Was War Necessary After Secession?

[rivrrat]

Dear Mr. Torrens,
I have “thought about it” and here are my thoughts.
Frankly I think that your arguments in this discussion, which seems to have expanded to every thread on the board, tend to resemble fantasy. Lets call it the Bill Torrens everything is so simple syndrome. When reduced to its essential components your argument rests on one basic assumption. If any rebellion is justified than all rebellions are justified. Therefore anyone who supports the American Revolution of 1776 and not the Confederate Rebellion of 1860 is guilty of a double standard. This is based on your statement that the American Colonists and the Confederates did exactly the same thing.
In Southwest Missouri where I grew up we have a very descriptive phrase, which I think fits your argument. Bull S***! In my post I did not say that either the Colonists or the Confederates were either right or wrong. What I said was that they were in rebellion. I think that we can all agree on that. Our difference is in what is rebellion. You seem to think that rebellion is the simple splitting of political units into other political units, and that if one rebellion is right than all rebellions are right or conversely if one rebellion is wrong than all rebellions are wrong. This idea is simplistic to the extreme.
Lets look at our terms. I will start with a working definition of revolution; Revolution is the attempt by one segment of a society to change the structure or policy of the existing government through the use or threat of armed force. Don’t bother looking in Webster for this definition its mine. I think it is accurate. If you disagree give me another one. Rebellion and Revolution are the same political act. Successful rebellions are revolutions. The act of rebellion is intrinsically neither right nor wrong, good or bad. It is a means of obtaining political change. Was it Bismarck who said, “War is politics by other means.”? For example the Russian revolution of 1918, can we say that either side was right? Certainly the Czarist government was rotten and change was necessary. By the same token the Communist dictatorship, which was the result, was not much of an improvement. Revolution is an act. It carries no inherit morality. So to say that if I accept the American Revolution I have to also accept the Confederate revolution is utter non-sense. The British Empire did not have to simply let the Colonies go. The United States did not have to simply let the Confederacy go.
Much has been made of the right of revolution in these discussions. I am a believer in the right of revolution, however there is another element of revolution. There is no right or guarantee that your revolution will be successful. The decision to attempt the advancement of a political cause through the use of violence is a momentous one. When you roll the rebellion dice you have to be ready to accept the result. The Founding Fathers knew this. I think that the confederates knew this also. The Colonists rolled the dice and won. The Confederacy rolled the dice and lost.
I know that the next thing I will hear is the “does might make right” argument. I am not saying that might makes right, what I am saying is that we don’t live in an ideal world. In the real world, unfortunately, violence does settle sometimes issues. In the case of the United States the issue of succession from the Union was one that both sides were willing to resort to violence to settle. Well it was settled.
As to your idea that 1776 and 1861 were the same thing please read the following documents carefully.
THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
Action of Second Continental Congress, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America
WHEN in the Course of human Events,
it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the present King of Great- Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World.
HE has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good.
HE has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance, unless suspended in their Operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
HE has refused to pass other Laws for the Accommodation of large Districts of People, unless those People would relinquish the Right of Representation in the Legislature, a Right inestimable to them, and formidable to Tyrants only.
HE has called together Legislative Bodies at Places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the Depository of their public Records, for the sole Purpose of fatiguing them into Compliance with his Measures.
HE has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly Firmness his Invasions on the Rights of the People.
HE has refused for a long Time, after such Dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of the Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the Dangers of Invasion from without, and the Convulsions within.
HE has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising the Conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
HE has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
HE has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and the Amount and Payment of their Salaries.
HE has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their Substance.
HE has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures.
HE has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
HE has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
FOR quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us;
FOR protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
FOR cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World:
FOR imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
FOR depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury:
FOR transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended Offences:
FOR abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an arbitrary Government, and enlarging its Boundaries, so as to render it at once an Example and fit Instrument for introducing the same absolute Rules into these Colonies:
FOR taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
FOR suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with Power to legislate for us in all Cases whatsoever.
HE has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
HE has plundered our Seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our Towns, and destroyed the Lives of our People.
HE is, at this Time, transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the Works of Death, Desolation, and Tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and Perfidy, scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous Ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized Nation.
HE has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the Executioners of their Friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
HE has excited domestic Insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the Inhabitants of our Frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known Rule of Warfare, is an undistinguished Destruction, of all Ages, Sexes and Conditions.
IN every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble Terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated Injury. A Prince, whose Character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the Ruler of a free People.
NOR have we been wanting in Attentions to our British Brethren. We have warned them from Time to Time of Attempts by their Legislature to extend an unwarrantable Jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the Circumstances of our Emigration and Settlement here. We have appealed to their native Justice and Magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the Ties of our common Kindred to disavow these Usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our Connections and Correspondence. They too have been deaf to the Voice of Justice and of Consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the Necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of Mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace, Friends.
WE, therefore, the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in GENERAL CONGRESS, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly Publish and Declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political Connection between them and the State of Great-Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which INDEPENDENT STATES may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Confederate States of America
Mississippi Secession
A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.
The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.
The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.
The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.
It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.
It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.
It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.
It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.
It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.
It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.
It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.
It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.
It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.
It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.
It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.
It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.
It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.
Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.
Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it.

