Secession

[felinelady]

Dawna,
I am not sure if the majority of the South would even consider removing themselves from the Union now. (There are some minority groups that put forth that as a solution tho.) We do still have issues with the Federal Gov't tho. Even to this day the South is treated as the "red-headed stepchild" when it comes to funding and stuff of that nature. Equality in some areas does not exist. The South is also still being labeled "racist" by certain citizenship in this country ... but if my memory serves me right, many of the
worst "racist" battles were up North. I do not say that the South is perfect but considering the strides the South has made to rebuild what was so completely destroyed sooooo many years ago ... we have come a long way. Many Southerners just want to feel like we are part of this Nation. That we are EQUAL partners in what makes this great country of ours tick.
I am sorry that I can't put forth arguments and ideas as well as some of my southern counterparts ... but this is of course my own opinion.
Kate

Oh, Don't let the fact that I live in a Northern City fool you ... my blood is still 100% Southern!!!!!!

[thea_447]

I think you summed it up quite well, Katherine. Everything you said is true. At every opportunity the South is portrayed as being racist and is made the butt of jokes. We would like to consider ourselves as equal partners in this country. Lord knows our Southern soldiers do account for the largest part of the fighting forces in this country. (I believe it was Patton who said, "Give me Southerners! They know how to fight!")

And then, after incessantly ridiculing everything about the South, retirees flock to the South, although I think in view of what's happening in the weather, they may think twice about our coastlines.

You are right about minority groups wishing to leave the Union, although the group I have read about wants to go to New Hampshire and I'm afraid Southerners couldn't stand all that cold! Plus a Southern certainly wouldn't understand the locals and I'm sure the way some Southerners can make a one syllable word into two (think bah-weezs for boys)they wouldn't understand us either.

Seems to me people are overly sensitive to anything pertaining to blacks (and pretty soon the same thing will be happening with Hispanics) but they ignore the ridicule heaped on anyone born Southern. It's a national past-time and certainly doesn't lend itself to making us feel like we're all Fam-i-ly!

I heard someone on television during Hurricane Frances. It was a young man from Alabama Power Company being interviewed. He said:
"Sure, we're going down there, we always want to help our neighbors, we're a big 'ol family and they'd do the same for us." I told my husband, anyone outside the South,hearing him, with that Southern twang, would automatically call him a redneck. But the words we speak and the colloquialisms that we use don't determine how smart we are. And that old saying is still true: "Just because I talk slow, "dudn't" mean I'm stupid."

(Message edited by thea_447 on September 11, 2004)

[hawglips]

David: "If the principle of a federated Union is to mean anything, then Constitutional parliamentarianism has to prevail in the Union. When it fails the game is over and it is open season on exceptions and non-compliance. One lil'ole states leads to 2, 7, 11, 50. It's like ignoring that lil'ole leak in the big'ole dam. The United States may not be perpetual; but it is going to try to be."

So, the abstract "Union" is the most important consideration? Do you really place "union" over the concrete components of the Union as well as the principles it was set up to protect and uphold?

Why not allow the people of the 50 States to decide for themselves?

Dawna: "If secession had been allowed, don't you think the break up of the Union would have continued, and where would it have ended? In January, 1861, the Mayor of New York City suggested that the city secede from the state of New York."

But they didn't. There are many considerations before such a step is to be taken, not the least of which are the practical aspects. Why would NH or ME or PA or MA feel compelled to leave the Union? Wouldn't they be better off remaining in one that was protecting their interests so nicely?

But that being said, let me offer up a conceptualization that may put some stress on the boundaries of traditional and customary thought processes of our resident pro-force unionists.

If the CSA had been allowed to establish itself and operate peacefully, I think that the USA would have been pressured to become a better place, due to the competition from a new and improved confederation to the South. Perhaps NC or AR or TN would have followed their more southerly sister States at some point. But that is by no means a given.

