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.
David, personally, I would not consider pointing out such glaringly inaccurate statements about an historical document to be "quibbling." And if you would try to put yourself in my shoes for a moment, I'm sure you will understand how such statements lead me to question real interest in the historical facts.
But I wholly understand your position of might makes right and union over self-determination. I will never agree with it, but I do understand.
Neil, it is good to see your mug again! Hope you are feeling much better.
And I must agree with you. The stench of a rotten fish always comes through. No matter how one tries to wrap it up with the stars and stripes, there is just no way to justify placing empire over self-determination, abstract union over concrete liberty.
Neil, if you feel up to it, perhaps you'd like to address the theoretical points I was addressing a few posts back. It is quite discouraging that each time I ask these type questions, they are either dodged or otherwise ignored, and replaced with yet another stale and irrelevant sermon on the evils of secesh slavery.
You presume a great deal when you claim that states rights and selfdetermination have some mystical primacy over the the Union which you insist on characterizing as an abstraction which has no risability in american political thought. States rights and nationalism coexist in constitutional argument, and historically they conflicted in trying to shape american dogma. "american" identity is one of unifying ourselves culturally. In our military and political successes you did not hear high praise for individual states; you heard high praise and expectation for the nation. That nation was never homologous; it was referred to as the Union in honor of the Constitutional ideal of federation.
The essential nature of the Union in Constitutional process was a lead princple for George Washington, for Madison, and any strong guiding national leadership up to the passage of Henry Clay and Daniel Webster (Lincoln has always been seen as a student of Clay).
The conflict between pro and anti federalism has always come on the issue of balancing the needs for consensus versus interest. For the federalist both have to be served in the context of the Union as a whole. For the anti federalist local interest must always prevail whatever the cost to other memeber states.
The constitutional solution to conflict of interest is to abide by the framework of federated government and politically be as manipulative as you wish to protect interests. Not doing so is to outlaw oneself from the federated comunity and take the consequences of federated reciprocal decisions. Nothing in the Constitution bespeaks ex parte behavior.
"The constitutional solution to conflict of interest is to abide by the framework of federated government and politically be as manipulative as you wish to protect interests."....
Ah, but that's the rub, whose interests?}
__________________ 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.
Indeed. Part of the debate going into Civl War was whether interests were synonymous with rights when talking about Constitutional obligations of federated members. The Confederacy's argument against the Union wasn't truly that they're rights as citizens had been violated, but that their capitol interests were being "threatened" by the victory of "Black Republicanism".
Lincoln remained silent on the subject until he took office, then claimed that his antipathy for slavery did not go beyond his Constitutional authority, and slave states were safe in their property rights even though he was of the belief that the expansion of slavery in the Union was no longer desirable and the political majority was strong enough to act on those beliefs. Slave interests said not good enough; as citizens we have full, universal and untrammeled rights of property everywhere in the Union or our allegiance to the federation is no longer sustainable.
The essential argument about slavery was loudly proclaimed going into the secession, but coming out of failed war this essential arguement was suddenly masked and extrapolated into the more noble sounding arguements of the post war world of rights, liberty, self-determination.
It's very difficult to disenthrall loyalty from selfish interest when economic well being is essential to feeling that you have equity in the political system you espouse. But is the efficacy of the nation to depend on the economic well being of interests for its existence. A nation is something more than that. (Modern day super capitolists should take note of that as well as they bleed us and hold political institutions hostage.)
Perhaps I'm wrong in my perspective. No doubt southern proponents on these boards often think so. But I see the King Cotton debates much in the same light as The trust wars of the early 20th Century or the Scandals of the laterday super corporations and banks (ENRON).
Is Cotton all that defines the south and its sense of loyalty to the Union?
In the short history of the Union leading up to the Civil War such previous crises were answered with a rebuke by the majority. New England's attempted nullification of the 1812 War was rebuked, SCs tariff threats were rebuked, the Mormons claim to theocratic independence was rebuked. Calhoun's Nashville Convention was repudiated.
So what changed in 1860 that suddenly gave the Confederacy such a positive case to claim intolerable oppression or some special claim to overturn what had been wrought in 1787? Is the Southern complaint of 1860 any deeper or any more reasonable than the whining of the New England maritime classes in 1812?
Thank you for the kind words and yes, its good to be back on the boards again.
Hal, you requested in your above post that you would like me to address some theoretical points you stated a few posts back. I'd be happy to try, but just to make sure I understand what points, would you please repeat them for me? I always feel more comfortable when I know exactly what you are asking.
As for your reply on September 15, 2004 - 10:05 am, I totally agree with your one part of your line which states, "...there is just no way to justify placing empire over self-determination, abstract union over concrete liberty."
It's just too bad Hal, that you are pointing your finger at the wrong empire.
I await your theoretical points with much anticipation.
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
So what changed in 1860 that suddenly gave the Confederacy such a positive case to claim intolerable oppression
The election of Lincoln and loss of southern control of Congress.
Although Lincoln promised not to doing anything to affect slavery in the states it was already present, but....he was committed to the prevention of the Expansion of Slavery to the Territories and Any new states.
Chuck in Il.
