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.
“The Union needed saving because someone allegedly seized Federal property by force of arms.”
It’s an interesting idea. Because a country launches an attack on one of its own harbours, resulting in no fatalities at all, the United States simply has to invade and conquer it. Whereas, if the same United States discovered a foreign garrison in a fort in New York Harbour, its reaction would be to send flowers and an invitation to dinner.
The truth seems to be that pro-coercionists cannot make their minds up as to why it was necessary for the United States to invade, conquer and pillage its young neighbour. Sometimes it seems to be about Sumter; sometimes about the slaves; sometimes it’s all about respecting the result of an election; sometimes it’s because the Northern states would have supposedly lacked the will to stay together after a successful act of secession; much of the time it’s an arbitrary combination of all of the above; but most of all it is about an expression of emotion and sentiment, to the detriment of reason.
The act of taking a region out of one nation in order to found another is not an intrinsically wicked one. It is not immoral in the way that murder is. It is a morally neutral act. But you wouldn’t know that from Northern reactions to the departure of the seceding states. The only way in which the injured, self-pitying reaction of the North makes any sense at all is if it had a quasi-mystical notion of the role of the “Glorious Union”. I would be the first to accept that America genuinely provided a haven for the poor and dispossessed of Europe; and until 1861 it genuinely was the torch bearer for democracy throughout the world. But this was a mere accident of history. It had absolutely nothing to do with God creating the U.S.A. in order to show the more benighted corners of the world how things should be done. There is no Divine Project behind the Declaration of Independence. Hal apparently believes that many of his fellow-countrymen are deluded on this point. I’m an outsider, so I have no idea. But his argument makes sense to me.
Bill, how is an Act of War dealt with? Firing upon Ft Sumter was a clear and obvious act of War... What was next? The invasion of the capital as many in the CS govt were calling for?
You are absolutely correct that God did not create the US, England did. There are those who would argue, with some merit I think, that the American Revolution was the beginning of the decline of the British Empire.
It was about Ft Sumter, theft of property, ignoring the results of an election and most catastrhopically it was about slavery. The national sin of the United States. Jefferson was our first national coward; for failiing to deal with the problem when he had the chance.
And as I have said many times before, morality and politics have little... no scratch that, they have nothing to do with each other.
I hope and pray that God is for us and continues to bless us as he has in the past.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
A state did not attack its own harbour, it attacked a nation. And posies and boiled beef would certainly not greet a foreign garrison in any U.S. harbor. (See (h), below.)
I understand it's rude to quote each other in posts, but your next statement requires referring up and down several times to puzzle out. I've added letters to keep track:
You said: "The truth seems to be that (a)pro-coercionists cannot make their minds up as to why it was necessary for the United States to (b)invade, conquer and pillage its young neighbour. Sometimes it seems to be (c)about Sumter; sometimes about the (d)slaves; sometimes it’s all about (e)respecting the result of an election; (f)sometimes it’s because the Northern states would have supposedly lacked the will to stay together after a successful act of secession; much of the time it’s an (g)arbitrary combination of all of the above; but most of all it is about an (h)expression of emotion and sentiment, to the detriment of reason."
(a and b) See (h), above.
(c, d, and e) The pressures that led up to the act of war were many and cannot easily be separated from the others.
(f) Where did you get that one? It was never a question of northern states lacking the will to stay together after separation.
(g) See (h), above.
(h) Point made.
Agreed "Taking a region out of one nation ..." is legitimate, if it wins. Firing on that fort, eliminated the last chance for statesmanship. War had to follow. (Refer to Jomini or von Clausewitz).
__________________ 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
With regard to the firing on Sumter, let me set you a little challenge (we are drifting off the subject of this thread, but no matter).
My challenge is for you to imagine that you are the President of the C.S.A., and your brief is to handle the Sumter crisis in the way which best serves the interests of an independent Confederacy. So what are you going to do? Obviously, you believe that you are entitled to fire on the fort since it is on your sovereign territory. If you do, though, you run the risk of giving the North a pretext for invasion.
But if you opt for negotiation, this could drag on for weeks or even months. In fact, it is bound to drag on because your opponents in Washington have no reason to do anything other than prevaricate. Because every day that the Federal garrison remains in Charleston further undermines the credibility of the Confederate States. The foreign powers to whom you send envoys will probably ask you why they should recognise your independence when you can’t even control your own harbours.
I’ll be genuinely interested to learn what you think you would do. But it seems to me that Mr. Lincoln has you over a barrel whatever you decide.
Tell the truth Bill I cannot imagine myself a President of te CS and I do not consider myself a better politician that good ole Jeff Davis. He was wrong to fire upon the Fort and he was wrong to ignore his oath as an officer of the United States and oath as Secretery of Defense... in short he commited treason.
The calling up of 100,000 troops was a clear message that we are outta here and if you don't like it we'll look at regime change as an option; if that isn't politics and coercian at the point of a bayonet what is?
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
I'm sorry you won't take up my challenge. Perhaps someone else with Union sympathies will give it a go.
"And as I have said many times before, morality and politics have little... no scratch that, they have nothing to do with each other."
In that case, how do you personally make political choices? On the basis of self-interest?
"There are those who would argue, with some merit I think, that the American Revolution was the beginning of the decline of the British Empire."
Oh, I'm not sure about that. I would have thought that Britain was much wealthier and more powerful a hundred years after Saratoga than it was at the time. Be that as it may, our days of power are certainly a long time ago now. But that's cool. Remember we are a lot older than you. Thoughtful people grow out of the notion that being big and powerful is important as they mature. I suspect it's the same with nations.
Hal, would you say the same about the South after the War? They were not only unwilling to obey the law, they were also unwilling to enforce or honor it... particularly where that law might give a black man the right to be treated as a human being...
Shane, now that you bring it up, I think the 13th and 14th amendments are fascinating topics, since there is no way both of them can be legal and legit. Don't you agree?
Those Black Republicans sure played fast and loose with law and Constitution. I guess God gave them the authority to ignore it?
I've been eager to get into a discussion of this one. How about let's put it to discussion in another thread?
The truth seems to be that pro-coercionists cannot make their minds up as to why it was necessary for the United States to invade, conquer and pillage its young neighbour. Sometimes it seems to be about Sumter; sometimes about the slaves; sometimes it’s all about respecting the result of an election; sometimes it’s because the Northern states would have supposedly lacked the will to stay together after a successful act of secession; much of the time it’s an arbitrary combination of all of the above; but most of all it is about an expression of emotion and sentiment, to the detriment of reason.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
