Was War Necessary After Secession?

[johan_steele]

William, LOL... you have my solemn promise on that note. I might istead say, "...you're welcome for all those Grants & Shermans that gave your brave 8th Army Boys tanks that were on equal footing w/ all those Africa Corps Panzer 3's." I would then likely expect a reply on the quality of the Sherman... in which case I would agree. Heh, at least the **** thing had a good automotive system and you Brits figured out how to jam a 17pdr into the turret.

Incidently Lend Lease was going on well before 42...

Just about the dumbest thing I've ever said involved a Royal Marine from Scotland. "I love the bagpipes, but what's with the plaid skirts?" I should state that what I intended to ask was what was the meaning of the different patterns on the kilt, a bottle and a half of Stoli altered my brain to mouth pathways a bit. After getting his pool cue broken across my back I took the hint that maybe I should have sobered up and possibly reworded the question though at the time the hard wood floor felt quite soft and comforting. Thankfully, my "friends," took a moment away from their laughter, and explained to the Scotsman that I was quite drunk and actually meant no offence.

Ah yes, friends!

I look forward to your reply, it's a pleasure to have a pleasant discourse w/ an Englishman. Any nation smart enough to invent the Enfield can't be all that bad. :-)

[hawglips]

Neil: But as Hal has been good enough to point out, Lincoln also stated that slavery was the 'only substantial dispute' in his mind and mine. My contention has been that if there had been no institution of slavery for the country to be up in arms about, there would have been no war.

Neil, this is quite the distortion and misrepresentation. I suggest you reread what I said before somebody on here actually believes it.

"Slavery's expansion in the territories" is quite different than "slavery." And therein lies the crux of the matter.

Hal

(Message edited by hawglips on January 12, 2004)

[hawglips]

So, Neil, you seem to believe that the Hartford Convention was primarily concerned with calculating representation in the federal government. That they saw the 3/5 rule as unfair, and giving the South unfair advantage in representation.

I am not sure what you see as the primary concern of SC in 1832, but it appears your primary purpose in your post was to show that it was NOT about tariffs at all, but about slavery, somehow.

Anyway, Calhoun spoke about slavery as a key issue endangering the union, but explained what was indeed the "the great and primary cause" behind the slavery question:

There is another lying back of it - with which this is intimately connected - that may be regarded as the great and primary cause. This is to be found in the fact that the equilibrium between the two sections, in the Government as it stood when the constitution was ratified and the Government put in action, has been destroyed. At that time there was nearly a perfect equilibrium between the two, which afforded ample means to each to protect itself against the aggression of the other; but, as it now stands, one section has the exclusive power of controlling the Government, which leaves the other without any adequate means of protecting itself against its encroachment and oppression.

Calhoun's great and primary cause is consistent with the Hartford Convention's theme, and that of the 1803 crowd, as well as those of 1844 and 1860.

Let us discuss it.

Hal

[bill_torrens]

Dear Shane,

That's a great anecdote. But I have to tell you that if you are so recklessly insane as to talk to a Scotsman in a bar you are really asking for everything you get.

I would love to top your story by recounting how I once met a U.S. Marine in a pub and said to him "Did you get that haircut for a bet?", but it wouldn't be true.

But I can tell you about one of the stranger evenings of my life which was spent in a bar in Sharpsburg, Md. Things may be different now, but as I remember it 20 years ago there were two bars in Sharpsburg. I had a quick look in the first one and thought that there as no way I was going to spend my evening there. After I'd looked in the second one I changed my mind. I ended up in conversation with a 40-something guy with greased-back hair, a pencil moustache and a buckskin jacket....he looked like a menopausal Italian cowboy. He was talking to me about the Civil War, and everything he said was wrong....the years were incorrect, the generals were on the wrong side, it was a complete disaster. It freaked me, because I started thinking that he simply didn't buy the concept of a foreigner who was a Civil War buff, and so he was deliberately getting everything wrong and hoping that I would politely correct him. Fortunately, the more rational side of my brain took control and told me that he was a complete hick who had no idea what he was talking about and that if I tried to politely correct him he would probably rearrange my face. And so I kept quiet.

After that I got talking to someone else. Once he understood my reason for being in Sharpsburg, he bluntly told me that local people despised the National Park Service. Naturally shocked, I asked him why. Now I have no idea whether the following story is true or whether it is complete b.s. Perhaps he was taking advantage of me as a gullible foreigner. But what he told me was that the observation tower on the Sunken Road, which used to be outside of the National Park boundaries, used to be the local....now, here we hit a linguistic barrier. In England I would say that it used to be the local knocking shop, but I don't think translates adequately into American English. It used to be the place to which local courting couples retired. And you can see why they weren't too impressed when it was closed down at dusk like everywhere else within National Park boundaries.

