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.
How is it possible to so completely misunderstand such simple English? Is the problem a linguistic or an intellectual one?
The problem comes from discounting the importance of said issue. The difference between terms "The" & "A" should clear up the intellectual and simple english confusion for you.
__________________ Shane Christen
American Legion Post 352
SUVCW Camp Abernethy# 48
Lifetime NRA member
3rd MN VI
For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. Eccl 1:18
Per your post number 10, you are indeed right in thanking Bill for starting another interesting thread. Only Bill of late seems to be able to view the war and aspects of it in a truly new and interesting manner. He is a priceless asset to this forum.
I also wish to agree fully with your view when you state, 'integrity is valueless when based on complusion.' I fully indorse this view. It is merely the angle at which you apply it I disagree with.
Integrity is valueless when based on complusion, especially when one cries 'states rights' when one compells four million souls to continue in slavery. Integrity is valueless when basid on complusion when you try to force that slavery into territories that have yet to be infested with this compelling institution. And there is no integrity when you restrict, or try to compell your fellow white citizens to take this institution into their own Free States, overthrow their own state constitutions or try to compell them through their own court system to permit it to grow and thrive in their own states.
So yes, integrity is valuelss when based on complusion, and this is where the Southern leadership who proclaimed the good of slavery, demanded its expansion at the express loss of democracy to millions, both black and white, loses any attempt at integrity, even when they were backed up by God's will indicating the institution was ordained by God.
Robert E. Lee does disagree with you, after a fashion Dawna. He stated for the historical record that secession was nothing but rebellion. He further stated he had no doubt that the founders of the nation in no way intended such a device to break up the Union. Seems as though he was pretty clear about what the motives were and what rights had been muddled by the illegal action of secession.
As for your revulsion over slaves been chained and separated from their loved ones, you are right to have it. And you are right to remember that US ships had tens of thousands die during their trips from Africa to America. But I challenge you to produce your numbers or your reasoning that less died on Southern plantations, as this in any way makes an excuse for the institution that survived long after American ships ceased carrying slaves.
But you are right to indicate the slave trade was a national sin, brought on by the nation and its actions, but this in no way explains away the reason the South left the Union. It was not asked to sacrifice its integrity, nor was it compelled to give up slavery. It held tightly on, compelled by no one but it self that it needed to do so.
As for the fact the South compelled no one, again, one should look at history to see that this is simply not true. The Congressional Gag Rule, the Nullification crisis, the proslavery Kansas Legislature's repression of free discussion, both Fugitive Slave Acts, the Dred Scott case, censure of the mail and the list can go on for quite a while. All acts of complusion with the goal of forcing others to accept their on view on the subject.
The trouble with Bill's premise for this thread and your own observation concerning Ft. Sumter and slavery being irrelevant is this one historical fact. None of those citizens in the North who reacted to the firing on Ft. Sumter considered it so. Up until that very moment, the South had an excellent change of keeping their slaves, but were fearful their attempt at rebellion was fading. Action was needed to convince and force other Southern states to join the illegal and illfated attempt at revolution.
This now admittedly valueless fort that had little or no military value, suddenly became enormously important to both sides. To ensure slavery's survival and continued expansion, the Confederate leadership, even then divided on a wisdom of such action, fired on the fort to compell others to join it.
No, Ft. Sumter and slavery have everything to do with the war and are in no way irrelevent to it. History has not lied nor been distorted to the extent you believe it has. But in some cases, I will admit it has been trivalized in an attempt to be justification, or, if you will, integrity to an act of misguided complusion.
I hope you are enjoying England.
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
"The key act of 'rebellion', in the case of each state, was the passing of the act or ordinance of secession. The war happened because of these acts of secession and would have happened if Sumter had never been fired on. So Sumter really is an irrelevance."
It would be interesting to speculate on the idea that the war would have happened "had Sumter never been fired on.(sic)" It's been stated that if not this, that. That is opinion. Mine is that there was a chance of avoiding war.
Without Sumter, Lincoln would have had no excuse to "put down the rebellion." Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas and North Carolina do not secede. Cooler heads begin to gain control. Then ... ?
Without Sumter, there is an open question. Sumter is, indeed, relevant.
Ole
Without Sumter, Lincoln would have had no excuse to "put down the rebellion."
Why did he need an excuse? Wasn’t it his duty, as he saw it? Wasn’t he bound to this course of action by his Presidential oath? That is certainly what most Unionists argue on these boards, and I am a little disconcerted by this sudden change of tack. Consistency isn’t always attainable, but your argument would have more credibility if you at least aspired to it.
Quote:
That is opinion. Mine is that there was a chance of avoiding war…Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas and North Carolina do not secede. Cooler heads begin to gain control. Then ... ?
