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.
Just found a quote I think applies to what we have been discussing.
"Which of these two Christian people are [we] to pray for?"
British citizen, on the moral dilemma of a nation fighting itself.
And perhaps an even more approbriate quote on how simular each section was to one another.
"Both read the same Bibile and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against each other. It may seem strange that any men should dare ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us not judge that we be not judged."
Abraham Lincoln, second inaugural address, March 4, 1865.
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
A distinction without a difference. The Constitution provides the framework and the basic rules for the structure and operation of the Government.
Regards,
Cash
If one is unable to see the difference between the Constitution and the government that is charged with upholding it, defending it, and strictly abiding by it, then I guess my case is made for me.
Quote by Neil: Which of these two Christian people are <we> to pray for?
British citizen, upon the moral decision upon a nation fighting itself.
Alabaman's answer: Are <we> righteous to pray for a formr sinner who has repented, and not for a sinner fully realizing his sin, yet is denied his just repentance and prayer by lack of the accusors' long suffering?
Hint: Great Britain chose long suffering and a wise, moderate approach to the peculiar institution. (I define "long suffering" per the King James Version of the Holy Bible)
British Parliament appropriated 20,000,000 pounds (if I recall correctly), aprroximately $100 millions U.S. (compared), in compensation to West Indies slaveholders, upon manumitting their slaves. Thus: no slaves, no loss of personal fortune, no moralistic implication, no war & no minus 600,000-plus lives lost; per ONLY moderation and long suffering.
Perhaps President Lincoln and I disagree as to our respective interpretations of the Holy Bible, and the duty of a Christian in following the Word that dwelt amoung us.
Hey Fellas,
I would have to say that my good friend Rob is right about their being cultural differences in 1861.Numerous foreigners did talk about the differences in the two regions as did many Americans.Look at the North and South today and in general you see more liberals in the North and more conservatives in the South.Just by looking at the last election it doesn't take Captain Obvious to tell you that poeple in the different sections still have different views about the way the government should be run.Slavery has been gone from the equation for over 140 years now.Yet the poeple in the North and South still can't agree about how to run a government.True we spoke the same language then and some of us had the same religion.Those are valid points but they have little to do with sectionalism and war.Look at Iraq .They speak the same language and are all Muslims of some kind but they're fighting each other too.Americans had the same language and reiligion as most of Britain, but we fought them too.What about Mexico fighting for independence from Spain.Again same language, same religion but different ideas.
Afternoon guys,
Ashley
Thanks for the reply. It seems there is a 'difference' in our section of the country and theirs, doesen't it? And we are certainly not being judgemental or hyper-critical to our Northern brethren, we're only looking for an answer.;-)
I located the following while searching for info on he 8th Ala. Infantry for a good friend, and I'll share:
"Miss Martineau (a noted author and traveller of that day), had conversed with many people on the subject (slavery) but she met with only one prson who altogether defended the situation." (Rhodes, Vol. 1, pg. 154. note, info inclusive to H. A. Herbert's Sketch* )
On Secession & volunteering CS service in 1861, Col. Herbert, 8th Ala. wrote in 1906:
"The reader of today will fail to understand without a brief survey of pre-existing conditions. We were exulting over a dissolution of a union that at that time unfortunately had become hateful and we hailed with great gladness the setting up of our governmet of our own, just as the Norwegians were, last year, 1905, rejoicing over peaceful seperation from Sweden, their long union with which had become irksome and intollerable. In principle the two cases are parallel. Between Sweden and Norway, two sovereign States, there was a limited union. Norway felt that Sweden, the majority nation, was claiming and exercising powers not authorized by the the Act of Union. There was no judge between the two sovereign States, and Norway seceeded. Our case was the same." (Col. H.A. Herbert, Sketch on The Eighth Ala. Inf. Reg't. 1906, opening comment)
These words came from a man hesitant in desiring secession yet volunteeered & became elected Col. of the Confederate Regiment which 'primarily' fought the Battle of the Crater, in 1864 Virginia. His further commentary exhibits signs that a 'gap' in personal & cultural relations of North & South beginning in the early 1820's of the U.S., existed.
Per your post #134, if a people are raised with the same language, same religion, same background and history, then it is a social issue, not a cultural one that lies at the heart of the dispute. I suggest that today you will find many liberal and conservative voters in all the 50 states, but Americans, North or South, no matter how much they want to believe how 'different' from one another (and I have been to Boston, so I should know how different folks can be) you cannot lay it at the feet of cultural differences.
Alabaman, You know that the United States government tried way before the Civil War to compensate slaverowners for their slaves. Henry Clay tried it. Lincoln tried to compensate slaveowners before and during the war. Were you aware of these efforts?
The British Parlaiment told slaveholders they were shooting to pay them an X amount, then ended up paying MUCH less to the slaveholders, leaving them feeling angry and cheated. Southern slaveholders saw what happened and distrusted any plan of paid compensation thereafter.
Also, Bill Torrens and I have discussed Norway and Sweden's peaceful separation. The circumstances that happened there and happened in this nation were to me nowhere simillar and therefore do not make for a good comparison.
