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.
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?
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)
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
Neil, 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.
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.
"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.
__________________ 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
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)
__________________ "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
“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?
"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
__________________ 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
"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.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
