The Fire-Eaters

The Fire-Eaters. By Eric H. Walther. (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, c. 1992. Pp. xviii+333).

In 1860, a number of Southerners saw the election of Abraham Lincoln and the Republican Party as a final indignity to their besieged region, and responded though secession and war. Eric Walther examines the leadership of this movement in his book, The Fire-Eaters. Claiming that no serious treatment of the Fire-Eaters exists, Walther uses a series of short biographies for nine prominent secessionists to distinguish similarities in their background and politics. Walther’s book includes profiles of Nathaniel Beverley Tucker (Virginia), William Lowndes Yancey (Alabama), John Anthony Quitman (Mississippi), Robert Barnwell Rhett (South Carolina), Laurence M. Keitt (South Carolina), Louis T. Wigfall (Texas), James D. B. De Bow (Louisiana), Edmund Ruffin (Virginia), and William Porcher Miles (South Carolina).

Though they came from varied backgrounds and arrived at the thought of secession differently, there were several key similarities between these figures. By 1860, none were newcomers to the thought of secession. The Compromise of 1850, and Northern resistance to its fugitive slave law, provided for many of them the final justification that the only way to protect the South and Constitutional government was through secession. All the Fire-Eaters shared a strong support for slavery, and saw its maintenance as an important aspect of Southern society. The Compromise was an important moment also because it marked the end of John C. Calhoun’s political career. Calhoun makes appearances in several of Walther’s biographies, and not just for the South Carolinians, maintaining a strongly Unionist stance and holding back the more radical inclinations of the Fire-Eaters.

With Calhoun dead, no one in the South had the political strength the sufficiently control the secessionists. The Fire-Eaters relished opportunities to air the views in public, not content to lurk on the edges of political discourse. Instead, they hoped to bring the secession issue to the center of public debate, making it a viable option. Though they achieved success in gaining Southern independence, the victory was notably short-lived. A Southern nation provided no cure for the ills of strong national government over states, especially in wartime. The fervor for secession in 1860 proved to be an angry reaction to Lincoln’s election rather than a strong support for the Fire-Eaters’ vision of government.

Though most of Walther’s Fire-Eaters came from South Carolina, the group has a wide regional spread, including even Quitman, born in Rhinebeck, New York. This spread, though, was beneficial to the movement, allowing Fire-Eaters to achieve prominent positions from several states, rather than concentrating their base of support. Not all were politicians, as Tucker, De Bow, Ruffin and Miles made their names through intellectual endeavors. Secession and the war played different roles in their lives, and their reactions to what followed differed accordingly. Tucker and Quitman never saw the reality of Southern secession, dying in 1851 and 1858, respectively. Quitman and Keitt died on the battlefield, while Ruffin famously committed suicide in 1865 rather than live under “Yankee rule.” De Bow saw Reconstruction as an opportunity, and tried to promote the development of the New South, as he had always disapproved of Old South mythology which held back the region’s development. Other blended back into life as best as they could, returning to business and political opportunities.

The collective biographies Walther provides are useful in their own right, but difficult to grasp as a whole. Several trends emerge throughout, but the varied experience of these Fire-Eaters makes it difficult to draw important conclusions, to which the author’s scant concluding chapter draws attention. Walther does, though, helpfully avoid caricatures, instead providing detailed representations of the various Fire-Eaters’ background and politics without degenerating into hagiography or flagellation. Their public presence provided for voluminous papers, which he identifies in a series of helpful appendices, along with useful or important biographies. At the very least, Walther’s book provides a useful starting point for further research into the various men of secession.

Texas Christian University Keith Altavilla

The Fire Eaters. By Eric H. Walther. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1992.

Eric H. Walther explains that the fire-eaters did not cause secession, instead they sped up the movement through capitalizing on many events and ideas. They all had concerns with the federal government’s growing power and the dilution of states’ rights, they believed slavery essential to the maintenance of a republican society, and all believed that their ideal government could only exist in a southern republic, reflecting concerns of other southerners and convincing them that disunion proved the only solution. Throughout the years as southerners became irritated with the status quo and worried about political developments, these fire-eaters encouraged the spirit of resistance and offered a solution. Each emphasized different issues, ideas, and goals, drawing others into the secession movement. Walther chose nine men to illustrate the unity and diversity of the people and ideas that made up the secession movement.

Nathaniel Beverly Tucker reached a large audience through writing a novel in which he hoped to popularize secession. He tried to lecture presidents in person and through newspaper articles. In doing this he sought to correct what he saw as imperfections in the fabric of the Union or to prepare the southern mind for secession. Tucker also portrayed his views to his students at the College of William and Mary. He hoped to produce a generation of politically inclined men to spread his political gospel throughout the South, since his political philosophy left him outside of the political mainstream he worried that his ideas might not reach the southern people.

