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 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.
And yet you will discuss 21st century racism to the issue of slavery and race relations in early America.
Quote:
Originally Posted by matthew mckeon
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. ...
Abortion can be used as analogy to make a point; I did early in this thread. If present day folks like Ashley and I, and maybe you too Matthew, wanted to secede, revolt, rebel over abortion, we certainly will. If we wanted to. So as far as that goes, it is a workable analogy. Where we can immediately run into trouble with our analogy are the current connotations and approbations attached to the whole abortion question.
So it is too with the term 'Racism' and its' usage. To apply that term to the Civil War and antebellum America is to drag its' connotations and approbations of now to that time. This is the great error our less than esteemed social historians of the present day make, unwittingly or deliberately. Indeed how you describe the attitudes of white America of that era is true, in regards to the enslaved peoples and a good bit to the native Americans as well. However, the term ''Ethnocentric' or conceivably 'Ethnophobic' would be better applied to the point I believe you are making. To illustrate how pervasive and suble too is this infiltration in our thinking, I will again pick on Matthew, an educated man (Sorry Matthew). To say 'white Americans' would really mean 'European Americans' when juxtasposed to African Americans. And in regard to 'white Americans', it should certainly be acceptable to say 'black Americans.' But by saying African Americans, we are using the proper term we use now and not the term black Americans, slightly less acceptable now. A very subconscious thing, but one that speaks a bit of us as much as the topic we address.
__________________ 'It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag'
And yet, some 19th century Americans (black or white) were coming to terms with the idea that slavery was wrong, that to treat someone in a certain way simply by the color of their skin or their race was also wrong. The British Empire and most of Europe believed it was wrong.
And these were 19th century men looking at the issues we now discuss in the 21st. Seems like people have to start somewhere at sometime, do they not?
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
And these were 19th century men looking at the issues we now discuss in the 21st. Seems like people have to start somewhere at sometime, do they not?
Neil- very true. It is an evolving matter. (Gosh, look at me spouting about evolution!!!) Slavery in colonial times was not limited to black men, but to whites as well. Many poor whites came to the Americas as indentured servants, basically enslaved to a master for a term of 7 years. And some were held (not necessarily legally) longer, for what recourse did a slave have to the courts?? i remember reading a little while back that it was a rather low percentage only of indentured servants who gained their liberty after their contracted time had expired. Most were workerd to death in that 7 year period. I'm not sure even when indentured servitude in this country phased out. My money is on Bill having an answer to that. Double or nothing says he will provide the information gleefully and in inimicable style!!
__________________ 'It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag'
The right to secession of the Southern states was looked upon as a peaceful solution to the perceived unbalanced governmental power over state affairs. The U.S. Constitution and it's legalities over secesson were the last matter on most Southern minds in 1860. The simple solution to them was a peaceful seperation from a group of people they thought were no longer in their best interests to affiliate. The fulfillment of self determination and liberty, they believed, was inherently their own. Interpretation of secession and it's validity was that secession was a God given right which equivocated into self rule upon the trampling of their local & State affairs by outsiders.
The vile rhetoric of both Northern abolitionists and Southern fire-eaters befuddled the moderate mindset with immensity. President Lincoln, realizing the potential loss of Southern revenue due to secession, had to act as per his oath of office. Lincoln's opportunistic chance in procuring a 'Legal" right to war, and one not instigated by the North, but one perpetrated in "an act of hostility" by the South, emerged from the deceitful "supplies" shipped to Sumter and the expected bombardment & seige. Secession became synonymous with rebellion with the North, but not in the South.
Basically, it was in the North's interest economically not to allow a peaceful abolition to slavery; even if it was offered reasonably and humbly by the volunteer manumission and complete Federal compensation. Economic dominance over the South began with the legalized war, an energetic boost of Nationalism by the applying the moral issue of slavery and a successful outcome of the war via superior Industrial might. Therefore, Sumter & slavery were very irrelevent. As I stated before, it simply takes a current look at the economic status of the South to see this was successfully carried out by the North. The South was simply outshining the North in the eyes of the European powers.
"Basically, it was in the North's interest economically not to allow a peaceful abolition to slavery; even if it was offered reasonably and humbly by the volunteer manumission and complete Federal compensation. Economic dominance over the South began with the legalized war, a energetic boost of Nationalism by the applying the moral issue of slavery and a successful outcome of the war via superior Industrial might. Therefore, Sumter & slavery were very irrelevent. As I stated before, it simply takes a current look at the economic status of the South to see this was successfully carried out by the North. The South was simply outshining the North in the eyes of the European powers."
