Studying the changing strategies used by the nineteenth-century southern leaders to justify their direction of the South's economy and politics, Shore shows how leaders before, during, and after the Civil War attempted to set standards of success in southern society and to clarify the relations between those standards and national prosperity. Shore offers a new perspective on southern leaders' worldview and helps clarify the enduring question of what is new about the "new South." Originally published in 1986. A UNC Press Enduring Edition -- UNC Press Enduring Editions use the latest in digital technology to make available again books from our distinguished backlist that were previously out of print. These editions are published unaltered from the original, and are presented in affordable paperback formats, bringing readers both historical and cultural value.

Excerpt from Speech of Hon. Thomas L. Clingman, of North Carolina, Against the Revolutionary Movement of the Anti-Slavery Party: Delivered in the Senate of the United States, January 16, 1860 Slavery is the sin of not some of the States only, but of them all; of not one nation only, but of all nations. It per verted and corrupted the moral sense of mankind deeply and universally, and this corruption became a universal habit. Habits of thought become fixed principles. No American State has yet delivered itself entirely from these habits. We, in New York, are guilty of slaverystill by withholding the right of suffrage from the race we have emancipated. You in Ohio, are guilty in the same way by a system of blaclt laws still more aristocratic and odious. It is written in the Constitution of the United States that five slaves shall countequal to three freemen as a basis of representation; and it is written also, in violation of Divine law, that we shall surrender the fugitive slave who takes refuge at our fireside from his relentless pursuer.' You blush not at these things, because they'have become as familiar as household words and your pretended Free - Soil allies claim peculiar merit for maintaining these miscalled guarantees of slavery which they find in the national compact. Does not allthis prove' that the Whig party have kept up with the spirit of the age? That it is as true and faithful to human treedonras the inert conscience of the American people'will permit it to be What, then, you say, can nothing he done for free dom because the public conscience remains inert? Yes, much can'be done, everything can be done. 'slave_ry can be limited to1 its present bounds: It can be ameliorated. 'lt can be endmast be abolished, and you and I can'nnd must. Do it. The task is siniplqand easy, as its consummation will be beneficent and its rewards glorious. It requires only to follow this simple rule of action To do everywhere and on ev'ery occasion what we can, and not to neglect-or refuse to do what we can at any time, because at that pre: else time and on that particular occasion we. Cannot do more. About the Publisher Forgotten Books publishes hundreds of thousands of rare and classic books. Find more at www.forgottenbooks.com This book is a reproduction of an important historical work. Forgotten Books uses state-of-the-art technology to digitally reconstruct the work, preserving the original format whilst repairing imperfections present in the aged copy. In rare cases, an imperfection in the original, such as a blemish or missing page, may be replicated in our edition. We do, however, repair the vast majority of imperfections successfully; any imperfections that remain are intentionally left to preserve the state of such historical works.

An interdisciplinary journal of the South.

Excerpt from Speech of Hon. Thomas L. Clingman, of North Carolina: Against the Revolutionary Movement of the Anti-Slavery Party Mr. President: It is my purpose lo speak today of the condition of the country, as connected j with agitation of the slavery question. I shall do ! this with perfect frankness, and with no reserve, except what parliamentary rules and Senatorial courtesies impose. By such a course only can the real nature of the impending evil be ascertained, and a remedy suggested. Having carefully studied the subject during the greater part of my political life, and from different points of view, J intend to express my opinions seriously, and as fully as the occasion seems to require. Before sneaking directly to the merits of the Subject, I shall devote a few minutes to a preliminary question. It has been contende 1 that the Democratic party is responsible for the anti-slavery agitation of the North. A retrospect into the past will vindicate it most triumphantly from the charge. The course of the old Federal party, in the war of 1812, had brought it into discredit and disgrace with the American people. Its leaders, with a view of recovering the popular favor, and through it the control of the Government, seized upon the occasion of the application of Missouri for admission into the Union, and, by appealing to the anti-slavery feeling of the northern States, created a sectional party powerful enough to prevent, fora time, the admission of the State. During the struggle, a provision was adopted that slavery should never exist in the territory west of Missouri and north of the line of latitude of 3G 30'. Though this arrangement was distasteful to the South, and by many regarded as dishonorable and unconstitutional, it was acquiesced in fur the sake of peace. And when, in 1845, Texas was annexed to the Union, by the Democratic party mainly, this Missouri line was extended through it, and slavery, which legally existed in every part of that State, was abolished and prohibited north of the line. When, subsequently, territory was acquired from Mexico, the Democratic party, with but few exceptions, attempted to apply the same principles to it, and extend the line of 360 3(y through 1 it. The proposition was again and again brought * forward by the distinguished Senator from Illinois, [Mr. Douglas] and others, and as often rejected by the combined vote of the entire Whig party of the North, and a portion of the Democrats of that section. After years of fruitless struggle it was abandoned, and the principle of congressional nonintervention adopted by (lie compromise measures of 1850. In other words, it was then established, in substance and effect, that the people of the Territories, free from all congressional legislation on the subject of slavery, should regulate* it for themselves, subject only to the limitations of the Constitution of the United States, as interpreted by the courts of the country. This settlement, like the proposition for the extension of the Missouri line, was resisted by the great body of the northern Whigs, who were for the Wilmot proviso and against the extension of slavery in any mode. It was also opposed by the southern friends of the Missouri line, who preferred that system to congressional non-intervention, and who still cherished the hope that it might be adopted. In the final struggle, they were reduced to a dozen southern Senators and thirty Representatives, of whom 1 was one. I call the attention of Senators to another striking fact in this connection. It is charged not only by the northern Opposition, but also by the southern opponents of the Democratic party, that it is responsible for the alleged evils of congressional non-intervention and the disturbances of so-called "squatter sovereignty"in the Territories. I affirm that, in 1650, when this system was adopted, it was sustained by the representatives of the southern Whigs with the greatest unanimit."