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 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? <
In the history of the world the founders considered the fate of past republics and noted that self interest in the form of despotism and faction was the undoing of Greeks and Romans, Catholicism, and the constant mayhem the German Free States burdened themselves with over time.
Our Constitutional Republic attempts to overcome some of the pitfalls by making its leadership representational and transitory. Our laws acknowledge sovereignties and individuals. The concept was and is holistic. It works in its Union and the support and commitment of those who would see their success in the continuation and success of the United States.
Your premise doesn't work. Arbitrary self determination is anarchy. I don't like using forced compliance of law. But keeping factions in the Union is no worse an act than restraining an alcoholic from driving, or a drug addict from poisoning himself.
David, what is anarchical or arbitrary about the citizens of States choosing whether they want to be associated with a union of States at all, or choosing between two such unions which desire their association?
Factions? This is the first time I've ever heard sovereign States referred to as "factions." I must applaud your efforts at creative spinning. But your drug addict and alcoholic analogy is simply frightening.
What is anarchical about arbitrarily swapping allegiances to suit the mood of the electorate? Duuh....
Don't be coy on the subject of factions. Secession was NOT executed by an innocent walk out of individual sovereignties. It was conducted by a bloc of "slaveholding interests" in response to a legal election. That particular activity is banned by the Constitution and was in itself warrant for executive action.
The South represented 1/5th of the United States of America and expected the vasrt majority of Americans to stand up and applaud the rending of the Nation as an act of vital libertarianism? Just how many times to you intend to ignore Mr Hamilton's pointed reminder that the Confederacy established itself to declare before the world the superiority of the white race and the benign condition of black bondage? Your appeals to right sound suspiciously like trying to geld democratic process in the developing Republic in order to maintain an antique and uncivilized trade in flesh
I'm sorry if I misunderstood your meaning, but I thought we were talking about the South wanting to leave.
As for being a proponent of 'forcing Union' (although I feel I would be much more accurately described as being an opponent of 'unlawful rebellion' instead), I have no problem with your idea that people, who, after all, make up the entities we call 'States,' be able to choose between competing systems of governments and value systems, which I feel is just other terms for confederations or some such.
I believe those entities are called 'nations' and if that people feel more comfortable in one than the other, I think they should be free to move and live there in peace.
Now, as to the idea of a minority demanding the majority in a country, let's say, conform with their version of a 'competing confederation', or, let's say, we'll up and leave and take part of your own country or 'competing confederation' with us, no, I do not consider it a good thing.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
Mr. Kelly, Good see you again sir.
(Message edited by Unionblue on September 23, 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
David: What is anarchical about arbitrarily swapping allegiances to suit the mood of the electorate? Duuh...
Don't be coy on the subject of factions. Secession was NOT executed by an innocent walk out of individual sovereignties. It was conducted by a bloc of "slaveholding interests" in response to a legal election. That particular activity is banned by the Constitution and was in itself warrant for executive action.
Of course, this is incorrect. Dissolved bonds do not bind.
I believe in self-determination and government by consent of the governed. So I do not consider the will of the people of any State, province, etc to be arbitrary nor anarchical.
We are not talking about an individual who doesn't want to pay taxes and declares himself independent. We are talking about sovereign democratic States choosing whether or not they will remain in a political union of other equal States, and (perhaps ideally) whether they should be able to choose between competing unions of such States.
Do you consider the recent addition of former Soviet States into the European Union to be arbitrary and anarchical? I do not. I consider such to be a wonderful exercise in self government. And it makes us look bad by comparison.
I'm with whatever the people of the States decide they want to do. I do not condone nor support forcing one political entity's will on any people. Taiwan, East Timor, Tibet, Quebec, Norway, Latvia, or South Carolina -- it does not matter. Self-determination means self-determination. It does not mean self-determination qualified by some or another condition imposed by an outside agency.
It is inalienable, or it is not.
I consider forcing 'union' on Taiwan, East Timor, Tibet, Quebec, Latvia, 13 colonies, or South Carolina, to be tyranny. It doesn't matter WHY the coercer feels he must stifle self government. The act of preventing it is the evil, not the desire to exercise it.
Hal
(Message edited by hawglips on September 23, 2004)
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?
My answer is I would certainly consider it to be a very positive thing.
Now I will resume watching the interesting point/counterpoint that you have going with the loyal opposition.
