South, laws (and certainly social pressure!) prevented citizens from even arguing for the abolition of slavery. Southern states and localities were allowed to do this because the 14th amendment (a product of the Civil War) had not yet nationalized the rights contained in the Constitution, so it was only the Congress that was prevented from passing laws restricting the freedom of speech.
But even in Congress there were attempts to brush the slavery debate under the rug by the South and its advocates. Discussion of the subject was generally tabled except at points of crisis. An illustration of this is an incident I found in the Congressional record from 1837 where none other than John Quincy Adams, the former president, then in Congress, and not yet played by Anthony Hopkins, attempts to get a petition from citizens in Dover Massachusetts discussed in the House of Representatives.
(The primary source begins on this page.)
In the dust-up, the Speaker of the House begins by attempting to discuss an issue involving the quarantining of American ships by the Danish (it must have been humiliating to be an American in 1837), when J. Q. Adams decides to liven things up by rising on point of order, arguing that they haven't yet discussed an anti-slavery petition previously introduced to the House and that it was proper order to discuss it now. The Speaker notes that they would normally discuss that petition, but that a resolution adopted by the House preventing the discussion of anti-slavery petitions effectively resolved the matter. Adams then launches into a series of dry but clever procedural arguments about why the resolution was adopted against House rules and, further, why the petitions should be accepted despite the acceptance of the resolution.
But it's clear from the Speaker's statements that he's not convinced, and Adams requests that the Speaker's decision be appealed. In appealing to the whole House, Adams gives what seems like a pretty scathing tirade, noting (revealingly) that in the question of whether the anti-slavery petition should be received, the "free side" of the debate had been cut off while the pro-slavery side had been allowed to argue at will. He argues that it was "no better than mockery" to receive petitions and then refuse to hear them read. He then says that before long "any member who should dare raise his voice on the subject of abolition of slavery would be expelled from the House." Above what another congressman calls a great "noise in the hall" Adams concludes "Sir, I am ready to be that member when the House shall come to that decision."
Adams' appeal is defeated 145-32.
