American History Hit - What Caused the Civil War? | Secession

Episode Date: September 25, 2025

In the wake of Abraham Lincoln’s election, Southern leaders made a fateful choice: to break from the Union. Yet instead of plunging the country into war, what followed next was a tense standoff. There were, as we'll learn today, twists and turns on the path from Secession to all out Civil War.Edited by Tomos Delargy. Produced by Freddy Chick. Senior Producer is Charlotte Long.Sign up to History Hit for hundreds of hours of original documentaries, with a new release every week and ad-free podcasts. Sign up at https://www.historyhit.com/subscribe.  You can take part in our listener survey here.All music from Epidemic Sounds.American History Hit is a History Hit podcast. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Want to explore even more history? Sign up to History Hit, where you will discover history from around the world. From the American Revolution to prehistoric Scotland, there is plenty to discover. With your subscription, you'll unlock hundreds of hours of exclusive documentaries with a brand new release every week, exploring everything from the ancient world to World War II. Just visit historyhit.com slash subscribe to bring the past alive. It's early November 1860 in the rural town of Chattahoochee, deep in the Florida panhandle. A wagon rattles up from the riverboat landing, carrying among its load a delivery of mail.

The leather bag is slung down to the local postmaster. It's stuffed with letters, small packages, and a parcel of the latest issue of the Floridian and Journal newspaper. Rumors have been circulating for days down on the docks, gossip of the presidential election. But since the telegraph doesn't reach this far, far out, the once-weekly Floridian and Journal is the only official source of news. So when the papers are passed out, the townsfolk lean in, eyes wide with shock and dread as they scan the front-page headline. Lincoln is elected. This is the beginning of the end. It went on. Sectionalism has triumphed. What is to be done? We say, resist. Upon Lincoln's victory,

it is a sentiment felt far and wide throughout the deep south. One that would build momentum in the weeks and months to follow, a call to action that signaled one way or another a new reality. Uncertain, transformative, dangerous. Secession now seemed inevitable. Thank you for making time today. This is American History Hit, and I'm your host, Don Wildman. Today's episode is the last in our sub-series on what caused the American Civil War, what led up to the conflict. If you check our archive, hundreds of past episodes available wherever you get your shows, There are three of them there, all traveling this same road. Today, we trace the seam upon which our nation was torn asunder.

Secession, the southern states leaving the Union. It's one of the major things I've learned from hosting this series. Secession, as it happened, was a phased process. It had been threatened and argued over for years, and then the actual procedure lasted more than six months, even beyond the attack on Fort Sumter. Some southern states were eager to bolt. Still others remained in the Union, the border states.

Today, we talk about how it happened, how it all rolled out in the company of historian Shandra Manning of Georgetown University, who previously guided us through the issue of slavery. Professor Manning authored the book What This Cruel War Was Over about the letters written home by soldiers on both sides. Fascinating stuff. Welcome back, Shandra, to American History yet, so glad you're with us. Thanks so much. Delighted to be here. Shana, before we get to it, I want to give a brief overview and calendar the events of what we're going to discuss. So please indulge me. November 1860 is Lincoln's election. This is the tipping point for South Carolina, at least, which is the first state to secede in December 1860. Then January 1861, Happy New Year,

six more states go from the deep south. Geography is very important here. Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas. So along with South Carolina, seven have gone by the time Lincoln makes his first inaugural address in March 1860. back when they did inaugurations in March. In April 1861, one month later, South Carolina opens fire on Fort Sumter, and in turn, Lincoln calls for a national mobilization. And at that point, the Upper South joins the secession, Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina. And we are headed for open war. Now, why was South Carolina the first to go? Why were they so eager?

