reSee.it - Tweets Saved By @Jeff_Davis1808

Jeff_Davis1808
Posted - May 27, 2025 at 11:58 PM
Saved - May 28, 2025 at 12:55 AM

@Jeff_Davis1808 - Jefferson Davis

x.com/i/article/1905…

Jeff_Davis1808
Posted - October 16, 2024 at 11:45 PM
Saved - October 17, 2024 at 12:33 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
I explored how the NC Standard's stance on secession evolved from 1860 to 1861. Initially, they opposed secession after Lincoln's election, arguing that rights hadn't been violated. By February 1861, they claimed staying in the Union was essential to maintain slavery. However, after Lincoln's inauguration, they believed he would protect slavery and that coercion would change opinions. Ultimately, following Fort Sumter, they endorsed secession, citing Lincoln's illegal actions rather than slavery as the catalyst for their shift.

@Jeff_Davis1808 - Jefferson Davis

How did NC Unionists change their views to support secession from 1860-61? Historians can best make such judgments by looking at evolving views from the same source. In this thread, I will show you excerpts from the NC Standard: you'll see slavery was not the issue. 1/5 #history

@Jeff_Davis1808 - Jefferson Davis

2/5 On 12/1/1860 the NC Standard opposes secession after Lincoln's election. They see a new Union of slave states will have even worse problems. They claim rights have not been violated yet, and until that happens, there is no reason to secede. #ushistory

@Jeff_Davis1808 - Jefferson Davis

3/5 On 2/5/1861 the NC Standard wrote an editorial titled "Civil War Will Be Abolition." The paper argued to stay in the Union to maintain slavery! Isn't that the opposite of everything you ever heard? #slavery #ushistory

@Jeff_Davis1808 - Jefferson Davis

"He who prefers disunion to Union, and who labors to provoke & aggravate the two sections against each other, is an enemy to his race." -NC Standard 2/5/1861 How did their tune change after Sumter? See at 10:00 AM EST #history #ushistory #twitterstorians #AmericanHistory

@Jeff_Davis1808 - Jefferson Davis

4/5 On 3/9/1861, the NC Standard wrote about Lincoln's inauguration. They claim it isn't fully anti-Southern & that he will protect slavery. They also say that the force bill failed in Congress, so Lincoln can't coerce the states! It is coercion that will change their minds.

@Jeff_Davis1808 - Jefferson Davis

5/5 Finally, on 4/20/1861, after Sumter, the NC Standard endorsed secession because Lincoln is illegally trying to coerce the states. Slavery was not the reason for the change of view. Lincoln had no power under existing US law to invade the South.

@Jeff_Davis1808 - Jefferson Davis

"The federal gov't cannot be maintained by force applied to sovereign States. Local combinations & insurrections may be put down by force...but not attempts to drive and subdue sovereign States by armies is to exercise unjust, undelegated, arbitrary power." -NC Standard 4/20/1861

@Jeff_Davis1808 - Jefferson Davis

BONUS Tweet: All of the editorials can be read here https://www.historians.org/teaching-learning/aha-historical-collections/16-months-to-sumter/?_newspaper_name=north-carolina-standard

16 Months to Sumter - AHA The project has its origins in a three-volume series prepared for the American Historical Association in the 1930s by Dwight Dumond (southern editorials) and Harold Perkins (northern editorials). In reviewing the series, we were troubled by the selectivity of the coverage and its often uneven geographic distribution. So we expanded… historians.org
Jeff_Davis1808
Posted - October 15, 2024 at 11:08 PM
Saved - October 16, 2024 at 2:33 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
I explored how Northern Republicans' views on secession evolved from December 1860 to May 1861 through excerpts from the NY Times. Initially, there was no fear of South Carolina's secession, and slavery wasn't a primary concern. As tensions escalated, the NY Times acknowledged the impracticality of abolishing slavery immediately and expressed doubts about using force to maintain the Union. By April, economic fears about the Confederacy emerged, and by May, the tone shifted dramatically to discussions of treason and rebellion, reflecting a significant change in sentiment.

@Jeff_Davis1808 - Jefferson Davis

How did Northern Republicans change their views on secession between 12/1860-5/1861? Historians can best make such judgments by looking at evolving views from the same source. In this thread, I will show you excerpts from the NY Times: you'll see slavery was not the issue. 1/6

@Jeff_Davis1808 - Jefferson Davis

2/6 Less than a week after SC's secession, the NYT expressed no fear. One state leaving the Union would not threaten the rest of the states. The impact of Anderson moving to Sumter is not felt yet as this editorial is from the same day! Dates matter! https://t.co/wABQU9IEgf

@Jeff_Davis1808 - Jefferson Davis

"The secession of Southern States would still leave the Federal Government intact. It would retain every feature of its organization & every resources for its preservation." -NY Times 12/26/1860 #twitterstorians #quote #USHistory #CivilWar #History #NYTimes #AmericanHistory https://t.co/tp3vr8scRS

@Jeff_Davis1808 - Jefferson Davis

3/6 During the controversy that is becoming more serious (now Jan 1861), the NY Times makes clear that they are not for ending slavery. They even say slaves are taken care of in their current state. (your lost cause mythology, right? oops!) #slavery https://t.co/58WojjKNEK

@Jeff_Davis1808 - Jefferson Davis

"We have admitted the impossibility & the folly of immediate abolition of slavery & pointed out the ruin certain to flow from the sudden release of 4 Millions of ignorant slaves..." #NYTimes 1/22/1861 #twitterstorians #USHistory #HIstory #AmericanHistory #BLM #BlackHistory #facts https://t.co/YqLvARE2Hl

@Jeff_Davis1808 - Jefferson Davis

4/6 Now as we get to March and more states have seceded, the NY Times sounds just like me: they say the Union cannot be held together by force. Lincoln's threats to coerce the Cotton States still have limited support. https://t.co/IXZq87gpNz

@Jeff_Davis1808 - Jefferson Davis

"Force as a means of restoring the Union, or of permanently preserving it, is out of the question." #NYTimes 3/21/1861 #twitterstorians #USHistory #History #AmericanHistory #mythbreakers #CivilWar #quote #quoteoftheday https://t.co/k2QPMwzoUC

@Jeff_Davis1808 - Jefferson Davis

5/6 Now read the NY Times in April: they are scared that our new Confederacy will hurt the Old Union's economy. Notice they are afraid of our low tariff? Slavery isn't a concern, just their economic interests! #history https://t.co/jnXl3TLfa8

@Jeff_Davis1808 - Jefferson Davis

"we cannot conceal the fact that the new Gov't of which Jefferson Davis is at the head, had evinced a marvelous degree of energy...they have adopted a revenue system for the express purpose of depleting & damaging our commerce." -#NYTimes 4/3/1861 #twitterstorians #USHistory https://t.co/0Ng4HZKxgH

@Jeff_Davis1808 - Jefferson Davis

6/6 After Sumter (by May), the NY Times is now full crazy. They still state they aren't trying to end slavery but start talking about "treason" and "rebellion"--something you didn't see back in December when they were not fearful of SC's secession! https://t.co/rwJyavyPls

@Jeff_Davis1808 - Jefferson Davis

"The war on the part of the people of the North is not against States or the institutions of any state." #NYTimes 5/10/1861 #twitterstorians #USHistory #History #quote #BlackLivesMatter #BLM #CivilWar #factsmatter https://t.co/kj4GDPSV5J

View Full Interactive Feed