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'm still working on it. The reason for the delay is that, while I own about 500 books on the Civil War, I only own about three on British history.
So the homework you set me sends me to the library. As I'm a librarian that's no great difficulty, but I'm having an exceptionally busy period preparing a talk which I have to give on Saturday, and so I've had to put this research on the back burner.
I've found that I can answer most of Shane's posts without research, and that's the only reason I have responded to several of his without getting back to you.
But it's certainly a subject which engages my interest. It evokes a delicious picture of the degenerate aristocrats of the Old World joining hands with the tobacco-chewing oligarchs of Dixie in an attempt to hold back the Tide of Human Progress. In the vanguard of the T. of H.P. we find, of course, the people of the northern United States. And who's that at the very front? I do believe I see Jimmy Stewart and, if I'm not mistaken, Henry Fonda as well.
Hal, I see that Neil has asked you some question, do you plan on answering them? Or will you say they have no bearing on the discussion?
Hal, the point of a discussion is a give and take. To my knowledge you still haven't answered any of my questions. If I wished to discuss Asia in depth (I assure you I have) I would go over to the East Asian Studies message board. My opinion on the Taiwan issue is not pertinant to any discussion on the ACW. If you wish to question my integrity then do so, just don't try and trick me out. I assure you that I am quite consistant. I will not be decoyed. Nice attempt at chaff Hal. But It won't work, I prefer guns instead of missiles.
I have one more question you won't answer: what is more impoortant in a democratic society; the wishes of one state (California) or 49? Have no doubt Hal, I am a man of my word. If I were ever to take the oath of office you can rest assured I would adhere to that oath. I believe my word is important, it is sometimes all I have. Apparently, something those officers & politicians who forsake their oath to the US so they could form Confederacy conveniently forgot. Men who commited Treason by any stretch of the imagination and who have forsaken their word... well I think you can guess my opinion on the men you idolize. And to be consistant yes the founding fathers commited treason, but they were willing to suffer the consequences should they fail. Only Washington forsake any oath that I'm aware of to England and to quote Patrick Henry "I smell a rat.!"
As it is I bid you a good day.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
"The point was not "why" anybody seceded, but the fact that they did?" What a twist of logic that requires no explanation for the South! Cause and effect Hal, cause and effect. The South leaving the Union did not happen in a vaccum. You might as well tell a policeman there is no reason to find out who killed the victim, the fact is they did!
As we all very clearly understand, the "why" of secession had nothing whatsoever to do with the decision to disallow it and force union on the seceded States. So, any discussion of "why" someone seceded is irrelevant to the question at hand. And it only takes away from the discussion of the "necessity" of war after secession. Don't you agree?
That being said, it is indeed a fascinating topic, for another thread. So if you want to get in a discussion on the "why" of secession, let us do it there. Just tell me what thread, and I will join you.
Now if you want to say that somehow slavery made war necessary after secession, it would be an easier case to make had Lincoln's war-cry been "eradicate slavery" rather than "preserve the union." But since the war was not to eradicate slavery, but merely to "preserve the union," the case does not get past go.
And Neil, if you are now ready to discuss the significance of "slavery in the territories," I am overjoyed! Please let me know which other thread you want to get into it in, and let us proceed!
Shane, whether slavery was on its way out or not, has nothing to do with the necessity of war after secession -- unless slavery was the reason for deciding to use force to prevent said secession. But since it was not, that question has nothing to do with the topic at hand. If you would like to discuss that, let us go to "slavery, would it have died out" or somewhere similar and share our thoughts with each other there.
But please keep in mind, I am burdened with working for a living, and have 6 active kids living at my home, and church responsibilities with correlating commitments of time.
I have one more question you won't answer: what is more impoortant in a democratic society; the wishes of one state (California) or 49?
I do not understand what business it is for 49 states to meddle in the Californians' choice of self-government. Let Californians govern themselves. Let not a despotic group outside their boundaries undertake to force anything on them contrary to the wishes of their own people. That holds true for East Timor, Denmark, Bosnia, Latvia, the Ukraine, Tibet, etc.
