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.
Ahhh I see Hal, comparing Hitler to Lincoln... Problem 1 w/ that analogy is that CS troops fired upon Ft Sumter: HIstorical Fact. Problem 2 is that the Polish troops attacking German was BS: Historical Fact.
Please would someone tell me again how the troops at Ft Sumter were invading South Carolina, and how Texas troops gobbling up US Army Garrisons throughout Texas and even leaving Texas to capture US Army forts, in what is today, Oklahoma was not?
War of Northern Aggression... only if one ignores the aggressive action of individual states in the CS prior even to the Firing on of Ft Sumter and their actions prior to the Union "invasion" of Bull Run.
Makes me compare the CS to a thief going: "This is mine and this is mine, oooh and that too! And even if I shoot first I can still blame it on the schmuk I'm shooting at!" FT Sumter was built w/ federal dollars making it the property of the Federal Govt which in extension means Wisconsin had as much share in the installation as SC. The CS did not own all of the equip & monies it siezed from the US govt either, a share yes... all of it? Well they apparently thought so. The seizure of military installations, equipment, imprisonment of Federal troops and employees prior to the firing upon of FT Sumter were a clear act of agression if not outright declarations of War.
In Texas and elsewhere CS troops forced US Regulars to leave and demanded that they not bother taking anything but what they could carry w/ them. When they were forced to surrender they were kindly relieved of their arms, eqipment and wallets. Which quickly found their way into Texas Infantry units... convenient I think.
16,000 US Regulars (IIRC approx 1/4 of which were captured almost immedietly after FT Sumter fell) and spread throughout the US, mainly on the western frontier. What threat again did the US Army pose to the CS and its 100,000 troops?
CS Govt calls for 100,000 troops prior to the firing on of FT Sumter... I don't suppose that concerned anyone. War of Northern Aggression? Peaceful Seccesion? Well, the CS was quick to make certain it wasn't peaceful. I'll stick w/ the War of Rebellion.
When exactly did the US become a world power? It certainly wasn't after the Civil War or before it for that matter... I don't think anyone could call the US a viable world power until after the Span Am War, and even that might be pushing it.
As far as I'm concerned it came down to wealthy landowners and politically powerful men commiting treason... and yes I agree w/ Neil that the root cause was slavery and the fear of it's abolition. Follow the money.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
Please would someone tell me again how the troops at Ft Sumter were invading South Carolina
I think the argument would be that by occupying a fort in Charleston Harbour, which was part of South Carolina and, therefore, part of the C.S.A., the U.S. troops in question were invading that state and that country. If a fort had been built in New York Harbour, for example, and it was occupied overnight by British or French troops I think it is fair to say that the U.S. Government would have had strong views about that action constituting an invasion of the U.S.A.
and how Texas troops gobbling up US Army Garrisons throughout Texas and even leaving Texas to capture US Army forts, in what is today, Oklahoma was not?
Well, the argument would be that Texan troops occupying a facility in Texas could not, by definition, be said to be invading their own territory. Oklahoma is a different kettle of fish. But broadly comparable to what U.S. troops were doing in places like Maryland.
FT Sumter was built w/ federal dollars making it the property of the Federal Govt which in extension means Wisconsin had as much share in the installation as SC.
This is a fair point. But I would point out that, before 1776, there were military instillations throughout North America which were built with British taxpayers’ money. And those instillations passed over to the ownership of the U.S. Government after the end of the War of Independence. By your logic, they should have remained British property. You can’t have it both ways, can you? If those facilities became legitimate U.S. property after the end of the Revolution then there has to be a presumption that former U.S. Federal property passed into the ownership of the C.S.A. after secession.
One, the South was a section of the United States in rebellion against the lawful government elected in a fair national election. We both know the CSA failed the primary test that the colonies passed during the Revolution. The CSA was never recognized as a nation by any other nation of power during the rebellion, whereas the colonies hung on and were recognized, not only by France, but even England, later on.
Two, failing the above test, South Carolina was simply a section of the country in rebellion performing unlawful acts when it fired on a US fort which it had lawfully given to the US in a prior agreement.
Unionblue
(Message edited by Unionblue on December 03, 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
Bill, keep in mind that when the men of the US Army that were stationed at Ft Sumter were ordered there SC was part of the United States... something she never ceased being.
The men ordered to Texas were ordered there to defend her... and those they were ordered to defend turned upon them. I can think of little more treacherous.
By the way Bill, you are correct... but treason is a matter of winners and losers. The English were sent home. I agree that the treatment of Tories by the new US regime was wrong but I think it came as no suprise. At least the prospects have improved.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
Good afternoon. Over here it’s damp and grey, and I haven’t started my Xmas shopping yet. Chewing the fat with you is a welcome diversion.
The CSA was never recognized as a nation by any other nation of power during the rebellion, whereas the colonies hung on and were recognized, not only by France, but even England, later on.
