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 harm to the union would have come from the precedent of disaffected or dissatisfied constituents deciding that rather than trying to work out problems within the union and Constitution, they find it easier and more exciting to to pick up their ball and go home.
With the example of a successful secession (exposing the weakness of gov't to prevent it)how much longer would any union of states be expected to last, including the CSA. With an emboldened Europe closely watching and maritime England still smarting from 2 failures fighting a United nation, could only see a divided America as a welcome target of opportunity. France, already planning her foray into Mexico, would certainly scent opportunity to the North.
British forces in Canada, a French Army in Mexico, America in the process of dissolution. How soon would it be before America became the prize of two imperial powers grabbing for all they can get? How soon before America became the battle ground of European power politics?
Such a scenario might not impress some, but I think history would be a better guide in forecasting such events, rather than blind confidence that such events were unlikely or would be easily surmounted.
Welcome to the fray! Good questions and very good observations, in my own humble opinion, of course!
To Bill and Hal, please forgive me for being off this thread. I must admit to being under the weather somewhat and I am not fully recovered, at least to my wife and doctor's satisfaction, but, I feel somewhat compelled to answer a few of your questions.
Bill, I have never doubted that the British went to the Falklands with anything other than the call of a people who wished to remain true to their country and determine their own course and freedom.
One of my aims was to bring into question an oft repeated idea of your own, when I asked the question why should England fight over something so small in size and so far away with so few people? You cite principle as justification. So why is it so simple to you to write off one third of a nation at the time of the Civil War? Time and again you have stated or mentioned the idea of why couldn't the North simply let a far vaster amount of territory leave in peace? I give you your own answer, principle.
What principle, you may ask, would be worth a war with six million people who simply want to go their own way, to have their independence and their own system of democracy? An illegal rebellion against those very same principles of democracy and law established by the founders of that nation is no less wrong simply by the numbers implied. I consder it a Falklands in reverse, if you will.
Simply because a large number of people are led to believe in a bad cause, does not make that cause right. I am pretty much of the opnion that large majorities of people in Poland still consider Jews in a very bad light and treat them badly, that Aztec Indians are wronged in Mexico by a majority of the Spainish population, and that a large number of Southerners in 1860, in a closed society, were wrongly led down a path of war and destruction by a minority of men who wished to preserve that present social status quo, and their power in it, at the expense of those peoples lives.
I leave you with a quote from the time which was given in a speech at Exeter Hall in London on October 20, 1863, when it was asked in England why the North did no allow the South to secede.
It is said, "Why not let the South go? Since they won't be at peace with you, why do you not let them seperate from you?" Because they would be still less peaceable when separated. Oh, if the Southerners only would go! They are determined to stay--that is the trouble. We would furnish free passage to all of them if they would go. But we say, the land is ours. Let them, and leave the nation its land, and they will have our unanimous consent. Henry Ward Beecher.
Hal, I must believe in the theory of secession if I am to consider it an 'imposition' on the North. I consider what the South did to be rebellion, nothing more, and deserving of redress by the majority of the citizens of the US and their government.
I cannot explain in detail any more than I have what I consider to be the dangers of this rebellion to the infant form of decmocracy of the time in the United States. Except to say it was the South's intention, by way of their leadership, to deprive every citizen in the US of their say in their own country. As for the North to be happy to be free of such obnoxious fellow-citizens, history seems to have been clear on that point.
Hal, I am saying the very nation was betrayed, and its system of democracy and government, what the founders intended was a nation, not a club, a country, not a collective. The very idea that a country whose founders put in a self-destruct code somewhere in the Constitution cannot be imagined by myself.
As for your contention, if I read it right, that the North mainly fought the South over lost revenue and markets, I have read and debated on other thread here that the North's revenues increased during the war when the was no access to Southern markets, so what's the point of following that line of thought? None, in my own opinion.
I am sorry you read my self as saying that the South, once on realizing they would lose power in the government, they took their ball and went home. In a sense, the South left when it could not enforce its vision of what democracy should look like, that of an elite that made the rules, and a carefully screened and led class of citizens who would do right under any circumstance to maintain the social order. 'Mob' or a true citizens democracy was a threat to that way of life and order, to be delayed, blocked and finally destroyed by rebellion if possible.
The South left the Union not to seek independence or freedom, but simply to maintain an old social order that left the elite in charge. To permit it to do so would be a defeat for democracy, not a new nation founded on a principle worth a penny nor a crown. A defeat for freedom and doom for the slave.
As for the London Times being any where sypathetic to the principles of democracy, it is in the very statment you give from them that shows they are more comfortable with Empire than with any other form of government. I leave you with this quote from the period.
"If we will legalize and establish the right of any discontented community to rebel and to set up intestine governments within the government of the United States then we would have no government at all. That would be the right of disintegration." Henry Ward Beecher.
Sorry this is short, I will check back later. Do not be too concerned if I take a while. I miss you, friends, and will talk at you soon. In the meantime, I expect Ms. Roberts, Mr. Hinkle and others here will take up my slack.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
(Message edited by Unionblue on August 26, 2004)
(Message edited by Unionblue on August 26, 2004)
__________________ "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
I'm really sorry to hear that you are a little under the weather. I send you my best wishes for a speedy recovery. The boards are not the same without your involvement. You're wrong about everything, of course, but that's part of your charm.