(Message edited by mobile_96 on September 16, 2004)
I have read and reread the post you have indicated (September 13, 2004 - 03:40 pm) am I am puzzled by the statements you make. They all seem to fly in the face of historical fact.
Hal, to your recollection, did any of the States that formed the Southern Confederacy, ever threaten to leave that Confederacy during the Civil War? If you do recollect, would you please name them for me and give the reasons why they wished to leave?
Did any Southern State government leaders calls for peace talks with the Union during the war? Did any Confederate government officials call the Davis government tyrannical or despotic in nature? Did Alexander Stephen have faith in that government? Did he have any negative things to say about it?
Again, as before, I must find fault with your statement in that post where you say the goal of the original Union was "not simply to establish a union of States" as I truly believe that WAS one of the goals of the Union, along with the ideals to better protect the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of the citizens of the Union.
I also feel you take great lengths to overlook the goals of the South in its efforts to enforce slavery over the entire country and not just the territories, no matter what those citizens of those Northern States wanted. I feel that you dismiss the Democratic Platform of 1860 and the plank that demanded that slavery could exist in every state in the Union and must be protected by Federal law.
There are times Hal, when I wish you would take a map of the United States and turn it upside down so that the true enemy of the nation would be at the compass point you deem so evil and so bent on the destruction of freedom of choice and states rights. At least then it would make some kind of sense to me.
As to your somewhat eternal question of what course of action should be taken if a State in this century refused to stay in the Union 'after peaceful negotiations' had failed, I have already informed you that I would have to know the circumstances that brought about this move. Give me a modern day scenario for a present-day US State to up and leave the Union and I will try to answer you. A person should have all the facts before he/she makes such an awesome decision, don't you think? And please, I feel the Taiwan and China example is not a good example to fly with, nor the events that brought about the separation of the Czech and Slovak Republics, nor the separation of Norway and Sweden, as they do not resemble, in my view and research, the situation or conditions that existed in 1860's America.
But as for what happened in 1861, I stand by my original conclusions to my own research. The South, led by selfish men by whose interests were the most threatened, brought on the war by committing treason and rebellion, leaving the Union when it could not enforce its ideals of class and democracy and the institution of slavery upon the rest of the nation. These men cared little about liberty of the people, states rights, tariffs or little else other than their own positions and profits and refused to acknowledge the coming future and wished to remain locked in the past and remain in power. They instead preyed upon the fears of the people they were supposed to protect and represent, using them instead as fodder for a useless and bloody war, in which they believed they were fighting for home and hearth and but instead, died by the thousands to keep other human beings in chains for the power and profit of a few.
Answer my questions Hal, as honestly as you usually do, and I will answer yours, even at the expense of my 'forced Union, Might Makes Right' stance.
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
Neil: I have read and reread the post you have indicated (September 13, 2004 - 03:40 pm) am I am puzzled by the statements you make. They all seem to fly in the face of historical fact.
Most of my post consisted of questions. So, let's list the statements I made in this post, and maybe you can tell me exactly what puzzles you and what historical fact they fly in the face of. And then once we get past that, maybe we can get around to discussing the idea.
1. But they [New York City] didn't [secede]. There are many considerations before such a step is to be taken, not the least of which are the practical aspects.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
Neil: Again, as before, I must find fault with your statement in that post where you say the goal of the original Union was "not simply to establish a union of States" as I truly believe that WAS one of the goals of the Union, along with the ideals to better protect the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of the citizens of the Union.
This sounds like you agree with me. Perhaps you mis-read my post? Or do you have a problem with placing the ideals of the union above the union itself?
I'm afraid I have failed in my efforts to engage David and Dawna in this discussion, so I hope I can be more successful with you.
And I certainly believe the China/Taiwan question is exactly pertinent, as is the Sweden/Norway one etc. We are talking about the right of self-determination. If it is indeed an inalienable right, then it is indeed an inalienable right of human kind -- including evil, slave-owning Southern human kind.
I finally have my computer back and I'm desperately trying to catch up with postings from this past week...you haven't failed in your attempts to engage me in this discussion at all...my apologies again.
To answer your question, "What would you advocate should peaceful negotiations fail?" the obvious answer would be to say "invasion" even though I have suggested otherwise. But I honestly believe that in the case of the United States, there would be a peaceful resolution long before war was even considered.
It's a very difficult question for me to answer morally, especially since I totally support Lincoln in his actions during the Civil War. I just don't see that there was any attempt made by Southern politicians to negotiate a peaceful settlement before they decided to secede from the Union. If the South did have a right to secede, as you so firmly believe, than the North had every right to prevent the disintegration of the Union. I still cannot find an argument that makes a legal case for Southern secession.
Taiwan is an interesting case in point and I see many similarities in this scenario. But the majority of the Chinese living on Taiwan do not want independence and I can see the greater conflict actually occuring in Taiwan. But to answer your question, if peaceful negotiations failed between China and Taiwan, I don't see an alternative other than war. In the event of Taiwan seceding...a possible scenario for WW3.
How do you consider the Union an "abstract", and if the purpose of the Union is to protect the life and liberty of the citizens of the Union, how then can state's rights and self determination be the determining factor of secession?
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
