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.
In your post #108, where you state, 'But they were never going to back away from the idea that the land (on which Ft. Sumter sat) was theirs.'
Doesn't this statement prove that Sumter was NOT irrelevant? To the people of South Carolina?
And the fact that the Federal government viewed the fort as sitting on land legally ceded to them and therefore the property of the Federal government a symbol of its right to be there and occupy it and reinforce it, NOT irrelevant to the Federal government? Thereby refusing to withdraw from it, was not the fort NOT considered irrelevant to the Lincoln administration and the North?
LOL, Neil, you got me there. Ft Sumter was very relevant along those lines. It's just that according to Bill's original premise stresses that the key to the war developing was secession and that Ft Sumter was irrelevant to secession and war. Any way you look at it, makes a great discussion. regards,ed
__________________ 'It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag'
And many say that the Federal government and Lincoln could not recognize the CSA and negotiate with it, but was not Lincoln already in talks with Gov. Pickens and South Carolina? What if the state had conducted talks beyond those? Would these have been recognized by Lincoln and the government? Could these have calmed things down a bit if they had developed?
Neil, Lincoln sent emissaries who conversed with Governor Pickens- in his capacity of governor of his state, not as a foreign power, but within the proper context of President and State. He was willing to overlook for the nonce that the state was in a declared state of secession. he was most scrupulous not to be 'negotiating' with aperson whosobeit, in an avowed state of rebellion. There is no way, that I can see, that he could conduct talks on any other level than President of the Union to Governor of a State in the Union. It's my recollection that Seward's talks were done surreptitiously as well and that Lincoln knew not of these talks.
__________________ 'It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag'
My opinion is the true nucleus of the war derived from cultural differences. All else,ie. Sumter, slavery and everything not covered by my humble theory, were only symptoms of the 'disease.' The 'disease' was cultural difference through emigration with pre-conceived ideals carried to the respective sectional regions. From 1776 forth, these ideals clashed like waves upon an ocean.
What do you think?
Rob:
I agree that the cultural/social differences between the North and the South by the time of the Civil War were hugely significant, as well as the economic and political differences; but the economical differences alone would have been enough to cause contention between the regions. It would have made much more sense and the regions would have been far better off if they had separated.
Secession was the cause for the war but it was not a 'potential catastrophe' that justified invasion of the South. I will always struggle with the concept that the principle behind the Union was a basis for making war against the Confederacy, and then later as a warning to guard against European interference. Where is the logic that the right to govern is more important than the right to liberty, or that the right to self government is to deserve death?
It was the fanatical and self-righteous Abolitionists who were far more of a threat to the preservation of the Union than slavery was, or the Fire-eaters in the South. The abolitionists stoked the fires of paranoia, and made any constructive solution for the slavery issue impossible. In their actions, did the South invade the rights of Northern people, and if not, how can a government ever lay claim to the notion that the subsequent death of hundreds of thousands of people was justified in order to achieve a whimsical destiny?
It's a bit of a conundrum to me that the distinctness of the South was brought into question when the Confederacy was created, and suddenly they were treated like imbeciles, not capable of governing themselves. Secession as a means for the South to express their dissatisfaction with the U.S. government was inevitable, regardless of slavery or Fort Sumter; but war as a method of perpetuating the Union was as an even greater abomination than slavery.
You know Bill, I really think you should send out pamphlets or offer support groups for people like me who become addicted to your always demuirgic threads. The cigars alone are killing me.
From the book, Beyond The Battlefield, by David Madden.
"Before the first shots were fired at Fort Sumter in the spring of 1861, the United States of America was an agricultural entity. Among the working population of 7.7 million, 4.9 million were farmers..."
I submit that a farmer in the North and a farmer in the South had pretty much simular cultural outlooks. and the working population of the entire US was 7.7 million with 4.9 million as farmers, that leaves 2.8 million to fill out other occupations such as sailors, doctors, factory workers, and a thousand other job descriptions. The idea that one of the major differences between the North and the South was a huge cultural difference should have a bit more basis in fact to be believed.
As to the idea there were those in the South who did not want to separate from the old Union, here is a letter from a Southern man during the time. See what he says.
