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 think this thread is about the similarities and differencies between 1776 and 1861. My point that the creation of a republic, holding 40% of its population in perpetual bondage, did not represent an advance in human liberty.
If the only way the South could see to reconcile different economic activities was secession and war, they weren't going to make it as a nation anyway.
Matthew,
Surely you do realize that there were slaves in the American colonies in 1776 in both the North and the South.By that logic that could mean the war in 1776 was fought to keep poeple in bondage as well.I might also remind you that Lincoln offered to rescind the Emancipation Proclamation if the Southern states would lay down their arms.
You also neglected to mention that during the war with the professional army(Britain)in 1776,that professional army won most of the battles and would've probably crushed us were they not busy fighting France,Spain, and the Dutch as well around the globe at the same time.
Both sides were green ,but hardly to the same degree.The North did have a government in place for about 90 years.The South had to form a government and supply system where none existed.The Northern edge in population was the determining factor.
__________________ "The sword is mighty, but principles laugh at swords. Overwhelming force may crush truth to earth but, crushed or not the truth is still the truth." Regards, Ashley
In 1776, a ill equiped and amateur army faced a professional one
In 1861, while the North held the advantage in equipment, both sides started as green as grass.
Another difference: In 1776 we didn't hold the revolution and fight for the purpose of keeping people in bondage.
In 1861 that is exactly what the confederates did, by their own words. "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery." [Mississippi Declaration of Causes]
Dear Ashley,
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. No where did anyone have the political power and rights that white Americans had. That was the progress in human liberty. As a result, slavery was abolished in some of the former colonies.
In 1861, the creation of a new republic represented no advance in human liberty. The Southern voters gained no additional rights. Because the Confederacy identified itself with the preservation of slavery, the permanent and perpetual bondage of 40% of its inhabitants, its creation was a set back for human liberty.
Last edited by matthew mckeon; 12-06-2005 at 06:38 PM.
Ashley,
Good point about the Union having a functioning government, while the CSA had to start from scratch. I was thinking in terms of the fighting: both officers and men were mostly innocent of battle, while all were inexperienced in the scale and duration of the fighting.
Yes, I gree with you. Ashley brought forth an excellent point in regard to the CSA starting from scratch.
Both 'countries' in 1861 were similar in the aspect of inheriting sectional arguments which weren't settled efficiently upon the successes of the Revolution by our Founding Fathers. Didn't John Adams resort to great and lengthy mediation between the middle & lower (Southern) colonies and the New England colonies during the Revolution? If I recall correctly, much consternation existed between these two 'sections' regarding economics & representation. Our best simularity seems to be a similar desire to break from England and then it all starts becoming so very complicated? :-)
Similarity
Both the colonies and the Confederacy's struggle was based on the natural right of revolution.
Difference
The American Revolution advanced the progress of human liberty, while the CSA retarded that progress.
Matthew, regarding your comment on the 1861 struggle, I assume you are referring to the fight to thwart self-government, and not the effort to secure it. Is that correct?
Another difference: In 1776 we didn't hold the revolution and fight for the purpose of keeping people in bondage.
In 1861 that is exactly what the confederates did, by their own words. "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery." [Mississippi Declaration of Causes]
Regards,
Cash
That is quite a leap.
Here's one that's not so stretched.
In 1776, the union of colonies fought for self-government and declared allegiance to principles of liberty and independence.
In 1861, the union fought against those very principles.
Originally Posted by cash
Another difference: In 1776 we didn't hold the revolution and fight for the purpose of keeping people in bondage.
In 1861 that is exactly what the confederates did, by their own words. "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery." [Mississippi Declaration of Causes]
Regards,
Cash
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
That is quite a leap.
Not at all. It is what the historical record shows.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
In 1776, the union of colonies fought for self-government and declared allegiance to principles of liberty and independence.
In 1861, the union fought against those very principles.
In fact, that's a false claim. There was no liberty in the confederate states for the slaves. They fought specifically to deny liberty to their slaves. The southern states already had self-government. They had representatives in the national government and they had their own state governments. They had freely bound themselves to the US Constitution, and the Union fought to hold them to the agreement they had signed up to.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