And who was behind that decision? South Carolina was the first to go for a combination of sort of structural reasons and then also reasons having to do with leadership. Structurally, the state of South Carolina had a really unique political structure. The state still had a unicameral, not by Camero State Legislature, and it still figured representation in the state legislature, not by population, but by property ownership. Oh, interesting. And so that means that the property holding elite, which in South Carolina was the slave holding elite in a state that was demographically majority black because of the large slave population, slaveholders hold a disproportionate amount of power in South Carolina, even compared to the rest

of the slaveholding states. So structurally, it was easier in South Carolina for slaveholders to enact their will. Also, the stakes were that much higher. I mean... Sure. The white population is in the minority. and is that much more sensitive about anything to do with the slavery issue. But in addition, South Carolina leadership had been sort of setting up the dominoes, as

it were. They had been laying groundwork for decades, one could argue, but the definite stepping stones start getting put into place in February of 1860 with two senators, not actually from South Carolina, rather from Mississippi. And two Mississippi senators in 1860 introduce into the floor of the Senate. a series of resolutions on slavery. And those resolutions require or demand that slavery be declared a national, not a local or state institution, that the federal government actively support and promote the institution of slavery throughout the union with force if necessary. And they call for

the repeal or the overturn of any northern state laws deemed unfriendly to slave interests, such as personal liberty laws, which were enacted to try to protect fugitive slaves. Now, the two senators who introduced those resolutions into the Senate did not think that the resolutions were going to get passed, and they didn't. Their purpose was to articulate the party platform for the election of 1860 that the hardliners in the South were going to insist on. That does become a platform in the Democratic Convention of 1860 before the election even happens, and the Democratic Party splits in two over it. But the Deep South states that hold their own convention in 1860 and nominate a candidate, John Breckenridge,

on that exact platform, the resolutions on slavery platform, they from that moment, with South Carolina in the lead, begin to plot what will happen if a candidate on that platform does not win. And so certainly by that summer of 1860, South Carolina is taking the lead and not just theoretically imagining secession, but is actually plotting out the last. steps by which secession would actually happen. Now, the mechanism by which it would happen had actually been articulated by a South Carolinian, John C. Calhoun decades earlier. And that mechanism would be to repeal the state's ratification of the U.S. Constitution. And so even before the election has happened, leaders in South Carolina are taking steps to ensure and to figure out how to do that.

So the moment Lincoln's election is announced in South Carolina, the United States flag comes down from over the South Carolina State House, South Carolina's two senators, James Chessna and James Henry Hammond, leave the Senate. And a convention is instantly called for South Carolina to take the steps that they've been planning since at least the summer of 1860. Wow. I mean, what a moment. The flag coming down. Were they aware of what they had started? I don't think anyone was entirely prepared for what was coming next. So basically, generally speaking, they're going to follow the same pattern as the U.S. Constitution was ratified, aren't they? I mean, they're essentially, we're going to leave the same way we came in. Exactly. The repeal, the ratification, the theory being

we ratified our way in so we can unratify our way out. Yes, exactly. And each state legislature will call a special convention to do so, and this will happen over a period of time. We're going to try to sort of sketch out why this becomes a process over time instead of just that fiction most people carry, which is they all up and left, which is not at all true. I mean, it was very political. The citizens voted for delegates to these conventions. The delegates showed up. They argued it out. So it happened. The term secession ordinances comes up as you look at these things. Can you define that for us? Sure. The secession ordinances are the actual documents by which the state conventions announced that they're repealing the ratification and that they are taking their states out of the union. The combination of the

ordinances, and occasionally some states, including South Carolina, will accompany those with declarations of causes. And they're one of the really good sources we have that allow us pretty keen insight into at least what the leadership at these conventions saw as the catalysts for secession. They are, of course, explicit that slavery is the reason for leaving and that their reason for opposing Lincoln is specifically his hostility towards slavery, correct? Fair to say? That's exactly right. I think that there are three main causes that recur across all of them. One is the election of Abraham Lincoln, a Republican president on a platform explicitly pledged to stop the westward expansion of slavery. So Lincoln and his platform is cause number one.

