The irrelevance of Sumter & slavery

[MobileBoy]

Matthew,
You are a very welcomed addition to this forum.I can find no points of contention with your last two post.You seem to have a very balanced view of things based on a firm grasp of the situation.Perhaps you will open both some Neo-Confederate and pro-Union eyes so we can all come to a more accurate understanding of the war and the issues it incorporated.I particularly like what you said about Lee and Jackson.The biggest sore spot with me on this forum is the lumping of all Confederate men as fighting to perpetuate slavery.I view this as the worst kind of slander.To me that would be equivalent to saying the Union men sacrificed their life to fight for the tarrif.You and I could be soldiers in the army tomorrow and be killed in action.Our government supports legalized abortion ,but I personally abhor it.I'd hate for someone to say or believe that I fought for abortion because my government legalizes it.I guess that's the same I feel about all Confederate soldiers lumped together under the banner of slavery.
Ashley

[Alabaman]

Matthew,

Thanks for your thoughts. I have read your replies and wish respectfully to isolate some of your ideas and obtain some clarification or perspective on them.

Quote Matthew:
North and South were similar in laguage, ethnic backgroud and practicing Christianity. Both had similar economic ideologies, and political beliefs. All had fought against England to achieve independence.

Quote Matthew:
Was the federal government, a union that included powerful industrialists, huge cities, immigrants with a hundred languages and religions, its egalitarianism, and all it entailed, worth hundreds of thousands of lives to preserve?

Matthew, not "all" colonist wished to fight England for independence. Mr. Benjamin Franklin noted that the colonies were split in their ideology. 1/3 were Loyal to the Crown, 1/3 wishing independence & 1/3 wishing to 'straddle the fence.' America's original population even then, were not totally unified. The "Southern" colonials and the "Northern" colonials came to loggerheads upon sovereignity and state's rights precipitously and immediately. The original sectional adversity therefore, evolved upon this country's conception. France's 'foreign' intervention, late in the war, helped turn the tide in the Colonial independence. The concept of representation, as per each colony's population, became a sectional debate. Each section clammered for majority rule to enforce it's ideals. The matter was never settled by them, but was passed-on, like the "peculiar institution" was, to future generations.

Quote Matthew:
Slavery that was supported by a particularly harsh racism. That's the cause, the "facts of the case."

If slavery was supported by "hash racism" and are the "facts of the case," as you say, then North & South did have at least one similarity. The North encompassed slavery early-on, and racism was not monopolized by the South. Some Northern states and Northern folk of influence, passed ordinances which were particularly "harsh" in racial status. Racism cannot be justly pinpointed at the South 'only', with any validity in 1850 or anytime.

I agree that certain Wars per se induce the spirit of Nationalism. The WBTS was one of them.

The North too, created at first, a spirit of Nationalism. Early on it was based principally and received as, a war to save the Union. Later, when the Southern victories of '62 weakened this Northern Nationalism, a new 'battle-cry' was emitted from President Lincoln; 'let us fight to make men free.'Slavery, given that statement and it's timeframe relative to the war, it seems, was not the prime forte of Northern agression toward the South, but a secondary 'injection of energy' to propogandize the North's primary agenda of a war 'rally' and to control the Government & the domestic economy via the U.S. Constitution upon a successful victory. 1861 presented the beginning of the end for any further Southern powerbase, and was the beginning for Northern economic dominance, both domestic and abroad. Take a comparative look at both sections today economically, socially & politically, if you have any doubts.

In relating to us that, "Lee was a proud Southerner to be sure, and as racist as 90% of white Americans of the time," I sincerely ask this question; Is Gen. Lee to be labeled as a "racist" and Gen. Sherman, Gen. Grant & President Lincoln to be labelled non-racist? Or did the Northern leaders I listed fall into the other "10%" category that you mentioned?

In my humble view, Fort Sumter was most irrelevant in "starting" the war. The ingredients of a war were there from the origination of this country. Slavery per se, however dreadful it was, is relevant only to the manner in which it was propogandized by extreme Northern radicals and in doing thus, providing an opportunistic fortune utilized by the North, to win economic dominance domestically & a global economic achievement for their future. It is my opinion that the North would not have accepted abolition, provided willingly from the South, in any fashion. Lloyd Garrison & company saw to that.

Rob Adams (Alabaman)

[matthew mckeon]

I definitely don't want to pursue the abortion analogy too far. But what if the country split over the issue of abortion, and one side said, if we win, we will abolish abortion, and the other side said if we win, we will preserve abortion? What would you do then?

I don't think slavery and abortion are analogous situations, and I don't think exploring 21st century abortion politics will be useful on this thread.

I think we should be asking ourselves a couple of questions about the Civil War.
The people in the war many terrible sacrifices and did terrible things. Why did they think it was worth it? When someone like Howell Cobb says, "if blacks make good soldiers, then our whole system is wrong." and Robert E. Lee replies, "I believe they will make good soldiers." What were these two men fighting for?

[bill_torrens]

Dear Matthew,

My point is during the 1850s the "usual suspects" were missing in the secession crisis--so why secession? What was it for? Why has the US been successfully reunited after the War?

My answer to the question “Why secession?” would be the same as the one I have given to Neil. For the purposes of this thread, that is the wrong question. The right question is “Was there a right to secession, regardless of what it was for?” Of course, you don’t have to agree with this. Neil clearly doesn’t.

Your second question – “Why has the US been succesfully reunited after the war?” - is exceptionally interesting. I think that this thread is the wrong place to discuss it, but it is a subject close to my heart and I feel inclined to start a new thread dedicated to this very topic.

