The irrelevance of Sumter & slavery

[ole]

Getting back to the thread, it seems we've butted into a wall. On "irrepressible conflict," we are divided. Ft. Sumter can be considered irrelevant if war was inevitable -- a position I have not yet adopted.

As to the irrelevance of slavery, I have yet to find a way to separate that factor from anything that happened since the constitution was ratified. Sectionalism, cultural differences, economic jealousy, et al. would have existed in any case, but the intensity added by the peculiar institution did nothing but intensify the division. Slavery was far from irrelevant.
Ole

[unionblue]

Alabaman,

Thank you for your post #147 and you never interupt me when you have a view you would like to express concerning my own posts.

You are correct when you say that I view secession and rebellion the same light.

You are correct when you say that I believe a majority have the 'right' to rebel, but that right must be exercised with responsibility, for what I judge to be a just cause.
Where we differ as far as I can see from your post is this: When I say a majority has the right to rebel, I mean the majority of the nation, NOT a section of the nation. One third of the nation is not a majority.

You say the South (a minority of the country) took a very long time to come to the idea of secession. I agree. The idea had been brought up before and had been rejected by Presidents from the South (Jackson, Taylor, and Buchanan) and by a majority of the South during the push for such a movement in the 1850's.

When I use the term 'on a whim' what I mean to say is, you should have a cause worth dying and fighting for. In my own opinion, the leadership that led the South down the path of rebellion had neither a majority of the nation behind them and they certainly did not have a cause or reason to justify an act of rebellion. They did not meet the conditions for a successful and justifiable revolution.

You keep stating a majority of the South, which means a minority of Americans, believed their cause just. The majority held the opinion that their cause was unjust and they decided the cause was so by dying by the hundreds of thousands.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[unionblue]

MobileBoy,

Thank you for your post# 149 above.

I see where you state that 51% of American colonists supported breaking with England during the Revolutionary War. I don't even make it that many. What I have stated to Bill is, I have seen it stated in a book called, The Winter Soldiers, that only ONE THIRD of the colonists actively supported the revolution, while ONE THIRD actively opposed the revolution and supported the King, leaving fully ONE THIRD who sat on their collective butts and waited to see who won.

Interesting, no? So how does my theory of the majority can decide when to overthrow the existing government? Why, when you get enough people to support you to attain your goals. I suppose that counts when you can get enough people not to do anything either way and you end up with just enough of a majority to attain your goal over your opponents. Since that is what happened and we are a legitimate nation on the world stage, I would say my point is pretty much established.

And your second paragraph makes my point for me also. Why would a majority, content with the way things are, ever decide to follow a minority into rebellion? Could you please give me examples of where a revolution, not supported by the masses of the people, has succeeded?

Now, as to your third paragraph where you say if I had said a majority of the people within a section in revolt need to support it in order for it to happen/succeed'etc., then that would make perfect sense. Ashley correct me if I am wrong, but everyone in the nation at the time considered themselves Americans who resided in the United States of America. There were about 33 million Americans according to the 1860 census. Six million Americans (a portion of them, at least) were convinced by others that rebellion was their only course. This leaves quite a few Americans left who disagreed with them. I believe they are called 'a majority' if I am not mistaken.

As to your last paragraph, I do not mean to upset you or your feelings and I assure you that I do not hate Jews or that I am a Nazi and I know you are not saying that I am. But the majority must rule. Not always well and not always wisely, but they must rule. Or else we go to the other extreme and let a monority dictate to us or a madman or dictator. Maybe this will help.

Among nations, Germany was in the minority when it decided to try for world domination and exterminate the Jews. It took the United Nations, the majority, to correct that notion and stop that extermination. As for Ireland, it did take a majority of the Irish in their own homeland to rebel against a foreign invader or power, did it not? There is an Irish Republic after all. And the Israelistes always considered themselves a nation, did they not, even when they were in bondage? And I seem to recall the majority of them chose to follow Moses and leave to establish their own country.

In other words, don't confuse one nation against another different nation imposing its will on one another. This war was a Civil War amongst fellow countrymen, not matter how desperately we clutch at 'cultural' straws and regional differences. The rest of the planet at the time acknowledged it so lets not say it was something than what it really was.

The majority must rule until you convince it to your way of thinking and to the justification of your cause. The minorities among us deserve protection and the right to be heard, but they do not deserve to dictate to the majority. Frankly, I think our country does pretty good at that, protecting the rights of the minorities, but we have had failures from time to time. But on the whole, the South was being represented and its voice was being heard, loudly and often.

Here's a quote from a very famous man of that time which expresses my views on the subject better than I can:

"The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom and forebearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for 'perpetual union' so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession." January 23, 1861.

I hope this better represents my views on the subject of majority rules.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[unionblue]

cedarstripper,

I very much appreciated your post# 148. Thank you for sharing it with us.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[bill_torrens]

Cedarstripper said:

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.

Some interesting thoughts. Thank you. They pinpoint the fundamental philosophical difference between the two camps.

The Unionist believes that good government rests on a bedrock of compulsion. Without compulsion there will be anarchy.

The Confederate believes that good government rests on a bedrock of consent. Without consent there will be tyranny.

I think that all the evidence suggests that human beings have an instinctive grasp of how large a territory has to be before it can realistically aspire to nationhood. If you glance through your world atlas you will find precious few of the postage-stamp-sized countries which you appear to dread. And this is not because every government has its armies poised, ready to crush secessionists; it is because there is simply no demand for that form of relentless reduction which leads counties to leave states and villages to leave counties. No demand at all. Never has been. So what you fear is a mere shadow, a phantasm.

