Was War Necessary After Secession?

[jeffdavislegion]

An observation: A primary driver of the Mexican war was the number of Americans in Texas. If you think on it a moment, the irony is obvious.

[hawglips]

"Democratic republic" or not, imperialism is imperialism.

Shane: "I've said it often, the Men of 1776 commited Treason against England, they won and because they won tghey became patriots. That's the difference between the founders of the CSA and the founders of the US.
If the CSA had won, they wouldn't have been treasonous, they would have been Patriots. I understand it's a minor difference, but it is a difference."

Ah, yes, the ole "might makes right" admission. It is a sad thing to ponder when it comes back around to this point. But it always comes back around to it, because it's all the force-unionist position is really based on. Talk about "principles defining who you are...!"

I'm not sure I see much difference between this and Rome or Shang or England.

Shane: "was War neccessary after Secesion? I thought that was the purpose of this thread, I would think a discourse of the causes of Secession would be important in deciding whether or not War was necessary after Secession. "

I do not follow the logic. What does causes of secession have to do with deciding whether or not war was necessary? After all, the rationale to force union on those who no longer wanted it was given as "to preserve the union." The cause(s) of secession is irrelevent to that rationale.

Hal



(Message edited by hawglips on January 17, 2004)

[bill_torrens]

Dear Shane,

Yes, I’m enjoying this exchange of views as well. As I indicated previously, I question whether either of us will change the other’s point of view, but it is a pleasing intellectual exercise.

I think we have now established that my secessionist principles are consistent in a variety of scenarios. Possibly misguided, but consistent. If it is agreeable to you I’d now like to test the consistency of your pro-Union principles.

Let’s imagine a scenario set in the near future where California holds a plebiscite on whether to remain in the Union. While a substantial number of people vote to stay, a clear majority opt for secession and the creation of the Republic of California.

Does the Federal Government have the right to use maximum military force in order to coerce California back into the Union? Would bomb-bay doors be opening over Sacramento, and Cruise missiles skimming towards downtown Los Angeles? Would the TV news show U.S. tanks destroying buildings in central San Francisco, and the corpses of Californian children killed when a stray bomb hits their classroom?

You may think this scenario a lurid one, but it is really only the 2004 equivalent to the violence which the Federal Government actually unleashed on the South in 1861 – violence which you presumably believe to have been justified.

So that’s my challenge. What is President Christen going to do about the situation unfolding in California?

Over to you.

Bill

[johan_steele]

Ick... President Christen. ok My first act as President is to empty the federal prisons, sell the real estate and use the convicts to build a new interstate across Death Valley. After that they'll... oops sorry about that, the power went to my head for a second.

Frankly, I don't want California. But that is not the question. I'm going to assume that California got wind of my Christian Conservative Principles and didn't like the idea and that the state also carried my opponent. I'm also going to assume the sitting President does nothing but sit on his hands while the crisis develops; I'm trying to frame this as the crisis developed in 1860. I'm no Politician but I believe I would attempt to use Political means first to keep them in the Union... which I believe was attempted by Mr Lincoln... though in his defence he didn't have much chance as the South had made up it's mind about Secession before he took office.

This Section of the US Constitution immedietly followed by the oath of office of the President of the US would be published in every Newspaper in the US and broadcast on every Radio, Television & Internet outlet:

Section 10. States prohibited from the exercise of certain powers.

1. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

2. No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws; and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.

3. No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in a war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.


The question would be does the "Free State of California" fire on say the USN base in San Diego or seize US warships and their crews there? For it would take a spark such as that to ignite another Civil War. If Federal assests were seized, or US troops fired upon, yes I would act as President Lincoln acted. But at the same time I wouldn't worry about stray bombs killing school children, no US bomb has hit a school since 1945, regardless of what the North Vietnamese or Iraqis have said. And in the age of modern Precision munitions, I wouldn't worry too much about collateral damage. War isn't pleasant.

The one thing that keeps me certain that Lincoln did the right thing is the fact that Ft Sumter was fired on prior to the calling up of 75,000 troops to suppress the rebellion. If Ft Sumter was the bait... well it started the Civil War. Ft Sumter was the spark, I believe if Ft Sumter hadn't have happened that spark would have been elsewhere.

You see William, the difference between President Lincoln and myself is very simple, I would expect to be impeached w/in 6 mos. Muzzling the media would be my first step. I've always thougt it a good idea to make it a federal offence for someone to report a lie as fact, after all the media is supposed to be held to a higher standard. Something the American media has become quite good at, and the BBC isn't much better from what I've seen of late. If that wouldn't get me impeached, my focus on the corruption w/in Washigton certainly would. I don't think my treatment of criminals would make that much of a stir as John Q public in the US is getting pretty fed up w/ the way criminals are treated. But that's off the subject.

[johan_steele]

Hal, scroll up to the top of this page. You will see the following header: Was War Necessary After Secession?

I do not follow the logic. "What does causes of secession have to do with deciding whether or not war was necessary? After all, the rationale to force union on those who no longer wanted it was given as "to preserve the union." The cause(s) of secession is irrelevent to that rationale." Oh please, If you can't figure out the import of the causes of a conflict you need help, lots of help. Talk w/ Aphillbilly, the man will help you frame your logic in better terms. I rarely agree w/ the man, and frankly he irritates me w/ his views of the modern America... but he's quite capable of making a point and not purposefully baiting those who he disagrees w/.

As to your might makes right comment... I was framing fact. The United States won their Revolution w/ England, thus they were Patriots and not Treasonous (though in English eyes they still were, they just couldn't enforce it.) The CSA lost, so instead of being Patriots they were not. Simple. If you want me to frame it in a different way, it's all a matter of winners and losers.