And I found this quote from a representative of the King of Sweden, who had been sent out to examine public schools, during the time of the death of Calhoun and Webster's speech on the compromise on slavery. He said, "I have just returned from Washington, where I have been witnessing the singular spectacle of this free and enlightened nation being buried in sorrow, on account of the death of that great advocate of slavery, Mr. Calhoun. Mr. Webster's speech seems to have made a very strong impression upon the people of the South, as I have heard it repeated almost as a lesson of the catechism by every person I have met within the slave territory. It seems now to be an established belief, that slavery is not a malum necessarium (necessary evil), still less an evil difficult to get rid of, but desirable soon to get rid of. No, far from that; it seems to be considered as quite a natural, most happy, and essentially Christian institution!"
As for the 'gap' between the North and the South, I still submit, as General John Gordon said, slavery was the highest tree in the forest compared to all others.
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
So here we are, twice around the bend and still no clear indication on the irrevelance of Ft. Sumter and Slavery.
Some say the conflict was coming no matter where the place and for a variety of reasons, that Sumter and Slavery had nothing to do with it. Some have said because of Lincoln's oath of office, secession would force war no matter what.
Bill has in some way, if I read him right, that the right of secession alone makes Sumter and Slavery irrevelant and no real part of the Civil War equation.
That about it?
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
It would be interesting if someone else could pick up this thread and run with it, because I can’t say very much more without repeating myself. While I don’t want to do that, I will take this opportunity to summarise the discussion so far, as I see it.
Re Sumter I reiterate the view that, once it was established, neither the government nor the people of the Confederate States had the slightest intention of dissolving their new republic and plodding back into the Union. People have sought to provide evidence for this theory, which I personally regard as sheer fantasy, by quoting comments by various Southerners, most of whom appear to have been conditional Unionists (that is, people who supported the notion of preserving the Union for as long as that notion was consistent with their more fundamental belief in States’ Rights, but for not a moment longer). And one of the “Unionists” you cited became a Confederate brigadier which, I feel, rather proves my point. It amuses me, by the way, that Northern contributors to this thread have talked about creating a breathing space in which more moderate opinions might be expressed and a compromise reached. But “moderate” always means “Southern Unionist” and never means “Northern copperhead”. Have you noticed that? And “compromise” always means a restoration of the Union rather than recognition of the Confederacy.
I also reiterate the belief that, from the moment he was elected, Lincoln knew perfectly well that he intended to preserve the Union by the use of military force. If you combine this with the unwillingness of the Confederacy to dissolve itself, and if you are prepared to look at the issue without ideological preconceptions, you are forced to the conclusion that, while Sumter may have shaped the way in which the war started, it was not, in itself, the cause of the war. That was already inevitable.
Re slavery, the statement that “North and South argued over slavery but fought over secession” summarises my view. It was Lincoln’s view too. And Jefferson Davis’s. It seems to me to be a simple matter of fact. You will struggle to find any evidence to suggest that the liberation of the slaves was the cause for which the United States government put armies in the field. They fought to preserve the Union, and they would have fought just as hard if slavery had never existed in the United States.
I'm sorry, but it won't wash. It is just speculation on your part, pure and simple, that there would have been an issue as volatile as slavery was to the South or to the nation at the time. You simply cannot bring enough proof of any historical value to the table on any of the other supposed issues that men, North and South, would have killed each other for.
Not tariffs, lowest in the nation's history just before the war. Not big government, as it did not exist. Not the Republican Party as it did not have the power to force onto anyone with the other branches of government not in their control. Not the armed might of the Union with 16,000 men scattered across the country.
As for Lincoln not fighting for the abolition of slavery, you are right, AT FIRST. Davis and his fire-eaters were fighting for it the minute they started the rebellion by acts of secession. They said so. It cannot be denied or ignored. There's too big of a paper trail that says so.
I am sorry I did so poorly convincing you that there was a strong element within the South that did not desire secession, but wished to remain in the Union. The evidence is there if you care to look. Many a man of the South desired no separation from the Union, but followed his state in rebellion, even when he knew it was hopeless and wrong, even Lee knew it was nothing but rebellion.
I submit that the war can be most accurately summed up in my quote that follows all of my posts by Frederick Douglass.
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
As is sometimes the case, we are talking at cross purposes.
You remain absolutely focussed on what you believe to have been the primary motivation behind secession. You have that squarely in your sights and it appears that there is absolutely nothing that I or anyone else can do to get you to think about something slightly different for a change.
You appear to contend that the causes of secession and the causes of the war were exactly the same. I think this arises, in part, from your oft-expressed belief that peaceful secession was an impossibility. To the best of my recollection, that assertion has never been bolstered by satisfactory evidence. I tend to take the opposite view because the historical record proves that peaceful secession has indeed happened in other countries. On the basis of that, I put forward the proposition that peaceful secession on the American continent was a possibility in principle. But it did rather depend on the willingness of the Northern people to even consider the possibility.
I have absolutely no difficulty in viewing secession and the war as related but distinct issues. It is clear from our conversations that you see secession and war as merged into one concept. So I fear we are doomed to lock horns on this for all eternity!
Bill
Last edited by bill_torrens; 10-12-2005 at 06:06 AM.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
) you cannot lay it at the feet of cultural differences.
Linear Mode