YMOS,
__________________ 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.
The "will" of the people made the USoA. It gave it a national government, national laws, and over the 70 years before the CW an expanded domain that went well beyond the jerkwater colonial provinces.
That body in law, government and representation of "all" the people of the United States has primacy. The states and their citizenry ceded independent autonomy when they joined the Union.
The EU is not a nation state, it is at best an association of trade partnerships. No one joined the EU and declared that it had specific authority to direct squat from a member nation.
If you're so hot to trot on self determination let's ask 3.5 million slaves if they'd care to remain slaves or not. Of course they can immediately go free if that is their will. Ooops I forgot; they're bound by law and someone elses determination to keep them enchatteled.
I realize that your remarks are addressed to one of my counterparts, Hal, and I'm quite sure he will answer you soon but I wanted to offer this, if you don't mind.
Firstly, I truly resent that term "jerkwater colonies". It implies dead-end little places for people with little minds. And some of us are not thrilled with the expanionist outlook that early took possession of the USA. How many of those were for the benefit of the inhabitants of the places we conquered? How many were obtained without loss of life?
Secondly, your statement "The states and their citizenry ceded
independent autonomy when they joined the Union." I consider this patently untrue.
Thirdly, as to your paragraph three concerning the EU, I say hallelujah for them!
Fourthly, the Union did NOT go to war to free the slaves. I believe that slavery would have been abolished as soon as this war was over. The world as the North and South had known it was gone forever.
Fifthly, although your post was not addressed to me I believe it to be inflammatory and our board doesn't believe in that sort of thing.
I say this in the most courteous manner and hope that you will take it in that same vein.
YMOS, sir.
__________________ 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.
While I agree with your fourthly statement above, the idea that the slaves were going to be released, freed, given stock options, etc., that the institution was going to be abolished in that twilight zone we call after the war, is wistful thinking and that is being kind.
I also remember reading that the United States, even up until the Spainish-American War, was considered a backward country of no great national standing. Before the Civil War, most great powers did not even have embassies in Washington, considering it a 'back-water' town in a savage, half-civilized country. This country and the States that made it up were considered 'jerk-water' affairs by the rest of the world.
As for Mr. Kelly's postings and the way he posts them, what one believes to be inflammatory another could consider a speaking style or that pesky thing we call freedom of speech. We have all gored each other's oxes on occassion so why don't we hear what's being said instead of assuming what the tone of a post is.
After all, I have read some postings where people have stated that would not have minded being a slave, etc. After my astonishment receded, that person had a right to post his opinions also.
We are many people from different place with different styles of speech with VASTLY different opinions. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.
Just my opinion. And I know (and always fervently hope) you take it as such and not an insult, as I do conituely hope this act of forebarence on your part will always continue between us.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
(Message edited by Unionblue on September 23, 2004)
(Message edited by Unionblue on September 23, 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
My apologies if my dead pan cynicism has caused you some alarm. Secession discussions bring out the worst in me. Most people who wish the ad nauseam reprise of this issue tend to seem to demonstrate a left brain right brain dysfunction depending on where they hail from.
Somewhere you will find the US Senates letter of congratulations to G Washington at the end of his presidency. This proclamation thanks GW for setting the course for the "American Empire". Is this the philosophy of "states rights"? It is indicative of the call to manifest destiny which impelled our leaders even in the revolutionary war. Even though we had no military and an empty treasury. The representatives who espoused this American Vision were from the North and the South. Secession ran afoul of this impulse.
States rightists will forever proclaim the ratification documents as proclamations of autonomy for the individual states. Federalists don't deny states their sovereignty but point out that within the specified authorities ceded to the national government, national rule is superior to the point that it is law abiding. To that extent the states have in fact subordinated their sovereignty to the Union.
On the subject of slavery: agree absolutely that the north did not go to war over slavery. However the Confederacy quit the Union over slavery. As to slavery ending any time soon. In 1860 the US controlled over 80% of the worlds commercial cotton crop. That market domination was only effected because the war forced Britain to encourage other markets to develop. No Civil War and Cotton would continue to be King.
I apologize again for the sarcasm. It's not personal; not aimed at a speaker anyway. But I have some problems with libertarian sentiments laboring to criticize historical actions. Listening to some of the arguements of the past couple of days it sounds as though we are to believe that the United States never should have grown beyond the Appalachians, and confederations are only formed by a game of musical chairs where you flop where you please when the music stops.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