If you think you can compare America to say the Shang or Mandarin, try. You keep saying there is no difference... would you like me to do the work for you? Rome is not the US. The Shang & Mandarin Dynasties are not the US. Yes there are some correlations but they are the same as you would see between any nation.

If you are going to bring up the fact that the US maintained Union at the point of a bayonet, why not mention why? It might have been a peaceful maintaining of the Union if Ft Sumter had not been fired on... but now we'll never know. It can only be a "what if" scenario. And the blame for the first shots of the Civil War rest squarly on the shoulders of the CSA, not Lincoln.

Put into schoolyard politics terminoligy it would be the same as one boy taunting another, the one who is being called names throws the first punch and a teacher sees it. Whether or not he was taunted first he threw the first punch. Think of the teacher as history. A good history teacher will want to find out why that first punch was thrown, not because it will make the boy who threw the first punch less guilty but because the teacher will then understand why that first punch was thrown and might hope to avoid such things in the future.

[bill_torrens]

Dear Shane,

Thanks for agreeing to help me plot the Life & Times of President Christen.

I should explain that I don't envisage a precise replication of the 1860/61 secession crisis in a modern context. I'm not asking you to tell me how you would play the role of Abraham Lincoln in a phoney modern setting. There is no point to that, since people in 2004 obviously do not think and behave the way they did 140 years ago.

In discussing a modern secession crisis I am talking about something which I believe could actually happen. Not in the next year or two, I agree. But I certainly could not look forward over, say, the next 50 years and state my conviction that no fragmentation of the United States could possibly happen. So I'm actually being serious about this. If you consider the hypothesis absurd it will naturally be difficult for you to take President Christen's role seriously, which is fair enough.

If it did ever happen the one thing about which we can be certain is that there would be no pre-emptive attacks on U.S. military installations or personnel. For the simple reason that such actions would never strike the modern mind as either (a) reasonable or (b) likely to have productive consequences. Cutting through all the wrangling, what you as President ultimately have to decide is whether you will recognise California's peaceful assertion of its independence, or alternatively use the armed forces of the United States to dismantle the infrastructure of the new "nation" and drag it back into the Union.

In doing this you will need to balance the probable cost in blood and treasure of waging this war against the advantages which will accrue from keeping California. And there will naturally be an ethical element to this process of balancing.

So what I want to know is what that ultimate decision will be, and I'd like to know the thought processes which lead you to it.


All the best,

Bill

[rivrrat]

I think this is an interesting discussion. But, I think you should take it to the what if board.

[bill_torrens]

Doug,

I take your point.

But if this thread is based on a discussion of the "necessity" for the Federal Government to declare war on seceding states, and if the principles which lead the Federal Government to declare such a war are held to be eternal, it therefore follows that the "need" to wage such a war will be equally apparent in any other secession scenario which anyone cares to postulate.

So it's entirely relevant to this thread, or board, I think.

[johan_steele]

I agree to the relevence William. Put simply, I misunderstood your hypothesis. In the case you mention the reaction to crisis would depend upon the actions of the state attempting to Seceed from the Union, if identical to those of SC and the rest of the Confederacy my actions would be sinilar to that of Prewsident Lincoln. As stated I would simply broadcast the Constitutional passage mentioned above. If shots were fired as upon Ft Sumter, troops & warships seized, to quote a modern term, "It's on." If political pressure worked prior to violence then so be it.

I agree to your thought that it is possible for another secession crisis... though I don't believe that has a place on this thread.

[bill_torrens]

Shane,

Our thoughts aren’t quite connecting on this, which must be down to my poor presentation of the scenario. So we’ll let it go…the remaining thoughts of President Christen will remain a secret known only to the ages.

What I was driving at was that, if you had ultimately decided to coerce California, I don’t believe that public opinion would have stood for it. And I think the realisation that there is no longer any stomach for the course of action which the Federal Government took in 1861 has some interesting implications for how we view the actual secession crisis.

I need to qualify this. The thing of which I am 100% certain is that the modern British public would never countenance the use of force against any region declaring U.D.I. It’s utterly inconceivable. I obviously cannot be as dogmatic about the opinions of the American public. But I would be very surprised if you told me I was mistaken: just as slavery ran contrary to the spirit of the age in the mid-19th century, so the use of violence to resolve a constitutional difficulty runs totally against the spirit of the modern age.

What this suggests is – without meaning any disrespect to the brave men who fought for it - that the Union cause contains no great enduring principle or truth which has passed down to the present day. It is, instead, a period piece – a by-product of a harder age in which too much importance was given to issues like territorial integrity and too little to the preservation of human life.

As a dry legal proposition the argument for coercing the seceded states has its own coherence and structure, and people like you & Neil propound it very well. But as a moral proposition it is primitive, even brutal. In 1905 the Swedish government felt unable to stomach it: faced with the reality of Norwegian secession, which they declared to be illegal, they eventually declared that a Union held together by force was not worth having. They recognised Norwegian independence.

This shows how far the civilised world had moved in the 40 years since the Civil War. And now, another 100 years on, the modern mind recoils even more strongly from the proposition that war was the necessary response to secession. While acknowledging Abraham Lincoln’s many remarkable qualities, one observes that the ideas which shaped his policy during the secession crisis have been consigned to the dustbin of history. Whereas the principle of self-determination – on which the Confederacy stood and fell – now enjoys a cachet which is greater than ever.

All of which tends to suggest that, regardless of what happened on the battlefield, the War of Ideas has been won – and won decisively.

Bill