“William Lowndes Yancey’s brilliant oratory and violent temper left a profound impression on everyone who met him (p. 48).” Aware of his ability to provoke fiery reactions, he actively encouraged his image as an agitator. During the Panic of 1837, Yancey struggled when his cotton production thrived but cotton prices and profits steadily dropped, leading him to take a hard look at his view on local and national politics. He believed the Bank of the United States responsible for many of the nation’s financial troubles and the continued attacks of abolitionists made him defensive about slavery. These issues tested his commitment to Unionism and he soon found John C. Calhoun and his states’-rights principles admirable and useful against the menacing North.

The only prominent fire-eater to be born and raised I the North was John Anthony Quitman. After living in Mississippi for ten years he announced “I am heartily tired of the North” (p. 86). He quickly turned his attention to the concept of the Union and states’ rights during the nullification crisis and became the most prominent secessionist outside the state of South Carolina.

More than any other fire-eater, Robert Barnwell Rhett became an accomplished political tactician. He entered state politics just as the tariff issue began to shake to political foundations of South Carolina and he quickly became the most radical politician in the state. He acquired control of the Mercury in order to get his message out. The growth of the Republican Party created a comeback in politics for Rhett after staying away for seven years.

Louis Wigfall and Laurence Keitt are studied in the same chapter to enhance a comparative study between the two with similar backgrounds and beliefs. For both, southern honor proved as important as personal honor. They shared a conviction that “northerners’ values and culture were so different from those of southerners that they could not be reasoned with, much less treated as equals” (p. 181).

James D. B. DeBow loved the South and criticized it more than any other fire-eater. He blamed many of the South’s problems on the ignorance and idleness of planters. He complained that when agricultural depression hit they accused banks and tariffs or unseen politicians for causing their problems, made their slaves produce more cotton, lowered their profits, and continued wondering what was happening to them. He felt that secession became imperative with the rise of the Republican Party.

Edmund Ruffin found a solution to his agricultural problems through adding marl to his land to correct a chemical imbalance. Although it improved his crop yields he could not convince other farmers to adopt his methods. After the Civil War ended Ruffin took his own life, and in true Ruffin style his son told his grandchildren that “The Yankees have . . . killed your Grandfather” (p. 269).

William Porcher Miles became the lawyer of Charleston in November 1855. Miles considered it natural for the South to measure her capacity to take care of herself and thought she possessed every element of greatness. He also thought that slavery produced a social and economic structure that helped the South to dominate the commerce of the world.

Walther offers a very well written book that describes the life and ideals of nine of the leading fire-eaters in the secession movement.

The Fire-Eaters by Eric H. Walther consists of a series of biographical vignettes about nine leaders of the Old South and their contribution to the secessionist movement. The individuals addressed include Nathaniel Beverly Tucker, William L. Yancey, John A. Quitman, Robert Barnwell Rhett, Laurence Keitt, Louis Wigfall, James D.B. De Bow, Edmund Ruffin, and William Porcher Miles. These men were not in complete agreement on every issue relating to Southern society, nor are they the only individuals identified as fire-eaters by historians. However, they were among the most strident and unequivocal in their efforts to bring about secession and the creation of a Southern Confederacy. During the years leading up to secession, these men were the most influential advocates of independence. By 1861 they had molded public opinion to where a majority of southerners favored secession from the Union. Secession and the creation of the Confederate government is their primary legacy. They were not effective leaders in the Confederacy once the government was established. They believed that secession, in and of itself, would purge the southern political landscape and purify their social and political systems. Once secession had occurred, they followed divergent paths and the unity the developed during the secession battles was to disappear. They were remarkably able men, yet they had not developed their concepts beyond the act of secession. None were prepared for defeat and the emancipation of slaves that their resulted from events that they had initiated. However, some were more able to adjust to the post war years than were others.

Tucker was an early leader of the secessionist movement and a highly accomplished academician of his time. He died ten years before secession occurred, yet he was instrumental in creating the ideas and rhetoric that was make it a reality. He was particularly effective in communicating through his writings and personal interactions. He was not a dynamic or even effective public speaker. Tucker was most strongly associated with the states of Virginia and Missouri during his political and academic life. He worked though his half brother, John Randolph, in Virginia; and his friend, Thomas Hart Benton, in Missouri to provide a vocal expression for his intellectual concepts. His relationship with John Hammond of South Carolina also provided a conduit through which Tucker was able to channel ideas. He never achieved the popularity of many southern leaders and was not widely quoted after his death. Yet he was important in establishing the intellectual base for states’ rights and secession that became fundamental to the secessionist movement.