Wouldn't it have been a wonderful thing if the States had the option to choose the confederation which they felt best protected the liberties of its people, instead of being forced into remaining in one they felt was not conducive to those interests? What a giant step forward it would be to have such competition of democracies. Rather than preventing States from exercising their natural rights of self determination, how about peacefully competing for their association? I don't think a single one of our founders would have objected to a situation where the USA ceased to exist simply because the CSA (or some other confederation) turned out to be a better and more attractive protector of the liberty of the people and drew all the States into a new union.

Consider A. Stephen's remarks on this topic shortly after the CSA (7 states) had established their constitution:

"Our growth, by accessions from other States, will depend greatly upon whether we present to the world, as I trust we shall, a better government than that to which neighboring States belong. If we do this, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas cannot hesitate long; neither can Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri. They will necessarily gravitate to us by an imperious law. We made ample provision in our constitution for the admission of other States; it is more guarded, and wisely so, I think, than the old constitution on the same subject, but not too guarded to receive them as fast as it may be proper. Looking to the distant future, and, perhaps, not very far distant either, it is not beyond the range of possibility, and even probability, that all the great States of the north-west will gravitate this way, as well as Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, etc. Should they do so, our doors are wide enough to receive them, but not until they are ready to assimilate with us in principle.

The process of disintegration in the old Union may be expected to go on with almost absolute certainty, if we pursue the right course. We are now the nucleus of a growing power which, if we are true to ourselves, our destiny, and high mission, will become the controlling power on this continent. To what extent accessions will go on in the process of time, or where it will end, the future will determine. So far as it concerns States of the old Union, this process will be upon no such principles of reconstruction as now spoken of, but upon reorganization and new assimilation. [Loud applause.] Such are some of the glimpses of the future as I catch them."

Dawna: "With perpetual secession, the Union of the United States would no longer exist.

Ah, "perpetual secession."

Of course, if no States were left, then there is no Union - other than the new Union(s) they may have formed. But there was no real danger of that in 1861. Lincoln's contrived argument in this regard was a very weak and even irrelevant when one considers the reasons for a union in the first place.

The goal of the original union was not simply to establish a union of States, but rather to establish a union that would better protect the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of the citizens of the various States. "Union" must be subordinate to the reasons for its establishment.

Dawna: "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."

Dawna, this is very interesting, and heartening. But I think you may be surprised to find that you do not have much company among the other pro-Unionists on this board!

What would you advocate today should "peaceful negotiations" fail to persuade a State to remain in the Union?

And bringing a real-life situation to bear, do you believe China has the right to invade Taiwan should Taiwan declare independence?

David: "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. "

Ooooh. So David, you do NOT believe in government by consent of the governed?

I must accept reality. I can not entice a horse to come to me, by waving a T-bone steak.

Hal

[dave_kelly]

Hal, old chum, methinks you took a vacation in a peyote patch

Your talking about the cornerstone speech. A speech for which I'm suprised rational southerners didn't commit brere Stephens to an insane asylum. The nature of that speech was so blatantly alarming as to rouse every anti slave and pro Union soul to wipe out the cancer of secesh sentiment before it had a second more to coexist.

He starts the speech by glorifying slavery, then proceeds to the sentiments you have quoted; that every Republican of good conservative racist concience sees the right of secession and will rally to this new cotton empire as preferable to the godless liberality of the North. They made Stephens vice president no less.

This speech is so full of challenges and implications for civil strife, and so implicitly aggresive in implying a willful movement to undermine the United States that it is no wonder it was seen as a gauntlet thrown down as a test of will to see who would control the continent. It goes well beyond the silliness of "we just want to be left alone".

We come back to the dilema of a slave state crying democracy while every action they undertake goes to privilege, not representation. It's nuts.

[hawglips]

David, no offense at all intended, but as I intimated, we are a universe apart, and I fear there is no hyper-light-speed travel that could unite us in our lifetimes.

I have resigned myself to the uncomfortable realization that you don't consider self-determination as supreme, but rather believe that a nation-state should coerce its citizens in order to preserve territory and prevent the exercise of what our founders considered an inalienable right. On the other hand, I believe government by consent of the governed is paramount, and place liberty and freedom of the citizens above ANY abstract "union" of States.