Regards,

Bill

[johan_steele]

For what it's worth I was sharing a table w/ two USN Seals (one retired) a USMC FAST Company boy and a former Soviet VDV officer, talk about some fascinating conversations to listen to. But they were less than sympathetic w/ my plight, and I must admit I deserved my treatment.

I've spent some time in Chatanooga and also in Vicksburg, I enjoyed both immesely. As to Atlanta... shudder. I hate large metro areas and after the second time someone gave me bad directions I all but gave up. Thankfully a lady friend, who lived in the Atlanta area, was able to get me from point A to point B w/out tearing my hair out. Ironically, I've never been lost in the country but put me in a city and I'm hopeless. Savannah & Charleston are both exellent visits as well and consider4ably easier to navigate. Columbia has the Confederate Relic Museum and is truly a good visit.

I've followed the path of Shermans Army from Chatanooga through Georgia, SC and all the up to way to Raleigh, I fully appreciate what they accomplished. That march alone proved to everybody in the world that the CSA was lost.

If you ever have the chance to visit Shiloh or the Chatanooga/Chhickaumaga area you must make every effort to do so. I think they are better preserved and are a better stop than their Eastern equivelants.

Again, I look forward to more discussion w/ you. As I said any nation that invented the Enfield can't ba all that bad... I'll throw in the Kerr & Whitworth for good measure andd what the heck the Martini Henry as well, even if it was invented by a yank. You Brits have done quite well w/ rifles... up until the SA-80/L85 anyway.

[unionblue]

My dear Hal,

Please forgive my taking you out of context in my post (Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 12:00 am)concerning your using the quote by Lincoln in which he states, "One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong, and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute."

I apologize if I have given anyone the impression that you were saying something that you truly were not and ask for your pardon. I had mistakenly thought the quote you gave to be the one Lincoln gave to Alexander H. Stephens, in a letter he wrote on Dec. 22, 1860. The line I refer to in the letter states, "You think slavery is right and should be extended; while we think slavery is wrong and ought to be restricted. That I suppose is the rub. It is certainly the only substantial difference between us. Yours very truly, A. Lincoln."

I assure you that in future I will read your source quotes more closely to insure I understand your meaning.

I must confess, though, I am pleased that you have managed to 'catch' my meaning and course of my views from reading my words in the post that offended you so. I feel that from now on both of us will fully understand one another and not read into or mistake each others position or views. Seems like everything in life can be boiled down to a lesson we all must learn. I admit to being a slow learner at times. Again, please accept my apology on any misunderstanding on my part.

I would like to offer some other statements from Lincoln that seem to go with my conviction and view that Lincoln felt the only substantial difference between the North and the South WAS slavery.

You already have read his letter of Dec. 22, 1860, above. Now please consider a section of the letter Mr. Stephen's sent to Mr. Lincoln in reply.

30 December, 1860.

...I submit these thoughts to you for your calm reflection. We at the South do think African slavery, as it exists with us, both morally and politically right. This opinion is founded upon the inferiority of the black race. You, however, and perhaps a majority of the North, think it is wrong. Admit the difference of opinion..."

And lastly, an excerpt from a speech by Lincoln given at New Haven, Connecticut, March 6, 1860.

"...For, whether we will or not, the question of Slavery is <u>the</u> question, the all absorbing topic of the day. It is true that all of us--and by that I mean, not the Republican Party alone, but the whole American people, here and elsewhere--all of us wish this question settled--wish it out of the way. It stands in the way, and prevents the adjustment, and the giving of necessary attention to other questions of national house-keeping. The people of the whole nation agree that this question ought to be settled, and yet it is not settled. And the reason is that they are not yet agreed how it shall be settled. All wish it done, but some wish one way and some another, and some a third, or fourth, or fifth; different bodies are pulling in different directions, and none of them having a decided majority, are able to accomplish the common object..."

These are but a few of the sources I base my opinion on that slavery was the cause of the war.

Until that time,
Unionblue

[unionblue]

William,

Sorry for taking so long to answer your excellent posts (Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 12:17 pm &amp; Sunday, January 11, 2004 - 11:23 am).

First, thank you for your observation that we agree that we both feel there is a right of rebellion. I assume this agreement will let me out of the obligation to turn over the US Treasury keys to England and from telling George here he must run up the Union Jack over the White House!