Cause number two are the personal liberty laws that some northern state legislatures have passed, which allow individual northern citizens to decline to aid in the recapture of fugitive law. slaves. Southern states see those personal liberty laws as evidence that the northern states are not holding up their end of the bargain, and that gives southern states the right to leave. And then third is growing abolitionist sentiment in the north. The conventions and the ordinances at least believe that there is a growing sense of hostility to the institution of slavery in the north, which is de facto, in ordinances at least, a growing anti-southern sentiment in the north, making it inconceivable and they'll reconcileable for the two sections to live together any longer.

So if you look at the ordinances, that's what the conventions that take states out of the union, that's why they say they're doing it. Exactly. I mean, I grew up in the 70s and lost cause mythology had really taken root at that point in education for kids. And I remember hearing, and I've mentioned many times in the series, how states' rights was really pushed forward as a reason for the civil war, even in the 1970s. But you need only look at these original ordinance. is to understand that slavery was front and center, even for the Southerners and all of this. Well, right. And they want the opposite of state rights. They don't want northern states to have the right to pass personal liberty laws. Now, what they truly believe they need is a strong central government,

but one that is committed to the promotion and the protection of slavery, not one that they fear is hostile to slavery. And another element of this is that there's a certain benevolence factor. They, you know, weirdly think they're doing the right thing by having this. subordinate class being taken care of. And it's starting to creep back even in present day conversation these days about, you know, slavery wasn't so bad. And we're helping these people get to Christianized, at least, and taking care of them. That was a big part of the culture in the South. Certainly that rhetoric exists. I mean, there is a very strong pro-slavery argument along those lines that slavery benefits the enslaved as well as the enslaver. I think it's tough to gauge exactly

how sincere and true those sentiments are when the evidence, of the actual treatment of the enslaved is so very clear. It's very hard to believe that white southerners were really that uninformed about the institution in their midst. The bottom line is the South would have liked to have stayed as long as the federal government articulated its support for slavery, correct? Oh, sure, sure. In fact, the South had exerted a disproportionate power within the federal government for the entirety of the Union's existence. In 50 out of 72 years of its existence, the President had been a slaveholder. And Southern Democrats had dominated the Supreme Court, and they dominated the really key committees in Congress, ways and means and that kind of thing.

So if they got choice one, choice one would be we stay in the union and the union remains dominated by the interests of slaveholders. And it strengthens its commitment to the promotion and the protection of slavery. That would have been choice one for sure. But the election of 1860 said to them, we didn't get choice one. Okay. So far straightforward. We demand slavery or else we leave. This will take a while because there's a process to undergo.

After the break, we'll come back and talk about a part of the story that often gets forgotten about. Surprise, some southern states don't leave. I'll be back with more American history after this short break. Well, if at first you don't secede, try, try again. Or maybe it's more complicated than that. In the lead up to civil war, a number of southern states went through longer legislative processes of secession than others. and four states below the Mason-Dixon line never left at all, Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, and Delaware. Shonda, why did it take longer for some states than others, and why did the border states never leave?

Well, I think that in retrospect, we know a secession happened, we know a war happened, and it's hard to imagine that it wouldn't. It seems it must have been foreordained. Everyone then must have known what was going to happen as well, but they really didn't. And it's a really big leap to decide to leave the union. and there are many southerners, white southerners, slaveholding and non-slave-holding alike, who really are not at all convinced in 1860 and 1861 that their best interests reside in leaving the union that has served their interests so well for the entirety of the nation's existence. And so there is a really intense conversation among, even if all we're looking at are white

southerners, white voting southerners, there is still very deep differences of opinion about whether secession is in fact in the best interests of white Southerners or not. Moreover, in all of the states outside of the Deep South, there remains a pretty robust two-party system, though in the states of the Upper South. There's a brand new party, the Constitutional Union Party, which is really picked up where the Whig Party left off. And so it retains this infrastructure. It retains party organization.

