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'm afraid, Bill, that the evidence against the idea of peaceable secession, abounds, through sessions of Congress and several Presidents and administrations.
I submit it is your determined belief that such an event was possible because you presume this event has taken place elsewhere in the world. Yet, you have never been able to show to me that the conditions that existed in 1860's America existed anywhere else in the world, even our present day. We have discussed this at length at other times.
If only Bill, someone could shatter my focused belief that the men of the South who advocated secession the loudest and with the clearest of intents on why they wanted to secede, could convince me they were all liars and men without honor. Then I could agree with Charles Adams when he puts forth the fantastic idea that the leaders of the South put slavery as the reasons for secession in their secession declarations, instead of confusing the poor sods over tariff issues. What utter bunk!
If I had only been blind and not been able to read these men's words, over and over, in document after document, I would not have seen their stated intent for secession. But I have seen and I have read their words, and the speak loudly and clearly from across the years and they make it plain what their cause was and their reasons were.
I admit Bill, I am stubborn, as all here know. But my usual tactic in life is when I do not know anything about a subject, I do not speak on it, I listen. I am not smart enough to make up stories to support my view on a subject I am ignorant on. In this case, regarding slavery and secession, I am simply passing on what those men said.
And we will lock horns forever on this one, my friend.
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
Then I could agree with Charles Adams when he puts forth the fantastic idea that the leaders of the South put slavery as the reasons for secession in their secession declarations, instead of confusing the poor sods over tariff issues. What utter bunk!
There are times when I wish I had access to something like the teleporter in the Starship Enterprise. If I had access to it now I would beam myself over to the post office building where you write your posts. I would bring a megaphone with me. And I would position myself about six inches from your ear and I would blare down the megaphone:
"Neil, I'm not actually disagreeing with you about the causes of secession! The causes of secession are not the subject of this thread! We are talking about something else!"
And then I would retire to a dark corner and drink some good Polish vodka.
While this doesn't pertain to slavery it does relate to this thread.I read last night where before the firing on Fort Sumpter the Virginia legislature was remaining in sord've a constant session.My own take on this is that they would've went South regardless and were just waiting for the time to come when they needed to choose sides.I think Fort Sumpter and Lincoln's call to troops were both overrated .The states that went South very well could've elected to do so even with no war.War was coming regardless of Fort Sumpter and Lincoln's call for troops though both did excite strong emotions.The states of the upper South were playing a waiting game ,but their sentiments were much more Southern leaning in the first place.So to rule out that they would've not rather been in government with their Southern sisters as opposed to Republican Yankees is irrational.Particularly when Lincoln was despised in the Upper South as well.
This is off the subject ,but why is Buchanan often villified.He didn't agree with secession, but he thought it was horribly un-American to use violence in a democratic nation founded supposedly for the poeple and by the poeple.A lot of Northerners felt that way.He took slack for it, but he stood up for his beliefs.It's hard for me to villify someone who didn't want to use Americans to kill other Americans.
MobileBoy
And I would teleport to your home in England, wait until you were alseep in bed, and whisper gently into your ear, "Psssst! Bill! A fire cannot take place without air and fuel. Without cause, there is no effect. Secession cannot take place in a political vacuum."
You argue effect, but you will ignore cause, you feel and see the heat and flame, but you will not consider how it started. You claim the 'right' of secession, but you will not allow cause to interfere with your views.
It is not complete. You view a pile of wood, but you won't light it, even if you should become cold and uncomfortable. You remind me of the scientist who wanted to split the atom, but would not look beyond what his experiment might cause in the long run.
Your formula in incomplete, my friend.
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’m going to try to express it in a different way. But, first of all, I want to make it clear to you that there is absolutely no ideological motive behind this thread. I am not interested in scoring pro-Rebel or anti-Union points here. I am only interested in what may be called, albeit pompously, intellectual clarity.
In essence, if I understand you correctly, you are broadly sympathetic with the principle that any community has the right to determine its own form of government. But you also believe that the community’s collective motives for forming a new government should be examined, and deemed worthy or unworthy, by some other groups of people. It isn’t entirely clear to me, in the case of a region breaking away from a country, who these other groups are…perhaps you mean the balance of the population of the existing nation, or perhaps you mean a sort of jury of the “family of nations”?
In either case, you seem to believe that outsiders have the right to pass a subjective judgment on the “worthiness” of the particular aspiration for self-government.
Have I understood you correctly?
Because, if I have, it is easy to pinpoint precisely where our views diverge. For me, the right of a community to determine its own form of government is absolute and cannot be diluted in any way. It isn’t subject to veto by other interested parties. I cannot concede that any group/community/region/ state/nation has the right to veto the liberty of another.
People have a right to revolution. People have a right to throw off their existing government. I believe this. I endorse it. I support it.
BUT..., just because the people have that 'right' does not mean they can exercise it lightly, or on a whim, or for a cause that is less than 'just'.
My main objection to the exercise of the right of revolution, within the borders of a nation, is that the majority of the people must desire this 'right' and must agree to exercise responsibility when exercising it. Hence, you better have a lot of folks behind you and you better be able to justify your revolution to all those folks.
If the Federal government became oppressive at the behest of a small group of people and I and a majority of the citizens of the United States decided this oppression was wrong, we have the right to rebel, fully accepting the responsibility of our actions, that might bring death and destruction to ourselves, our homes and our loved ones.
I hold Bill, that I am ultimately responsible and will judge if a revolution is just or not, that I will pass judgement on its cause and reasons for taking such a drastic step to secure its goals. I and thousands like me will judge if a revolution is worthy of my life and blood, by judging its cause, its goals and its principles.
