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 ask you to look at the following web site for your information only, not to try and score debating points with you (at least, not a very HARD try at scoring points!).
The site is titled, The Southern Debate Over Slavery, and is here:
__________________ "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
Neil,
I had hoped to get this posted prior to your leaving for the day but typically my pc buggered me royally.
Anyway.....briefly.....
My point is that there were no soldier's marching songs proclaiming benefits or rights regarding the expansion, continuation or to the Godliness of slavery were there? Nor were these songs sung at political rallies were they? You can tell at least a small bit by the most popular songs of the day. (I'm not talking about obscure songs from either side).
Errrrrr.......How would I have it backwards? The formation of the nation preceded Hon. Gov Wallace by close to two hundred years. The same troops that forced a state to end segregation can be used for anything. The FBI does a fine job. We hire all manner of "Security" companies to do it as well, many from CIA trained death squads from third world countries. If the northern states in the early 1800's had not had the ability to choose for themselves, there would have been far more slaves throughout the north. If soldiers had marched in to enforce slavery, to forbid the State government from deciding for themselves....they might still well have slaves today. But they had State's Rights didn't they? They had the right to do anything they desired as long as it was not Clearly unconstitutional. Including abolishing slavery.
But hey, many people like a centralist government. Personally, I do not. I would present today's Government as a direct result of Lincoln's reign. Raw damaging presidential power, secret police, restrictions of free speech, the list could go on. Many believe this is as it should be. Yippee! All is well. Sis Boom Bah. Those who disagree are now powerless. Speaking only for myself, I am incapable of dredging up the unseeing enthusiasm needed to admire it, either then or now. Yet we have, by Mr Lincoln, been relegated to mere powerless counties in the one state. Rather than a sovereign state in a Republic. Freed a race and enslaved a nation. But hey, it is my same ole song and dance.
YMOS
tommy
(Message edited by aphillbilly on August 17, 2004)
If the urge felt by Confederates to defend their territory from an invading enemy was an instinctive and visceral one, the motivation for Union soldiers must have been a little more complex. They were, after all, fighting for the abstraction of the Union. It is no easy thing to persuade a man to leave his home and family, and risk his life, for the preservation of an abstraction.
I incline to the belief that one of the key elements in the Unionist psyche was a mystical one, albeit of a half-baked kind. One might describe it as the belief that the United States was God’s “Special Project”, and that secession was, therefore, not only treasonable but blasphemous. This sentiment was expressed quite explicitly by Oliver Wendell Holmes in his poem “Brother Jonathan’s Lament for Sister Caroline”:
Our Union is river, lake, ocean, and sky;
Man breaks not the medal, when God cuts the die!
William Howard Russell also picked up on something very similar in his conversation with Seward on 4th April 1861:
...if the majority desire Secession, Mr. Seward would let them have it – but he cannot believe in anything so monstrous, for to him the Federal Government and Constitution, as interpreted by his party, are divine, heaven-born.
A disinterested outsider is struck by the mixture of childishness, conceit & superstition which underpins these views. And which also underpins Manifest Destiny - possibly the silliest notion ever to have received widespread support in a free society. Where the rational/adult response to secession would have been a recognition that the two regions had come to a parting of the ways [ie the Swedish response to Norwegian secession in 1905], the emotional/childish one was the expression of the belief that a great crime was being committed against God’s will and his specially favoured nation, and that a war of invasion was therefore an appropriate & proportionate response.
A fair amount of interested insiders are struck by that same mixture you refer to. Both then and now as a matter of fact. "I believe God wants me to be President." - George W. Bush. I just love your observation of the assumption of the United States being God's "Special Project."
Very excellent reading as usual. I am constantly amazed at the apt research material you come up with. I envy your talent and perception.
"I incline to the belief that one of the key elements in the Unionist psyche was a mystical one, albeit of a half-baked kind. One might describe it as the belief that the United States was God’s “Special Project”, and that secession was, therefore, not only treasonable but blasphemous"
Bill, I am inclined to believe you are on to something.