So there's really two sides still in the Upper South in a way that's less true in the deep south. And those two sides have very different. deliberate conversations throughout the winter of 1860 about whether best interests really are with leaving this union or not. Do they agree that Lincoln might pose a threat? Yeah, many of them do, but they don't agree that acting preemptively before that threat has turned into reality is in the best interests. And so the secession conventions throughout the Upper South states really deliberate on that question. And they also know that even in the Deep South,

states that did decide to go, the elections for the secession conventions were very, very close. Georgia, for example, which is a deep south state, which does secede in that first round of seven, but its vote for convention delegates was so close that the results were never released. So the upper south states hold their conventions within that context. And Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee all vote not to secede at this time. Sean, are they passed something called the coercion clauses, which played a mysterious part in this process, yes? Yeah, they did. I personally think that the coercion clauses are the single most underappreciated aspect of the entire secession story. The secession conventions in the four upper south states, which are Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas, all published clauses, along with their decision not to secede at this time, they all pass these clauses that say we aren't seceding now.

But if the Lincoln administration, if the federal government uses force against our sister states of the South, then we will side with the seceded states. And those will turn out to be absolutely pivotal. Yeah, it's the NATO factor, isn't it? Right, right. One for all and all for one. Absolutely. Virginia is really the plum in this, isn't it? And they hold out into this later process.

But, I mean, for all the obvious reasons, George Washington being at top of the list, Virginia is reluctant to leave. Virginia is very reluctant to leave. Virginia has the long tradition, the connection to the American Revolution. Virginia is also pretty sure that if there is a war, it's going to happen on our soil because they know that the states north of them are, that's where the border is going to be. And so easy for you, South Carolina, way down there. We're the ones who will bear the brunt. And also, you know, Virginians have played such a prominent role, not just in the revolution,

but in the federal government. many of Virginians do feel pretty confident that we can still handle this. We can steer the federal government in our direction. And you're right that without Virginia, this little seven-state confederacy is really going to be in trouble. And so the states that do secede, they're well aware of that. And they do a number of things to attract Virginia to their side. I think the most prominent of which is a clause in the Confederate Constitution. The Confederate Constitution is almost word for word, the U.S. Constitution with a handful of differences. One of those differences is that there's a big debate in the Confederate Constitutional Convention about whether or not to reopen

the transatlantic slave trade. And the answer narrowly is no, but there's a little add-on. Not only is the transatlantic slave trade not to be reopened, but importation of enslaved people from any foreign country is not to be allowed. Virginia, by this point, a major. source of revenue for Virginia is the sale of enslaved people from Virginia to the cotton fields of the Deep South, where the demand is higher. And so that clause exists in very large measure to attract Virginia by saying, if you don't join us, the market for your enslaved people will go away. Interestingly, with this coercion clause, did that play a factor in South Carolina attacking or in the attack on Fort Sumter? I think it did. I think it did. So the seven states

secede, four of the upper south don't, and the four of the border south don't. Missouri doesn't, Kentucky doesn't, Delaware doesn't, and Maryland doesn't. Those states do not pass coercion clauses. But there too, the sentiment is quite divided. By February 1st, the seven first states are out. By March, there is a new Confederate president and a new Confederate constitution. And then nothing happens. And as nothing is happening, that public sentiment, which had been so clear,

closely divided, I guess, even the states that did secedes starts to get antsy. Virginia's not in. We're feeling isolated. And so the Confederate leadership is starting to get worried. They're starting to get worried about what happens if our own people start pressing to go back. What happens? And the stalemate isn't working at all to the seven state confederacy's advantage. Part of what really bothers the Confederacy is that there are a handful of forts. U.S. installations that the U.S. Army still holds, which are in Confederate territory. There's one in Pensacola, Florida, but the one that becomes famous is the one in Charleston Harbor. And that is just like thumbing its nose at South Carolina, you know, the first to secede and there's the U.S.

