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 must confess, I feel like I have been caught in a search light while attempting to scale over the wall of logic and reason! Thank you for shining that light and making me put a bit more thought into it.
Speaking of your wonderful quote above from Mr. Pratchett, I love the part that says, "...when you add them all together you get this sort of huge raving maniac with borders and an anthem." Marvelous!
I have read in a book that people of that period tended to 'wear their emotions on their sleeves' and did not think as deeply or consider as long about things as people do today. As I look about the world today I sometimes wonder about that statement and wonder if we are truly any different than our ancestors of 150 years ago.
As for your contention that I have confused one section of the country for itself and being part of and one for all and all for one, may I try to explain?
You will, upon checking for yourself, admit to the fact that Southerners elected as President tended to favor their section of the country and the expansion of the institution of slavery no matter what objections were offered by the North. You will also note that it had been the official policy of the United States under Southern Presidents to expand West and South into Mexico, even though many in the North consider this an unjust war against a weaker neighbor. The feeling of most in the North at the time was anti-war.
The island of Cuba was also looked upon for conquest or purchase to expand slavery. Could not the foreign policy of an entire country be suborned to the needs and wants of a particular region? Take Kansas for example. Even when the majority of the territory made it known that the institution of slavery was not what they wanted, did not the President of the United States go against those wishes, favor his section of the country and approve a state constitution that permitted slavery?
Even after secession, the South still wished to expand into New Mexico and Arizona, in spite of the wish to be on the defensive during the war.
As for the fact that US citizens cannot invade their own country, from either side of the border, cannot rebels in rebellion try to cause rebellion in other sections of the country? Did not Gen. Lee state to the citizens of Maryland that they had come to release them from their oppressors? Do criminals 'invade' a bank?
And turn that light off, please, it hurst my eyes!
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
As is frequently the case, I agree with much of what you say but draw different conclusions from it.
Your point about Southern expansionism would be more persuasive if Northerners hadn’t been drooling over Canada for generations. It’s a matter of perception: I see a young and confident country which was looking to expand in all directions, whereas you just see an expansionist Slave Power.
You haven’t specifically raised the spectre of the Great Slave Power Conspiracy, but I get the feeling that you think there might have been something to it. You know, the theory that secessionists planned their new republic years earlier and used their Federal positions to ensure that arms and munitions were sent to Southern arsenals etc etc.
It probably won’t surprise you to learn that I am a complete sceptic. But in this case it has nothing to do with my partisan sympathies. Show me a conspiracy theory anywhere, at any time, and I’ll cheerfully tell you that it’s a right load of old cobblers. Faked moon landings in ’69? Nah. Aliens beaming people up and operating on them? Nah.
Apart from being sceptical on principle, I have other major objections to the Great Slave Power Conspiracy. The chief one is that the theory is based on secessionist conspirators showing a unanimity of purpose, and a degree of logistical competence, which was quite beyond them during the war years. Put it this way, could people who gave Lucius Northrop a key position really be that clever?
Stop resting, please. The jury is still out on a couple of points, dear sir.
Yes, America did have a fixation on Canada, no argument there. There were even a few attempts at taking it during the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. But afterwards? By the time of the Civil War, this was a goner, wasn't it?
Although I tend to agree with you somewhat on the idea of a Great Slave Power Conspiracy, I do tend to see the South and its leaders fixated on expanding the power and territory of the South in order to expand the institution of slavery at the expense of the rest of the country and it's feelings and desires.
No Homestead Act, mainly because settlers attracted to this idea would be free, white, and NOT slave owners. No giving of Federal land for Agricultural Colleges because that would educate the working class and threaten what? Do I hear the word 'slavery' again? And did not the Mexican War expand the US in the direction of the South? Did not Southern Senators and Congressman call for the conquest of Cuba? Of other Mexican States and South American countries? Did not the Supreme Court, staffed mainly by Southerners, come out for pro-slavery issues and the like?
No, not a Great Slave Power Conspiracy, but mainly those in power who identified with their region.
As for Lucius Bellinger Northrop, even men with a vision and general goal could screw up sometimes!
__________________ "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
Col. John O'Mahoney, who was a Colonel in the 69th New York of the Irish Brigade along with other former Irish Union’s officers led an army that invaded Canada After the War Between the States.
There was also "Joint Army and Navy Basic War Plan--Red" in the 1920s and '30s, it included provisions for an invasion of Canada by the United States. While never carried out showed the intention should the opportunity arose.
Actually there were many plans for it. As to Cuba, the US never stopped looking at it. Nor mucking with it.
I recall the O'Mahoney attempt, but was it officially sponsored by the US government? Could it be considered a serious national effort on the part of the US?
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,
Given the number of Irish involved overall and the number of them who were seriously involved in politics, I find incredibly difficult to believe at least parts of our Gov did not know about it. I see it as a kind of Bay of Pigs incident.
So you are of the belief that the Irish had achieved some level of political influence that lent them support, official or otherwise, by the US government?
Would this be on the same level of support for Southern efforts to invade Cuba? Or Walker's invasion of Mexico and South America? There is support and then there is support.