J. D. Imboden to his friend, John McCue, December, 1860.
"I read your letter with interest. We are not so really far apart as you suppose. I understand that you are a "union man"--so am I. You would resist Republicanism--so would I. We neither think Va. ought to secede, or rather revolt just now. You think S. Carolina ought to go out now, I think not--and here is the only point of difference between us, so far as I can see...to break up the Government for the mere loss of an election is not regarded by thousands as justifiable. It is regarded as a mere pretext on the part of disunionists per se to precipitate a revolution. You can't make the great mass of people--especially the non slaveholder's understand the political philosophy of our government, and the nice principles on which the Secessionists are now attempting to act...the non slaveholder will fight for his section as long as the slaveholder if you can convince him that his political rights are really threatened as a citizen.... I am afraid the die is cast and that no power on earth can avert the impending ruin of anarchy & bloodshed."
There is more evidence of this feeling of wanting to find a way out of secession and remain in the Union that existed in the South at the time. One just has to look.
Now, I would like to address the remainder of my post to Bill and Dawna. You both have brought up the interesting idea of rights. Dawna speaks of the right of self-government and the right to liberty, in her post above.
Bill speaks of the right of secession, that the issues behind that self evident right are irrevelant.
These positions taken on the idea of the right to something forces me to explore 'The Strange Case of the Pink Flamingos.'
'Once upon a time, there was a man who lived in a quiet neighborhood who loved pink flamingos. He loved them because he found their thin legs and long beaks interesting and he absolutely loved the beautiful pink hue of their feathered plumage.
The man loved pink flamingos so much, he put three of them in his front yard, where he was able to admire them from his front window, when leaving and returning from work, even when mowing his lawn.
Then the man decided that he liked these wonderful birds so much, he decided to go into the business of buying and selling them. He found that many people in his part of town liked and admired the pink birds as well, and he did a brisk business buying and reselling the distinctive fowls. He became rich and important in his part of town, repected and an influence in his neighborhood.
Now the man who loved these pink flamingos wanted even more money and more power, so he decided to expand his business to other parts of town. But here, he ran into some serious problems. Other neighborhoods in town did not WANT pink flamingos on their lawns. They did not find the birds attractive or desirable. Some sections of town even had local ordinances against putting such displays of fowls on their lawns.
These problems made the man sad and then made him angry, 'What right do these people have to restrict my business in pink flamingos?' he asked himself. They were depriving him of the right to earn a living, the right to the pursuit of happiness, the right to improve his lot and earn for his family, were they not?
So the man decided to use his influence and money earned from the selling and buying of pink flamingos to force others to permit the planting of the skinny birds in their parts of town and in their yards. At first, he wanted to get authorization to store the birds in the parts of town that did not want them. Then he tried to get laws passed that would overturn the ordinances that kept the flamingos out of those sections of town. He even tried to run for mayor on his 'Pink Flamingos On Every Lawn' platform.
But he was defeated at the polls by a candidate whose platform was 'Pink Flamingos Where They Are, But Not Where They Are Not Wanted' platform. And when he was defeated, he feared his business and influence would suffer and he was very angry at the rest of the town who denied him his right to sell pink flamingos in their part of town.
So the man declared himself the rightful ruler of his part of town and refused to do any business with the rest of his town. He even took over the town library and firestation that was located in his section and put pink flamingos on their lawns and decreed the rest of the nonflamingo section of town could no longer use those facilities. Conflict arose over such denial and much havoc was across the town...'
Now, it is my opinion the man had a right to own pink flamingos, but did he have a right to impose his view of them on his unwilling neighbors? Or was it the man's motives involved with exercising that right that caused all the problems?
Well, anyway, I think you all can see where I am headed with this story. But just in case, for Bill and Dawna, some questions you might answer for me please, concerning this issue of 'rights.'
Bill, I am of the opinion that you have stated the right of secession ISbecause it exists, that the reasons and causes of it are not important, that the citizens of the South had that right. Period. End of discussion.
Dawna, you have stated that the South had the right of self-government and the right to liberty. Period. End of discussion.
Let me try another, nonflamingo, scenario to try and answer your statements.
I have the right to pick up a rock. I use that rock to crush the skull of a strange passerby. Simply because I have that 'right' to pick up a rock, do I not also have the responsibility to use that rock in a responsible manner?
I have the right to own a gun. I use that gun to murder a man. Does the right to own a gun forgo my using it in a responsible manner?
'Any people anywhere, being so inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government'. But doesn't that right demand responsibility when it is exercised? Should not the motives behind exercising that right demand that it be exercised with judgment and for a good cause?
As a favorite author of mine once wrote, "How about 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'?"
