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.
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.
I don’t accept that nations are held together by “contractual agreements”. No wonder the U.S. is referred to as a nation of lawyers…it appears to be in your collective bloodstream. From my point of view, and I think this reflects the spirit behind the creation of the Confederacy, a nation is held together by mutuality of interest and aspiration.
Quote:
I do not appear to dread a separate nation, although I do think it would have led to much unrest in North America.
You see, this is what makes me smile. Every other continent in the world is divided into several countries. What makes you think, even for a moment, that North America is a special case? In Europe several countries share the major rivers….the Rhine, the Danube and so on. The world hasn’t stopped turning as a consequence. And so my smile broadens when I read your statement that “I do think it is unrealistic to imagine that the US would sit back and lose the Mississippi.” Why is sharing the Mississippi deemed to be the same thing as losing it? There is a real “dog in the manger” feel to this line of argument: Uncle Sam doesn’t want to share anything, he wants the lot to himself and he is going to sulk big-time if anyone tries to thwart him.
Quote:
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.
Actually, you did imply that very thing. We also disagree when you refer to looking at my atlas “under such conditions”, i.e. conditions where people are free to determine their own nationality, as if to suggest that these conditions do not prevail today. Actually they do, in every democratic country in the world barring the U.S.A. Yours is the only democratic nation which has ever waged war on its own erstwhile citizens. What you assume, in an Americo-centric way, is that what prevails within your shores also prevails everywhere else. And it simply isn’t true.
Quote:
My statement has a much different meaning when you don't leave out the "absolute and unilateral exit clause" part.
I made explicit reference to your “absolute and unilateral exit clause.”
I don’t accept that nations are held together by “contractual agreements”.
Remind me not to enter into an agreement with you if you believe nothing is binding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_torrens
No wonder the U.S. is referred to as a nation of lawyers…it appears to be in your collective bloodstream.
Now that's not fair, Bill. We evolved our system of jurisprudence from yours. Many things not stated seem to appear to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_torrens
From my point of view, and I think this reflects the spirit behind the creation of the Confederacy, a nation is held together by mutuality of interest and aspiration.
I think ideally governments are entered into for such reasons, but if the constitutions they adopt are absolutely non-binding, then they are never really "together."
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_torrens
You see, this is what makes me smile. Every other continent in the world is divided into several countries. What makes you think, even for a moment, that North America is a special case?
North America is divided into several countries, Bill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_torrens
In Europe several countries share the major rivers….the Rhine, the Danube and so on. The world hasn’t stopped turning as a consequence. And so my smile broadens when I read your statement that “I do think it is unrealistic to imagine that the US would sit back and lose the Mississippi.” Why is sharing the Mississippi deemed to be the same thing as losing it?
I have never read where it was the intent of the confederacy to open the Port of New Orleans or the lower Mississippi to be shared in perpetuity with the US, but I have read where this artery of commerce to the center of the nation was used as a carrot to lure the interior to join the confederacy. That would make absolutely no sense if the river and ports were to be open to the Union.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_torrens
Actually, you did imply that very thing. We also disagree when you refer to looking at my atlas “under such conditions”, i.e. conditions where people are free to determine their own nationality, as if to suggest that these conditions do not prevail today.
Most people can determine their own nationality.....by moving to another nation and acquiring citizenship there. (Before another thing "appears to you", I am not advocating an "America - love it or leave it" attitude, only trying to demonstate a difference between the liberty to leave a nation and the liberty to take your town with you) But how can a group of people, a large group of people, "determine" their nationality if every person retains entire autonomy? How can a government have any purpose at all if every act exists only to the individual voluntary decision to abide? In short, what is a government with absolutley no authority?
If there are no binding agreements, if every association is in flux, then there is no nation, only people living in proximity who drink the same water. We could refer to people not by their nationality, but by what valley they live in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_torrens
Actually they do, in every democratic country in the world barring the U.S.A.
