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 have been a fairly long-time contributor, with aphillbilly and other incarnations. I have recently been ill (in fact, I had to have help writing this post), but much of the reason for my lack of posting or contributing is the few members here who have displayed a distinct lack of courtesy. It just wasn’t fun for me anymore As we've shown here on this board, people who do not share the same opinions can get along, but there's a difference between those who are actively seeking to share thoughts and opinions in a respectful manner and those come on and stir things up, without being willing to properly back up their opinions. It's one thing to just attack someone's viewpoint and question it, but to do so without contributing anything else but the attacking, shows a distinct lack of respect or any desire to learn. You can have a difference of opinion without giving offense. When offense is given it is not something to be proud of or be defensive about. The point here is to try and reach an understanding.
ewc and i got off to an incredibly bad start, going for each other's throats to the point where I actually left the forum and we took our fight off the boards to e-mail. Yet now, I consider ewc one of my dearest and closest online friends and would gladly stop a bullet for him.
So, you can come to love and respect your opponents. Attitude is everything. The playful vexations, jibes and bon mots we engage in here, are at least attempted with humor, good intentions, and respect. Courtesy is given but respect is earned. Respect is not earned by doing nothing but agitating without providing something besides opinions alone. These tactics only work if the desire is to be ignored (as I have had to ignore a current member) or be disliked, not for one's opinion but how it's delivered. When I have given offense I have tried to be quick to apologize because it is never my intention to offend.
If we're already convinced that everything has been decided beyond a doubt, why are we even here?
If anything I've said here has offended anyone, I offer my most sincere apology. My only concern is preserving the harmony of the board, but it's becoming increasingly difficult not to react in a negative way, and I do not want to cause further disruption. I have no desire to leave this forum, but would willingly do so if that's what it takes to preserve the peace.
I will be the first to admit that I am a very stubborn person. I am dead sure that Tommy & Thea will have no problem agreeing with that statement. I am slow to change and cautious with first impulses and like to review and chew a subject to death before I even consider a change of view on the late war.
I will also offer an apology to you if I do not have the ability to be more clear in my observations and conclusions on the causes of the war. I feel I have honestly tried to do so, but as with William, we may be separated somewhat by a common language or by what we both view as the correct terminology when we discuss the same subject.
Might I make a suggestion? Could you list what specific Southern rights were violated by the North & Lincoln? As you have indicated to Shane and Nicolo, it might be best if we all knew what exactly we were talking about so we could begin with a common baseline.
And Hal, I said the South (those in power in that region)left the Union over property rights rather than any threat to unalienable rights you allude to.
As for the South violating Northern rights, how about the gag order on the subject of slavery in Congress concerning the right to petition and free speech?
How about Kansas and the idea that the majority of the population there did not want slavery in that State and the South's representatives in Congress efforts to sabotage their wishes?
How about the 1860 Democratic Party convention that included a plank that slavery MUST be protected by the full power of the Federal Government in EVERY region and State in the Union? Regardless of how that State viewed slavery?
What about the US Mail being censored and pawed through to insure no 'wrong' ideas on slavery got to the South? Why were newspaper editors hung and their presses destroyed?
Why didn't Lincoln appear on any Deep South Southern ballots during the 1860 elections?
And again, Hal, you charge your questions with phrases like 'federal subjugation' and 'the unalienable rights of Southerners' while those in the North have 'rights of Northerners.' Why not use terms like 'Southern rebellion' or 'treason' or 'violation of the law?'
Because you believe secession was right and I believe it was rebellion and wrong. You believe there were Southern unalienable rights at stake and I believe their were property rights and selfish political power at stake. You believe secession a legal option and I consider it an illegal fantasy.
I believe there was more threat to the Union in the form of restrictions on freedom of speech and democracy and those in power in the South who feared the 'mob', the people and would have done anything to keep that mob in its proper place so they could continue in their positions of power and wealth and to keep things as they are at the expense of progress for the rest of the nation.