If you mean by the term 'outsiders' those who live in another section of the nation, I do not consider this term valid. Perhaps I should make this clear.
When Bosnia exploded with its sectional violence, I felt the people of the region should decide this question for themselves and that no other nation, the US, the EU, etc., should not interfere. This to me would mean 'outsiders' coming in and deciding who was right and who was wrong.
Where we diverge in my opinion is the majority must rule. Unless you become the majority, you have no right to rebel. If you cannot convince others of your goal to the point that you become the majority, you shed blood to no purpose, with no chance of winning. You simply waste blood and treasure.
And to me, a minority who dictates to the majority, is little more than a dictatorship. Within the bounds of your nation state.
Is this where we diverge, my friend?
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
Please pardon the interuption of the philosophical debate, but I must beg to politely intervene. :-)
It is my understanding through this and other threads, that you do not differentiate between revolution & secession. They are one & the same, according to your thought.
You belive a "majority" have the right to revolt a.k.a. secede, but not at a "whimsical" knee-jerk reflex reason, but upon inclusion of a very "just" cause renders it valid.
The problem I'm having with your thought is this; a majority of a section of the U.S. (the South) were in majority as related to secession. Secession, being revolution as you interpret, then is OK with you, and of course me. The 'on a whim' stance, therefore is not valid. It took the Souh, even while possessing a majority of Congressional power in gov't, a very long time before embracing secession as its only option. The 'whim' in sectional majority secession is absent.
Second, you state that the "cause" must be a just cause and must carry enough potential firepower, due to the risk of losing & possible subsequent catastrophy of revolutionist.
A majority of the South believed their cause just, and its only option was to leave the union. Who, in 1860 America, held a superior judgement to categorize a just cause from an un-just cause?
For me, the right of a community to determine its own form of government is absolute and cannot be diluted in any way. It isn’t subject to veto by other interested parties. I cannot concede that any group/community/region/ state/nation has the right to veto the liberty of another.
Bill
This seems to bring the very notion of government among free men into question, and where you wish to define "community." In a free society, we champion self-determination at every level of government in defiance of tyranny from the level above, yet we institute these levels of government in contracts with our fellow citizens knowing that we bind our own right of self-determination to the degree legislated.
If, by the vehicle of unencumbered secession, a state maintains an absolute right to self-determination, then it follows that a county maintains the same right, a town, a village, an organization, and most importantly, every individual the same right. If government at every level is no more than voluntary associations with an absolute and unilateral exit clause, then I submit that government does not truly exist, and the pretense of government cannot last long.
I hold individual liberty and the preservation of it dearly. But I also question the likelyhood of existence for more than a day of any government that maintains as no more than liquid the bonds with the entities that make it up.
Neil,
A very interesting if somewhat disturbing post friend.First of all let's discuss that a majority of poeple must be in favor of rebellion for it to be just.Foremost we're an illegitamate nation because no credible historian has said 51 percent of American colonist supporting rebelling from Britain when that war began.Friend that doesn't seem like a reasonable reason for justification.
If a majority is theoretically exploiting a minority then that majority would have to be the stupidest poeple on earth to favor rebelling from themselves.I have never heard of a case in history where the majority of the poeple in power rebelled against themselves to give the minority their power.That theory of justification pretty much rules out any revolution the world has ever seen.
If you said the majority of the poeple within the section revolting need to support it then that makes perfect sense.But of course that would legitimize the founding of the Confederacy.So I understand why you didn't take that stance.
Your opinion that majority must rule is something that I personally find morally at odds with my own feelings and religion.Let me be clear first that I'm not calling you a Nazi and let me attest I don't think you hate Jews.That being said friend by your majority must rule philosophy the Germans had every right to abuse the Jews.The Egyptians should have kept the Israelites in bondage , and the Irish should have never rebelled from Britain.I respect your wisdom and viewpoints, so I'm hoping you had a rough night and that you don't really mean that.Some of my postings have conveyed meanings to ohthers that I didn't intend.I'm assuming in this case your statement isn't what you meant.Sorry to make a big deal out of it I just don't want poeple who may read this having no contact with you whatever to think badly of you. That position would also legitimize American crimes against the Indians and assume that men such as Crazy Horse were wrong for rebelling and standing up for their rights.The majority isn't always right my friend.If it was technology would've never advanced to the point it has today.
Ashley
That is probably the most intelligent post that you've ever made.It was well thought out so kudos to you.I don't buy all of your points but kudos to you just the same.My only observance would be that many nations have lost territory without anarchy running rampant.Should Quebec secede from Canada I don't expect the laws or the government in the remaining portions of the country to vanish into thin air., nor do I expext to see widespread pillaging and looting throughout the Canadian countryside.
MobileBoy
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
it does relate to this thread.I read last night where before the firing on Fort Sumpter the Virginia legislature was remaining in sord've a constant session.My own take on this is that they would've went South regardless and were just waiting for the time to come when they needed to choose sides.I think Fort Sumpter and Lincoln's call to troops were both overrated .The states that went South very well could've elected to do so even with no war.War was coming regardless of Fort Sumpter and Lincoln's call for troops though both did excite strong emotions.The states of the upper South were playing a waiting game ,but their sentiments were much more Southern leaning in the first place.So to rule out that they would've not rather been in government with their Southern sisters as opposed to Republican Yankees is irrational.Particularly when Lincoln was despised in the Upper South as well.
Linear Mode
