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.
Mr Torrens, you keep using the example of Norway & Sweden. Just out of curiosity do you know how large thre immigrant population from Norway was in the 19th Century. The most common immigrant to the US were the Irish (the average Irishman would rather trust his luck in the US than in Ireland under Crown rule.) The Norwegian was close behind in numbers. It has been suggested, by Norwegian Americans, that Sweden let Norway go because most of the populace left for the US and the land was quite dead... why fight for a ghost town you don't want anyway? At the same time why didn't the Brits let Ireland go as peacefully as the Swedes let go of Norway? Interesting questions, but ones that have little to do w/ the ACW.
One thing about this thread that perplexes me is that noone has really addressed the issue of whether: "war was necessary after secession?" Everyone seems to be adressing who was right and who was wrong or who started the whole mess.
Could it have been settled w/out costing the lives of more than a half million lives? What diplomatic or political steps etc might have kept it peaceful? In other words was War inevitable after Secession? I don't know the answer and would like some inteligent discussion rather than finger wagging and baiting.
William has brought foward valid comparisons w/ Europe but forgets that the US Civil War might well have set precedent for them.
What precedent was there for President Lincoln to look to etc. I'm here to learn not point fingers.
This discussion seems to be little more than a "****ed Yankee!" & "Bloody treasonous Rebs" conversation. Any chance we might get back to the education via discussion?
__________________ 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
Though, my posts have been short and infrequent Shane, they have been to the point. Here is one quote from one of my posts around January 23, 2004:
"Once secession occurred, there was never a chance of shots not being fired. The South wanted the military hardware and strategically placed forts. The North was not about to give up what was rightfully theirs. Hence War. In actuality, the reason for Secession was irrelevant. Secession was done which necessitated shots being fired."
War was definitely going to follow once the south seceded. There was no other option. Lincoln could not give up his military installations in the south without ignoring his oath of office. There is nothing more to say. Any attempt at negotiations would place Lincoln in violation of his oath " I ------------------ solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and will to the best of my judgment and power preserve,protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
The forts and armories were Federal property, ergo extensions of the constitution. War was inevitable once secession occured.
Mr. Torrens, I inferred your stand from your statement 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" to which you added "I remain slightly scepticle about the contention that a clear majority of Americans favoured the Revolutionary Cause"
When Neil confirms your scepticism about the general lack of support of the war by the colonists and asks what you think of that in reference to your previous stand, you ask what does he want you to do now? "Scream in your ear that your country has NEVER had ANY right to exist?"(all caps mine) but then you say "Frankly, I can summon up neither the energy nor the interest..."
If you have another inference from those direct statements I will be glad to add them to my collection.
Whatever you are trying to say, a simple declarative statement might be helpful. like "your country has never had any right to exist." you know the one you could not summon up the energy or interest to simply declare.
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.
Your two phrases are contradictory.
The government of the sovereign state of SC was never altered, rebelled against, or overturned.
Withdrawing its representatives from the government of a confederation and releasing that former union's general government from any obligations towards them, hardly qualifies as "rebellion."
I think it is clear that the advocates of forcing union on this board do not believe in the principle of self-goverment.
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.
So, Shane, are you saying that the right to self-government only belongs to those whose "motives" (as defined by your heavily biased perspective) for seeking independence meet your approval?
Bill: 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?
Scary. Seriously scary.
The monster is hideous.
I can not comprehend how our resident forced unionists could harbor such sentiments.
Mr. Doherty: War was definitely going to follow once the south seceded. There was no other option. Lincoln could not give up his military installations in the south without ignoring his oath of office.
Bill, how does the oath of office somehow equate to what you just said?
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
"So, Shane, are you saying that the right to self-government only belongs to those whose "motives" (as defined by your heavily biased perspective) for seeking independence meet your approval?"
Again, pray tell what is my opinion? You seem quite certain that you know what it is, please enlighten me. Is my "heavily biased perspective" heavily biased because it doesn't appear to agree w/ yours? I think that may be more in line w/ the problems of our discussion. I'm here to learn a little something, maybe hear an opinion or two that might make me think... not to be baited. I freely admit that I don't know everything about the Civil War, which is why I visit this board.
I think the Constitution is fairly clear that the actions of SC and those who joined the CSA are a wee bit out of line w/ the Constitution. Whether or not SC was in the right in their withdrawal from the Union was ever legal is not being debated by me. Whether or not War was inevitable or neccessary is of interest to me. Bill was kind enough to repost his opinion, Mr Torrens has also been kind enough to put forward some thought provoking questions and arguments...
To answer your comments I do believe in a govt by the people, for the people. Majority rules w/ the understanding that the minority must be represented (which the South was). I have yet to see a superior govt than a Democratic Republic. That being said I don't understand the SC position in Secession; it seems almost in the basest sense to have been a hissy fit because a President they didn't like won the election. Anything they didn't like that he attempted to push through could have been blocked by a largely Southern Supreme Court etc.
"Bill, how does the oath of office somehow equate to what you just said?
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." "
You don't seriously mean that question do you? I think the answer is painfully obvious when taken into the context of Ft Sumter being fired upon. Again, was the 33 hour bombardment of FT Sumter by guns manned by SC militia really just a peaceful protest to the presence of US Regulars?
In short how many American lives are worth a War? 1, 2, 20, 300, 1000, 3000 etc.? I think you might say kill or imprison as many US Servicemen as you like, their lives aren't worth a war. Please, correct me if I'm wrong.
__________________ 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
In my opinion, the oath was a covenant to insure that the officeholder performed in the best interests of the United States. I don't think you can say that ceding Federal property to the Confederates is operating in the best interests of the Union.Why should the federal government abandon, arms,munitions and property that is theirs to the south. Whether right or wrong, Lincoln took the position that the Confederacy did not legally exist. If it did not legally exist, how could he negotiate with the Confederacy, never mind cede lands to them. I don't like Lincoln at all but I understand why he did what he did and I see his logic. If I were in his place, I wouldn't give up Federal land either.
By the same token, The south could not allow Northern forts to remain in their territory.They had to prove they were a sovereign nation. There could only be one possible outcome; War.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