Does that answer your question?
As for the China / Taiwan comparison, it does indeed hit the question at hand ("Was War Necessary After Secession") squarely on the head. After all, like Lincoln, the sole rationale for the communist Chinese was not to combat anything at all, but merely to prevent independence. Like Lincoln, there is no desire for negotiations with those calling for independence to discuss and weigh and debate "why" independence is sought, or to work out a compromise or arrangement of mutual understanding, but merely that independence -- very simply and very clearly -- will not be allowed.
Mr. Torrens cheerfully shared his thoughts, feelings and cherished principles with us, regarding the hypothetical British Isles scenario, and answered Shane's questions in that regard. He did not object nor did he hide behind a "European Studies" excuse; because it is indeed pertinent to the question.
I have also shared my feelings and principles towards the necessity of war in response to secession, and have given it color and depth and contrast, by naming real-world real-time examples.
The China/Taiwan question is a real-time real-world case study of whether or not war is a necessary response to secession. The question very closely parallels that of 1860. And the modern Chinese leaders are quick to use Lincoln's example to justify their own position against independence.
So, what is the real reason I am having so much difficulty persuading our resident advocates of forced union to answer this simple and pertinent yes-no question?
Are we at the point in this discussion of war in response to secession where the horrific monster of forced union is being un-masked?
In the absence of a response from anyone, I am left to my own piece-meal and scanty observations and subjective analysis of your bottom-line positions on war in response to secession.
I see it like this:
Shane, you assure me that you are consistent. Yet you indicate that you would force union on California, and at the same time that if the South had not fired on Sumter, then war may not have been necessary in 1861. I am confused as to what your principles regarding forcing union actually are. Is it a matter of having invested too much into defending Lincoln's war against self-government to risk undermining that investment? Or is it something else entirely?
Neil, in my heart of hearts, I do not believe you would come out in support of China's forcing union on Taiwan. You seem endowed with too much regard for the rights of others to support such military aggression against liberty and self-government. Correct me if I am wrong. Perhaps you are indeed consistent in your stance. Perhaps you do not defend Lincoln's war to force union merely because it was "we" who did it. Perhaps you likewise would oppose any independence movement anywhere.
"As we all very clearly understand, the "why" of secession had nothing whatsoever to do with the decision to disallow it and force union on the seceded States. So, any discussion of "why" someone seceded is irrelevant to the question at hand. And it only takes away from the discussion of the "necessity" of war after secession. Don't you agree?
That being said, it is indeed a fascinating topic, for another thread. So if you want to get in a discussion on the "why" of secession, let us do it there. Just tell me what thread, and I will join you."
Hal, I couldn't agree more. I had been thinking about posting something along these lines, but you express my thoughts perfectly.
"William, I'm not certain that I agree w/ your premise that America has lost it's stomach for bloodshed....Unfortunetly the premise you give is the same Osama Bin Laden had... he was wrong. Americans don't just roll over when they've been hit."
Shane, I am happy to accept that most of the occasions when you misunderstand me are a result of either my poor powers of expression or the age-old problem of "two nations divided by a common language". But in this case you are representing me as questioning America's resolve to fight even as U.S. servicemen are dying in Iraq. That would have been unforgivably crass, and I'm afraid that I cannot let you get away with it.
For the record, what I stated was that "the use of violence to resolve a constitutional difficulty runs totally against the spirit of the modern age."
Thank you again for the creative way you endeavor to present one side of a debate. No, I do not agree that the 'why' of secession takes away from the debate of this thread. I think it is the crux of the issue itself.
And I am ready to debate the issue of slavery as the South's main reason for going to war after secession, making the war an unavoidable necessity after secession. The case more than passes 'go' as the South rolled the dice over this issue and this issue alone, not Lincoln. Don't confuse the two or my meaning, please.