Almost everyone accepts the general principle that a community has the right to self-government, to self-determination. Because of this, pro-Union apologists have to develop arguments to show that the case of the Confederacy was a special one, and that unique circumstances prevailed in which it was right to deny Southerners what is usually regarded as a fundamental human right. Some of these are:
1. The “Balkanisation” argument. This consists of the assertion that, after the successful establishment of the C.S.A., the remaining states of the Union would have spun off in different directions and brought the United States to an end. Thus the South did not have the right to depart because of the damage their departure would inflict on the rest of the nation. I have to admit that, if I was on the other side of the fence, I would use this one a lot because it requires no supporting evidence and yet cannot be categorically refuted. Having said that, I believe that the argument shows an inadequate grasp of human nature: the idea that men who were prepared to sacrifice their lives to keep the seceding states in the Union would, if Confederate independence had been recognised, decide to destroy the balance of their country in a fit of pique simply does not ring true. But, as I said, there’s no way of proving this.
2. The “oligarchy” argument. This works on a number of levels. It can be used to portray a basically Unionist population in the South being led astray from the path of true patriotism by a small, Machiavellian, slave-holding elite. Thus it undermines the notion that the majority of Southerners really supported secession. At the same time it suggests that the Confederate States was fundamentally less democratic than the U.S.A., which can be used as an excuse for denying Southerners the right of self-determination: you don’t have the right to leave a democracy in order to set up an oligarchy. And just for good measure it denigrates the Southern character: the typical Southerner is presented as a sort of man-child who can be led in any direction by his social superiors. Contrast him with the Northerner, a rugged individualist who calls no man his master and who knows his own mind on all issues. If you find this argument persuasive, it is worth considering the reorganization of the Confederate armies at the end of the first year of the war. Look at the middle-aged, wealthy and socially influential company commanders who were unceremoniously voted out by the men in the ranks. If the C.S.A. was an oligarchy at war, it had a strange way of protecting the rank and station of many of its oligarchs.
3. The “race/slavery” argument. Well, we’re all familiar with this, but it is again worth noting how it works at a number of different levels. There is the skewed logic of the assertion that “We were entitled to deny you your independence because, as a result, the slaves were freed, and that’s obviously a ‘good thing’, and so denying you your independence must be a ‘good thing’ too.” But a popular additional stratagem is to review interracial problems in the post-war South and to suggest that these represent what has always been ‘normal’ Southern behaviour, and so to portray the South as a twilight region inhabited by aboriginals, one which needs to be kept under the cosh for the benefit of American civilization. (Extra points are awarded for the gratuitous introduction of the subject of the civil rights movement into any discussion of mid-19th century America.) It also works on a third level - the “You’re only entitled to your independence if you want it for a Good Reason” level. This complicates the simple concept of self-determination by introducing an element of subjective morality, and an examination of the ethical motives underpinning the struggle for independence. It seems fortunate, to say the least of it, that no such test was applied to the events of 1776.
(Message edited by Bill_torrens on August 26, 2004)
Neil, I am afraid you are reading too much into my observation regarding the revenue and markets lost. Other than these two things, you are still unable to demonstrate how the North was harmed by losing the evil slaveocracy of the deep South. Were their feelings hurt? I'm sure they were. But that hardly qualifies as imposition and harm, don't you think?
A successful secession would have been a mortal wound to the political and geographic integrity of not only the United States of America, but also that of the confederacys'.
The South could never, in good conscience, say no to any state or group of states who felt they could do better out of the Confederacy than in.
Dear Neil,
I am so sorry to hear that you are not feeling well and I wish you a speedy recovery. I have to agree with Bill though when he said:
You're wrong about everything, of
course, but that's part of your charm.
Bill
But Bill, I must say that there was ONE TIME many many months ago when Neil actually said he was wrong about something. It was on another thread, I've forgotten which..maybe Tommy will remember because we took such delight in it!
But Neil, when you are in top form, you're deadly!
Get well soon, my Blue buddy.
Fondly,
Thea
P.S. I'm taking a little tour of another war while posting this:
The Desert Fox is on TV..He was on the wrong side, but I ALWAYS admired Rommel.
__________________ Thea
No one has permission to use any material from any of my posts on any CWT forum, the archives, or any other forum without my express written permission.
Our new acquaintance Bokscar states that, in the event of secession being successful, “The South could never, in good conscience, say no to any state or group of states who felt they could do better out of the Confederacy than in.”
It is an integral part of the pro-Confederate argument – at least as I understand it - that no democratic state can ever, in good conscience, say no to a constituent part which wishes to leave. To the best of my knowledge the only democracy which has ever ventured down the path of making war on its erstwhile citizens [excluding imperial subjects] who wish to leave it is the United States.
Bill,
The rationale does seem odd to me. Kind of like saying marriage is only a viable option if divorce is forever forbidden. And by one couple being divorced it means no couple's marriage can ever succeed.
As long as it is called a democracy but no state has any free will of it's own to leave, then it isn't a democracy but an empire.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