I also agree that the 'onus' is on me to try and explain to you the differences between the revolution of 1776 and the revolution of 1861. In my opinion, 1776 concerned a sudden reversal of custom of self-government in the colonies at the time. It seems that America had become used to the idea of elected assemblies and such working with the Royal Governors and having some say in the policies that affected them. Then, England came up under heavy pressure to pay for wars waged, in Europe and America, and simply stated the colonies would have to pay, period. This and some other heavy-handed actions at which the colonies were told they would have no choice (or representation) in kind of went against the grain of what they were used to. Hence, the illegal rebellion against the legitimate government of the Crown in which every rebel knew he could have his neck stretched if the colonies lost their struggle. I know I am stating this rather simply, but I am afraid of being knocked off-line again due to time constraints.

As for the revolution of 1861, I consider this another illegal attempt at rebellion, not secession, (which I consider a quasi-legal smoke-screen which both sides knew could never be pulled off peaceably) which, if successful, would have brought down the cause of democracy, and the 'last, best hope of earth.' My reasoning is based on the following.

During the 1850's and 1860's democracy as we now know it, and lower-class rights generally, hung in the balance throughout the Western world. In Great Britain the great majority of workers were disfranchised, trade unions were illegal, strikes were criminal acts, and quitting a job without an employer's permission was a breach of contract punishable by stiff fines and years of imprisonment.

The legacy of serfdom was heavy in Portugal, Spain, Italy, eastern Prussia, Russia, Hungary, the Balkans, Turkey, and much of South America, while slavery flourished in Cuba, Brazil, Surinam, Africa, the Middle East, and numerous other places. Even in the Northern States of the US, strikes were proscribed, property qualifications for voting were widespread until the 1820's (and were still enforced against free blacks in New York and other states in the 1860's), and vagrancy laws were a powerful club against workers. The movement for the disfranchisement of the foreign born was partially successful in some Northern states during the 1850's, and in Virginia a referedum to reinstitute a property qualification for voters was approved on the eve of the Civil War.

If the South had been able to win on the battlefield or gain peaceful secession, it would have not only indefinitely delayed the freeing of US slaves but would very likely have slowed down the struggle to extend suffrage and other democratic rights to the lower classes in Europe, and it might have eroded whatever rights had already been granted to them in both Europe and North America. Since the forces of reaction everywhere would have been greatly encouraged, and those of democracy and reform demoralized, it is likely that the momentum for liberal reform would have been replaced by a drive for aristocratic privilege under the reasoning of paternalism and the all important preservation of order.

Most of the above comes from a book whose title escapes me at the moment, but it states what I personally believe. The South had a more of an aristocratic governing style, at times severely limiting the yeoman farmers or 'common citizens' input into important decisions concerning his regions fate. I am of the opinion the men who led the South into rebellion did so with very selfish reasons and were willing to sacrifice the great majority of those non-slaveholding Southern whites into the fire of war to preserve their institution of slavery, the means to their power and wealth. Therein lies one of the 'sins' I see at the rebellion of 1861. The other was to tear up the Constitution when it no longer suited the South and defy a legal result of an election, therefore telling the majority its will meant nothing and that voting and democracy was a foolish idea whose time for destruction had come.

And the all-over idea that men and women of a certain color MUST remain slaves in order to preserve a way of life at any cost. Yes, William, I consider the second rebellion more of a sin than I do a good cause.

I further believe the South HAD the one thing that the colonies did not in 1776. Representation in the Federal Government. There simply was no good reason for secession/rebellion that could not have been thrashed out in Congress, the Supreme Court, or at the ballot box in four years, four years with MUCH less suffering and bloodshed, in legal, constitutional action.

I also have no faith in the idea that the North and the South, once separated, would have become two effective republics living side-by-side. If you recall from your history during the war Texas, Georgia and North Carolina threatened secession from the CSA over clashes with the Confederate central government. What was it President Davis said? Something about, "Died of a theory." should be written on the South's tombstone? I think all the fighting and suffering in the present-day Balkans would have been viewed as a picnic compared to the potential of the infighting and bloodshed of a fractured United States. Would not the Morman's and Utah separated over religious disputes in the face of a weakened US Government? Would not the Western States separate and form the Pacific States in order to protect its interests? And what about government 'of the people, for the people, by the people'? I shudder to think on it.

Your contention to Shane is, as I read it, that the remaining United States, after a Southern departure, would be more 'homogeneous than before, not less. I beg to differ somewhat as a person from Hartford CN, viewed himself differently from one from Boston, MA or Gettysburg, PA, or even moreso if from a 'Western' state like Ohio or such. Until after the Civil War, there was no United States, there wasn't even anything you could truly call a 'North' for that matter. I have even seen it said here that not even the 'Solid' South existed at this time. Some on this board say that even today, there are culturual differences that sharply define segments of the country,(Am I right, Thea?). And as for your contention and observations from 'Bull Run' Russell that territory was the main issue with the North somehow, I submit that it was at least as important with those of the South also, who wished to expand slavery and add more slave states to the Union, and stated so time and time again.