Once again, war was necessary after secession because the South deemed it so, over the preservation and expansion of slavery. Since you not able to support your contention, with any factual evidence, that slavery was on the decline, it is my contention this was the issue and in order to insure that institutions safety, continued existence and its expansion, the South made war necessary after secession for that cause and that cause alone.
As for the modern day examples you give, I view these as your preceptions and not necessarily the correct ones. If I had to view China and Taiwan in the correct view (my opinion, of course) I would say mainland China is the South of the 1860's and that Taiwan is the North of the same period. Mainland China/South 1860's is trying to enforce and inflict a way of life/institution that Taiwan does not want.
As for Mr. Torrens and Shanes exchange of ideas, I feel that Mr. Torrens was a bit more even-handed in his views than your debating style. That is an observation and an opinion on my part, and mine alone. I also am of the opinion that the time period we discuss here is rather unique in history and to this nation.
I do understand your burden concerning work and family, etc. It can be a real problem finding time to put real quality research into a board like this.
But to conclude that a simple 'yes/no'answer to your idea of 'forced Union' is a simple exercise, IS the problem. You are dodging huge issues and making important issues minor ones and blowing up minor issues to win a debating point. It's not 'real' nor is it fair as it tends to leave out history and why the topics became history.
As to your assesment of my beliefs, you again draw your own conclusions. I am against treason, self-serving people of power who would sarafice their own countrymen on the altar of their profit and power. And it was not Lincoln's war, but the South being led to suicide by these same, self-serving men. Independence is one thing, even revolution is one thing, presenting one side of an issue and calling it 'correct,' 'simple,' and 'fact'is something else entirely.
YMOS,
Unionblue
(Message edited by Unionblue on January 20, 2004)
(Message edited by Unionblue on January 20, 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
"As for the China / Taiwan comparison, it does indeed hit the question at hand ("Was War Necessary After Secession") squarely on the head. After all, like Lincoln, the sole rationale for the communist Chinese was not to combat anything at all, but merely to prevent independence. Like Lincoln, there is no desire for negotiations with those calling for independence to discuss and weigh and debate "why" independence is sought, or to work out a compromise or arrangement of mutual understanding, but merely that independence -- very simply and very clearly -- will not be allowed." Hal, this statement alone proves to me that your knowledge of thye events of 1949 and the victory of the PRC over the Nationalists is... basic at best. I will not compare the US w/ the PRC, there is no comparing the two. If you can't see that... well lets just say the two of us will never be able to carry on a two way conversation. I would not compare the CSA w/ the PRC either, there is no corelation.
I do not understand what business it is for 49 states to meddle in the Californians' choice of self-government. Let Californians govern themselves. Let not a despotic group outside their boundaries undertake to force anything on them contrary to the wishes of their own people. That holds true for East Timor, Denmark, Bosnia, Latvia, the Ukraine, Tibet, etc.
Does that answer your question?" No, it doesn't. By the way thanks for the automatic assumption that the United states is a despotic nation, more of that fun and friendly language that you are so adept at using. So, Hal, you are saying, please correct me if I'm misunderstanding your thinking.
1. California has the right to dictate policy to the rest of the country? 2. That their wishes overrule those of the rest of the country and make a legal election less binding because they don't like the results (hmmm Florida 2000?)? 3. If I follow your reasoning you are saying that if California wished to go and in a state election a majority opted for secession that the US would be bound to let them go? If that is the case what about the minority that didn't vote for Secession; should California just seize their homes and assets and expel them or would summary execution be more to your liking? Do they suddenly lose their right to protection as US citizens due to the majority (and what if that majority is only say 52%)of the state? Or would you form a smaller state w/in a state for those who voted against Secession? Could it be worked out peacefully if California didn't start shooting at the San Diego Naval base? My answer to that is quite possibly... that's why I'm consistant. It would take a violent SPARK to turn it into a Civil War.