Army right outside the window. So the garrison in Charleston Harbor, it's initially at Fort Moultrie and is running out of food. It's on a rock in a harbor so they can't, you know, just grow their own stuff. They need food and they're running out. I think we really need to understand coercion clauses in order for the attack on Fort Sumter to make any sense. You know, this little garrison in Charleston Harbor is of so little strategic value. I mean, symbolically, South Carolina doesn't love having the U.S. military right there, but it's very little strategic value. And there's no way it's going to be able to hold out forever because there's simply not enough food. So why fire on it? Well, one reason for firing on it is because Jefferson Davis, who

had been, of course, Secretary of War, the United States government knows full well that if U.S. troops are fired on, then the president is going to call for some kind of defense. He has to. And so firing on troops in Fort Sumter has the predicted result. Abraham Lincoln then calls for the mobilization of 75,000 men. Once he does that, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas, they have those coercion clauses, and now they've been tripped. Now, force is going to to be used against our sister states. And so it is after that firing on Fort Sumter that they go. The union is unprepared for this war, of course. There was no standing army in those days. They, at the beginning of all of this, have roughly 17,000 soldiers mostly located in the West for

other reasons. It is that moment that Jefferson Davis, calling for in his inaugural address, as president of the Confederacy, calls for 100,000 soldiers to mobilize. This is unprecedented, especially for Southerners, who were the ones who didn't believe in. a federal army. You know, it's all getting topsy-turvy at this point. Right. A hundred thousand troops aren't under arms yet by Fort Sumter, but mobilization is underway. So if there's been a call for 100,000 troops and the Union Army's measly 17,000, mostly in the West, has dwindled because some of those were southern, and they left and went to the South. Lincoln's going to have no choice. He's going to have to mobilize. He's going to have to call for troops. It's not like

he can use his measly little 17,000 army to take on the Confederacy, which is mobilizing 100,000. So there really was very limited options available to Lincoln other than to mobilize. And the states that had passed coercion clauses had left themselves very little option once mobilization happened, except to join the Confederacy. And so it's in the wake of Fort Sopter that we land with our 11 state Confederacy. It throws a lot of people that we talk about the inauguration in March rather than what it is today in January. But that is when it happens for Lincoln. And this is the critical tipping point. Everybody's wondering what he's going to say and the note he's going to strike in this. And I want to read a quote from this. He writes

at the end of his inaugural, I am loath to close. We are not enemies but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic cords of memory stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone over this broad land will yet swell the chorus of the union. when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature. These are famous words that are directed at reconciliation of whatever is going on here. Remember, it's important. Lincoln was willing to abide the slavery question.

He was willing to allow southern states to practice this institution. He just opposed the expansion of this. At this point, he still hopes to hold this thing together. How did the Confederates hear this, do you think? The states that are already out of the union are already out of the union because they thought that no matter why he said there was no alternative. The states still in the union are the really important ones, I think. And it's notable that he delivers that address in early March of 1861 and the other four states don't immediately jump. It's more than a month before the other states jump.

So that address didn't bring the seven states who would be. already seceded back, but it also didn't impel the four states who had not left to leave. It wasn't enough of a catalyst, in other words. And if anything, it really confirmed the more cautious point of view that prevailed in the Upper State Secession conventions. It really seemed to affirm the point of view that we've done pretty well under the Union so far until we see a direct threat coming from the administration. We really don't want to risk it. It wasn't a direct enough threat. He seems so spiritual sounding and emotional, but Lincoln plays chess and he knows what he's doing here. He's dividing and conquering this force of secession, which has been going on

for months at this point, but he still has a lot of pieces to play. The biggest pieces, of course, are the border states. Is he already preserving that idea in case of war? Yes, I think he is. He hopes there's not war. He's not positive there'll be war. He hopes there's not. Lincoln will retain well into the war, a not entirely well-founded belief in what we now call latent unionism. He really did have the idea that most Southerners were actually loyal Americans, most wanted to remain in the union. He even has a line about he thinks Southerners have too much good sense to be led astray. And so he really does believe that a certain leniency, a certain appeasement is most likely to allow the thunder cloud of secession sentiment to blow over and cooler heads to prevail