I disagree that every democratic nation in the world, as well as every other sub-entity, enjoys a right to unilateral secession and absolute autonomy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_torrens
I made explicit reference to your “absolute and unilateral exit clause.”
Remind me not to enter into an agreement with you if you believe nothing is binding.
Oh, I certainly believe in the concept of binding contracts. I simply disagree that they are the building blocks with which a nation is created.
Quote:
Now that's not fair, Bill. We evolved our system of jurisprudence from yours.
Agreed. But there appears to be a marked difference in the degree of reverence with which our two peoples view the law.
I
Quote:
think ideally governments are entered into for such reasons, but if the constitutions they adopt are absolutely non-binding, then they are never really "together."
I’m not advocating anarchy. I accept that governments pass binding laws. But I don’t accept that they can pass a law which forces people to be part of a nation against their will, since that is contrary to what I would perceive as natural justice.
Quote:
North America is divided into several countries, Bill.
There may be a difference in the way in which our respective educational systems teach geography. (I’m not being sarcastic.) Over here Central America is regarded as a separate continent to North America. So, the last time I looked, there were only two countries in North America, which isn’t “several”.
Quote:
I have never read where it was the intent of the confederacy to open the Port of New Orleans or the lower Mississippi to be shared in perpetuity with the US, but I have read where this artery of commerce to the center of the nation was used as a carrot to lure the interior to join the confederacy. That would make absolutely no sense if the river and ports were to be open to the Union.
I bring, naturally enough, a European perspective to this subject. I am not aware of the ports where the Rhine, Rhone, Danube etc. reach the seas ever being closed to the traffic of the several countries through which these great waterways pass. So the concept is alien to me. I’m not at all sure that closing them (or the Mississippi) would be a defensible action under international law. But I concede that I have no expertise in this field.
Quote:
Most people can determine their own nationality.....by moving to another nation and acquiring citizenship there. (Before another thing "appears to you", I am not advocating an "America - love it or leave it" attitude, only trying to demonstate a difference between the liberty to leave a nation and the liberty to take your town with you)
Well, this is a point on which we disagree absolutely. The United States government doesn’t own Montgomery, Ala. The people of Alabama own it.
Quote:
But how can a group of people, a large group of people, "determine" their nationality if every person retains entire autonomy? How can a government have any purpose at all if every act exists only to the individual voluntary decision to abide? In short, what is a government with absolutley no authority?
I don’t deny any government the right to authority over its citizens. That is, to authority over them while they continue to consent to be part of the nation of which it is the government. What I resolutely deny is that this authority, freely granted to the government by those same people, can then be used as an instrument to keep them prisoners within a nation in which they no longer believe.
Quote:
I disagree that every democratic nation in the world, as well as every other sub-entity, enjoys a right to unilateral secession and absolute autonomy.
All we can do is look at the track record of democracies to date. And so far yours is the only country which has concluded that it is right to force several million people to be part of it against their will.
Bill
Last edited by bill_torrens; 10-14-2005 at 01:18 PM.
Hey Guys,
This is my two minute analogy of the way Southerners see the Civil War.