Unionblue
(Message edited by Unionblue on June 29, 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,
Oh yeah, sure they did. Lots of people, politicians, money and power. The reason the Irish Brigade was formed in NY to start with was the high concentration of Irish. Meagher himself was a Fenian. You could hardly throw a stick in NYC without hitting a Fenian. (but if you did your life would be short and painful) As to pure political power. No One held office in NYC without the direct approval of Tammany Hall. Heck, one of the biggest crooks NYC or Tammany Hall had ever seen or would ever see, Boss Tweed, got made a Senator if I recall correctly. The Tammany Hall political machine held sway there until around the Great Depression. McClellan himself was made Mayor of NYC thanks to Tammany Hall. During the time of the Irish invasion of Canada took place Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall were robbing NYC of untold millions of dollars. I have heard numbers ranging from 10-40 million. And a million dollars back then went a long way. They also had great power in all the major ports in the US.
As to Cuba, I'd say the war with Spain showed our interest there. As to Walker. I must confess Walker did get recognition very breifly. But if I am right in my recollection it was only after his victory. Which was promptly recinded. As to the logistical and finacial support he got, from the actual efforts on the ground he set forth, I cannot see evidence of much. But I must say, no one I know of ever blundered into defeating and taking over a country better than he did. What an extraordinary fellow.
We had another plan to invade Canada after the Civil War. It was when we were playing pushy-shovy with England over some South American country. Right now which one escapes me. Argentina or Venesuala would be likely guess but just that, a guess.
The site I have provided in my above post will give you some information concerning your other plan to invade Canada over England and another South American country.
In the book Battle Cry Of Freedom, by James McPherson, there is a wonderful section about the South's efforts to invade other countries such as Mexico, South America and Cuba, sometimes with open and tact support from the Federal and State governments.
In Chapter 3, AN EMPIRE FOR SLAVERY, starting at page 103, lists the attempts to acquire more territory for slavery. Gov. John Quitman of Mississippi helped to outfit an invasion of Cuba in 1850, helping one Narciso Lopez recruit men and raise money to buy weapons for the venture. In May 1850 this army of 600 men sailed from New Orleans to the accompaniment of cheering crowds and the "winking encouragement" of public officials. The expedition failed.
Lopez received a hero's welcome in the lower South. Dozens of towns and organizations offered him salutes, parades, toasts, and banquets. Southern Senators demanded American action to punish Spain for defeating Lopez. "I want Cuba, and I know that sooner or later we must have it." declared Jefferson Davis's fellow senator from Mississippi, Albert Gallatin Brown. But Brown would not stop there. "I want Tamaulipas, Potosi, and one or two other Mexican States; and I want them all for the same reason--for the planting and spreading of slavery." The Southern Standard had an even larger vision. "With Cuba and St. Domingo, we could control the productions of the tropics, and, with them, the commerce of the world, and with that, the power of the world." Indeed, pronounced De Bow's Review,"we have a destiny to perform, a manifest destiny over all Mexico, over South America, over the West Indies."
In 1851, William J. Crittenden of Kentucky, nephew of the attorney general, commanded a 'regiment' of southern volunteers in an invasion force of 420 men. Once again port officials in New Orleans colluded with the effort and allowed the ship to depart on August 3, 1851. Spanish troops were ready for this invasion, killing hundreds of the men in several engagements, executed 50 Americans, including Crittenden, by firing squad.
The rest of the chapter makes for interesting reading, to include President Pierce's efforts to obtain Cuba by fair means or foul, and his attempts to encourage former Gov. Quitman to lead an expedition to take Cuba with active support from the Gov. of Alabama in 1853. Then there is the strange quest of William Walker in 1853 and his conquest of La Paz,Mexico and his defeat and retreat to San Diego in May of 1854. Then Walker proceeded to invade Nicaragua, with US officials looking the other way, and proceeded to get support for himself by revoking Nicaragua's 1824 emancipation edict and legalized slavery again in Sept. 22, 1856.
Although Walker received support and volunteers from the South in order to expand slavery there, he was defeated and cast out. There is much more in the chapter on Southern efforts to expand slavery in this region of the world. As I said, it makes for interesting reading.
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
I’m just back from a few days off, having visited a 14th century castle which was besieged in our Civil War, and having drunk west country cider in a 13th century pub. So, back to business:
“Nature designs this whole continent, not merely these thirty-six states, shall be, sooner or later, within the magic circle of the American Union.”
Thus spake Old Big Nose himself, William H. Seward.
His statement, of course, reeks of the half-baked mysticism to which so many Unionists were and are addicted. But it is also an explicit declaration of intent to acquire the real estate of all of the U.S.’s neighbours. And Seward couldn’t even blame the baneful influence of the Slave Power: he grew up in the free and uncorrupted air of the North. So to what do we attribute his avowed fondness for larceny? And doesn’t it suggest that American expansionism – north, south, east & west - was a phenomenon in its own right, and not a mere by-product of regionalism or slavery?
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