You say that “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 would say that if government is not a series of voluntary associations it follows that it has to be a series of compulsory associations. And surely the word which describes that is “dictatorship”. And if there is no exit clause then the word which describes it is “prison”.

[bill_torrens]

Dear Neil,

Your post 146 was exceptionally clear and well-expressed. Thank you.

Would you mind terribly if I picked up on a couple of points arising from it?

You say that “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'….”

Revolutions in democracies are comparatively rare. But when they do happen they are bound to be the work of a minority which feels oppressed by a majority. Majorities will never need to revolt in a democracy because they can engineer change via the ballot box.

It is important to recognise that oppression can occur in a democracy. If a nation is made up of peoples with strong regional identities, and one region is permanently larger than another, there is absolutely nothing inherent in the democratic process to protect the smaller region from discriminatory legislation. In those circumstances there are only two options: either one accepts that the smaller region will be at the mercy of the larger one for ever, or one concedes that a right to leave the existing nation must exist.

You also said the following:

“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.”

I agree with you that Bosnians should have been free to determine their own destiny. I couldn’t agree more. But, at the time, Bosnia was arguably still an integral part of Yugoslavia. So were the invading Serbs “outsiders” or were they simply fellow-citizens who did not consent to the unilateral departure of Bosnia from their common nation?

I fear that you contradict yourself, old bean.

Bill

[unionblue]

Bill,

The Confederate believes that good government rests on a bedrock of consent?

For as long as that compulsion is exerted on others, perhaps. The Confederacy 'died of a theory' because it could not compell its countrymen to support even its own, limited objectives.

Secession by other Southern states from the Confederacy was threatened even during the most desperate of times, when unity was needed most. So much for the idea that human beings having an instinctive grasp of how large a territory has to be before it can 'realistically aspire to nationhood!

Far from being on a bedrock of voluntary consent, the Confederacy 'died of a theory', after being contructed on some of the most confusing, shifting sands ever considered a 'bedrock' foundation by any people any where.

History does not bear you out, in my own viewing of it.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[unionblue]

Bill,

My post #157 was in reference to your reply post #155 to cedarstripper.

As to your post #156, yes, rebellions can happen in democracies or else we would not be at this board locked in debate.

And I feel your fears are unfounded.

Unionblue

[johan_steele]

"The Confederate believes that good government rests on a bedrock of consent. Without consent there will be tyranny."

You have got to be kidding... now I see exactly what SgtCSA speaks of when laughing at the other side of the aisles reasoning. What was conscription, tything, an internal passports sys, lack of real elections, and a decent sized minority who argued against Secession w/in the states of the CS? I won't even mention the consent of the slave. No the CS was ruled and controlled by a few. Even the lowest soldier on the rung in the CS AoT knew it was a rich mans war and a poor mans fight.

[cedarstripper]

Originally Posted by bill_torrens

The Unionist believes that good government rests on a bedrock of compulsion. Without compulsion there will be anarchy.

The Confederate believes that good government rests on a bedrock of consent. Without consent there will be tyranny.

I confess I fail to see how my thoughts pinpointed the above conclusions. The coexistence of government and an absolute right to unilaterally secede from that government seem to be what is in question. Even in the government of the confederacy that you claim was founded on the bedrock of consent, the contractual agreements between parties, be they states or husband and wife, are in the end enforced by compulsion. To exit those agreements requires consent of the other party, arbitration, or a knock down, drag out fight.

I maintain I have a right not to be married. If I choose to exercise that right, I must ask my wife to voluntarily void the marriage with me or sue for divorce. To walk away against her will is nothing more than abandonment and a breach of the marriage contract. To draw a line across the middle of the house and shoot at her for not moving her things off my side cannot be justified as "legal" because such action was not specifically prohibited in the marriage vows.

Originally Posted by bill_torrens

I think that all the evidence suggests that human beings have an instinctive grasp of how large a territory has to be before it can realistically aspire to nationhood. If you glance through your world atlas you will find precious few of the postage-stamp-sized countries which you appear to dread.

I do not appear to dread a separate nation, although I do think it would have led to much unrest in North America. And I do think it is unrealistic to imagine that the US would sit back and lose the Mississippi. If, in this land of absolute autonomy and consent, the ports of Charleston, Savanah, Mobile, or New Orleans had decided to leave the confederacy (or New York City leave the Union), is it your supposition that their respective states would wave a fond farewell while they lost their ports and the commercial necessity of them?

Originally Posted by bill_torrens

And this is not because every government has its armies poised, ready to crush secessionists; it is because there is simply no demand for that form of relentless reduction which leads counties to leave states and villages to leave counties. No demand at all. Never has been. So what you fear is a mere shadow, a phantasm.

I never implied that associations that have no binding force would automatically result in a dissolvement of every nation, county and town, but the more I think about it, I suspect a look at your atlas under such conditions would indeed show no more than a topography devoid of any political boundaries. Towns and states and nations would not need to dissolve....they never could have formed in the frst place as they would be constantly in flux. I'll reserve judgement on whether this would be a better world, but I offer that this was not the world as it has evolved. It was not the world of 1860, and it certainly was not the world of the confederacy.

Originally Posted by bill_torrens

You say that “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 would say that if government is not a series of voluntary associations it follows that it has to be a series of compulsory associations.

My statement has a much different meaning when you don't leave out the "absolute and unilateral exit clause" part.

Cedar