Therefore, I would not expect you to consider the points I was addressing to Dawna.

By the way, I would encourage you to read Stephens' entire Savannah speech reporting on the new Constitution to the citizens of that town. As evidenced by your inaccurate commentary, you seem to be relying on one of the predominant pro-force unionist truncated versions which (for obvious reasons) skip most everything but the parts purporting to glorify slavery.

The speech in its entirety is very interesting, and addresses our theoretical question of how States would be drawn to a better union. Here's a link to the entire speech, as recorded (with errors) by a reporter in attendance. I'm sure you'll enjoy the "cornerstone" part, but I'd encourage you to read it in light of our theoretical discussion.

http://www.pointsouth.com/csanet/gre...ns-corner.html

Dawna, I'm anxious to hear your answers.

Hal

[dawna]

Hal:

Please bear with me for another day or two. My computer is still in shop and I would like to answer your questions at leisure...I'm reduced to 1/2 hour at the library these days and only have time to check a few emails ect.

Dawna

[dave_kelly]

Hal:

Thank you I'm quite familiar with the Cornerstone Speech and your pointsouth copy is no more or less correct than what I am familiar with. I stand by my characterization of that speech. We tend to emphasize what we wish to see; both interpretations suit the taste of the recipient.

Sorry, no society accepts unrestricted self determination as a foundation for government. Ask 3.5 million slaves in the Confederacy and I'm sure they will attest to that reality.

Just as to whether protection of the Republic is coercion or the maitenence of the rule of law seems to get skewed to interests in these "friendly" discussions.

I don't question the political sincerity of the South, but in the progress of society I'm hard pressed to hold up the Cornerstone Speech, with it's declaration of racial superiority as the cause of destruction of the United States, as a political document for the ages of mankind. Telling me I'm supposed to ignore or deemphasize this critical difference of perspective is a bit much.

[hawglips]

David: I'm quite familiar with the Cornerstone Speech and your pointsouth copy is no more or less correct than what I am familiar with. I stand by my characterization of that speech.

That's odd. Then it is quite puzzling to me why you would offer up the glaring mis-statements, "He starts the speech by glorifying slavery.." and, "...then proceeds to the sentiments you have quoted..."

By the way, I think you should be careful about dismissing Stephens' ideas merely on the basis of a segment of one particular speech. You may be dismissing a lot of juicy stuff that a pro-Unionist such as yourself might find useful in future secession discussions like this one.

David: Sorry, no society accepts unrestricted self determination as a foundation for government. Ask 3.5 million slaves in the Confederacy and I'm sure they will attest to that reality.

I wonder what reality the 4 million slaves of the United States of America would attest to?

As for unrestricted self-determination, I would also not expect any society to accept that as a foundation for government. But I would certainly not expect any free republic of States to accept federal military coercion of its components as a foundation either. Ours certainly didn't.

Hal

(Message edited by hawglips on September 14, 2004)

[dave_kelly]

Hal:

Quibbling isn't a critical arguement; the offensive passages regarding the validity and supremacy of racism, and sentiments that the selfrighteous conservancy of the planter would see the disintegration of the old Union are most certainly parts of the speech.

As to what the 4 million slaves in the USofA would say, they probably would find our declarations of life liberty and happiness a joke: but who bolted the gate and why did they do it, Hal? Self determination to be free, or to keep slaves? The Cornerstone Speech is one of those jewels that makes that issue abundantly clear.

The federal military was not used to coerce a component; it was used to stop a rebellion of states who declared themselves out of the Union. You really expect the United States of America to hold its hand against an alien assemblage in its own ranks? And the Confederacy was alien no matter who constituted it, because they declared themselves outlaw to the union. As you say it is a free republic of states; it's not a republic of free states.

[unionblue]

Hal,

I'm with David on this one. No matter how you dress up a rotten fish, no matter what the garnish or frills, the rotten parts still come through pretty strong.

YMOS,
Unionblue