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.
Did the cotton states' determination to be independent justify invasion?
<font color="0000ff">Bill, Sloppy, indeed. It was indeed Hal's comment that I was addressing. That being said, my response still stands.</font>
Hal,
Very zen of you. At once asked and unanswerable. If I may be afforded an observation, you have raised the asking of loaded questions to a high art. What I see, and I hazard that Bill and Shane would agree, is not an inquiry, but rather a position statement with a question mark at the end.
Your "inquiry" infers a simple desire of the south to be independent, or, as you said earlier, "just to be left alone." It also infers a northern "invasion" just because the south wanted to be left alone. Were that the case, then this whole thread would have been answered in the first dozen posts.
The whole corpus of this thread has been that the south wanted more than being "left alone." They wanted to preserve "that peculiar institution," to end the Union. In your attempt to reduce your question to the lowest common denominator, I humbly submit that you have divided by zero.
(Message edited by jeffdavislegion on February 01, 2004)
Did you happen to see the statement of my previous post that fully one third of the population of the colonies did NOT support the revolution? And that one third remained neutral? Does this not conflict with your observation of a 'formation of a majority' of the population supporting the revolution of 1776? And bring into question your idea of the number of citizens needed to justify your theory of self-determination?
Unionblue
__________________ "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
How true Daniel, the invasion was precipitated by S.C., when, because of it's determination to be independent, the troops of that state were ordered to fired on Fort Sumpter.
25/1/04. I write: “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.” I add that: “I remain slightly sceptical about the contention that a clear majority of Americans favoured the Revolutionary cause.”
26/1/04. You write: “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?”
30.1.04. I repeat what I wrote on the 25th.
31.1.04 You write: “Did you happen to see the statement of my previous post that fully one third of the population of the colonies did NOT support the revolution? And that one third remained neutral? Does this not conflict with your observation of a 'formation of a majority' of the population supporting the revolution of 1776? And bring into question your idea of the number of citizens needed to justify your theory of self-determination?”
Neil, old chap, you put me in an embarrassing position. What am I supposed to say now? I have already told you twice that “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.” And I have already told you twice that I share your misgivings about whether such a majority really existed.
So what do you want me to do now? Scream in your ear that your country has never had any right to exist? Frankly, I can summon up neither the energy nor the interest. And you completely baffle me with your apparent belief that the case for Confederate Independence – based on the clear majority of C.S. citizens who supported secession – can somehow be compromised by the apparent fact that the case for American Independence was much dodgier.
I was busy congratulating myself on having said something “very zen” – which struck me as kind of cool – when I realised that you had actually quoted Hal’s question. You Yankees have just got to pay greater attention to detail…..your collective performance in the last 48 hours has been really sloppy.
“Your "inquiry" infers a simple desire of the south to be independent, or, as you said earlier, "just to be left alone." It also infers a northern "invasion" just because the south wanted to be left alone. Were that the case, then this whole thread would have been answered in the first dozen posts.”
Sorry. You’ve completely lost me here. I cannot begin to understand what you are driving at.
“The whole corpus of this thread has been that the south wanted more than being "left alone." “
Well, that may be your interpretation. I doubt whether any of the Southern participants quite see it that way.
“They wanted to preserve "that peculiar institution,"
How exactly does this conflict with the desire of the Confederacy to be “left alone”?
“In your attempt to reduce your question to the lowest common denominator, I humbly submit that you have divided by zero.”
Sorry. You’ve lost me again. I respect your right to your opinions but I truthfully haven’t the faintest idea what you are talking about.
Well Niel there we have it, Mr. Torrens posts puzzled me also, but now I see that He does not support America's right to self determination, but preferred the readers to infer that conclusion rather than his just coming out and saying so.
By what occult process do you arrive at the conclusion that I do not "support America's right to self determination"? Did it involve ouija boards, water-divining or being beamed up to an alien vessel for intrusive medical tests?
Bill,
I believe perhaps it was accomplished by reading the "wobbly bits" as my favorite author Mr Pratchett might say. I just love the inherent irony, nay, hypocrisy, in the claims of self determination. It is like the claims that America is so great and if you do not like it, leave it. When you point out that the South indeed, tried to do just that and were killed for just such an attempt of self determination....well....you just cannot win with some folks. So I do not even try.
I must say that I am somewhat perplexed at your answers to my questions, but I am beginning to realize I may have been less than direct in my conclusions concerning your answers.
I infer, entirely on my own hook, sort of speak, that you say if there is a majority of people in an area of the country who wish to go off and form their own nation or system of government, its OK. This to me constitutes simple rebellion. No problem with the concept nor do I have a problem with the idea that rebellion is a God-given right, outside the law, an illegal, but morally just by those who attempt it. A 'higher law' if you will.
My problem is just how big an area does your concept of self-determination need to be? The South was a minority in area, population and in opinion when it resorted to rebellion within the nation called the United States or Union if you prefer. It rolled the dice, took its chance and resorted to violence when there may have been other alternatives. It rebelled.
I like this talk of self-determination, as though it were a clean and legal procedure to be procured at no cost, either in treasure or lives. As though two sides need not be presented, that some how all blame and pain can be laid at one door. I only wish it were so and just not so messy and painful as the crisis before and the conflict during.
William and Hal, you say self-determination, I say rebellion. I feel none of us are wrong, it is just the 'clients' we represent must be put in the best light in order to present our views.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "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
We seem to be equally perplexed by the other’s responses. Whether the problem is ideological or linguistic, I’m not sure. Don’t underestimate the linguistic barrier: in my experience British English & American English are really very different indeed. [In the anatomical/sexual area the misunderstandings can become quite surreal, but that is another story…]
“I like this talk of self-determination, as though it were a clean and legal procedure to be procured at no cost, either in treasure or lives.”
I’m sorry, but I believe that self-determination could be achieved “at no cost, either in treasure or lives”. That is exactly what happened in 1905 when Norway seceded from Sweden. Yes, I know I have cited this example before – but the comparison with 1861 strikes me as absolutely compelling. The Swedes regarded unilateral secession as unreasonable and illegal but, having stared into the abyss, they decided that they would rather recognize Norwegian independence than engage in war to enforce a union which, if it was to become based on force, struck them as no longer worth having. They stood at exactly the same fork in the road which the Federal Government had faced 44 years earlier; the difference is that they took the civilised path whereas the Federal Government and the people of the North chose to descend into barbarism.
I don’t know how familiar you are with European history during the last 100 years. All I can say is that I do not know how anyone can look at Norway & Sweden as they are now – two civilised and prosperous countries who are comfortable as neighbours with each other – and argue that it would have been better if Sweden had attacked Norway in 1905.
This teaches us that self-determination/secession has proved, in some circumstances, to be “a clean and legal procedure to be procured at no cost, either in treasure or lives.” Having established that the process can actually be painless, all that remains is to determine whether there was something unique about the American situation in 1861 which made such a civilised settlement impossible. Personally, I see no such unique circumstances.
“My problem is just how big an area does your concept of self-determination need to be? The South was a minority in area, population and in opinion when it resorted to rebellion within the nation called the United States or Union if you prefer.”
Many, many posts ago I stated the following: “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 cannot refine the proposition beyond the above, concise statement. I suspect that our thinking diverges here because you see the departure of the 11 seceding states as effectively destroying the United States, a catastrophe to which the non-seceding majority of states felt entitled to object, whereas I see the remaining states as more than powerful enough to survive, and indeed thrive, in the new world order. To my mind, it was only American hubris which was hurt by the departure of the Confederacy.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