[aphillbilly]

The Declarations of Causes of Secession issued by Georgia and Texas included complaints about unfair economic policies that favored the North at the expense of the South. These were obvious references to the South's anger over tariffs, over the misuse of tariff revenue, and over other economic policies that the South opposed. In fact, Georgia's declaration includes a specific complaint about the protectionist policies of the North. Jefferson Davis mentioned the South's objections to federal tariffs in his first message to the Confederate congress (he cited the North's imposition of "burdens on commerce as a protection to their manufacturing and shipping interests").




Rep. John Reagan, U.S. House of Representatives, January 15, 1861, Congressional Globe, 36th Congress, 2nd Session, I, p. 391
Reagan became the Postmaster General for the Confederacy

“You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue laws, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay to build up your great cities, your railroads, and your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange, which you hold against us. You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers of northern capitalists. You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights and institutions. . . .
We do not intend that you shall reduce us to such a condition. But I can tell you what your folly and injustice will compel us to do. It will compel us to be free from your domination, and more self-reliant than we have been. It will compel us to assert and maintain our separate independence. It will compel us to manufacture for ourselves, to build up our own commerce, our own great cities, our own railroad and canals; and to use the tribute money we now pay you for these things for the support of a government which will be friendly to all our interests, hostile to none of them.”

“Boston Transcript, March 18, 1861
It does not require extraordinary sagacity to perceive that trade is perhaps the controlling motive operating to prevent the return of the seceding States of the Union, . . . it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding States are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centers of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports. The merchants of New Orleans, Charleston, and Savannah are possessed with the idea that New York, Boston, and Philadelphia may be shorn [deprived], in the future, of their mercantile greatness, by a revenue system verging on free trade. If the Southern Confederation is allowed to carry out a policy by which only a nominal duty [tax] is laid upon imports, no doubt the business of the chief Northern cities will be seriously injured thereby.
The difference is so great between the tariff of the Union and that of the Confederated States, that the entire Northwest must find it to their advantage to purchase their imported goods at New Orleans rather than at New York.”


As for the Confederacy seceded over just slavery or as slavery being the root cause of the war rather than just the popular occasion to raise the long contested issue of State’s rights, it annoys me no end that everyone seems to forget the four States that provided the most men, materials and leaders did NOT secede over slavery. They seceded over coercion.

Tennessee and the other upper South states did NOT secede because the South fired at Ft Sumter. They seceded over Lincoln’s actions both before and after. Tennessee had already voted NOT to secede from the Union, even in the face of the “commissioners’s” who were sent to sway them to join.. The firing on Ft Sumter did not change Tennessee’s citizen’s minds. Lincoln did that.



YMOS
tommy

[unionblue]

Tommy,

Most of John Regan's arguments were answered by Alexander Stephens speech to the Georgia legislature in which he stated most of the objections he had were carried out by Southern Presidents in the White House with the consent of most in Congress.

