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.
I have never really understood the convention that says it is rude to quote each other in a forum like this, and I certainly don’t take offence when you do it to me. I’ll take it as read that I can do the same with your posts.
“Where did you get that one? It was never a question of northern states lacking the will to stay together after separation.”
As Hal has observed, this is an old chestnut on these boards. I agree with you 100%: there never was any question of the Northern states lacking the will to stay together. So this is a conversation you want to have with some of your (forgive me) fellow pro-coercionists, who seem to think that the establishment of the C.S.A. would have caused the remnants of the Union to fall apart like a house of cards.
“The pressures that led up to the act of war were many and cannot easily be separated from the others.”
Agreed. But we aren’t talking about what caused the war; we are talking about what each side fought for. A different matter. The causes of secession were diverse and complex, but what the Confederacy fought for was simple and straightforward: self-defence and the assertion of independence. And it ought to be the same for the cause of the Union. But, on the basis of what its adherents post on these boards, it seems insanely complicated. As Hal has demonstrated, to my intense mirth.
Hal and Bill, directly quoting is viewed as a form of flaming and or baiting. While I am as guilty of quoting directly as anyone it has a tendency to crank up the temp in a room as Hal is attempting to do now.
__________________ 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
Bill, I make my political choices by careful analysis and a look at the goals and character of said politician. I want someone in office who will represent me, not his own interests. I fully realize that most will kiss a baby in one moment and steal their lolipop the next.
I cannot imagine myself in the shoes of Jeff Davis and I do not feel I could do justice to him nor treat him fairly in such a scenario. I hold him in contempt because he treated the oath he gave before becoming an officer in the US Army and the one he took as Secretary of War with such contempt. But as some on this board have said in the past: An oath is only as important as who it is given to.
__________________ 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 have to ask, what is a pro-coercionist? Let's break that down. Pro: in favor of. "ist", one of those in favor of. "Coercion." That's where I'm stumped. [Coerce: restrict, suppress, repress; see hinder, restrain. Coercion: compulsion, persuasion, constraint] I can see perceived coercion. OK. I'll buy hinder; and restrain could be applied if you grabbed one end and stretched it a touch. Suppress? No. How it applies to me or anyone else on this board is a mystery. You will doubtless explain.
Shane: I apologize for quoting directly, but I hope you'll agree that I couldn't figure out a way to respond without quoting the statements. I will try to coerce that impulse.
Back to Bill: I'm sorry, I thought we were still talking about what caused the war. What each side fought for is simple: what their leaders told them they were fighting for. Why, is the real question.
Meanwhile, I commend to you all William C. Davis's A Government of Our Own. The first chapter is a delightfully concise and impartial analysis of the events leading up to secession. It will delight Thea and chafe Neil, but it lays out in a few pages what most of us have been debating for months.
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
In reference to your post Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 06:54 am.
"As usual, Bill says it nicely: "...the North aspired to conquer the South and remake it in its own image; whereas the South never aspired to do the same in reverse."
As to Hal and Bill saying it, however they say it; BUNK!
The South had tried for nearly thirty years to make the North in it's own image, by trying to force it's way of life upon the entire nation. Waging war on a people, territory or state, doesn't always mean there is a formal declaration. When it could no longer do so by political or 'legal' means, it simply tried to do so by illegal rebellion. And yes, the defense that the rebellion had to be put down in order to save a democratic form of government has been used on this board before. The 'God is on our side' one, that one will have to be pointed out to me on this board.
And Hal, I still think it more that 'the South' more than 'the North' was not interested in enforcing the laws and Constitutional limitations on the government that didn't go their way, like a legal election for one.
Thea, you are right to ignore what most members of this board of the 'Northern persuasion' think about the idea of the United States being destroyed by the action of the Southern States leaving the Union. Our opinion on that subject matter little in the scheme of things concerning the history of the war. What we both think MIGHT have happened is just that, our own willful opinions.
I also feel that you are 100% correct in thinking that Northerners in those turbulent times thought the action of secession would destroy the Union. Their actions indicate such.
As for being shown where you could locate one speech by a fire-eater where he actually states that the purpose of leaving the Union is the destruction of the United States, I direct you to the book, The Fire-Eaters, by Eric H. Walther.
Laurence M. Keitt stated Carolinians had built the United States, he said, and repeated his promise that "now we mean to pull it down from turret to foundation-stone."
James D.B. De Bow said if the Union could not be saved with southern rights intact, "It is to be crushed."
Sincerely,
Unionblue
(Message edited by Unionblue on January 25, 2005)
(Message edited by Unionblue on January 25, 2005)
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
The seceding states did not return to the Union of their own free will. They were coerced into doing so by the armed forces of the United States (using the word coerce in its compulsive sense). Strictly speaking, I suppose the noun deriving from “coerce” is “coercer”, but “coercionist” is used as well. And so a pro-coercionist is someone who believes that compelling millions of people to be citizens of a country against their will is a good thing.
The term isn’t meant to be insulting, but rather a simple, factual description. In the same way, I have no objection at all to the use of the words “rebel” or “traitor” to describe secessionists because I can see that, from your point of view, these are equally sober and factual descriptions.
Neil,
Carefully avoiding the use of quotation marks, I note your statement that the South had tried for nearly thirty years to make the North in its own image, by trying to force it's way of life upon the entire nation.
To which I say Bunk, Megabunk, Hyperbunk and Bunk With Bells On.
Assuming that you are talking about slavery, for your statement to be true you would have to demonstrate that Southerners wanted to force Northern farmers to get rid of their white employees and replace them with Negro chattel slaves. I await your evidence for this with the keenest anticipation.
Bunk With Bells On? A picture comes to mind...but that can wait.
You assume rightly. Now, questions for you so that I may have a starting point.
1. Did the South try to advance the cause of slavery when it controlled the Federal government?
2. Did it seek the widest possible definition and spread of the institution?
3. Is there any evidence, in your opinion, that this effort ever took place over the objections (not even religious ones) of the Free States in the North?
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
All you have to do, my dear old chap, is to provide evidence of how Southerners wanted to force Northern farmers to get rid of their white employees and replace them with Negro chattel slaves.
It is really extremely kind of you to offer to find yourself a starting point, but I do assure you that I have already provided you with a perfectly good one. Happy hunting!
Don't want to try and rush the trenches? That low on ammo?
Wait your turn, I'll be putting fire on you directly.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
And Hal, I still think it more that 'the South' more than 'the North' was not interested in enforcing the laws and Constitutional limitations on the government that didn't go their way, like a legal election for one.
You mean the legal election of one embracing the overthrow of the Constitutionally mandated ruling on one of the most contentious political issues in 1860 -- the issue of slavery in the Territories?
After all, in 1857, the US Supreme Court ruled that the US government had no right to pass laws prohibiting a citizen from taking his property with him into the common Territories. And the Republican candidate for President of the United States ran on a platform and gave numerous speeches in open rebellion against that ruling. (See Republican Party platform of 1860 and numerous speeches of said uni-section candidate.)
I guess it was OK for one branch of the government to usurp the authority of another, as long as God was on the side of the usurper.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