Yancey was just the opposite of Tucker in his ability as a public speaker. His oratory has been described as brilliant and his temper as violent. He was associated with a number of states, but Alabama became his home during the period of his political activity. Tucker was originally a Unionist and was at one time the editor of a Unionists newspaper. He was a strong opponent of the American party (Know Nothings) which he believed was associated with northern abolitionism. The most dramatic event of his life was bolting the Democratic convention in Charleston on April 28, 1860 after his southern platform was rejected. Delegates from seven southern states followed him thereby fracturing the Democratic Party. During the election he campaigned for John C. Breckinridge with no real wish that he would actually be elected. With the election of Lincoln, Yancey played a key role in bringing Alabama to secession. John Hammond characterized Yancey as an agitator comparable to Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams of the American Revolution. But he also believed that Yancey, like Henry and Adams, had nothing substantive to offer the new government. Walther concludes his review of Yancey with the words, “As much as Henry and Adams, Yancey helped participate a revolution. But as Hammond feared, Yancey also contributed to its collapse. His brief career in the Confederacy paralleled those of the Old Revolutionaries following the Declaration of Independence; after a lifetime of agitation and challenging the political establishment, Yancey could not make a new career of compromise, consensus, and nation building.

Quitman was a transplanted northerner who created a remarkable role for himself in antebellum Mississippi. He was highly accomplished as a jurist, planter, businessman, military leader and politician. He created and led a military force to assist Sam Houston during the Texas Revolution although arrived too late for the battle of San Jacinto. He served as a general officer during the Mexican War under Zachary Taylor at the battle of Monterrey and under Winfield Scott during the battle of Mexico City. He received high recognition for his role in both engagements. He was an adamant states’ rights and proslavery advocate during the various crisis associated with the antebellum period. He strongly believed that the continued extension of slavery was essential to the survival of the institution, and believed it possible only if the slave states would secede from the Union. He died on July 17, 1858 well before his ideals were to reach fruition.

Rhett was the most practical and politically adroit of the southern fire-eaters. He was initially a supporter and ally of John C. Calhoun but later became an adversary. He was never able to become the dominate political figure in South Carolina until after Calhoun’s death. He was mercurial in his political positions and would often claim to hold one political view while actually promoting another. He depicted himself as a Unionist for a period of time leading up to the election of Lincoln while laying the groundwork for secession should the Republicans take office. After secession, he was active in promoting the Confederacy and he controlled South Carolina politics for a short period. However both were to be short lived. He lashed out at both Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee during the war and believed that the defeat of the Confederacy vindicated his calls for earlier secession. He died on September 14, 1876 without influence or credibility.

Eric Walther chose to include Keitt and Wigfall in the same chapter due to certain parallels in their careers. They were both violent and aggressive men who personified the forces of romance, militancy, and honor that so influenced the secessionist movement. They were strong and influential leaders of the movement who believed that a daring life would bring them and their countrymen success and fulfillment. Wigfall was responsible for negotiating the surrender of Fort Sumter and received wide fame and recognition for his bold actions. Keitt, who also served during the Fort Sumter incident, was later killed during the battle of Cold Harbor. Wigfall survived the war to die in Galveston, Texas on February 18, 1874 in poverty.

De Bow was to leverage his interest and acumen in the area of business and statistics into a leadership role in the Old South. Unlike most of his fellow fire-eaters, De Bow was not a romantic but placed his beliefs on solid logic and facts. He was a powerful leader prior to secession and he served the Confederacy throughout the war. Of all the fire-eaters, he was most able to adjust to defeat and worked hard to help rebuild the south. He request and received a pardon which allowed him certain flexibility in his activities during the reconstruction period. He is characterized as being the “staunchest defender of the Old South while finally becoming one of the first spokesmen for the New South.”

Ruffin was a remarkable intellectual of the Old South. He conducted significant experiments in scientific agriculture which increased production and revitalized soil for future use. He tended to vacillate between public attention and personal isolation during his lifetime. He was one of the few intellectuals to achieve a high level of recognition for his ideas during his own lifetime. He also achieved fame for his positions on slavery and states’ rights. He tended to be eccentric in some ways, which may have added to his public appeal. He arranged to visit Harper’s Ferry with great fanfare just after the Brown raid, he was to attend the hanging of John Brown through an arrangement with the security detachment, he was able to fire the first shot at Fort Sumter, and he participated in the first battle of Manassas. In bad health and highly dispirited, Edmund Ruffin committed suicide in 1865 rather than accept the defeat of the South.