As for the Morrill Tariff being any kind of an issue, I ask that you go to the Tariff thread and read my post Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 02:49 am. You will see the rates had been adjusted to reflect a past tariff, not create higher rates.

You will also read that in the vote to pass the Morrill Tariff, 25-14, 4 Republicans voted AGAINST the bill, while 6 Border State senators from Bell's Union Party voted for it along with 8 Northeastern Democrats. That leaves on 11 Republicans left to vote for the bill to get the total of 25. This clearly shows the voting was not done according to North/South sectional lines.

And what were the stated declaration of causes for those four states when they seceded?

Sincerely,
Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on January 26, 2004)

[bill_torrens]

Dear Doug,

Thanks very much for your thoughts.

“Frankly I think that your arguments in this discussion, which seems to have expanded to every thread on the board, tend to resemble fantasy.”

At the moment I am participating in this thread and the one on “Sumter: A Can of Worms”. So that was a silly thing to say, wasn’t it? It hardly gets you off to a good start.

“When reduced to its essential components your argument rests on one basic assumption. If any rebellion is justified than all rebellions are justified.”

No, I have never said this. But I take the view that the onus is on people who view the American Revolution as justified and the establishment of the Confederacy as unjustified to explain the difference. That’s all.

“Bull S***!”

How vulgar.

“You seem to think that rebellion is the simple splitting of political units into other political units.”

No, not necessarily. I think I would draw a distinction between revolutions which seek to overthrow the political and/or social establishment in a country without changing its borders [viz The French Revolution or The Russian Revolution], and ones which seek to separate a region from an existing nation state [1776 & 1861]. If in 1861 the majority of Democrats throughout the United States had taken up arms to try to overthrow the Lincoln Government and replace it with something else, that would have been fundamentally different from what the seceding states attempted.

My view is that the second type of “revolution” – which is really just the assertion of the right to self-determination – is always justified provided that it is supported by the majority of people within the seceding or revolting area. Always. Without exception. And I am utterly indifferent to arguments which seek to prove how secession was illegal in 1861. You could prove to me conclusively that it breached Federal law in 73 separate ways, and I wouldn’t turn a hair. Because – and here I fear that I am repeating what I wrote in earlier posts – I believe that the right to self-determination is one of those “truths” which are “self-evident” and which cannot be abridged or compromised by the laws or constitution of any nation state. It is more important than the United Kingdom; it is more important than the United States. It is more important than the constitutions of either country, and it is more important than their respective legal frameworks. I would gladly pile all of the above on a metaphorical bonfire and set fire to the lot rather than admit any diminution of the principle of self-determination. How can I make my position any clearer?

“Rebellion and Revolution are the same political act. Successful rebellions are revolutions. The act of rebellion is intrinsically neither right nor wrong, good or bad. It is a means of obtaining political change.”

Subject to the distinction I have just made in the above paragraph, I find nothing to disagree with here.

“So to say that if I accept the American Revolution I have to also accept the Confederate revolution is utter non-sense.”

Agreed. That’s why I have never said it.

“The decision to attempt the advancement of a political cause through the use of violence is a momentous one.”

It is. And I think it only fair to point out that this was something which the Confederate States of America never attempted. The United States, on the other hand, did.

“In the case of the United States the issue of succession from the Union was one that both sides were willing to resort to violence to settle.”

No. One side sought only to be left alone. The other was willing – indeed indecently anxious – to resort to violence.

Bill

[unionblue]

William,

Would revolution or the right of self-determination be acceptable is there was no majority of the population who desired to rebel? But only a segment, not the majority?

Is it the numbers of those who desire rebellion make a determination if the cause or reason is just or correct?

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[bill_torrens]

Dear Neil,

A straightforward question deserves a straightforward answer.

A revolutionary act carried out by a minority within the revolting area cannot, by any reasonable definition, be deemed an act of self-determination.

But, providing it is acceded to by the majority, the right to self-determination is unqualifiable - you can't say that it exists if you wish to exercise it for "good" reasons and that it doesn't if you wish to exercise it for "bad" ones.

