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'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. <
Hal:
It's not a matter of your failing to engage anyone in a conversation so much as you don't like the answer so you're dismissing my statements as unpalatable.
Absolutely nothing in the constitution can be construed to say that unilateral declarations of self interest have primacy in a parliamentarian system basing itself on a federation of states with specific national powers granted to an overarching Congress.
To suggest that a state or group of states can nullify an election and walk away from their constitutional obligations because they feel like it, is to countenence anarchy; something anathema to the founders Whiggish philosophy.
If you wish to surrender your citizenship and move someplace else, I'm sure you will find that your personal determination is quite unhampered. When you propose to declare your domicile a foreign nation, print money off your computer, and refuse to pay taxes, you will be visited by about 18 different state and federal law enforcement agencies encouraging you to follow the laws of the land or spend the rest of your days in a prison, or funny farm or six feet under; as you may choose.
The stakes of such issues are strategic in scope. A minority must convince a majority that conformity to its wishes serves the higher interests of the majority to get compliance to something as profound as schism to be effected peacefully.
Checking my latin english dictionary it is to be noted that secession and suicide have the same latin derivation. (se cedere and sui cedere)
David,
Very witty latin. Seen it used before. Wasn't impressed. But then when I point out United has a definition of "Being in harmony; agreed" no one is impressed either.
As to your most recent post, I feel I have answered the questions and statements therein. If I have not, I apologize for being as dumb as a sack of hammers.
I do believe though your modern-day examples do not take into consideration the primary reason of the war or of the constant debate over that reason that finally led to the war.
I await clarification and continued discussion.
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 really don't know which statements you find "fly in the face of historical fact", since the only one you quoted me on appears to be in agreement with your response to it.
Is there anyone on this board who would not consider it to be a very positive thing; if the various States could choose between two competing republics? 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 wonderful thing for human kind it would be to have such competition of democracies. Rather than preventing the people of the States from exercising their natural rights of self determination, how about peacefully competing for their association? How about honey instead of vinegar, carrot instead of stick?
Neil, I really don't know which statements you find "fly in the face of historical fact", since the only one you quoted me on appears to be in agreement with your response to it.
Is there anyone on this board who would not consider it to be a very positive thing; if the various States could choose between two competing republics? 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 wonderful thing for human kind it would be to have such competition of democracies. Rather than preventing the people of the States from exercising their natural rights of self determination, how about peacefully competing for their association? How about honey instead of vinegar, carrot instead of stick?
I personally believe the original idea for the union was that each state would have total autonomy outside of the Constitution. So instead of only one idea how to do things there could be as many ways as there were states. That each state could compete with the others. And if one found a way that worked then others could try it as well. Or if one found a way that was disaster then others could avoid it. Once new territories had no say in what would be allowed, once the central government was free to dictate to the rest what worked. All bets were off. It wasn’t freedom for all but everyone do as we say. We know best. Disagree with us and we will march troops in and needs must kill you. Or worse. No longer was the great experiment an experiment but same old same old. Realistically no different than any parliament run government.
Dawna,
My only thought on this is read the Tenth Amendment. I firmly believe the South had every right to secede. I don't think they would have ever JOINED a union that would have bound them just as tightly as being lapdogs to England had done.
Read through Personal Opinions on this board. I believe I quoted every state and many statesmen who acknowledged that each state now had sovereignty with the Declaration of Independence. They viewed themselves as being in a "compact".
__________________ 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.
I find it interesting the concept you propose that the South was leaving the Union in order to do 'a positive thing' like letting the states choose the confederation which they felt best protected their liberties of its people, instead of being forced into remaining in one they felt was not conducive to those interests.
Which liberties were being withheld from the South at the time they began their rebellion? What area of the Constitution was being denied them? How many of their elected representatives were refused a seat in Congress and the Senate? How many Supreme Court appointments were they denied? What legal right was denied them up until the firing on Ft. Sumter?
As for choosing which confederation in order to effect a positive mode, hmmmm, let's see.
The South's view of a positive thing; I can have and keep slaves in my own region, plus the territories, plus I can bring slaves into your free States, in spite of the fact you do not wish them there, and the Federal Government, whom we will give new and vast police powers to enforce and protect this objective, will force this 'liberty' upon you, in spite of your stated wishes and objections.
I'm sorry, Hal, whose liberties were being protected? It seems to me the South wanted its particular kind of liberty and to hades with anyone elses idea of liberty. If it could not enforce its will on the rest of the nation, then will just take part of the nation with us, to include property that belongs to the ENTIRE nation.
It was not as noble or 'positive' as you would like it to be. I do not consider the War of the Rebellion as some form of competition between democracies, positive or otherwise. I consider it a selfish revolution in order to maintain a way of life the rest of the world was beginning to shake off, a bid at maintaining bondage over other human beings for the simple purpose of keeping position, power and wealth.
Why did not the South try 'Honey' instead of war? Why not bring the issue before the Supreme Court and the Congress? Because it thought it didn't have to bother and found out much to its regret, it did.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
PS Thea, welcome back to the fray and am very glad that you are OK.
(Message edited by Unionblue on September 21, 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
Neil, I haven't proposed anything regarding why the deep South wanted to leave, as that is irrelevant to my questions.
I am just asking whether you or any of the other proponents of forcing union on this board would not consider it a good thing for the States to be able to choose between two (or more) competing confederations, rather than being forced by the sword to stay in one they feel is less than supportive of their interests? Wouldn't peacefully competing for their association with good laws and diligent protection of its citizens' liberties be preferable to might makes right and union over self-determination?
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