Neil, I have become accustomed to your notion that the people of, say, Alabama had no say in the question of which country their state was to be part of; you clearly see that as more properly the business of the people of Ohio, Wisconsin, New York etc. But I am bemused by your new notion that, in fact, it was the politicians in Britain & France who were the real arbiters in the matter. Oh dear, we’re in wooden nutmeg territory again, aren’t we? You put forward the argument that a nation only attains its independence when others recognise it because you know that this did not happen with the Confederacy. But if Britain & France had actually recognised the rebels – as they very nearly did - you would have argued that this was an unwarranted intrusion into U.S. domestic affairs and, in fact, a casus belli.
Treason is a matter of winners and losers
Shane, I don’t have any problem with this point of view. It is straightforward cynicism, and there’s nothing inherently wrong with that. But if you’re going to take the line that the only meaningful distinction between George Washington & Jefferson Davis was that one was a winner and the other a loser, you can’t then come out with all this righteous indignation about “firing on the flag” and “selfish planters” and so on and so on. And, equally, if you and Neil are going to stick to the line that the Confederate cause was inherently morally inferior to that of the colonists, you can’t fall back on the “matter of winners & losers” argument whenever it is convenient.
One was based on unfair taxation, liberty, lack of representation, living w/ a govt where the rule of English Law governed only when convenient... accurate perception or not? Still up in the air. The other was based on slavery and greed... again accurate perception or not? Still up in the air.
One was a Revolution with a whole new form of govt at its end and it ended with hope and dreams.
The other ended w/ better than a century of hate, backroom resistance to the govt of that hope and dream... why? Because the dreams and hopes of the black population were not viewed as legitimate. A lost cause that spawned such organizations as the KKK... if that is morally superior...
History is written by the winners, frankly comparing Washington to Davis is an interesting twist. It can be argued that both commited treason against their nation. While only one was in any way punished after the end of hostilities. One faded into history forever branded as an inept military leader the other... has his face on coin and has monuments erected in his honor that rival any in the world hospitals and universities carry his name. The other fades and frankly only those w/ an interest of the era even know his name. His writings are neither revolutionary nor all that revealing... in short what were his contributions to either of the nations he called his? In both cases he was a failure. That said if the CS had prevailed he would lionized as a patriot and great leader of men... that is not the case. He was a failure, in life and in history he has been totally eclipsed by his opponent.
Treason is a matter of winners and losers, cynical yes; and a fact.
I've never said that the colonists of the American Revolution were superior... nor right, nor even the "good guys". I always hear that the Union was that of a tyranical govt... but no one seems able to say why. THat tyranny seems to me to be placed elsewhere. What the 76ers accomplished after the exit of the Crown is in no doubt superior to what would have been accomplished if they had stayed under Crown rule. What the CSers accomplished... nothing but the loss of 600,000 + and the wrecking of a nation.
I am sympathetic to the plight of the average citizen as it was they who suffered, those that started it... don't deserve the honor given them.
All debatable, and all just my opinion.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
In reference to your post above (Saturday, December 04, 2004 - 08:56 am) I find it somewhat amusing that you feel I find the people of Alabama to have no say in what country there state would belong to, but that I feel the people of the states of Ohio, New York, etc. do have a right to say what country Alabama will belong to.
In my view, ALL the states of the Union already belonged to one country, that of the United States. In my view, ALL of the people of the country (the United States) have a say in the workings and operations of their country, the people of one section or one state cannot determine the fate of an entire nation by themselves without the rest of us, in Ohio, Texas, New York, Alabama, etc., weighing in on that fate.
As for England and France being the 'real' arbiters in this matter, you miss my point. They weren't. But clearly, Bill, one of the bars to be cleared in order to become a nation is that of diplomatic recognition, is it not? And Bill, I am not putting forth the sole argument that if the Confederacy had been recognized by another nation it therefore gains it independence. You have read my posts on other threads of this board, I am sure.
Answer a question for me Bill, if I may ask. In your opinion, why DIDN'T England or France or Russia or any of the major nations of the time recognize the Confederacy? What would have tipped the scale in the Confederacy's favor and why didn't it happen? What was the problem do you suppose? And would it have made any difference in your opinion?
And I am going to stick to the line that the Confederate cause was inherently morally inferior to that of the colonists, dear friend, because it was. Don't confuse my pointing out one more nail in the Confederate coffin as a change in tactics. It truly is just one more area that the Confederacy could not overcome.
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
"Mr. President Brooks announced the result of the
vote, and that the Ordinance of Secession was adopted,
and that Alabama was a free, sovereign and independent
State."
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.
Thank you for posting that piece, Thea. In reading it I got a sense of the incredible emotion that carried the day. I can feel the sadness at bidding farewell to the flag that until recently these people would have defended with their lives. They must have been thinking of their grandfathers sacrifices to gain independence from Britain. Contrary to what some believe, Southern people loved "Old Glory" as much as anyone in the Union and it would have been heartbreaking to give it up.
Then there was the excitement and joy of a new beginning and hope for the future of their new freedom. We can only imagine what it must have been like in that crowded room that day. It must have been exhilarating, terrifying, joyous and sad all at the same time.
Regards,
Rose
__________________ "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names".--J.F.K.
The War Between the States established... This principle that the Federal Government is, through its courts, this final judge of its own powers.
-- Woodrow Wilson
"The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom and forebearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for 'perpetual union' so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession."
Another voice heard from.
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
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