P.S. What time of day is it in your neck of the woods? I haven't even had my lunchbreak yet, so I certainly wasn't expecting any responses from your side of the pond so quickly!

Bill

[hawglips]

"Is it secession itself, or getting fired at first that justifies invasion to force union?"

Shane: Hal, The moment Ft Sumter was fired upon the war was on, there was no going back. If Ft Sumter had not been fired upon might war have been avoided? I don't know as I've yet to make a concrete decision one way or the other. In the same vein of thought could the ACW have been sparked elsewhere? I think so, therein lies the crux of the problem about whether war was necessary after Secession. Can I say it any more clearly? Or am I not allowed to form my own opinion on the matter after an educated and careful analysis?

Clear as muddy water.

The question is NOT one requiring speculation about whether a war might have started somewhere with some violent spark.

Are you really saying you have no opinion about whether secession itself was grounds for war to force union?

Hal

[hawglips]

Lincoln had determined to force union on the seceded states before he took office. His message was clear and unequivocal -- military invasion to prevent your independence is justified. Period.

Question to Neil, Shane and Doug:

Do you agree that secession itself justifies invasion to force union?

Hal

[nicolo]

As soon as a southern state declared it's independence, it was in a state of rebellion against the Constituted authority of the Federal gov't.
Had it wanted to, the gov't of the United States would have been justified in immediately, sending negotiators and/or troops to disabuse that state about it's right to secede.

[johan_steele]

I, the I being Shane Christen (aka Johan Steele), am uncertain if war was neccesary after Secession. I do not know if peace could have been maintained through diplomacy. I have yet to make up my mind on that mark. However, after Ft Sumter was fired upon the War was on. I believe I've made that point quite clear several times.

"Lincoln had determined to force union on the seceded states before he took office. His message was clear and unequivocal -- military invasion to prevent your independence is justified. Period." I've yet to see any letters that positively state that; though I won't claim to have read everything written by Mr Lincoln. Where does he say, here we come SC, prepare to get whipped? Does he say in one of his pre-presidential speeches that SC will be invaded by the US Army?

Hal, if you're capable of reading the minds of dead men... can I borrow you for some research. Mainly where a particular treasure is buried?

[thea_447]

Nicolo:
disabuse - free somebody (from an erroneous belief)
I personally don't feel that this was an erroneous belief on the part of the South. But the point you bring up is quite interesting.
Why didn't Lincoln send negotiators instead of warships? Or were the negotiators on board the warships? Why, when Jefferson Davis sent peace envoys would he not meet with them? The answer to me is obvious: He wanted war.

Neil of course will tell you something like this: Lincoln would not deal with these people because in doing so he would have been admitting that this was not in fact a rebellion, but a legitimate sovereign nation seeking peace.

I pose this question however: in view of what could be foreseen of the future, even thinking that he could put down an armed rebellion in about 6 weeks to two months, wouldn't it have been better to have tried negotiating with the South?

[nicolo]

What exactly was there to negotiate? If Lincoln was granite itself, in demanding reunion, Davis was steel itself, in demanding independence.
There were communications between Gov't since the Buchanan Administration. Various individuals were also sent South by Buchanan and Lincoln talking to various Southerners in and out of the Gov't and they unanimously sent back word that only complete independence would suffice.
Buchanan drew the proper conclusion but decided to pass the buck to the more intelligent and courageous Lincoln. Namely, that if the South was determined to be independent then war was inevitable, in which case he made sure the onus of that war was properly placed.

[unionblue]

William,

Thank you for your prompt response to my question. Now, I wish to make sure I am correct in reading that response.

"...a minority within the revolting area cannot, by any reasonable definition, be deemed an act of self-determination."

"But, providing it is acceded to by the majority, the right to self-determination in unqualifiable - you can't say that it exists if you wish to exercise it for "good" reason and that it doesn't if you wish to exercise it for "bad" ones.

William, are you aware that during the Revolutionary War, that only 1/3 of the colonies population actively supported the war with aid, men, and arms? Fully 1/3 opposed the war and gave aid to the crown and the other 1/3 was neutral, supporting neither side. Does this modify or change your view that the colonies had the right of self-determination, seeing how they were not the majority in the revolting area?