"Shane, whether slavery was on its way out or not, has nothing to do with the necessity of war after secession -- unless slavery was the reason for deciding to use force to prevent said secession. But since it was not, that question has nothing to do with the topic at hand. If you would like to discuss that, let us go to "slavery, would it have died out" or somewhere similar and share our thoughts with each other there. " I disagree, in fact I firmly believe that slavery was the root cause behind Seccesion. I've yet to see any real evidence that slavery was going to die out in the foreseeable future. Certainly not as long as the slaveholders held sway over the CSA. The States Rights argumnent is valid in so much that the States demanded the right to slavery.
Was War necessary after Secession? that was the question that started this thread. In answer to that I believe it was absolutely necessary after Ft Sumter was fired upon. Before, I don't really know for certain. However, I also believe that if Ft Sumter had not been fired upon the war would have begun in the west. Perhaps w/ a CSA invasion of Kentucky. Or w/ some spark in Missouri or elswhere in the Trans Mississippi.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
Shane: 1. California has the right to dictate policy to the rest of the country?
No, they do not. Neither does the rest of the country have the right to dictate policy on them, once they choose to remove themselves from among us.
2. That their wishes overrule those of the rest of the country and make a legal election less binding because they don't like the results (hmmm Florida 2000?)?
No, not at all. I don't understand how California leaving the union has anything to do with whether an election of someone on a federal level is binding or not.
If California or Florida did not like the results of the 2000 presidential election, and the Floridians or Californians want to leave the union, let them go. I hope they are happier without the rest of us.
3. If I follow your reasoning you are saying that if California wished to go and in a state election a majority opted for secession that the US would be bound to let them go?
Of course. Why would the "leader of the free world", a free federation like the US want to thwart freedom at home? Why would we want to keep them against their will? Why would we seek to impose our will on them? Wouldn't that seem clearly wrong to you?
If that is the case what about the minority that didn't vote for Secession; should California just seize their homes and assets and expel them or would summary execution be more to your liking?
I am not sure why California would seize anyone's homes and assets or execute someone. Does the act of declaring independence immediately transform the State's citizenry into a bunch of monsters? Those in California who did not support secession, they are free to decide for themselves whether remaining in California is detrimental to their happiness, and act accordingly.
Do they suddenly lose their right to protection as US citizens due to the majority (and what if that majority is only say 52%)of the state? Or would you form a smaller state w/in a state for those who voted against Secession?
US protection is now irrelevant to California, unless California negotiates a defense treaty with the US, it seems to me. I would say that such a treaty would be very likely. But that is between the government of CA and ours. Or if they preferred a defense treaty with Mexico, or Canada, or all of the above, that is between them and the nations they choose to negotiate with.
If, say, Los Angeles, wished to secede from California, why refuse them? Why force them to stay? It'll work itself out.
Could it be worked out peacefully if California didn't start shooting at the San Diego Naval base? My answer to that is quite possibly... that's why I'm consistant. It would take a violent SPARK to turn it into a Civil War.
Could what be worked out peacefully? I don't understand why there is a question about the peacefulness of it. Just let them go. If they don't want us in San Diego, why would we insist on staying?
I'm sure California would be happy to negotiate a settlement, as South Carolina was in 1861.
Does that answer your questions?
So, Shane, do you support China's position to militarily force union on Taiwan in the event that they declare independence? Why or why not?
Neil: Once again, war was necessary after secession because the South deemed it so, over the preservation and expansion of slavery. Since you not able to support your contention, with any factual evidence, that slavery was on the decline, it is my contention this was the issue and in order to insure that institutions safety, continued existence and its expansion, the South made war necessary after secession for that cause and that cause alone.
I understand that you feel slavery was "why" "they" seceded. But I am very puzzled how "the South made war necessary after secession." Were they threatening to invade the North and inflict their peculiar institution on the people of those States choosing to remain in the Union? What exactly were they seeking to inflict on the other States?
