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.
But surely you've read enough to realize that the vast majority of Northerners in 1860 could care less about the instituion of slavery or the black man.
If the majority of northerners didn't care about slavery then why in 1860 did they elect a man from a party founded to stop the expansion of slavery?
If they were as apathetic as you claim then why didn't the north vote for Douglas?
Quote:
Folks seem to have much difficulty explaining how the CSA retarded human liberty more than the USA.
Plenty of people have explained how. You are just practicing cognitive dissonance.
Quote:
And why not address my concern? Why are so many Americans such strong proponents of forcing union against the principles of self-government and liberty that we were founded on?
We have explained that plenty of times too.
The Confederacy is the very antithesis of liberty and self-government.
Quote:
A bloodless bombardment after a months' long back and forth to negotiate the removal of US troops from there harbor is now an "aggressive rebellion." And the flag. Don't forget firing on the flag
Who pulled the first lanyard? Who illegally confiscated civil, monetary, and military property which was not theirs? The south.
Quote:
Of course, this is silly.
It's only considered silly by those who think the Confederacy was all romance and mint juleps on the veranda and slaves loved working in the fields picking cotton all day long.
__________________
Last edited by Admiral_Porter; 12-08-2005 at 06:56 PM.
Problematic, in that CS soldiers of the AOT re-enlisted of their own accord in 1864 at Dalton, Gergia? Hardly, IMO. They re-enlisted to fight the Union army which was invading their land, not to protect a rich mans right to own slaves.
The numbers of CS volunteer infantry as opposed to conscripted soldiers is greatly lopsided in the favor of volunteers. And this includes conscripts in groups of 10-20 who were inserted into the volunteer units as replacements.
Fully, 10% of the male population of the South died in the WBTS. I call it fighting to gain their independence and you call it fighting to perpetuate slavery. Strange...? I guess it depends upon which side your loyalty resides. Your sources of course are pro-unionist and neo-unionist. ;-)
Problematic, in that CS soldiers of the AOT re-enlisted of their own accord in 1864 at Dalton, Gergia? Hardly, IMO.
Go back to your original post. Your post referred to ALL confederate soldiers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alabaman
They re-enlisted to fight the Union army which was invading their land, not to protect a rich mans right to own slaves.
Is that why owners of twenty or more slaves were exempt from conscription?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alabaman
Fully, 10% of the male population of the South died in the WBTS. I call it fighting to gain their independence and you call it fighting to perpetuate slavery. Strange...? I guess it depends upon which side your loyalty resides. Your sources of course are pro-unionist and neo-unionist. ;-)
My sources are that neo-Unionist Alexander H. Stephens, the Pro-Unionist Stephen Hale of Alabama, the neo-Unionist Mississippi Secession Convention, the pro-Unionist Henry Benning of Georgia, the neo-Unionist Jefferson Davis, and the Pro-Unionist Georgia Secession Convention, among others.
I call it fighting to gain their independence and you call it fighting to perpetuate slavery. Strange...?
The point is.......the prime objective of the confederacy was to protect and perpetuate slavery. Regardless of what an individual soldier's personal reason for fighting was, his fighting for the confederacy constituted a de facto fight for the preservation of slavery.
"During the weeks following the [1860] election, editors of all parties assumed that secession as a constitutional right was not in question.... On the contrary, the southern claim to a right of peaceable withdrawal was countenanced out of a reverence for the natural law principle of government by consent of the governed." -- Howard Cecil Perkins, Northern Editorials on Secession, 1964
Looking at this in context, it should come as no surprise that I don't agree it means what you are claiming.
"With the approach of November 6, a Republican victory became a foregone conclusion. Douglas editors urged their fellows to courage and industry, but their bitterness against the Breckinridge Democracy suggested expectations of defeat. Following the election, Republicans described secession threats as called bluffs and dismissed Carolinian steps toward a state convention as moves to save face. They expected separatist brag to 'fizzle out' as it had on many occasions since the bitter debates on the Missouri Compromise, and they looked to see southern hot-heads overwhelmed by southern Unionism. With the growing realization that secession was more than idle talk, Republican editors divided their admonitions to the South between 'be gone and good riddance' and 'a million men will spring to arms to defend the Union.' The opposition parties, now merging into a compromise front, implored the Republicans to choose their course with patriotism rather than partisanship.
"The editorial discussions of southern policy led naturally to appraisals of the 'right of secession.' During the weeks following the election, editors of all parties assumed that secession as a constitutional right was not in question, for they had not yet arrived at the point where they sought legal justification for coercion. On the contrary, the southern claim to a right of peaceable withdrawal was countenanced out of reverence for the natural law principle of government by consent of the governed. This response constituted another rejection of 'coerced allegiance,' a rejection proclaimed countless times during the months preceding the outbreak of war. With many editors, however, changing tempers later produced a willingness to oppose the southern course with whatever arguments were available, and of those the denial of secession as a constitutional right ranked first among a people with a stubborn faith in legal processes. The southern program, editors then asserted, actually invoked not a right of secession but the right of revolution. To this doctrine northern editors without exception gave lip service but almost unanimously they declared that it could be exercised only for proper cause. The determination of the propriety of the cause they reserved to themselves; such an argument, of course, denied the right of revolution. Thus, without ever having admitted the right of secession, many editors veered from acquiescence to opposition on the practical question of peaceable separation." [Howard C. Perkins, Northern Editorials on Secession, Vol 1, pp. 10-11]
As the actuality of secession got closer, the idea became less theoretical and more real. One could consider the abstract idea of the mythical right to secession existing in theory. But as it became real and there were going to be actual consequences, the reality led to viewing it from the standpoint of what the law actually was. In reality, they didn't admit there was a right of secession. Having explored it theoretically, they were pulled back to the reality by events and had to deal with the reality rather than the fantasy.
In 1776, Americans created a new republic. By "new" I mean there weren't any others. Everyone else in the Western World held some variation of monarchy.
That's not quite right. Offhand I can think of two republics which existed in 1776: Switzerland and Holland.
The chief generals of the respective rebel causes, Washington and Lee, were considered the finest examples of their societies.
Difference:
The American Revolutionaries gained direct military aid and allied troops and ships, while the Confederacy received little foreign help they didn't have to pay for.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