and those heads to bring things back. So he really does see the upper south states and the border south states as key. If they will stay in the union, then eventually the other seven states will have no choice but to come back. That's how he's playing things. But he also, I think, and along with much of the northern public, is quite fatally underestimating how powerful secession sentiment really is in some quarters. It's not unanimous by any stretch. The South really is pretty deeply divided. But where secession sentiment is strong, it's very powerful. And he is underestimating, I believe, exactly how powerful it was and how much staying power it would have. But he's not alone. I think the entire northern public is doing that in the spring of 1861.

Well, the stalemate is soon broken, and we'll address that all after this next break. I'll be back with more American history after this short break. And we're back. Well, we talked of a stalemate, which essentially is broken at Fort Sumter. Jefferson Davis's friends were using Fort Sumter to their own advantage. The big prize, as we've talked about in their procedure, was getting Virginia to join the Confederacy. When does that happen? Virginia joins immediately after Fort Sumter falls. Although the popular vote doesn't occur for some time, the state takes itself out of the union immediately after secession. So a clearer enactment of the coercion clauses. That, meanwhile, will make North Carolina surrounded because up to that point, the northern border of the Confederacy in the east had been South Carolina. Once Virginia goes, North Carolina, feeling surrounded, will go as well. And with it, so will Arkansas and Tennessee. If Maryland goes, I mean, this is the tightrope Lincoln has to walk. I mean, that surrounds

Washington, D.C. You know, that's the only reason that the federal government has a way north is through Maryland. It's amazing. You know, Shandra, I understand about the coercion clauses. I now understand the process that was undertaken to create the secession of all these things. One question remains, why didn't the North just say go? Why were they prepared to go to war over this process? I think that is a really important question. And it's also important to note that for a brief period of time immediately after Fort Sumter, there is a famous editorial that is published in a New York paper that says, let the airing sisters go in peace, which makes exactly that case. And it's operating on a leave them alone and they'll come home wagging their tails behind them kind of

principle. Thank you. I want to point out that that was written by Horace Greeley, who lives right down, who used to live right down the road from me in what is now Chappaqua. That's right in the north. That's just an hour north of New York City today. New York Tribune is where that was written. So there were a lot of people that were like, okay, go ahead. We'd rather not be a part of you either. Frederick Douglass had thoughts on this as well, didn't he? You're right. There is an important strand of opinion that isn't so sure that placating the South under any circumstances is a good idea. And that is Black Americans. The Union as it has been, hasn't been so great for Black Americans. It has smiled upon slavery for its entire existence. So if you're somebody like Frederick

Douglas, there's really no reason to try and appease the states of the Confederacy. There's really no reason to try to preserve a union that has allowed slavery to last forever. So if splitting the Union is the only way to attack slavery. Well, between those two things, which is more important, if you've been enslaved, then ending slavery is more important. The free black northern opinion in the North is far more ready to allow the states to just go their own way and for certainly understandable reasons. I'm going to harken back to the previous conversation you and I had about this, where American slavery, the system of slavery, was completely evolved differently than other slavery systems before this. I mean, it was a very, very, very.