And here we are again.
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
I agree, a sincere difference of opinion should not be considered a mortal wound. No blood is split here nor should our manners and our courtesy become victims of verbal combat.
ALL SHOULD BE HEARD, even when we disagree and respect does not give away debating points in any of our talks.
I would regret to lose one member of this board over a disagreement of views on a conflict over 140 years old. Unless someone has a side bet of a huge amount, we all should be able to discuss and present our views in a polite and civil manner.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
(Message edited by Unionblue on February 06, 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
“Mr. Torrens, are you by any chance a lawyer or teacher?”
No. I’m a professional librarian. But I wouldn’t mind a lawyer’s salary.
Just to be clear I can quote you as saying "your country" (America) "has never had any right to exist."?
No, you can’t. Good grief, you really have to pay closer attention! What you can quote is my asking the rhetorical question “So what do you want me to do now? Scream in your ear that your country has never had any right to exist?”
A rhetorical question is very different to a positive statement. You don’t need to be a lawyer to grasp this. I was seeking to convey my impression that Neil was trying to manoeuvre me into agreeing to the proposition that there was no majority support amongst colonists for the American Revolution. Which would, of course, undermine any argument for the legitimacy of the United States. That’s not an anti-American statement; that’s a simple matter of fact.
The following will be the very last words I speak on this subject. I have no strong opinions on, or extensive knowledge of, the War of Independence. My casual assumption had always been that a majority of colonists favoured independence, although I was aware of substantial Loyalist sentiment and had never been clear on how popular opinion was measured in the 1770s. Some people who know more about the subject than I do have argued in this forum that the picture was less clear-cut. And that’s fine by me too….indeed, I find the argument quite persuasive. But the plain fact is that I simply don’t care either way.
“In ref. to item 5. I find it interesting you think a countrys right to exist is based on morality.”
Well, now. This is really intriguing. Shane has also said that “No govt has a moral right to exist.” Please forgive a naïve and probably stupid question: if the government of the United States had no moral right to exist, on what basis do you object to the seceding states’ alleged desire to dissolve it?
On 21st June 1905 the King of Sweden & Norway addressed the Riksdag:
“ ‘To my sorrow the country which for nearly a century has been united with Sweden by a legal bond has, contrary to my will and to its sworn engagements, taken steps to sever this bond….what has happened, however, constitutes not only an encroachment on my rights as King of Norway but also an attempt to sever the Union with Sweden, which is founded on a mutual agreement. This is a matter of vital concern to the Swedish people, and I have consequently considered it my duty to summon you without delay in order that you may concert with me as to the measures which are rendered necessary by the decision of the Storthing, and take such steps as may counteract the evil effects for Sweden.
In the proposal which, in this respect, I now lay before you, it is not intended to repel injustice by force. However important for the safety of the Scandinavian nation the Union may be, it is not worth the sacrifices which its maintenance by coercion would entail. Of little use to Sweden, in truth, would the Union be if Norway had to be forced into it. No! May the Swedish people be led by prudent self-control and God will grant Sweden the inward union and power which will enable her to recover within her own frontiers what by separation from Norway she will lose outside.’
The prevalent feeling throughout the ceremony of the opening of the Riksdag was one of extreme gravity and suppressed emotion. The King’s voice was earnest and his face very grave. The speakers of both Houses, in replying to the speech from the Throne, struggled to master their feelings and to steady their voice. Every face wore an expression of mingled sadness and earnestness and many eyes were full of tears.”
As reported in The London Times of 22nd June, 1905.
I don’t pretend to claim that the chain of events which led to Norwegian secession precisely mirrored events in America. I simply make the point that pro-Union sympathisers can be somewhat glib in assuming that the only response to “illegal” secession was war. Because here was a case where the aggrieved central government was equally convinced that unilateral secession was an “injustice” which injured the interests of the “loyal” part of the Union. And it was a case where, as the above report indicates, feelings ran just as deeply and emotions were just as stirred as in America. But the “injured” parties nevertheless determined not to wage war. Can you honestly say they were wrong?
