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 know you have addressed your questions to Hal, so I hope that neither of you will think me rude if I offer my own answers to them. (I’m about to slope off on holiday for a couple of weeks, so this is my last chance to throw in my two pennyworth until the end of the month.)
Those states that seceded in 1860/61 felt that they had good reason to leave the Union. But there isn’t the slightest evidence to suggest that rock-solid pro-Union states would have followed their example. It’s a bit like saying that, if you allow all the Republicans in Northern Ireland to become citizens of Eire, all the Orangemen will be clamouring to follow them. I really don’t think that that is the case, and I hope the analogy is comprehensible to you.
The “Balkanisation” argument credits the act of secession with occult powers which derange all bystanders and turn them into constitutional lemmings leaping over a cliff. It’s a fantasy, but a highly dangerous one because it was used to justify a murderous war of conquest. The concept of “perpetual secession” is part of the same fantasy.
I've been following this thread with great interest and really don't want to get into the mix as you all seem perfectly capable of bandying ideas back and forth without any blood-letting, but I will say this.
I agree with Bill that those states who were rock-solid behind the Union would not have automatically gone insane and decided to leave.
However, just for the sake of throwing another bone in the soup, what if those purportedly "rock solid states" had taken a good look at the seceding states and began to look at the pros and cons of being in the Union. What if they had decided, one by one, that they no longer wished to be members of the Union? Would the Union have the right to coerce them into staying as they did the South? Would the fighting have gone on ad infinitum until the Union was abolished or every single state had been beaten into submission. And if that was the case, what kind of Union would you have? Who would be the enforcers of such a Union? Who could be trusted to "protect" this Union?
It seems to me that the proponents of the Union knew that if they did not defeat the South and bend her into submission, others might get ideas, as had some states even before the WBTS. Those earlier threats of secession had been appeased but Unionists couldn't always count on being able to appease states, especially if states banded together, as the South did.
The irony of forcing states to remain in the Union to enjoy all this "protection" is not lost on me.
__________________ 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.
Mr Torrens I wish to pick up on one of your statements ... and please excuse me for appearing dense just now ... but ... what exactly do you mean by this statement? 3. The U.S. Government reserves the right to liquidate those Americans whose aspirations run contrary to its own
I apologize for this abrupt subject change as I am behind on reading posts because of my work schedule.
Kate
I'm delighted that you jumped in and I do appreciate your comments. I understand your analogy but in truth, is the potential for perpetual secession even worth the risk for possible chaos and disaster? I don't think that the minds who deliberated over the secession crisis were particularly prone to flights of fancy.
Thea, your questions raise the issues of chaos that I'm referring to, but for different reasons. Where would it all end and how do you ever reconcile boundaries, economy, money etc. within a dissolving country? I think that Europe would have been waiting in the wings like salvating dogs as the United States slowly started to unravel.
You have a point. Regards the 1860s there were 3 slave states that remained in the Union under pressure (MD, KY, MO). Had the Union submitted to secession and decided to abolish slavery the resolve of KY for certain would have been broken. MO would have been a troubled state with massive internal violence as slaveholders were politically potent although a minority by 1860.
In the future of a broken America there would be tensions over territorial borders, fugitive slaves, the south's willingness to breech the Monroe Doctrine to protect itself from the more powerful Union.
Westward expansion would have the threat of becoming a battlefield to filibusters. And the Pacific Rim could always just decide to pull a Confederacy to use its gold reserves to build its own little nation.
Lincoln was right. The principle of the Union had to be sustained.
What I mean is that the U.S. Government reserved the right to make war on [ie liquidate] those Americans who saw their political future outside of the Union.
To the best of my knowledge it is the only democratic government in history which has taken this stance [excluding imperial-colonial relationships].
On more than one occasion I have asked pro-Union participants on these boards whether they would support the use of lethal violence against Americans whose states tried to leave the Union tomorrow. I have never yet got a straightforward answer. I can say with absolute certainty that public opinion in western Europe would never permit the use of military force to stop part of one of our countries splitting away. The American attitude may be more equivocal. I don't know, and that is why it interests me.
I hope that you won't mind my inclusion into your conversation with Kate. For the record, I would never support lethal violence against Americans if they tried to leave the Union now, and I would imagine that other pro-Unionists on this board would share the same opinion? I like to think that we are more civilized/enlightened/better/wiser than we were 140 years ago, and that if this should happen in future, it would be accomplished through peaceful negotiations...as it should have been then.
At the time of the Civil War, the United States was still a new country, riding on the laurels of hope and endless possibilities. The CW derailed this idealogy for a time and pushed the original foundation into the ground. But no matter how I look at this Bill, it always goes back to Fort Sumter and the first few months of Lincoln's administration. And I honestly believe that Lincoln had no choice in his actions and that he was legally justified in his efforts to preserve the Union.
There are so many great minds on this Board and I consider myself privileged to be discussing such a poignant and haunting time in history. I would be interested to know, from our Southern friends, if they would consider leaving the Union now, and if so, why? Also, what are the Southern issues today?
I'd love to discuss this further with you, but I'm out of time. There are bars in Spain, with dried hams and strings of garlic hanging from the ceiling, which are calling to me. I feel the need for cold drinks and Mediterranean sunsets. I'll leave you to talk it over with the others, but I can squeeze in two brief thoughts before I go.
1. I'm delighted to learn that you wouldn't support the killing of Americans whose states seceded from the Union tomorrow. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that Unionists were prepared to kill their Southern brethren 140 years ago because they were relatively uncivilized. When Neil rises from his sick bed he may have something to say about this.
2. If we are going to discuss a hypothetical secession crisis in the present day, don't restrict your thoughts to old Confederate states departing. For my money, those states with a large Hispanic population might be a likelier bet.
I think your rosey sense of civilization is far from the case. Bill, can you say basques and IRA? I know they're just criminal malcontents who should be controlled. They don't really represent anything of importance. The French were plugging away at each other thru the better part of DeGaulles reign. When the USSR broke up there was a breathless moment when many expected the Ukraine and Russia would go toe to toe, but both had nukes and no funds, so they "peacefully" schismed.
Sorry, for my part, if a state of the Union dared to bring up this old saw, there'd be tanks in their streets in the morning and their government under arrest for failure to provide sane republican administration to their constituents. And god help the sod who resists, because I won't. Timothy McVeigh should have been impaled on the Washington Monument
Thank you Bill for the clarification of the term "liquidate". I have never seen that used when refering to the Civil War ... but if you view it the way you are using it it does make sense. It was a liquidation of people that thought differently ... But then again that is not a new concept and will probably always be around.
Kate
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