"...Life? What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What 'right' to life has a man who must die if he is to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of 'right'?
As to liberty, the heroes who signed the [Declaration of Independence] pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost.
The third 'right'?--the 'pursuit of happiness' ? It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can 'pursue happiness' as long as my brain lives--but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can insure that I will catch it."
To me 'rights' cannot exist without purpose, ryme or reason. To have a right to something does not automatically mean the right should be exercised. Not unless it is done with responsibility, with a just cause in mind behind the exercising of that right.
Or else it is just a rock, waiting to be used or misused, depending on the motives of the man or the group of men, who choose to exercise that right that exists for all men.
Claiming that rights merely exist does not mean that they are 'right' in their execution. Therefore, I believe the motives behind the exercise of any percieved right are just as important as the existence of that right.
Right or wrong?
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
Neil... I hate flamingos; especially when a wily customer had us install a camera in one. I do believe you've put it quite simply.
__________________ 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
We recently had a friend of my wife give us a couple of the silly things. They look totally rediculous and we've managed to 'lose' them so they are not on our lawn.
I must admit I was somewhat punch-drunk last night when I did 'The Strange Case of the Pink Flamingos' from lack of sleep. But sometimes I do my best work when I don't realize what I am saying.
Thanks,
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 read your flamingo parable with the greatest interest. Who would have guessed that a man with a long and honourable record of military service to his country, and who is now an exemplary member of the U.S. Postal Service, would succumb to the temptation to take acid? And yet the evidence is all too clear. You old hippy, you.
J.D.Imboden’s letter is interesting. You say that it is evidence of the type of Southerner who wanted to find a way out of secession. Well, maybe. But let’s look at what Imboden said a little later in the same letter:
If I had my way now, I would fight the Republicans thus--I would say to Lincoln "You have been elected by the vote of only about one third of the people of the U. States. Your party is revolutionary in its organization, tendencies & aims. No man of your party ought to fill any national office if it can be prevented. We--the conservative 2/3rds of the American people still control the Senate & H. of Reps. of the U. States. We will use our power in those bodies to protect ourselves. We understand your party aims at the subjugation of 15 States & you as their head are expected to further their objects. We therefore declare war upon you & your party as you have declared war upon us."
Hmmmn…I’m not sure Thad Stevens would be inviting him around for drinks on the basis of that, are you? Of course, the fact that John Daniel Imboden went on to become a Confederate brigadier general also suggests certain limits to his Unionist sentiment.
Regards,
Bill
Last edited by bill_torrens; 10-07-2005 at 12:51 PM.
Be cool, man. Free Love, and above all, BEWARE THE PINK FLAMINGOS!
Sounds like are Mr. Imboden was caught between a rock and a hard place, doesn't it? On one hand, secessionists are doing wrong by trying to convince nonslaveholders to break up the Union which he clearly does not want to do, and on the other, he sees the end to compromise on the issue by the election of the Republican party and decides to remain loyal to his state.
Still seems he got the core issue behind secession right, doesn't it?
Beware the forced spread of PINK FLAMINGOS!
Peace, my brother!
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
Whilst Bill may think you dropped a little too much acid in the sixties, I'm inclined to believe that you've skipped the light fandango a few too many times to the tunes of Led Zepplin; or quite possibly "The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down."
"I submit that a farmer in the North and a farmer in the South had pretty much simular cultural outlooks. and the working population of the entire US was 7.7 million with 4.9 million as farmers, that leaves 2.8 million to fill out other occupations such as sailors, doctors, factory workers, and a thousand other job descriptions. The idea that one of the major differences between the North and the South was a huge cultural difference should have a bit more basis in fact to be believed."
I'm afraid that I'll have to diagree with you Neil. People who settled in the Southern states invariably came from different regions of England than people who settled in the Northern states. Southern culture in the antebellum period was hugely steeped in honour, (better death than disgrace) a notion not understood and often ridiculed by Northerners. Tradition and stability to the Southern way of life were highly valued, while the North embraced progress and modernization. How could there not be a huge cultural difference between the anima of the South and that of the North, when the very fabric of their societies was so completely different?
Dawna, you have stated that the South had the right of self-government and the right to liberty. Period. End of discussion.
I have the right to pick up a rock. I use that rock to crush the skull of a strange passerby. Simply because I have that 'right' to pick up a rock, do I not also have the responsibility to use that rock in a responsible manner?
