Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
...Others accepted the FSL as a pragmatic matter; the intent of the Compromise measures of 1850 were intended to end the recurring slavery controversy. Even Dan Webster pointed out that a failure on the part of the Northern States to keep up their end of the bargain relieved the South of the need to keep up theirs. This episode, by the way, undermined attempts at reaching a political compromise in the fall and winter of 1860. Southern extremists could (and did) point to this as evidence that any compromise brokered with the people of the North would not be honored in the long run, so why bother? That was an argument that obviously found some acceptance. ...
John,
Southern actions in the 1850s effectively repudiated bargains they had made decades before -- such as the the barring of slavery from the territories done in the 1780s and 1790s by both the governments of the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution -- approved of by Founding Fathers like George Washington -- and the Missouri Compromise of 1820. Wouldn't it be even more accurate to point out this Southern attempt to repudiate the deals they had made, and point to them as the cause of the sectional strife ripping the nation apart? Shouldn't it be the North pointing out the bad faith on the Southern side?
Wouldn't it be even more accurate to point out this Southern attempt to repudiate the deals they had made, and point to them as the cause of the sectional strife ripping the nation apart? Shouldn't it be the North pointing out the bad faith on the Southern side?
True, but for two points. The architect of Kansas-Nebraska Act was the Senator from Illinois.
Second, if northerners felt abused by the repudiation of the Missouri Compromise unacceptable, they could always leave the Union.
__________________ "In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
Was not the specific repudiation of the Missouri Compromise, the price Southerners in Congress demanded from Sen. Douglas as the price for their support his Kansas-Nebraska Bill?
John,
This appears to be the same form of sloppy thinking you are accusing others of using.
The "combinations" were not the people of the seceding states declaring that the Union did not meet their expectations. The "combinations" were those same states violently attacking the peaceful forces of the United States. It could easily be asserted that any US President who did not act as Lincoln did in April of 1861 should have been impeached, found guilty of misfeasance and malfeasance in office, and probably convicted of treason under the Constitution for aiding the enemies of his country.
When Lincoln first called for troops, the Confederacy had already:
1) besieged Ft. Sumter for months, fired over 3,000 rounds of heavy artillery into it, attempting to seize the fort and in the process kill the US forces stationed there.
2) besieged the Federal forces at Ft. Pickens for months
3) issued orders to intern the 1100 Federal troops in Texas, already peacefully withdrawing from that state under an existing agreement with state representatives
4) committed numerous acts of armed seizure of Federal property and twice fired on US-flagged ships.
5) Davis had made two calls for long-term troops before choosing to start the war and before Lincoln called for a single man. These calls totalled more than 30,000 men -- twice the size of the Federal Army, almost 10% of which was already under siege or about to be interned by Confederate forces.
Those who take the position you do always seem to want to skip over these aggressive, violent acts by the Confederacy under the rug and pretend Lincoln's call for troops was an excuse for Confederate actions. This is false logic, and I am sure from your demonstrated understanding of logic and repeated appeals to it that you already know this. We have discussed it before, so you are certainly aware of the chain of events. So why do you once again try to trod this path? Why not just acknowledge that Lincoln and the rest of the nation was severely provoked by Southern resort to threats and armed force before the Federal government acted, as is clear?
Regards,
Tim
Tim, thanks for providing yet another example of sloppy thinking, a bit of a trend with you.
All of the events you spoke of followed the refusal of the president to meet with delegates empowered to adjust all difficulties. This refusal was an unmistakable indication of a fight coming, especially when viewed in light of the prior support by some northerners of violent antislavery acts, and official acts to by Republican office holders to use their offices to protect the perpetrators of violent antislavery acts.
If the US Presidents concerned (Buchanan and Lincoln)had met with the delegations and discussed settling accounts, I doubt that a single shot would have been fired. The refusal to even meet with the delegations was a clear and unmistakable indication of a coming fight, which made the seizures you complain of more likely and more necessary.
__________________ "In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
Tim, thanks for providing yet another example of sloppy thinking, a bit of a trend with you.
All of the events you spoke of followed the refusal of the president to meet with delegates empowered to adjust all difficulties. This refusal was an unmistakable indication of a fight coming, especially when viewed in light of the prior support by some northerners of violent antislavery acts, and official acts to by Republican office holders to use their offices to protect the perpetrators of violent antislavery acts.
If the US Presidents concerned (Buchanan and Lincoln)had met with the delegations and discussed settling accounts, I doubt that a single shot would have been fired. The refusal to even meet with the delegations was a clear and unmistakable indication of a coming fight, which made the seizures you complain of more likely and more necessary.
John, this is a completely and demonstrably untrue statement by you. If you believe something else, provide a timeline documenting your claim so we can discuss it.