Explain, please, how it was in the North's economic interest to not allow abolition. Lincoln won the majority of electoral votes on what was essentially antislavery platform. (Whether anyone likes or dislikes the electoral college is of no consequence -- rules are not changed in the middle of the game.)
The North's economic dominance of the South began long before the war -- many Southern spokespersons -- politically influential and otherwise -- said the same. I see that reverse in economic power as something that was entirely avoidable had there been an effort in the South to reverse or at least equalize the trend.
A slight regression, but I don't want to snip your post: "Economic dominance over the South began with the legalized war, a energetic boost of Nationalism by the applying the moral issue of slavery and a successful outcome of the war via superior Industrial might." I've stated that the war didn't start economic dominance. Actually, the south experienced an energetic boost of nationalism and developed, in less than two years after the war started, the wherewithal to at least adequately wage war against such overwhelming odds. The mechanism was already in place in the north, the south had to develop it and then make it work -- and it almost did. If it could do it in '61-62, it was possible to do it in '55, '57, and '59 -- but it wasn't done.
"As I stated before, it simply takes a current look at the economic status of the South to see this was successfully carried out by the North. The South was simply outshining the North in the eyes of the European powers."
And what is the current economic status of the South? If, after 100+ years, the south can blame the north for its condition, I fear for its next 100.
For your last sentence, I'll pass on that, until I can figure out what you meant or, failing that (probable) you can clarify it.
"The simple solution to them was a peaceful seperation from a group of people they thought were no longer in their best interests to affiliate. The fulfillment of self determination and liberty, they believed, was inherently their own. Interpretation of secession and it's validity was that secession was a God given right which equivocated into self rule upon the trampling of their local & State affairs by outsiders."
Take a round red transparency, place it so it overlaps,to the centerpoint of the same size and shape blue transparency. With a light behind it you will see red, green and blue. Let the red represent the fire-eaters. They knew secession would not be peaceful, but promoted it enthusiastically anyway. Let the green represent the moderates who feared war and but wanted some redress of grievances -- consider them on the fence. Go to the blue side. They were unionists who had no beef with the Union and wanted nothing to do with the other two colors.
I'd venture that few, if any, considered secession a god-given right, that self-determination and a return to the constitution was their goal. And you might mention what state and local affairs were trampled upon by outsiders.
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?
Well, we fundamentally disagree about this. My whole point is that I’m indifferent about the legality of secession. I leap straight to the right to revolution. For that reason I regard your question “Were the reasons for secession valid?” as beside the point.
Quote:
Was preserving the Union worth the effort and cost for the North?
A very good question. The problem is that the very words “preserving the Union” are misleading. They sound so benign. Whereas what was actually happening was extremely aggressive. “Imposing the Union” would be more accurate, from my point of view. I may be naïve, but the way I see it any kind of union should be spontaneous and equally desired by both sides. That kind of union is natural and wholesome. But a union which one side desires and the other dreads is repulsive.
All I can say in response to this is: 'No, reasons aren't necessary."
A "people" (by definition a self-defining group) have the absolute right to determine their own nationality. In any place, at any time. What is the alternative? To argue that some other group have the right to impose their own notion of nationality on the people in question.
Northerners are complacent about the notion of enforcing a concept of nationality on Southerners. But we all know that they themselves would be extraordinarily resistant if the tables were turned.
Thanks for the wait on the (my) last sentence clarification.
No, of course I'm not offering the excuse that the war 'proper'is to be the on-going reason for the South's poorer economic status versus the Northern states today. In retrospect (post-war period) it seems attributed somewhat to the masses of a recently freed slave population lacking trade skills, post-war depression of the Southern economy and an agrarian based economy. Until recently, many Southern states still depended upon agriulture as it's primary economic base. Sorry for not being clear on the statement. I didn't intend to say 'presently' as it looked.
Re: Lincoln: With the possible loss of Southern participation in trade & commerce, during the "rebellion," Lincoln focussed upon not recognizing the legality of secession and quickly bringing the "rebellious" states back into the Union; thus continuing and preserving the Union. Obviously it wasn't President Lincoln's primary intent in preserving the Union of the States.
I'll pick up tomorrow a.m. on an expansion of the last portion of your questions. My last sentence was intended to have`a 'happy face' attached? I was musing in that one.:-) Thought I added one? sorry...
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
) were coming to terms with the idea that slavery was wrong, that to treat someone in a certain way simply by the color of their skin or their race was also wrong. The British Empire and most of Europe believed it was wrong. 
Linear Mode
