JUDGES AS POLITICAL ORATORS: THE 1860 SECESSION DEBATE BETWEEN TEXAS SUPREME COURT JUSTICES O.M. ROBERTS AND JAMES H. BELL

William J. Chriss, University of Texas

Abstract

This article deals with an episode in the ideological history of Texas. It analyzes the rhetorical strategies employed by Texas politicians during the Secession debate, in order to better understand the political thinking of the people who responded to them. The primary prism through which the strategies of each side are viewed is the extent to which they marshaled analogies from classical history and literature in support of their arguments. Because the unionists in Texas adopted for themselves the role of wise philosophers denouncing mob violence, they often used classical literature and examples from ancient and medieval republican history to support a political position of caution. As their position became more and more untenable, they resorted to this strategy more and argued practicalities less and less. Although familiar with the classics, their secessionist opponents rarely used such allusions, instead focusing on sectional self-interest, anti-northern bias, and fear of slave revolt. Although it made occasional references to recent American history, the secessionist self-narrative was void of broader historical appeals and focused on providing pragmatic, legalistic, and xenophobic justifications for aggression toward the North. As the crisis continued, their rhetoric focused less on pragmatism and legalism and more on simple abstract xenophobia. These texts and roles shed light upon what drove the popular movement for secession and why it succeeded. They are also relevant to the broader question of how people are prodded into war by political leaders and how positions in such a debate become more rigid, more abstract, and less factual. Moreover, the analytical template developed in this article can be applied to better understand other ideological conflicts