For example, Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4. The Confederate Congress had already authorized and Davis had already called for troops at this date. Ft. Sumter and Ft. Pickens were already under siege. Secessionists had already seized Federal forts, ships, facilites, gold, silver, and specie -- they were in fact using the money they had seized to fund the formation of the Confederate government. What action had Lincoln taken that you would call a "clear and unmistakable indication of a coming fight" that justified this? When did he refuse to talk with the Confederate delegation, for example?
As for Buchanan, it appears he did speak with Confederate/secessionist representatives. He simply did not agree with them or give them exactly what they wanted. Isn't that correct? And if you know it is, why are you saying something else?
Originally Posted by trice Wouldn't it be even more accurate to point out this Southern attempt to repudiate the deals they had made, and point to them as the cause of the sectional strife ripping the nation apart? Shouldn't it be the North pointing out the bad faith on the Southern side?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
True, but for two points. The architect of Kansas-Nebraska Act was the Senator from Illinois.
Second, if northerners felt abused by the repudiation of the Missouri Compromise unacceptable, they could always leave the Union.
True, Senator Douglas was a prime sponsor of that bill. This was a typical log-rolling action in Congress. He accepted this condition largely to get support for his other project: Chicago as the hub of the Transcontinental RR being discussed. Southern leaders exacted this slavery bargain buster as the price for supporting his hopes for Chicago.
Now we can say that Douglas was greedy or foolish or just about anything else. I will probably agree. I don't think that justifies the South's repudiation of a bargain they had made decades before. I believe that dismisses your first point, unless you'd care to explain further.
Your second point is, of course, an attempt to state as a fact something you have not established, thus hoping to advance your case by misdirection. It never was, at any time, before, during, or after the Civil War, established that any "right of secession" existed for any state under any conditions at all. If anything, the presumption is that grave doubt is cast upon that supposed "right" by the Civil War and the legislation/judicial cases arising from it. Robert E. Lee, for example, stated before the war that he believed there was no such right and after the war that Union victory had established that there was none. You are familiar with the history and documentation; you know this is the general situation. Why try to state such a thing when you know it?
In fact there was Nothing to discuss, as long as the southern negotiators insisted on being recognized as representatives of a foreign gov't. Even that 'Dough Face (northern born, but with southern convictions) Buchanan would not officially accept such a thing as fact.
The Civil War was fought because there was no basis for negotiation, The north did not recognize the south as out of the Union and the south would not recognize that they were not out of the Union. There was no middle ground acceptable to both sides.
The Hampton Roads Talks immediately broke down at its first meeting (as anticipated by Davis and Lincoln) over the very fact that neither side could accept the others claims without admitting their competing claims had been wrong in the first place.
It has been pointed out in other posts and other boards, that although there were various legal means of adjudicating the impasse over slavery, the south opted for the illegal means and the north was willing to accept that decision and let the 'field of battle' settle the question, once and for all.
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
In fact there was Nothing to discuss, as long as the southern negotiators insisted on being recognized as representatives of a foreign gov't. Even that 'Dough Face (northern born, but with southern convictions) Buchanan would not officially accept such a thing as fact.
The Civil War was fought because there was no basis for negotiation, The north did not recognize the south as out of the Union and the south would not recognize that they were not out of the Union. There was no middle ground acceptable to both sides.
The Hampton Roads Talks immediately broke down at its first meeting (as anticipated by Davis and Lincoln) over the very fact that neither side could accept the others claims without admitting their competing claims had been wrong in the first place.
Exactly. The representatives from the Confederacy arrived in Washington with documents that no nation could have taken. Merely accepting their accredidation would have conceded the existence of the "right of secession" and the the Confederacy's place as a sovereign and independent nation -- something that neither Lincoln nor Buchanan believed the President had the right or the power to do.
Personally, I would say this was a raw diplomatic maneuver. By sending representatives that the Confederacy knew in advance could not be accepted, they set up a straw man to strike at when the Federal government took the only course that was possible. This appears to be more of a realpolitick ploy than anything Lincoln did in relation to Ft. Sumter. I doubt the in-the-know people in Montgomery believed they were making a serious attempt at negotiation here.
Even Seward knew that the government could not formally meet with them. He did, however, meet with them privately and, as is well known, overstepped his bounds and created a mess -- for which Lincoln promptly cut him down to size.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpnDownfall
It has been pointed out in other posts and other boards, that although there were various legal means of adjudicating the impasse over slavery, the south opted for the illegal means and the north was willing to accept that decision and let the 'field of battle' settle the question, once and for all.
I am not sure what the North did to "accept" those illegal means other than to fight back when attacked, or to refuse to acquiesce to illegal seizures by the seceding states.
If someone considers you to be a silly twit, and you invite him to sit with you to discuss that opinion, then you are, indeed, a silly twit.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