“Cooler heads begin to gain control.” Where? The Confederate Government and Constitution both pre-date the attack on Sumter. If, by cooler heads prevailing, you mean that the Confederate Government might have voluntarily dissolved itself and the various seceding states might have returned to the Union, I’m afraid I cannot take the suggestion remotely seriously.
If, on the other hand, you mean that Lincoln might have recognised the independence of the Confederacy then I am equally unconvinced. There isn’t a shred of evidence to suggest that he ever had this in mind.
Given that Lincoln’s idea of his magisterial duty and the continued existence of the Confederate States of America were mutually exclusive concepts, war was inevitable.
Slavery is important only to the extent that it was, or was not, a motivating force behind secession.
Quote:
The difference between terms "The" & "A" should clear up the intellectual and simple english confusion for you.
If we substitute “the” for “a” we end up with the proposition that slavery was the only contributory factor leading to secession. Literally nothing else can be considered at all. This statement could only be made by someone who has allowed a proper interest in the historical significance of slavery (which is considerable) to degenerate into obsessive, even fetishistic, preoccupation with it.
I can happily accept the argument that slavery was the most important factor behind secession. I can accept the argument that it was overwhelmingly important. I don’t necessarily agree, but I see the merits of the argument. But the proposition that no other factor existed at all is too extreme to waste one’s time upon.
Bill, that is your option and your opinion. Slavery was the , yes I said THE motivating factor behind the Southern leadership commiting treason and formenting a Rebellion that killed 630,000 odd Americans. The waste of time has been believeing that slavery was at most a minor piece of the disagreement and some who espouse that slavery had nothing to do w/ the War at all. To make clear that the problem is neither Linguistic or intellectual: the words "also" or "however" might be used in a sentence immedietly following a sentence including the word "the."
Simply put Economics, States Rights, Fair Treatment etc can all be argued. Economics= the money/financial interest in slavery. Fair Treatment= the protection of property (slaves in a State where slavery had been made illegel by a Legislative Caucus) when transported through free states aka Dredd Scott. It also eqals the slaveholder being treated the same as those in the North who didn't own or advocate the owning of slaves... Lincoln wasn't even on the ballot in several slave states so we'll never know the truth of the self determination argument. It came to mean that Slavery need to be spread equally w/ non slavery. Economics= the vast money invested in the specific institution whether in slavery itself or one of the many industies that supported it. States Rights= the Right to own slaves. In other Words; Slavery was the one cause of Secession pushing all the others.
Not all Rebels were Slavery supporters, But all of the Rebel Leadership was. They were defending their rather significant investment. Money talks, it always has... read Cicero or Plutarch if you think I don't understand human nature. On a quick look at the Leadership of the CSA I found none who did not own slaves. Now I readliy admit that my quick look may well have missed some; contrary to popular belief a General is not Political Leadership and while General Lee freed his slaves he was not the political leadership. You see the Civil War as a failed argument for Self Determination. As I've asked before who did Jeff Davis run against in his presidential election. One choice on the ballot is democracy & self determination only in the Stalinist version. In my opinion he was appointed after some back room dealing. Some of the states held elections during the War but the CSA as a nation did not and I question if there was ever any intention to do so. Because I question the legitamacy of any such "nation". Self Determination was espoused, yet the CSA was certainly not interested in the opinion of its own minority that opposed Secession; and there is quite a bit of question about just how small that minority was.
Those who espoused and argued Secession as a necessity weren't screaming about the unfair Tarriffs (which is a post war smokescreen) hurting the South. They were screaming about States Rights (the right to own property, slaves). Some on your side of the aisle espouse the idea that the winners wrote the history w/ their agenda only in mind... to a small degree they are right, but the Lost Cause managed to manipulate and connive their own smokescreen into the histories.
A good politician should be able to sway a large number of people to his way of thinking, which is why I see political leadership defending their interests instead of representing those of the majority. And the Slave interests had a LOT of good politicians on their side. Jeff Davis to name just one. 30% led the other 70% into War and a good number of the 70% were pulled kicking and screaming.
Manifest Destiny was a human sin, Slavery an American sin and Secession a Slaveholders one.
I bid you a good day.
__________________ Shane Christen
American Legion Post 352
SUVCW Camp Abernethy# 48
Lifetime NRA member
3rd MN VI
For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. Eccl 1:18
Bill:
Quote: "Why did he need an excuse? Wasn’t it his duty, as he saw it? Wasn’t he bound to this course of action by his Presidential oath? That is certainly what most Unionists argue on these boards, and I am a little disconcerted by this sudden change of tack. Consistency isn’t always attainable, but your argument would have more credibility if you at least aspired to it."
He was bound to protect the constitution but not empowered to use armed force. In this country, and I presume in yours as well, a political leader can do very little (and calling up an army is far over-qualified for very little) without the backing of a large majority of the people. Had congress been sitting, he would have been hard put to assemble the wherewithall to take the action for which he had taken the oath. Perhaps using the word "excuse" is what confused you and led to the snippy comment. Ft. Sumter gave him the power to proceed without the blessing of congress.