Neil, you are suggesting that the Confederacy lacked judgement and that they behaved in an irresponsible manner by seceding from the United States of America, and I fear that here we must part company once again. The South did not invade the North to achieve their goals - they peacefully withdrew from an oppressive government. I believe the Confederacy acted reasonably, amenably, and with inculpable judgement.
When the Northern people governed themselves, they enjoyed "self-government," but when they governed themselves and also the South against their will, what do you call this - liberty for some? Monocratic government? The purpose of the Confederacy was to start a government that better suited their needs. Did this give President Lincoln the right to bind one people to another because of his interpretation of the concept of "perpetual?" If so, what does that say about the Lincoln administration?
I propose to you Neil that if the needs of the people do not come first, as in the case of the right to secession, then you do not have any rights at all. The imposition at the time of the Civil War was the removal of consent from a group of people who sought liberty; by a government who claimed their use of force was to 'unite' the country.
Please tell me in what way the Southern people were as free as the North, if they were not able to leave of their own accord? And even if secession was illegal, would it not have been so much better to simply let the South go, and save over 600,000 lives?
After checking over my medication and putting on a cd with the song, Buffalo Springfield, For What It's Worth, by Stephen Stills, I feel that I am now in enough control to reply to your post #119.
I have a hard time reaching the conclusion that somehow the concept of honor was any less of a factor in the Northern part of the United States simply because a relocation from another part of the Mother country. I cannot accept the idea of honor was 'rediculated' by the North, except perhaps in the extreme application of what some in the South considered 'their honor.'
As the movie Gettysburg had Freemantle say to Longstreet, all Americans had the same history, language, stories, legends, songs, religions, customs, etc. But each section had "...different dreams, different dreams. How sad."
Whereas I am inclined to go with your assesment of the South holding on to tradition and stability, too much stability in a persons life could be an indication of stagnation, lack of inovation and death. Societies, like people, must change, adapet, or die. Modernization was a concept that was not looked down upon by the entire South. It was called for, again and again, by those in the South who saw their region stagnating and coming to a standstill. It was not evil or any less honorable to want it, even in the South.
And yes, Dawna, the South, more specifically, the Leadership of the South, acted in a very irresponsible manner, failing their region in judgement and in moral leadership. In spite of the repeated warnings that such an illegal act, an impossible act of 'peaceable secession' was simply not possible and did not have the moral and legal justification for such a drastic measure, they threw the dice and caused the death of hundreds of thousands. They acted out of foolish pride, arrogance, and a decided lack of judgement over what they were going to put the Southern people through to maintain their own power and status.
I take exception to your continued insistance that when the 'Northern people' governed themselves, they enjoyed self-government. You mean when the people of the United States governed themselves, they enjoyed self-government. Before secession, representatives from both the North and the South, East and the West, were in the Federal government, none lacked representation. As for against their will, I do wish you would include the very real and very documented part of history where the south imposed its will on the rest of the nation for over seventy years, since the country's founding, and yet, even with loud protest, the other sections of the country did not try rebellion or leave the Union over the South's policy's during that time.
It is only when the North rebeled against the continued and unfair practices of the spreading of that institution and managed to stage a peaceful revolution by use of the ballot box in the election of 1860, do we see a people finally exercising their rights so that the majority could finally have liberty in the face of the tyranny of a few.
The purpose of the South was not an experiment in democracy, far from it. It was an attempt by a few to subvert democracy, to end it, by keeping their traditions and culture for a few, by a few, against the wishes of the many.
I submit to you Dawna, that the needs of the people, the majority of the people, who exercised their legal rights and their desires, triumphed and insured freedom for all, not just a minority who wanted its selfish way. The Civil War was a people's war, in that they proved that they could not be ignored any longer nor could they be dictated to by a powerful few who cared nothing about their lives, desires or rights.
The people of the South had the right to instead of being in the minority, to become the majority. They were free to try again at the ballot box, free to convince a majority of their fellow countrymen that there was merit in their cause and in their percieved idea of what states rights were. And they could have done it peacefully, without bloodshed, without forcing unjust laws upon their fellow citizens, without censoring their mails and their elected representatives.
They chose not to. And for what? Not for a noble experiment, but for the worst cause imagineable, at the behest of leaders and fire-eaters deperate to use them, but never to really permit them to voice and have their desires acted upon.
Its not only a great pity, but the worst tragedy in American history.
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
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