Or are you stating that if the number of citizens are clearly in the majority of the rebelling area, that this constitutes an act of self-determination, no matter how many other citizens outside that area deem it an unlawful act and simply rebellion?

Then how do you view South Carolina's attempt at nullification in 1832? One state with a majority of its citizens within that one state determined the cause was correct. No other state in the Union at that time joined her in that assumption. Did this place South Carolina in the catagory that by being a minority within the nation/area could not, by any reasonable definition, be deemed an act of self-determination?

And then, if we go to the extreme degree of this position, the area of the United States, in its entirety, would not the Southern States of the time be considered a minority within the confines of that area? I think you know where I am headed with your definition. At what point do you consider the minority within the revolting area to have the definition of an act of self-determination? An area within a state? A region? A nation?

My schedule, my friend William, is completely screwed up by the fact I work the midnight shift here at the Post Office in Columbus, Ohio, from 10 PM at night until 6:30 AM in the morning. On the weekends my schedule is even worse, at the mercy of my grandchildren's visits and my wife's needs. I was lucky enough to be 'awake' at different times this weekend and shoot you some short questions at odd times for me.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on January 26, 2004)

(Message edited by Unionblue on January 26, 2004)

(Message edited by Unionblue on January 26, 2004)

[unionblue]

Hal,

In answer to your question, does secession justify invasion to force union, I am afraid I cannot give it a fair, unbiased answer as I believe there was no such thing as secession, legal or otherwise.

I do believe that there is a right to rebellion, that everyone and every region or group, after it has exhausted every other legal means of redress, has THAT natural, god-given right to rebel.

But no rebellion has the 'right' to succeed. Chance, timing, resources and will are part of the mix, along with the people in rebellion. It is up to the people conducting it and putting it into execution to see it through to success. They may win, they may lose, but either way, they surely will be left with the consequences of the act.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[rivrrat]

Hal
I won't answer your question the way it is asked, because it assumes the legitimacy of secession. I will say that the Union had the right to put down armed rebellion.

[nicolo]

Historically, most rebellions fail and with far more severe consequences than what happened to the South after the War.

[hawglips]

In answer to your question, does secession justify invasion to force union, I am afraid I cannot give it a fair, unbiased answer as I believe there was no such thing as secession, legal or otherwise.

Neil, you are one slippery hombre! Getting you to answer a simple question reminds me of my days as a boy on the river trying to get an eel off my hook. Please do your best to answer a very straight forward, simple question. Biased or not -- I think we all already know about your biases.

Did the Cotton States' determination to be independent justify invasion?

Shane and Doug -- same question.

I must admit that you gentlemen have me a bit concerned. I had always assumed that part of being an American was being a proponent of liberty, freedom, and self-determination. I thought we were the guys in the white hats. You guys are scaring me. Help me out here. Are we a nation of fundamentally unprincipled bullies who only care about "our side?" Don't we stand for something besides "might makes right?"

Shane, I cannot imagine how even a casual student of the war's politics could be unfamiliar with Lincoln's position on secession and force, as you claim to be.

Nicolo: Buchanan drew the proper conclusion but decided to pass the buck to the more intelligent and courageous Lincoln. Namely, that if the South was determined to be independent then war was inevitable, in which case he made sure the onus of that war was properly placed.

Nicolo, given your comment (emphasis mine), it seems you have come to the conclusion that secession itself DOES (or did) justify invasion. Am I correct?

Hal

[unionblue]

Hal,

I thought I had answered your question, but I think it is in the definitions you are having your trouble with. One man's bid for independence is another man's rebellion. People have the right of rebellion and all the risks that victory or failure bring with that choice.

The colonies rebelled, won, and declared their independence.
The South rebelled, lost, and remained within the Union.

Calling rebellion an act of secession, a determination to be independent, etc., does not alter the fact the South was in rebellion, which the people of that region had a God-given right to attempt if they had no other alternative to settle their disputes with the elected government. And herein lies my biggest problem.