Fighting to force the component parts into staying within an abstract Union founded by those component parts, on the ideal of government by consent of the governed, is one of those screaming contradictions that I have never been able to silence. But if one throws in some sort of notion that God himself wanted the Union to stretch from sea to shining sea, and from the sub-tropics to the great white north, then it elevates the naked coersion up to something less malignant - like a 19th century North American jihad.
“Screaming contradiction” is exactly the right phrase. And as far as Manifest Destiny is concerned, it is worthwhile recollecting that another country believed that destiny was manifestly inviting it to steamroller eastwards in much the same way that the U.S.A. was steamrollering westwards. That country was Germany, and the equivalent to “Manifest Destiny” in the local vernacular was “Lebensraum”.
Tommy,
Did your Chief Magistrate really say “"I believe God wants me to be President”? Hmmm… In that case I am delighted that Civilwartalk.com’s censorship program does not cover foreign expletives, and so I can use the words “prat”, “plonker” and “pillock” without any danger of creating red asterisks.
So many questions and views! And yet they all seem to come down to the idea (again) of the South merely defending themselves from aggression and simple-minded Union soldiers who believed in a sort of myth of God, Country, and Manifest Destiny! Even to the point where they can be compared to Nazi Germany of the 1930's & 40's.
Bill, a question for you. Why did Great Britain fight a war over the Falkland Islands? It was far away, Argentina had claims on the islands, its material worth can't be hardly worth the effort put up by England to take it back, especially when it comes to lives lost, treasure spent, etc. It must have been a cheaper option to move those islanders still loyal to Britain and let the other side peacefully separate, without bloodshed, destruction and loss of life, would it not? Why the bother? Could not England & Argentina use the example of Sweden and Norway and go their separate ways in peace?
And Bill, for the period of history we are discussing, did Norway and Sweden have the unique situation of Sweden endorsing slavery and demanding its protection and expansion throughout Norway? Was slavery one of the issues involved in the separation?
Hal, welcome back, by-the-way, you have been missed and I for one am glad to see your input once again. You keep us all honest, me in particular. But Hal, a 19th century American jihad?
I feel that you have again reversed the true circumstances, that instead of an abstract Union fighting to force component parts to stay, you have a minority who has been used to dictating to a majority for some years, and then for purely selfish reasons, intends to destroy 'the last, best hope of earth' in order to maintain control of its own peculiar institution. At the expense of law, order & peace, in a world hostile to the idea of people deciding their own destiny and more apt to go with kings and tyrants and those born to their role of ruling over the poor masses. I cannot shake the idea that the idea of democracy, of the many deciding instead of a minority, was in true danger by the actions of the South and the destruction of the Union and this idea of democracy was in danger from the rest of the world who had no use for it at all.
I don't think those poor miss-guided soldiers from the North were blinded by songs or abolition speeches. As Bill has stated, the motivation for the Union soldier was a bit more complex. He was fighting for his nation, its survival and his own way of life and his concept of government & country and his own personal freedom.
It's easy to fight for home and hearth. Really, it is. You can see your family, touch them, your home, without much in the way of thinking if its right or wrong to do so. The Union soldiers that initially enlisted may have been more into adventure and travel from home at first, but that is not what kept them there, year after year, death after death. They fought for their concept of the future and their nation.
Tommy, no I have not forgotten you. To lay today's government at the feet of Lincoln is just too easy. I am certain you are aware that immediately after the Civil War, military contracts were cancelled, troops mustered out and the government MUCH reduced. At one time the US Army shrank to 7,000 men fighting many times that number of indians in the years after the war, with inferior equipment and weapons. Washington D.C. went back to a sleepy, non-important city, where most nations of the world did not even maintain an embassy. Not until the Spanish-American War did things start to change and then only during FDR's time to we start to see a massive Federal government intrude on everyday life.
We got our government of today step-by-step, and we, the American people, agreed with each step, either by our indifference or our direct approval. As for those same troops who enforced segregation could be turned against us the American people will permit that also, if we desire to, again, by our indifference or our direct approval, of that, I am sure of.