I thought the South was very clear in their position of peace: "...we protest solemnly in the face of mankind that we desire peace at any sacrifice save that of honor and independence; we ask no conquest, no aggrandizement, no concession of any kind from the States with which we were lately confederated; all we ask is to be let alone; that those who never held power over us shall not now attempt our subjugation by arms." (President Jefferson Davis, 29 April, 1861)
This is in sharp contrast to Lincoln's declaration of subjugation and invasion in order to collect taxes and occupy federal facilities within Southern borders.
So, just how did the South or slavery deem war necessary?
It is clear that Lincoln was firm in his position to invade and inflict a particular will on the seceding States. But I can not comprehend your argument that, even though he made that point clear, that somehow he actually did not say that; and rather it was Davis seeking to invade the North to inflict slavery or something else on those States? Do I misunderstand your argument?
As for the modern day examples you give, I view these as your preceptions and not necessarily the correct ones. If I had to view China and Taiwan in the correct view (my opinion, of course) I would say mainland China is the South of the 1860's and that Taiwan is the North of the same period. Mainland China/South 1860's is trying to enforce and inflict a way of life/institution that Taiwan does not want.
I see.
So, are you for or against China's policy of forcing union on Taiwan in the event they declare independence?
As for Mr. Torrens and Shanes exchange of ideas, I feel that Mr. Torrens was a bit more even-handed in his views than your debating style. That is an observation and an opinion on my part, and mine alone. I also am of the opinion that the time period we discuss here is rather unique in history and to this nation.
I am sorry you see me as less than even-handed in my approach. I sincerely do not understand how so.
Please send me an email in explanation if you will. I do not wish to burden the other board members with a personal discussion between us.
But to conclude that a simple 'yes/no'answer to your idea of 'forced Union' is a simple exercise, IS the problem. You are dodging huge issues and making important issues minor ones and blowing up minor issues to win a debating point. It's not 'real' nor is it fair as it tends to leave out history and why the topics became history.
Dodging which issues?
Neil, I sense you are frustrated? I have answered every question put to me on this board, though I have endeavored to participate in such a way as to help keep each particular thread on subject. My experience has led me to conclude that it is usually preferable to try and keep each thread from reducing to a discussion about the same thing.
I don't understand how this is upsetting to you. If you'd prefer me not participate on your board, please speak your mind, in your email to me.
As to your assesment of my beliefs, you again draw your own conclusions. I am against treason, self-serving people of power who would sarafice their own countrymen on the altar of their profit and power. And it was not Lincoln's war, but the South being led to suicide by these same, self-serving men. Independence is one thing, even revolution is one thing, presenting one side of an issue and calling it 'correct,' 'simple,' and 'fact'is something else entirely.
From your above statement, is it correct to say that you are against America's 13 British colonies' treasonous declaration of independence, in such a revolutionary manner? What should they have done differently?
Did you support Indonesia's efforts to keep East Timor from sacrificing the will of some many millions of their fellow Indonesians on the altar of by seeking independence from those they did not wish to be a part of?
Were you against the break-up of the Soviet Union? Do you support the Russian war to prevent self-serving Chechnyan independence?
Would you support Quebec's selfish independence in the event a majority of their people want it? Or do you think Canada should militarily bring them to their knees until they agree to stay put?
Is it solely the Southern US States that you think did not have the right to self-government?
Or are you trying to say that the basic right to self-government is not universal -- that it depends on the reason any particular people wants to govern themselves; and it is the right and duty of those from whom the group seeks to withdraw to determine whether the reasons for seeking independence are good enough?
Wow, HAL! Very nice post! Neil, I have to work today so please don't write a response until tonight. I want to be a fly on the wall for this one!
Give me time to make popcorn! This is better than going to the movies! Tommy! Rest up! We have to be back tonight for this match.
Hal, please don't even think about not posting. I'm sure Neil enjoys wrangling with you. He's enjoyed every other Southern poster he's come across.
See you guys later!
__________________ Thea
No one has permission to use any material from any of my posts on any CWT forum, the archives, or any other forum without my express written permission.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