White hats, dark hats, gray hats, blue hats my contention is there was no way to have a peaceable secession/rebellion/determination to be independent and the South had no reason to think otherwise. Rebellion always extracts a price, win, lose or draw.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on January 29, 2004)

[hawglips]

Neil, I can not understand how "rebellion" takes place when the sovereign government is not threatened or altered in the least, but merely withdraws itself from a confederation of like sovereign states.

Hal

[nicolo]

You are correct Hal, as soon as S.C. declared it's independence it was in a state of rebellion against constituted authority and the President and Congress could do whatever was deemed necessary to return that rebellious state to it's proper relationship with the rest of the U.S. and the Constitution.

[johan_steele]

"Neil, I can not understand how "rebellion" takes place when the sovereign government is not threatened or altered in the least, but merely withdraws itself from a confederation of like sovereign states."

Hal did I miss something? Were we the Confederated States of America prior to Secession? What about Ft Sumter was peaceful? Again did I miss something about the 33 hour bombardment, by guns manned by SC militia, was that really just a peaceful protest against the presence of US Regulars?

"I must admit that you gentlemen have me a bit concerned. I had always assumed that part of being an American was being a proponent of liberty, freedom, and self-determination. I thought we were the guys in the white hats. You guys are scaring me. Help me out here. Are we a nation of fundamentally unprincipled bullies who only care about "our side?" Don't we stand for something besides "might makes right?" "
Hal, your concern is noted. It would appear you've already decided what we think and are enjoying the baiting game... Please, feel free to tell us how I feel and I'll let you know if you're right about my thoughts. You've repeatedly ignored or called rather simple and outright blunt replies "muddy" what do you want?

"Shane, I cannot imagine how even a casual student of the war's politics could be unfamiliar with Lincoln's position on secession and force, as you claim to be." Part of the reason I frequent this board, so that I can learn something new, it's also why I haven't formed conclusions. Was Lincoln a saint or the Anti-christ... well I sure don't think he was the anti-christ as some on this board seem to; at the same time I know he was no saint. Lincoln felt the CSA act of Secession was nothing less than treason, I believe he acted accordingly. I've read a good bit about Lincoln and the War but at the same time I've done my best to avoid the double speak of politicians and thus have concetrated little on Lincoln specific politics. Frankly I'd rather tounge a snake than deal w/ lawyers and politicians.

What about the CSA's motives had anything to do w/ liberty, freedom, and self-determination? The CSA Constitution looks pretty much like a carbon copy of that of the US. Almost like they wanted to still be the US, just not w/ President Lincoln in office. The South (as in those states who started the war had better than a half century to fix the vicious evils of the United States, yet they didn't; suddenly Lincoln winning the election was reason enough to tear apart the United States and initiate a Civil War.

As it is I bid you a good day.

[unionblue]

Hal,

But the sovereign government WAS threatened and altered. Right after the firing on Fort Sumter, the next day in fact, in Montgomery, Alabama, the crowd outside the Exchange Hotel shouted they wanted to see Jeff Davis and get a speech about Fort Sumter. What they got was Secretary of War Walker who gave his own little speech. "No one" he said, "could know exactly what would happen" but he prophesied that the great Confederate flag would be flying over the Capitol in Washington in less than three months--and maybe, he added, even Faneuil Hall in Boston. The cheering, it is reported, grew ecstatic.

And again we disagree on the term of what you consider was the nature of the Union. It was not merely a confederation put an attempt at a more perfect Union.

A legal national election had been held, and Lincoln had come out the winner. The legal result was challenged and declared void by a minority resulting in a violation of the Constitution and the law. Property & monies belonging to the entire nation was seized, stolen, if you like, more violations of the law. Sections of the nation are now under the control of armed men who threaten the use of force unless their demands are met, normal law enforcement is ineffective. Then, national troops are fired on inside a government installation. Rebellion.

I think our main differences is on the legality of rebellion. I think you feel rebellion is legal when used in the first person, such as "Our rebellion." Whereas I think of it being illegal in the third person, such as, "Their rebellion." A good line from the play, '1776' that I enjoy watching.

I guess you really have to know which person you are speaking in to determine if the South's rebellion was legal or not.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on January 30, 2004)

[bill_torrens]

Dear Neil,

Thanks for your last post.