I also tend to think that if the South had won victory in the Civil War, it would have waged more war to expand its institution of slavery South and West of its borders. Mexico, Cuba, South America, New Mexico, California, the potential for further bloodshed was here also. Once filled with confidence that they could not be defeated on the field, would not this have emboldened the South for more territory? I think it would have.

But William, I look forward to your views and ask you a few questions so that I might get some answers from someone close to the source. Were the rights of suffrage for English men restricted by property or income in the 1850's and 1860's? Was the class system an obstacle during the same time periods? What was the view of the upper classes in England during this time towards expanding the franchise among the common people? I am curious to see how far off I am in my above observations. Is there any evidence in your point of view that the ruling class of England would have been happy at the idea of a break-up of the United States during and after the war? I tend to believe you when you say there was strong Union sentiment or at least 50/50 support with most of the people of England against slavery and for the Union, but did they have any real say in the matter?

And I agree entirely with you that Prince Albert more than likely saved the Union from a nasty situation with his handling of the Trent Affair.

A pleasure, sir, to exchange ideas and observations with you and I eagerly await your responses.

YMOS,
Unionblue
PS William, I have always wondered what would have happened in the history of the world if the colonies and England could have peacefully patched up the differences between them during the rebellion of 1776. Have you ever heard of the book called The Two Georges? It is an alternate history where the American colonies remained in the British Empire to the present-day. Makes for a great read!



(Message edited by Unionblue on January 13, 2004)

(Message edited by Unionblue on January 13, 2004)

[unionblue]

Hal,

Concerning your last post (Monday, January 12, 2004, 04:09 pm).

From the book, The Road To Disunion, by William W. Freehling.

"Let Gentlemen not be deceived," Robert Barnwell Rhett warned the Nullification Convention as South Carolina dropped nullification forever. "It is not the Tariff--not Internal Improvement--nor yet the Force Bill, which constitutes the great evil." Your "northern brethren," aye, "the whole world are in arms against your institutions." A majority defining its own constitutional limits had every power. "Until this Government is made a limited government...there is no liberty--no security for the South."

As for Calhoun speaking about slavery and your view that "the great and primary cause" was the real 'primary cause' was what?

Here is my own spin on what Calhoun was talking about. In his Discourse on the Constitution and Government of the United States, a rather long ramble on American National Government, Calhoun urged two Presidents, one Northern and one Southern, each armed with an absolute veto. In his shorter, more theoretical, more famous Disquisition on Government, the Carolinian claimed that nullification would work because the best men would rule.

Numerical 'mobocracies' (that's us, the citizens who vote) failed, explained Calhoun, because patronage invited the worst men to delude the rabble (us again, the rabble that cannot think or vote properly on its own). In other words, Calhoun was afraid of the 'mob' 'lying back of it' the poor fools who might one day find their voice and come out against those 'institutions' that formed the base of political power in the South.

Just an opinion.

Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on January 13, 2004)

[johan_steele]

OK folks, take a gander. This is from the SEcession Declaration of Texas. I cut the pertinent sentences and pasted them here. Read and then tell me slavery had nothing to do w/ Secession. Enjoy.


Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article [the fugitive slave clause] of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions-- a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation. Some of those States have imposed high fines and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal laws enacted in accordance therewith.

In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.

[johan_steele]

Georgia &amp; Mississippi don't even get past the first three paragraphs w/out mentioning slavery as primary cause for Secession. W/ it's preponderance in mention in the Decleration of Secession... (Tariffs are mentioned only in passing) if the South had won what would have caused the demise of the institution of Slavery? Economic? We've dealt w/ that before. Cultural, again it's been dealt w/. Religious? Oh no, again that's been dealt w/ in prior posts. Technological/Industrial... the Gotton Gin didn't decrease the efficiency or numbers of slavery. Political... well look at the Declarations of Secession. The Declarations of Secession of Texas, Georgia, Mississippi &amp; SC all mention slavery as a primary, if not the primary greivance. They also repeatedly refer to themselves as the "slave-holding vs non slave holding."

Apparently no one seems willing to face up and give a good argument as to what Social, Cultural, political, financial or religions event or movement was going to eliminate slavery in the CSA. There can't have been a lack of replies on this in prior posts because I was right, could there? My god, could I actually have proven a point?