As for the marriage sample here's the way I see it.The marriage was alright for awhile, but the couple kept fighting and arguing more and more.The bride's family (the South) started to get fed up with the groom's family.The groom's family(the North)started to say bad things about the bride and to condemn their lifestyle.Even worse they started trying to tell the bride's family what to do and how to live their lives.The bride's family resented this and started to second guess the match.Even worse the bride had to spend most of the holidays with the groom's family(equates with tarrifs and Southern revenues from then spent North of the Mason-Dixon).The groom's finally also came over uninvited often (central government interfering in state affairs.).Finally the groom had a mid-life crisis and started hanging out with a bad crowd.He started acting like them and mistreated her more than he ever had before.(Abraham Lincoln starring as the bad husband).His family also became more obnoxious than they were before.The bride(now the South)decided she was unhappy and realized that she had made a mistake in her partner.After all her husband didn't love her anymore.He never spent quality time with her.He never listened to her anymore.He didn't respect her opinion.He only used her physically(government revenues).Sure he gave her some spending money and he met her needs.But she couldn't help but notice he spent a lot more on himself.She really wanted this pretty red dress(Cuba).She had wanted it for awhile ,but her husband wouldn't let her get it because it was too expensive.She had a job too.It wasn't like she didn't make money.She resented her husband buying whatever he wanted for himself ,but not buying her anything.Her husband never got her approval for all of the money he spent.Then she and her husband invested in a real of state deal to develop neighborhoods(the US territories).It was her who had pushed for the deal(the Mexican War).But her husband was hesitant to selling lots to members or friends of the wife's family.If they did move there her husband didn't want them to bring all of their property with them(slaves).The marriage just wasn't working out right like it did before.She had threatened several times to leave him.Usually it was an empty threat she used to get more attention and get more love from her husband.She loved having his last name(Americans) and she still loved her husband.They had shared a lot together.They had known each other since they were babies(the birth of the nation).These things made her want to work it out.She decided to see a marriage counselor(Henry Clay).He was a good counselor and her husband went with her for he wanted to save the marriage too.For awhile thins were better, but then they had to go back to the counselir several times.To her husband's credit he continued to go with her for awhile.The marriage counselor helped ,but he was never able to make their marriage the way she wanted it to be.Finally her husband refused to go to the counselor anymore.There relationship became worse and worse.This wasn't the man that she had married or the man that she had fallen in love with.In fact this wasn't the same person at all.She finally decided she had no other choice ,but to seek a divorce.He got to keep most of their possessions(the country of America).She just wanted the small stuff that she owned.He could have the rest of her belongings.In fact he would get much more money and possessions than she would.She didn't even ask for half of their collective possessions.She never even asked for living expenses.She was just tired of his insults and of his always telling her what to do.So she moved out on her own(she seceeded).She didn't have another man(nation)she wanted to share her life with.For a little while her husband did nothing.He (Lincoln) did announce to his friends that he would have his way with her regardless of how he felt(collection of duties in Southern ports).She felt this to be dishonorable and something she couldn't agree to.After all it amounted to rape.She sent friends and family members to meet with him, but he refuse to listen.He maintaned that he could use her as he so chose.Finally he got a knife and drug her back into his home by her hair.When her friends and family members objected to such horrible behavior(Confederate forces).He had his friends(Union soldiers) kill them.Her husband used violence to force her back into his bed and take back everything his wife had.This story happened over 140 years ago.Many of the descendants of the abusive husband and his friends are very proud of these honorable deeds.The descendants of the wife's family and friends just don't understand how moral poeple could support such acts.
MobileBoy
MobileBoy
All we can do is look at the track record of democracies to date. And so far yours is the only country which has concluded that it is right to force several million people to be part of it against their will.
Bill
How bout the British Empire. It has only been in the 20th Century that the Lion has willingly loosened her grip.
Please see
Chirchill, Winston A History of the English Speaking Peoples"
And talk to the Irish and the Scots about it too.
A real quick google search puts the population of the American Colonies, later known as the USA, at 2,210,000 in 1770. I wont try to vouch for the accuracy of 18th century census figures.
How bout the British Empire. It has only been in the 20th Century that the Lion has willingly loosened her grip.
Absolutely true. But before the mid-19th century it couldn't claim to be a democracy at all. I'm only comparing fully (or largely) democratic nations with each other. Britain adopted democracy in piece-meal fashion as the 19th century wore on.
But, in any case, I was referring to nations making war on their own citizens, not on their colonial subjects (a distinction which was blurred in the case of American colonists because of common ethnicity, but which was otherwise stark).
Quote:
And talk to the Irish and the Scots about it too.
Actually, it is a popular (largely American) misconception that Scotland has been occupied and exploited by England. It was an independent country whose King, James VI, also became James I of England in 1603. Thereafter we shared a monarch but remained separate countries. This was followed by an Act of Union at the beginning of the 18th century. From then on Scotland was an equal partner in everything and has remained so to this day.
