The True Ene­my emerges in the ear­ly days of the Civ­il War, high­light­ed by Mis­sis­sip­pi’s deci­sion to secede from the Union on Jan­u­ary 9, 1861. Fol­low­ing in South Car­oli­na’s foot­steps, Mis­sis­sip­pi’s seces­sion con­ven­tion unan­i­mous­ly vot­ed to leave, dri­ven by the belief that slav­ery was essen­tial to their way of life. The del­e­gates saw the insti­tu­tion of slav­ery as cru­cial for their econ­o­my, with its preser­va­tion seen as a moral and eco­nom­ic neces­si­ty. In their dec­la­ra­tion of seces­sion, they empha­sized a sharp divi­sion between the North and South, argu­ing that slav­ery was vital for glob­al com­merce and por­tray­ing any effort to abol­ish it as an assault on civ­i­liza­tion. This stark per­spec­tive under­scored the deep ide­o­log­i­cal rift between the two regions, set­ting the stage for the nation’s even­tu­al con­flict.

The dec­la­ra­tion revealed intense fear of Pres­i­dent Lin­coln and the Repub­li­can Par­ty, whose oppo­si­tion to slav­ery was viewed as a direct threat to the South’s social and eco­nom­ic struc­ture. Mis­sis­sip­pi’s del­e­gates framed seces­sion not as a choice, but as an urgent neces­si­ty for sur­vival, believ­ing that their way of life would be crushed if slav­ery was abol­ished. They expressed their griev­ances in emo­tion­al terms, describ­ing the Union’s stance on slav­ery as a malev­o­lent force that sought to dis­man­tle the South­ern way of life. The del­e­gates believed the North had cul­ti­vat­ed resent­ment and insur­rec­tion against the South, paint­ing it as a force intent on destroy­ing their civ­i­liza­tion. These griev­ances reflect­ed the entrenched divi­sions in the nation, as the South felt cor­nered by a grow­ing anti-slav­ery move­ment that they viewed as an exis­ten­tial threat.

Pres­i­dent Buchanan’s response to Mississippi’s seces­sion and the broad­er cri­sis revealed his inde­ci­sion and reluc­tance to take deci­sive action. In his mes­sage to Con­gress, Buchanan acknowl­edged the grav­i­ty of the sit­u­a­tion, yet chose to defer respon­si­bil­i­ty for resolv­ing the con­flict to the leg­isla­tive branch. His remarks acknowl­edged fed­er­al author­i­ty to pro­tect fed­er­al prop­er­ty but lacked con­crete steps to address the mount­ing ten­sions. Buchanan’s address was marked by a sense of res­ig­na­tion, reveal­ing his inter­nal con­flict about the future of the Union and his role in pre­serv­ing it. Despite express­ing a desire for nation­al uni­ty, his inabil­i­ty to take strong action dur­ing this crit­i­cal moment reflect­ed the paral­y­sis of lead­er­ship at a time when deci­sive steps were need­ed. Buchanan’s fail­ure to act with author­i­ty and clar­i­ty only deep­ened the cri­sis, leav­ing the coun­try fur­ther divid­ed and more vul­ner­a­ble to the storm of con­flict brew­ing between the North and South.

This chap­ter encap­su­lates a moment of intense polit­i­cal and emo­tion­al tur­moil in Amer­i­can his­to­ry, as Mississippi’s seces­sion rep­re­sent­ed not just a polit­i­cal deci­sion, but a direct chal­lenge to the future of the Union. The emo­tion­al appeals of the del­e­gates high­light­ed the entrenched divi­sions over slav­ery, which had become the pri­ma­ry cat­a­lyst for the seces­sion­ist move­ment. As the South felt increas­ing­ly threat­ened by the North­ern push for abo­li­tion, the emo­tion­al and ide­o­log­i­cal rift deep­ened, turn­ing a polit­i­cal dis­agree­ment into a full-scale cri­sis. Buchanan’s response, or lack there­of, under­scored the fail­ure of lead­er­ship in nav­i­gat­ing these per­ilous waters, leav­ing the coun­try on the brink of col­lapse. The chap­ter serves as a poignant reminder of the forces that shaped the out­break of the Civ­il War, dri­ven by the deeply held beliefs of those who saw the insti­tu­tion of slav­ery as the key to their sur­vival, and the unwill­ing­ness of nation­al lead­er­ship to con­front these issues head-on.

In the after­math of Mississippi’s seces­sion, the Union’s future seemed uncer­tain, with a deep sense of divi­sion tak­ing root in both polit­i­cal and social spheres. As the coun­try grap­pled with the con­se­quences of these actions, the ide­o­log­i­cal divide between the North and South became ever more pro­nounced. The emo­tion­al inten­si­ty of the seces­sion move­ment, as well as the polit­i­cal paral­y­sis at the fed­er­al lev­el, demon­strat­ed how deeply the coun­try was divid­ed over the issue of slav­ery and states’ rights. The South’s view of slav­ery as an eco­nom­ic neces­si­ty was in direct oppo­si­tion to the North’s grow­ing abo­li­tion­ist move­ment, and this fun­da­men­tal con­flict would define the course of the nation for years to come. The sense of inevitabil­i­ty sur­round­ing the nation’s split into two oppos­ing forces was pal­pa­ble, and the deci­sions made dur­ing this time would shape the future of the Unit­ed States, lead­ing to a war that would change the course of his­to­ry for­ev­er.