My own plain, contention is, if all of us had waited for the States of Arkansas, Mississippi, Georgia, Alabama, New York and Massachusetts to decide on what to do about Civil Rights and segregation, there would still be poll taxes, tests and separate bathrooms and bus stations in the country, IF there had been no compulsion by the Federal Government at the behest of the people and the nation. Sometimes it takes a big stick to do right.
As for the South not singing about slavery, I am also of the impression that German soldiers and citizens did not sing about the concentration camps, nor did the Japanese sing about the beheading of POWs. The world found out about those areas through other means. Hence my references concerning sermons, newspapers, pamphlets, etc., that proves that slavery was a favored, positive good, etc., from Southern publications and writings, not just Northern abolitionists.
Screaming contradiction? Depends on which looking glass your gazing through.
Again, as Tommy states, its my same old song and dance.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
PS Hal, I almost had my first, serious heart attack when I viewed your post on the Roles Reversed thread! But try to use a bit more factual evidence instead of all the Union rhetoric, will ya? (GRIN)
__________________ "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
Why did Britain fight the Falklands War? I’m so glad you asked me that. To defend the principle of self-determination, of course. To defend the principle that the political future of the islands should be determined solely by the islanders themselves rather than by anyone in Argentina or Britain.
No, the Norwegians did not have any slaves. But what difference would it have made to their right to independence if they did have them? Are you suggesting that slaveholders have a diminished right to self-determination? Or that they are disqualified from any right to self-determination at all? That would be an odd argument to put forward, given the enthusiasm with which you all celebrate the slaveholders’ rebellion of 1776.
As for the old, old chestnut about destroying the “last, best hope on earth”, I do implore you to take your world atlas down from the shelf and to take a minute or two to study the United States as it would have been after the establishment of the C.S.A. And then flip the pages and look at the sizes of the various countries of Europe. Try to tell a European that the remaining Union would have been too small and weak to prosper and he will fall off his chair laughing at you.
Jihad. Don't you think it's a lovely fit? I know it conjurs up images of radical Islamists today. But think about Manifest Destiny. And the boys in blue marched to battle with Glory Hallelujah; trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored; loosing the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword on their lips.
But fighting to force your equal partners to remain in a union they no longer want to participate in is the queerest of ways to champion the purported "American" ideal and experiment in self government.
Neil: ...for purely selfish reasons, intends to destroy 'the last, best hope of earth' in order to maintain control of its own peculiar institution.
Yes, the concept of self-government is entirely a selfish one. But why should one have the right to decide who gets to enjoy that selfish right, and who should be denied it? Preserving self-government and liberty by taking it from others -- that is very creative justification for coercing others, but it comes up well short on logic, I'm afraid.
Neil: At the expense of law, order & peace, in a world hostile to the idea of people deciding their own destiny and more apt to go with kings and tyrants and those born to their role of ruling over the poor masses.
Ah, yes. The idols of Law, Order and Peace. It appears self-determination and liberty should be sacrificed at those altars as determined necessary by those holding power over others. Peace? Well, Lincolnian thought holds that peace is quite expendable if that is necessary to defend one's interpretation of the Law and keep the Order of things.
Law and Order and Peace - those are dangerous bedfellows to swap for liberty, don't you think? Those are the ageless license of tyrants. Those were the very excuses used to massacre countrymen yearning for freedom and liberty in TianAnMen Square. And tyrants are still using that rationale to deny self-government to their own people today.
Neil: I cannot shake the idea that the idea of democracy, of the many deciding instead of a minority, was in true danger by the actions of the South and the destruction of the Union and this idea of democracy was in danger from the rest of the world who had no use for it at all.
Saving democracy for the rest of the world by fighting against it at home -- that is an interesting concept.
Throwing in Manifest Destiny and the notion that God wanted the Union to stretch from Maine to Florida to California to Washington (and beyond to the western Pacific and the Caribbean, and parts of what is now Canada if we'd only performed better) at least makes it understandable, if not defensible.
Bill, thanks for the welcome back! Hopefully, I won't be so long between posts for a while.
I believe it's very difficult for most Americans to grasp the similarity between our Manifest Destiny and the actions it justified, with those of other nations, including the Hitler one. That is unfortunate, I believe.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