Ireland is a different matter. I don't need to ask the Irish because I am of Irish ancestry myself. And, believe me, not one of you could give Britannia as hard a time as I do when I'm wearing my Irish hat. There are two men in history whom I really admire. One is, not surprisingly, Robert E. Lee. The other is Michael Collins.
Bill
Last edited by bill_torrens; 10-14-2005 at 02:36 PM.
I’m not advocating anarchy. I accept that governments pass binding laws. But I don’t accept that they can pass a law which forces people to be part of a nation against their will, since that is contrary to what I would perceive as natural justice.
If everyone has the same natural right of absolute self-determination and rely soley on voluntary association, then how can any area form any nation unless there is unanimous voluntary participation? And how long could any nation last (nanoseconds) before one or more parties decide to secede from the nation, yet remain in place? What would the boundaries of this nation look like?
Out of curiosity, do you take the confederacy to task for booting out Unionists, or in the case of some mobs in Texas, of hanging them? Didn't these people have a natural right to self-determination by declaring that their property would remain a part of the US, or do you think that a natural right to self-determination only begins at the state level? It would seem that if South Carolina presumes that it has no binding agreement with the US, then it must presume it has no authority over Charleston County, or over planter Jones if they should decide that South Carolina is not their cup of tea, as their association too is purely voluntary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_torrens
There may be a difference in the way in which our respective educational systems teach geography. (I’m not being sarcastic.) Over here Central America is regarded as a separate continent to North America. So, the last time I looked, there were only two countries in North America, which isn’t “several”.
Whether you believe the Rio Grande River defines a new continent or not is as irrelevant as is several meaning two. The point is noone implied that North America must consist of one country alone or that several countries bordering each other must spell war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_torrens
I bring, naturally enough, a European perspective to this subject. I am not aware of the ports where the Rhine, Rhone, Danube etc. reach the seas ever being closed to the traffic of the several countries through which these great waterways pass. So the concept is alien to me. I’m not at all sure that closing them (or the Mississippi) would be a defensible action under international law. But I concede that I have no expertise in this field.
Should I take this to mean then that you might concede that confederate talk of denying access to the lower Mississippi and the Port of New Orleans was unacceptable to the country which owned it and relied on it to supply its interior?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_torrens
Well, this is a point on which we disagree absolutely. The United States government doesn’t own Montgomery, Ala. The people of Alabama own it.
I think the questions are: "Does the State of Alabama own Montgomery?" Are the citizens of Montgomery only Alabama citizens, or are they also US citizens? By what authority does the State of Alabama pretend to dictate to the folks of Montgomery what nation they will belong to, thereby nullifying their natural right to self-determination?
Cedarstripper,
Today is teacher work day.In case you're not able to follow that means the students aren't here today.Football practice starts at 3:30 it gets over about 6:30.I see your memory is as sound as your opinions as I'm rarely indoors during football practice hours much less at the computer.I teach a compuer programming/remedial reading class.Believe it or not the students actually work on their own computers.I don't have to stand over them every second like perhaps I would were you one of my students(haha).It's a read 180 program which is based on a rotating model.One-third of the hour and a half block is direct instrunction,one-third of the time their they are working on the computer using the Read 180 software, and one-third of the time they read independently and take test on the computers on books that they have read.Since your wife is a teacher you should know that teachers have what poeple call planning periods.High school is on a 4 block schedule.That means my teaching is done at 12:30.My job doesn't require much planning since I have to strictly follow the Read 180 design.Plus I've always been pretty fast to get anything done.It's a fairly easy job, but it can get boring.In my other teaching positions you used direct instruction period to period.I miss that because time went by a lot faster.Of course I only have about nine kids a block now where I used to have 30 or 40.The kids love this class though because they get to work on the computer.If you're interested type in scholastic read 180 in your search engine.It will explain the whole system to you.Read 180 comes from turning around.Get it if you turned around 360 degrees then you would be back in the same