This thread could be called "The irrelevancy of secession, in the secession crisis"

In a sense, I agree with you. But I have to make it clear that I have always used the words “secession” and “revolution” as synonyms. There are plenty of people who would put forward the argument that secession was perfectly legal and, therefore, not a revolutionary act. Personally, I have no opinion on that issue one way or the other.

He [Lee] fought to defend his country, not exactly his country right or wrong, but more like, his country warts and all.

The key issue here is surely the fact that he saw the Confederacy (and, more fundamentally, Virginia) as his country. A minority of Virginians disagreed. Rather more crucially, people in Ohio & New York and Wisconsin disagreed. So the important question is, in the event of an honest difference of opinion like this, should the status of Virginia be determined by Virginians or by people from states like Ohio, New York & Wisconsin?

When someone like Howell Cobb says, "if blacks make good soldiers, then our whole system is wrong." and Robert E. Lee replies, "I believe they will make good soldiers." What were these two men fighting for?

Cobb was referring to the social system of the Confederacy. And the fact that blacks did make good soldiers did, indeed, prove that that social system was based on a fundamental misconception. But Lee and the majority of his men weren't fighting for a social system; they were fighting for a country.

Let me ask you a question. During that period (the greater part of its history) when racial segregation and prejudice were notable parts of the social system in the United States, North & South, did that mean that the United States deserved to lose every war it fought?

Regards,

Bill

[unionblue]

Bill,

As to your post #184 'Neil clearly doesn't' in particular. Bill, did I get that part wrong? I clearly seem to remember that I stated prior in this thread that the right to revolution does exist and that the people have such a right. Didn't I?

As to the recent turn of events with this post by mattew, ashley, ron and yourself, I am quite content to sit and watch as this thread has taken a very interesting turn.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[bill_torrens]

Dear Neil,

Confusion reigns!

The point I was trying to make is that I insist that the reasons for secession were entirely immaterial when one considers whether it was justified. As I understand it you don't agree with that, and feel that one cannot measure the merits of secession unless one considers the motives behind it.

I hope this was an accurate reflection of your opinion. If not, please accept my apologies.

And, yes, I agree that this thread is chugging along very nicely. It is always so stimulating to hear from new people and get new perspectives.

Bill

[ole]

Bill:

Absolutely! Confusion reigns. I love to see the progress, new contributions and clarifications. If I might ask ... "The point I was trying to make is that I insist that the reasons for secession were entirely immaterial when one considers whether it was justified." I don't understand how REASONS for secession can be immaterial when considering its JUSTIFICATION. To justify secession, there must be reasons.

I know you can clarify and eliminate my confusion.
Ole

[matthew mckeon]

Dear Alabaman,

Interesting post.#182 Let me reply to your reply.
The statement one third of colonists were for, one third against, one third neutral I have always thought was attributed to John Adams, thanks for the info. I think Franklin was wrong and a majority of Americans eventually supported American independence. The British didn't think there was a "right to rebel" against the King, but it happened anyway, because enough Americans thought the revolution was worth fighting for. They didn't argue that were was a legal right to revolt, they argued(in the Declaration) that it was right.

The argument over representation of the various states was solved at the Constitutional Convention to everyone's satisfaction, as evidenced by its ratification. Since the Confederate Congress adopted an almost identical structure, how states are representated in a federal government was not at issue. Sectional identity and conflict grew in the mid 19th century.

Racism by white Americans to African Americans was absolutely shared by Northerners and Southerners. By 90 per cent I mean 90% of all white Americans North and South. Even guys by Thomas Wentworth Higginson, a white officer commanding black troops, ready to fight and die for abolition, who fought with "a noose around my neck" because the CSA had threatened to execute white officers commanding black troops, even he could come out with some howlers about black people that would make you blink.

My point is, while you can be have racism without slavery, you can't have slavery without racism. A slaveowning society will never progress in race relations until slavery is ended. A non slaveowning society can and usually does.

Did Northern industrialists use the Civil War to make bundles of cash, and then exploit and dominate the South after the war? I think that's an excellent argument. The West can make a similar claim(of Eastern economic domination). Is it evidence that abolition was a cover for a Northern economic conspiracy? That's not so clear, at least to me.

Bill,

You stated that you wanted to establish, or debate whether a legal right to secession existed, without regarding to causes leading to secession. I believe that's the wrong question if you're seeking to understand the Civil War. Right question: Were the reasons for secession valid? Did secessionists anticipate a long and bloody war(Davis did, certainly). Did they still think it was worth it?
Was preserving the Union worth the effort and cost for the North?

My point about Lee and Cobb was, Lee was fighting for his country, and was willing to weaken or even destroy slavery if it brought victory, as Washington had given slaves freedom in return for military service in the Revolution. Cobb was fighting for a social system, and apparently didn't want the CSA if he couldn't have slavery.

Yours,

Matt

[matthew mckeon]

ARRRRRGH I knew this would happen! Both post 186 and 187 have already asked and answered my big rhetorical question at the end of my post.

[unionblue]

Dear Bill,

Your answer concerning my beliefs on secession/rebellion in your post #186 are spot on.

ALL have the right to rebel and shake off the existing government, but just because they have that right, should they?

The idea of arguing secession without the reasons behind it, reminds me of a quote from a dear friend of mine:

"The shadow is what we think of it; the tree is the real thing."

I am very much enjoying this thread at this point and time. Matthew, Ole, Alabaman, MobileBoy and yourself are doing quite well. I do hope cedarstripper comes back into the fray as I thought he made some interesting contributions also.

Until that time,
Unionblue