commercialized, industrialized process that was, you know, full of remarkable wealth for people who practiced at North and South. And so people like Frederick Douglass and others saw this as a battleground to destroy this system once and for all. I suppose that's what you're referring to with his remarks. Yeah, absolutely. To Frederick Douglas, to other black northerners, slavery wasn't sort of an unfortunate sidebar to the union. It actually was bound up with the corn sinew of the union. And so if splitting the union was the only way to extract that cancer, so be it, split the union. It was really Lincoln who led the way towards this has to stick together, doesn't it? Yes. And not on his own. Because, right, the Greeley article is not so

much good riddance. We don't want you anyway. It's more, there's no way that they can actually survive without us. And they'll just come right back. I see. That's what I mean. But leave them alone and they'll come home wagging their tails behind them point of view. But even that doesn't last very long. For one thing, the firing on Fort Sumter really does varyate many northerners. That's U.S. property. That's property uncommon. That doesn't belong to South Carolina. And so that firing on U.S. property really hits a nerve. But also, there is a very widespread sense. And this is shared by Lincoln and articulated by Lincoln and amplified by Lincoln. And I think explains how Lincoln's popularity then and now to Colden crew, there is a widespread sense that this union, this American

union, plays a really important role in the history of the world and has a really important responsibility in 1861. And that role is to show that self-government, based on consent of the governed, in a nation dedicated to the proposition that people are equal to each other, the United States has to prove that that can work. In 1861, Americans are looking around the world, and they're not seeing many examples, like any examples of a place that looks like that. And what they do see are a series of revolutions through Europe in 1848 and thereabouts that didn't work.

And so northerners, white northerners, are really saddled with this sense of responsibility for proving to the world that self-government based on principles of human equality can work, because if this doesn't work here, if this experiment here fails, nobody in the rest of the world will try it ever again. And it will be tyranny. It will be oppression. And it will be because we didn't hold the line. And we can look back at them and think that they were a little bit full of their own self-importance.

Fine. You can think that if you want. But we can't say they were insincere. They really meant it. And that, I think, is the single biggest reason why the airing sisters can't just go in peace. I don't see that as naive at all. I mean, this is a timeless theme of American society. And we're confronting it even as we speak in some regards, not with the secession involved

in all of the enslavement, thank God. But definitely that is the unique role that we see America playing in world history and often other people see us playing. And, you know, when we have abdicated that, that's a very upsetting to the world. Abraham Lincoln made a speech to Congress in 1862. They're famous words, but I haven't seen them for a long time. let me read these. Fellow citizens, we cannot escape history. In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free, honorable alike in what we give and what we preserve. We shall

nobly save or meanly lose the last best hope of earth. So there we have Abraham Lincoln, I think a fitting way to close. What's your reaction to those words, Chandra? Well, I agree with you. It's hard to top Lincoln as somebody to close with. And I would say that one of the things that that speech does is underscore for us the importance of leadership in a time of crisis. Now, there are parts of that speech that one could push back on, for example, the notion of giving freedom to the slave when in fact the enslaved are fighting to retake their own innate freedom themselves. Inslave people have begun serving the union, have begun running from slavery. So giving freedom to the slave, we could talk about that. But what is important, I think, in that speech is the next

thing, he says, that it is only an upholding freedom for all that we assure freedom for anybody. And to make that principle that freedom for anybody requires freedom for all as the guiding light of not just that message for Congress, but of eventually the Union War effort, I think helps explain why this war retains such a central place in our understanding of the United States. And also, I think, underscores how really important it is for leadership in times of crisis to not jettison, but rather commit to the very principles that we started out with to begin with. Professor Shandra Manning is a historian at Georgetown University, author of what this cruel war was over. It is such an honor to see you again and talk to you. I hope we do this more than just this one series.

I agree with your last sentiment. There is so much in the present that refers to this past in our lives as Americans. It's remarkable. Well, thanks so much, Don. I've really enjoyed the opportunity to chat with you. Thank you. Thanks for listening to American History Hit. You know, every week we release new episodes, two new episodes dropping Mondays and Thursdays, from mysterious missing colonies to powerful political movements, to some of the biggest battles across the centuries. Don't miss an episode. By hitting like and follow, you help us out, which is great, but you'll also be reminded when our shows are on. And while you're at it, please share with a friend.

American History Hit with me, Don Wildman. So grateful for your support. Thanks so much.