Unlike the practical bent of James De Bow, William Miles’s strength and influence came through his use of abstract notions of honor and integrity. He was very successful as an educator, a United States and Confederate Congressman, and successful businessman. Although he was an important influence in the movement toward secession and civil war, he was also somewhat successful in contributing to the rebuilding the post war south through his contribution in education and business. Whereas James De Bow seemed to adjust to defeat—and even request a pardon from President Johnson—Miles could not intellectually reconcile reconstruction with his ideals and beliefs. Yet he lived productively until May 13, 1899 continuing to “believe that honor must govern the actions of individual, businesses, and nations.”

Walther’s book is interesting and engaging. It explains the nature and degree of influence that the fire-eaters had during their time. Although he does not provide an in-depth biography of each individual we come to understand their essential make-up and contribution. This book would be excellent for an undergraduate course in the antebellum period. It should also be on the book shelf of any scholar of this period to serve as an excellent reference source.

The Fire-Eaters. By Eric H. Walther. (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1992), Pp. 333.

Several authors note that there were very few modern studies of the fire-eaters, as they called themselves, written by the time of this publication in 1992. Eric H. Walther attempts to fill this gap with a book that examines the lives of nine prominent proponents of secession.

Walther argues that it “was their diversity that made the fire-eaters important and the secession movement successful” (6). In order to prove his point, he supplies his readers with eight mini-biographies (two men share a chapter) of his chosen subjects. Choosing to focus only on radicals who consistently argued for secession, he looks at the lives of Nathaniel Beverly Tucker, William Lowndes Yancy, John Anthony Quitman, Robert Barnwell Rhett, Laurence M. Keitt, Louis T. Wigfall, James D. B. De Bow, Edmund Ruffin, and William Porcher Miles.

In addition to this basic thesis, Walther also points to a great number of similarities between the various fire-eaters. In particular, he refers to a certain brand of republicanism that bound them together in their quest for secession. They paid a great deal of attention to the same issues: the defense of slavery and the rising abolitionist movement, the expansion of southern territory, the status of the south as a minority in the Union, and, of course, secession.

Yet, his most important point is that it was their diversity that insured their eventual success, even without forming a “fire-eater party.” They focused on the issues, and, rather than hover on the wings of politics as other authors have alleged, they dove right into the very center. Within the tumults of the 1850’s the various fire-eaters managed to appeal to just about every portion of southern society, no matter what that group's interests were. Instead of sounding as if they were demagogues and radicals, the rapid growth of sectionalism insured that they sounded more and more like prophets and wise men.

After they finally achieved their goals in 1860, the fire-eaters disintegrated as a group. They had traveled the way of secession by numerous paths, all seeking the same destination. Once they reached it, they diverged again in just as many directions as they came. The result weakened their cherished Confederacy greatly, with some of its greatest proponents now causing almost as much strife within the new government as they had in the old. Others simply dropped out of public life, becoming nothing more than spectators to the trial the Confederacy underwent.

In the end, Walther’s book should have been packaged as a reference work. It is in this capacity that it will undoubtedly find its ultimate usefulness. Prior to its publication, historians had no recourse but to turn to articles and scattered book chapters for basic information on many of the men Walther presents. As a result, the compact, easily read, biographies that by far occupy the bulk of the book become almost invaluable. Anyone interested in these men would be well served to turn to its pages first. They will leave with a solid and concise overview of many of the most important actors in the pre-secession saga.

What the book does not do very well is actively argue the points that Walther claims to be addressing. Instead, he relies upon a more passive approach. He lets his subjects speak for themselves, and leaves it to his readers to note the presence of his themes. The former aspect of the book is a strong one, and not to be discouraged, but the latter does not generally belong in a book of this sort. Again, in the case of a reference work, simply stating the facts would be an excellent approach. Unfortunately, he claims to put forward a thesis and should draw attention to the parts that support it while with those that do not. In fact, if the short introduction and conclusion were to be removed, few if any would suspect that he had any such ideas at all.

An aspect of the book well worthy of note is the inclusion of an excellent bibliographical essay. In it, Walther provides a point by point break down of numerous primary and secondary sources, invaluable to future research. This also adds to its usefulness as a reference.

In short, this book seems well done in spite of itself. While Walther may have intended to make a coherent statement on the fire-eaters in general, he has provided historians with an excellent general reference to the subject. No doubt it will serve as a starting point for many students in the future.

Texas Christian University

Brian Melton