place.It's corny I know ,but I didn't name it.I never heard of it until my principal called me over the summer asking me to do it.He's a great guy so it's hard to tell him No.I'm not sure I want to teach this next year though because of the reasons I said above.If you have a masters degree and are interested in a job ,let me know.We're funded by title one( extra government money given to schools due to children at the poverty level).Since this is an inner city school that includes every student.I don't like everything about Bush's No Child Left Behind Act, but federal money is pooring into schools like mine.My school has five times the computers and technology resources that the public schools in the suburbs have.Unfortunately our football equipment is antiquated.We get new uniforms, but players are for the most part wearing 2 and 3 year old hand me down cleats.No it's not the governments fault, but you feel sorry for the kids.You do what you can to help some out behind the scenes, but I just don't have the money to help them all.If your wife is in the Union check out her coming NEA magazine.My family is supposed to be in there in an article talking about teacher's who suffered losses due to Katrina.A picture of my wife(she's a teacher in the Union too),myself, and kids was going to be in there.Supposedly it turned out too dark.Knowing my wife she called the NEA rep and asked her not to include it because she's got a complex because she hasn't lost all her weight back from my four month old daughter Reagan.You know my first name is Ashley,my last name is Andress if she gets the NEA magazine before I do let me know it says.They did have me quoted on their website dicussing Katrina.It's not something I ever said ,but at least the woman made up something which sounded intelligent.Supposedly the Union was going to send us some money, but we haven't received anything from them yet.The AEA (Alabama's branch of the NEA)calls us on the cell phone often,but no funding yet.How long does it normally take you to post.I usually keep this site opened ,but minimized on my computer.I can type over a hundred words a minute(though obviously not accurately)so it takes me no time to post.Also since I represent the Southern side of our argument I don't have to research theories and left wing academics supporting my opinion.I can just type examples of what transpired in reality.
Ashley
If everyone has the same natural right of absolute self-determination and rely soley on voluntary association, then how can any area form any nation unless there is unanimous voluntary participation? And how long could any nation last (nanoseconds) before one or more parties decide to secede from the nation, yet remain in place? What would the boundaries of this nation look like?
It’s entirely possible that you mix with a more respectable crowd than I do….people obsessed with politics who spend their every moment thinking about exercising their right to “absolute self-determination” and pulling their country apart. For my part, I know the sort of people who put that kind of energy into thinking about their next beer and Saturday’s soccer matches.
You see, the premise you put forward just doesn’t gel with human nature, as I understand it. People, in the mass, are naturally lethargic. A government really has to treat them pretty shockingly to get them to complain, let alone to indulge in revolutionary activity. This whole notion of countries flying apart if you concede the right of people to determine their own nationality just doesn’t ring true to me.
Quote:
Out of curiosity, do you take the confederacy to task for booting out Unionists, or in the case of some mobs in Texas, of hanging them?
The position of Unionists living in the C.S.A. during a war with the United States was bound to be pretty hairy. There would seem to be a straightforward choice between treating them as traitors or as enemy aliens. Being a reasonably civilised sort of guy (don’t laugh), I would favour the latter approach and intern them.
Quote:
Should I take this to mean then that you might concede that confederate talk of denying access to the lower Mississippi and the Port of New Orleans was unacceptable to the country which owned it and relied on it to supply its interior?
Now don’t push it. I made a very reasonable concession, but I’m not inviting you to walk all over me.
Quote:
I think the questions are: "Does the State of Alabama own Montgomery?"
No, I don’t think that’s the question at all. I would always stress the primacy of people over administrative units or governments. People are important; people are precious. Administrative units are neither. To put it another way, the American people(s) are incredibly important; the United States isn’t. The British people are incredibly important…as for the United Kingdom, I can take it or leave it. Don’t care much either way. This is a roundabout way of saying that sovereignty is vested in the people, and both the nation state and its form of government are their mere creations, theirs to keep or discard as they please. To give the state ultimate authority over the people is like placing the washing machine in charge of the person operating it.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