Quote: “'Cooler heads begin to gain control.' Where? The Confederate Government and Constitution both pre-date the attack on Sumter. If, by cooler heads prevailing, you mean that the Confederate Government might have voluntarily dissolved itself and the various seceding states might have returned to the Union, I’m afraid I cannot take the suggestion remotely seriously."
Nope. Not suggesting that the CS might have voluntarily dissolved itself, but six months of sober consideration might have averted the war. Nope. Lincoln would not have given up his conviction that secession was illegal, but he, and the south would have had an opportunity to deliberate the question. Deliberation offered a possibility of a peaceful solution. Before Sumter, war was not inevitable -- there were options. Sumter eliminated them and empowered Lincoln to act without Congress.
Secession was accomplished with marginal consent of the people. Time would have given the pressured swing-voters a chance to consolidate and reverse the secession votes. Although such action is not a certainty, it is a possibility and therefore war was not inevitable. You do recall that significant numbers of confederate voting men cared enough to go to war on the side of the Union. That might logically lead to the idea that there were as many, or more, that would at least care enough to vote -- given an opportunity.
I demand that you release my friend Bill Torrens at once and stop using his identification to post your own radical views!
"I can happliy accept the argument that slavery was the most important factor behind secession. I can accept the argument that it was overwhelmingly important."
Whoever you are and whatever you have done with poor Bill, I demand that you release him at once and verify that he is well and in his right mind, his senses fully intact and his ability to use his superp reasoning skills fully engaged.
Seriously, Bill, unless all are willing to proceed from the basic premise that slavery was the fertile ground which nutured the seeds of civil war, all other factors that you and others have mentioned were simply not enough for the separation and killing that followed.
How in heavens name could tariffs result in such death and destruction? You and I both know that if we asked the average US or UK citizen about tariffs in force today, we would both get blank stares. A farmer in Ohio or one in Mississippi, both of whom owned no slaves, would give a good dam about tariffs in 1860? Or even understand how they were decided on or how they effected them?
States Rights? Ah, yes, this might make more of an impact, but exactly what are we talking about, really, when we say the magical term, 'States Rights?' Do we mean what we think it means, here in the 21st century? A noble experiment in minority democracy, the freedom of the few versus the tyranny of the many? Or do we focus into the real states right that was being threatened, the ability to maintain ownership of one human being to another. In your own opinion, was there any real fear that this 'right' was being threatened by the election of a Republican administration?
Ah, then what about those 'Big Government' plans along with the evil Northern capitalist industrial complex that desperately wanted to enslave the South and keep huge profits and tight government control over the region. Again, I wonder, just how stupid were all those Southern administrations who held the White House, the Congress and the Supreme Court for all those years before the election of Lincoln? One should almost get angry at how ignorant and inept those Southern Presidents, Congressmen and Judges were at letting the federal government get so out of hand and so powerful. And all those Northern businessmen plotting all those years to seize control of the wealth and raw materials of the South to line their pockets. Not one whisper not one sign, and who was that Southern Congressman idiot who declared 'King is Cotton' in the face of that financial ressession that primarily hit the North before 1860? What a fool! How clever of those Northern capitalists to disguise their every move like that!
My point is that those who would willfully downplay slaverys significance as it relates to ALL other factors has more than an obsessive, degenerative, almost fetishistic preoccupation ignoring of historical fact (I do not accuse you of a stand, but I did use your words in reply as they are so well done). One who holds a view at the expense of all the historical evidence that slavery was the one, overriding factor that churned and stirred this nation as no other factor did, is doing their best to bury and ignore that history. Willfully, with tremendous effort on their part.
Sumter is relevent because it was. The issue of slavery, at the expense of ALL other factors, forced itself to Sumter's door. How can these two basic factors, slavery and Ft. Sumter, be ignored or derided when the people of the time, both North and South, found them to be relevent? Sumter was the place by chance, as it well could have been Ft. Pickens or a ship in the harbor or a border crossing or a quiet river bank. But that place would have been relevent because, not in spite of, the issue of slavery.
To come to any other conclusion based on the history leading up to and at the beginning of the war, is to construct one's arguments on a historical foundation of sand. No true meaning will come from such a foundation. No true lesson will be learned from it.
In my humble, fetishistic, opinion.
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
Reviewing these threads after a couple of years participation, I am struck by the amount of words written on subjects which are quite incidental to the war itself: the attack on Fort Sumter and the institution of slavery.
Bill, Thanks for the great joke here. I got a good laugh out of it. The idea that slavery and the attack on Fort Sumter could honestly be considered to be merely incidental to the war is completely ludicrous, and I can't believe that anyone who has spent any time studying the war really holds that opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_torrens
If the war was actually started by the firing on Sumter it follows that it was a conflict between two independent nations caused by one attacking the armed forces of the other.