Mr. Torrens, Do you not know that all gov't's are ultimately, based on force, not morality.
You state your criteria of what makes a new country morally legitimate and stated that you were sceptical that the American Revolutionary War met that criteria. Neil confirmed your scepticism, as do I for that matter (only about 1/3 of the colonists supported the war). According to your criteria, America does not deserve to exist.
I belabor this point because I find it disingenuous for people to cite a criterion and then refuse to follow that criterion to its logical conclusion. Unless, of course, they are incapable of logic, in which case I will happily withdraw this statement.
I have already followed this criterion to its conclusion. I am not made nervous by the thought that the American Revolution had no popular mandate, if you insist that this was the case. Why should the thought bother me? I am not American. In principle, the legitimacy of the political system of the United States means no more and no less to me than the legitimacy of the political systems of Bolivia, or Albania or Burma. You presumably feel the same about the United Kingdom.
So if there was no democratic mandate for the creation of the United States that qualifies as your problem rather than mine. Quite what you think you are pinning on me is beyond my imagination.
Let me turn the question back upon you. If the majority of colonists did not support the Revolution, how does that affect the way in which you view it? After all, you're an American citizen. Your opinion on this is rather more important than mine. Personally, I'm so bored by this that I'm not at all sure I'm still awake.
Shane: 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.
So, are you saying that a minority within a larger unit has no right to govern themselves as long as they have some representation in the larger unit?
I think your answer will help to zero in on your position.
If you prefer to avoid the above clarification, Mr. Torrens' precise statements regarding his stance on the topic leave no room for question.
A simple exercise will remove all doubt as to where you stand.
Here are Mr. Torrens' statements once again:
1. The right to self-determination, to self-government, is the one great political principle.
2. The nation state exists in order to give expression to that desire for self-government.
3. The nation state has no purpose, identity or validity independent of that function.
4. 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.
5. Having become a separate people, their need for self-government cannot be fulfilled by the existing nation state, which therefore ceases to exist.
Please put "agree" or "disagree" beside each one.
Neil, you and Nicolo are welcome to do the same, if you would like your stance to be understood.
On 21st June 1905 the King of Sweden & Norway addressed the Riksdag:
“ ‘To my sorrow the country which for nearly a century has been united with Sweden by a legal bond has, contrary to my will and to its sworn engagements, taken steps to sever this bond….what has happened, however, constitutes not only an encroachment on my rights as King of Norway but also an attempt to sever the Union with Sweden, which is founded on a mutual agreement. This is a matter of vital concern to the Swedish people, and I have consequently considered it my duty to summon you without delay in order that you may concert with me as to the measures which are rendered necessary by the decision of the Storthing, and take such steps as may counteract the evil effects for Sweden.
In the proposal which, in this respect, I now lay before you, it is not intended to repel injustice by force. However important for the safety of the Scandinavian nation the Union may be, it is not worth the sacrifices which its maintenance by coercion would entail. Of little use to Sweden, in truth, would the Union be if Norway had to be forced into it. No! May the Swedish people be led by prudent self-control and God will grant Sweden the inward union and power which will enable her to recover within her own frontiers what by separation from Norway she will lose outside.’
The prevalent feeling throughout the ceremony of the opening of the Riksdag was one of extreme gravity and suppressed emotion. The King’s voice was earnest and his face very grave. The speakers of both Houses, in replying to the speech from the Throne, struggled to master their feelings and to steady their voice. Every face wore an expression of mingled sadness and earnestness and many eyes were full of tears.”
As reported in The London Times of 22nd June, 1905.
Bill, thank you for the above account.
I was touched by the real commitment to the principles of self-governance displayed by the King of Sweden and their governing body, and can not help but feel ashamed that in this country we took the road of war and coercion rather than that of liberty and tolerance for our brothers' desire for independence.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