“Are you stating that if the number of citizens are clearly in the majority of the rebelling area, that this constitutes an act of self-determination, no matter how many other citizens outside that area deem it an unlawful act and simply rebellion?”

Neil, I’m genuinely puzzled that you feel the need to ask me this. Some time back I stated that “Any group of human beings, forming a majority within a given area, who come to think of themselves as a distinct and separate people thereby actually become so.”

“I think you know where I am headed with your definition. At what point do you consider the minority within the revolting area to have the definition of an act of self-determination? An area within a state? A region? A nation?”

Please see above.

“Does this modify or change your view that the colonies had the right of self-determination, seeing how they were not the majority in the revolting area?”

On 25th January I wrote:

“I support the Americans’ right to self-determination provided that it is clear that a majority of people in each of the 13 colonies favoured independence. How exactly one measures public opinion in the 1770s is unclear to me, and I remain slightly sceptical about the contention that a clear majority of Americans favoured the Revolutionary cause.”

Neil, thanks for the information about your work schedule. This means that you and I will be able to exchange views while almost everyone else is asleep…neat.

Oh, a last thought. I remember some years ago that a Soviet spokesman was being quizzed by western journalists about the lack of free elections in the U.S.S.R. His response remains etched on my mind:

“The Soviet people made their choice in 1917.”

Would it be entirely mischievous of me to point out that, if you substitute the words “American” and “1787” in the relevant places, you get a succinct description of the Union cause? Millions of Americans in 1861 were, apparently, precluded from determining their own political destiny because of the alleged whims and preferences of men in stockings and periwigs. And, if I understand you correctly, the same holds true today? And will hold true until the end of the world? Even when Americans are building cities on Mars, their right to self-determination will still be limited by the decisions of an arbitrary collection of 18th century farmers & merchants?

Scary. Seriously scary.

Bill

[johan_steele]

"Would it be entirely mischievous of me to point out that, if you substitute the words “American” and “1787” in the relevant places, you get a succinct description of the Union cause? Millions of Americans in 1861 were, apparently, precluded from determining their own political destiny because of the alleged whims and preferences of men in stockings and periwigs. And, if I understand you correctly, the same holds true today? And will hold true until the end of the world? Even when Americans are building cities on Mars, their right to self-determination will still be limited by the decisions of an arbitrary collection of 18th century farmers & merchants?"

It wouldn't be mischievous it would be wrong. The only flaw to your argument, and it's a big one is that I vote, so does my neighbor etc. I don't understand the fascination w/ comparing the US to patently despotic regimes. The beauty of the US Constitution is that it can be changed... I don't think anyone survived to oppose Stalin or Mao.

I think your missing a point, the Civil War was not one fought over clear lines. Not everyone in the CSA supported Secession or the CSA. There were whole areas w/ rather substantial populations that opposed Secession. East Tn, north Alabama, parts of Louisiana and NC was nearly evenly split statewide... Secession was a far cry from a unanimous vote.

That being said the Copperhead movement was quite powerful in the North.

I don't like the idea of a minority holding the majority hostage as the South clearly attempted to do. When they realized they couldn't any longer they instigated a Civil War.

-Revolutions have never lightened the burden of tyranny; they have only shifted it to another shoulder. George Bernard Shaw

The difference between our decadence and the Russians is that while there is brutal, ours is apathetic. James Thurber

[bill_torrens]

"It wouldn't be mischievous it would be wrong. The only flaw to your argument, and it's a big one is that I vote, so does my neighbor etc. I don't understand the fascination w/ comparing the US to patently despotic regimes."

I think the problem is that you imperfectly grasp the concept of an analogy. If one was to say that Oliver Hardy and Adolf Hitler both had silly moustaches, one would not be saying that the two men had similar personalities. In the same way, it is possible to compare a policy of a broadly democratic country with one of a dictatorship without insinuating that there is no real difference between the two societies.

In this case I am drawing a broad analogy between two highly centralised governments which sought to justify a denial of choice to people by claiming that those same peoples' great-grandfathers had already made the choices for them.