No, it doesn't. That is very poor logic. You assume that only independent nations can go to war after one side fires on a fort garrisoned by the other side. There is no logic whatsoever in that position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_torrens
So was the firing on Sumter the key act of "rebellion"? Of course not.[/font][/size]
Of course it was, and it met the definition of "treason" in the US Constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_torrens
The key act of "rebellion", in the case of each state, was the passing of the act or ordinance of secession. The war happened because of these acts of secession and would have happened if Sumter had never been fired on. So Sumter really is an irrelevance.[/font][/size]
Not at all. The acts of secession were regarded by many as acts of rebellion, which they may have been, but they didn't lead to a war because both Buchanan and Lincoln decided to pursue a peaceful course of action to give their misguided countrymen the chance to calm down, reconsider their actions, and return to lawfulness on their own. The war happened because Jefferson Davis decided to start the war. The statement that Fort Sumter is an irrelevance is completely historically false.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_torrens
And now for slavery. If the peculiar institution had been abolished throughout the United States long before 1861, and 11 states had seceded in that year, would the United States government have fought a war to drag them back into the Union? The answer has to be “yes”. Lincoln himself said often enough that he was fighting to preserve the Union rather than to free the slaves. It follows, therefore, that the issue dividing us on these boards is whether the departing states had the right to unilateral secession from the Union. That, and nothing else. Slavery is important only to the extent that it was, or was not, a motivating force behind secession. But the motives for secession and the right to secession, if such a right exists, are completely different things and should never be confused. Any yet they have been confused, constantly, for the last 140 years.
Nothing but pure sophistry, there, Bill. Without the perceived threat to slavery there would have been no secession. Without secession there would have been no war. Pointing to Lincoln's statements is an irrelevant action because Lincoln neither seceded nor fired at Fort Sumter. Confederates themselves, such as Alexander Stephens, whom you like to dismiss out of hand because he proves you wrong, were quite open that it was slavery that was the cause of the conflict and underlay the entire conflict.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_torrens
And one has to suspect that the confusion is quite deliberate. Dressing up a war against secession in the clothing of emancipation can hardly hurt the Union cause. And there has also been an awful lot of wilful self-deception.
The only willful self-deception I see is among those who would deny the centrality of slavery to the war and to the confederate cause.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_torrens
How many of the Federal soldiers who mutinied after the Emancipation Proclamation,[/font][/size]
How many Federal soldiers do you think mutinied because of the EP?
Dear Bill,
How dare you sir try to be reasonable when discussing the Civil War with Yankees. Bill I agree with your premise that Fort Sumpter was irrelevant.It's not like every Northern boy rushed to sign up to die for the Union.My Northern friends also like to ignore the draft.That's right citizens being forced to fight in Union armies against their will.So whether you say for the Union or abolition or whatever not enough boys at the time believed in fighting for this glorious cause.Dawna excellent post.There was not one gun at Fort Sumpter or in South Carolina that could have reached the Union.Ole my friend why bring up the Constitution with Lincoln.We all know he swore to uphold it, but we all know he disobeyed the Constitution whenever it suited his interest.So saying he was bound to invade the South on the basis of secession being unconstitutional rings hollow.Neil my friend why to you continue to assert that the tarrif wasn't an issue.As I've said numerous times the Confederate tarrif was lower than the Union tarrif(and that's before it was jacked up during the war).Common sense would lead you to believe that since they didn't just copy the existing American tarrif it was obviously an issue.Otherwise why the heck would they change it.It wasn't as big a deal as slavery ,but it was an issue.How you guys throw around words like rebellion and treason is really comical.Reality check fellas this country was founded by traitors, rebels,etch...Shoot guys we all know the author of the Delaration of Independence would've sided with the Confederacy.By the way when Jefferson was President did he invade New England when they refused to call up the militia?Back to our Founding Fathers didn't they fight for self-government as did the Confederacy.So unless you say we should all have been under British rule in 1860 then those words make no sense.As for the Uper South you can thank wonderful Abe for their secession.
It seems crazy I know that something about Americans killing other Americans seemed wrong.Of course Mayland wasn't really allowed to choose sides in the war.Lincoln felt it democratic to choose for her.Anyway look a war would've happened anyway with or without Fort Sumpter.Lincoln had already said he wouldn't let the Union be dissolved.Jefferson Davis had already said he wouldn't compromise independence.Duh folks war was on the way.I think Davis made a bad mistake by firing on the fort but it changed little since might alone would decide this argument.The war was the biggest thing to happen in many young men's generation so boys North or South were simply not going to miss all of the excitement.I think wicked politicians on both sides brought about this whole mess.And averagen men like those on this board on both sides bled for it.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
