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.
Here are some thoughts on the interesting stuff folks have posted.
ewc: In 191, you ask if I'm going to mention 21st century attitudes about racism, why not about abortion: 1. Race is a central issue and outcome of the Civil War, while abortion wasn't 2. The point I was rather clumsily making was that we shouldn't judge Lee or Higginson or other 19th century people's beliefs about race by current standards.
Your post about indentured servitude 193 is a good example: indentured servitude differed from slavery because slavery was permanent, it extended to the slave's children, and it was race based.
Alabaman: While I disagree with your analysis in post 194 at least you are trying to understand what motivated the secessionists and unionists, instead of arguing an abstract right.
Bill, I'm finally getting your point: there is a right to revolution, regardless of what the rulebook might say. Dawn breaks over Marblehead, as we say in Massachusetts.
However, I still think we have to ask the questions: why did Southerners think secession was their best option in 1860? Was it? What did they hope to achieve, or preserve? What did they create in the CSA? Why did Unionists fight to preserve to Union? What did they hope to achieve? What did they?
I don't think there are simple or easy answers to these questions.
You know, in the "What If..." thread there are a dozen variations on what if the South had won the war, or the CSA had lasted until today. What would have happened if, in 1860, Charles Yancey and like minded men had awoken one day and rushed to their various meetings and rallies and said, "hey, secession is a stupid idea! It will lead to a long and brutal war, kill hundreds of thousands, probably lead to the total abolition of slavery, federal occupation of the South, and even if we win, we will never, I mean never get any cooperation with the fugitive slave act."
Ole,
Lincoln mentioned the loss of Southern revenue and is quoted as having done such on more than one occasion.Friend what did you think that he meant when he talked about collecting duties in Southern ports.There can be no debate about what his reference meant there.I'm not stating that Southern revenues were Lincoln's only motives for supporting an invasion of the South.However,I'm not blind to the fact that it was a consideration.Though I despise the man, Lincoln certainly was far too intelligent and enterprising a man to not have an educated idea as to the economic consequences of an independent Confederacy.I'm not one who thinks the Northern economy would have collapsed with the loss of the Southern states.Lincoln also was elected by the Republican party which was known to have a heavy protectionist lean.In his career I've never discovered where Lincoln was anything but in agreement with "protectionist" policies.He certainly knew the economic implications of an independent Confederacy very well.
My View on the Revolutionary War
As for the Revolutionary War talk I find that generation of Americans fascinating.I agree with the one-third of Americans supporting it at its inception as do numerous historians.Overlooked in that war are to me several things.First many poeple in England condemned the war and campaigned against it.They were disturbed by the fact of Englishmen(British could be freely substituted)sheddind English blood.By no means were all in the mother country favoring crushing the rebellion.Secondly I believe the no taxation without representation was mainly a propagand tool used to rally support for the American cause.The founding fathers were certainly aware that if given representation they would easily have simply been outvoted.Several even communicated such to one another in private diaries, letters, etch...Thirdly, hardly oppressive the British empire was by far way more lenient in its treatment of its colonies than any other nation then in existence .The way they come across in textbooks is such a gross misrepresentation of 18th century life.The French and Indian War cost the British empire an enormous amount of money.The government had serious debt issues.Though I don't agree with all of their taxation methods even up to the time of the Revolution English in England were taxed much more heavily than the Americans were.Though we all know it I'm sure, the Revolutionary War was a true world war fought in oceans around the globe.Not only France,but also Spain and the Netherlands fought Britain at the same time.Remarkabley other than in America they were able to pretty much whip these nations everywhere else in the world.Sorry for my off the subject critique.I just hate when history we're required to teach are next generation is so inaccurate.For the record I'm glad we won our independence.Sorry Bill,
but after watching American football all day I'm so glad soccer wasn't on the tv all weekend.
Ashley
MobileBoy:
I you will take that famous exerpt and read the entire quote, you will better understand what he was saying. As I don't have the source at my fingertips, I will paraphase: "If they can get away without paying the tariff, no one will. Then what happens?"
Promising to collect duties in the southern ports (presuming you're talking about his first inaugural) can be taken two ways, and they are not mutually exclusive: 1) He was reassuring the assembled people (and all the people through the reported transcript) that he intended to uphold the laws of the USofA; 2) He was putting the CSA on notice that he wasn't kidding around.
It is true that Lincoln was elected by the Republican Party. As to its "heavy protectionist lean," I'll have to question that. The northwest, was a large part of his support and the northwest was not heavily protectionist. He carried the election because his party's platform seemed the most reasonable to the electorate. It and he weren't abolitionist (which might lead to a conclusion that a majority of the electorate also was not). It was middle-road all the way. Had he been represented on Southern ballots, he may have closed that popular-majority gap.
In his career, he never had much chance to show his protectionist colors, did he? And it doesn't matter that some elements of southern agriculture demanded high tariffs on sugar, molasses, and such? Hemp? Rice?
Protectionism is as feeble an argument as economic reasons for the North prosecuting a war, when commerce with the south -- that is, buying from and selling to -- wouldn't necessarily have been interrupted by a peaceable secession. In these threads, economic reasons usually means reliance on tariffs paid in southern ports -- when the actual and imagined amounts flowing into federal coffers were comparatively small: cut two ships and we have it covered. There were no economic implications in keeping the south in the Union.
Ole
Bill, I'm finally getting your point: there is a right to revolution, regardless of what the rulebook might say. Dawn breaks over Marblehead, as we say in Massachusetts.
Yes, that’s it. A simple proposition which suits a simpleton like me! And one which I would apply universally, not just in an American context. It has its faults, and I can understand someone taking the view that it would serve the interests of more people to keep the nation state together rather than allow it to fragment. I can also understand the argument that people should abide by the result of an election. These are not wild or wicked propositions, and they deserve to be given careful consideration by pro-Confederates.
But I run into an insurmountable wall with that train of thought, because it leads us to the point where one group of people use violence to force the other to give their allegiance to something which, as a matter of conscience, they cannot say they believe in. Whatever benefits may accrue from this policy, I simply cannot stomach the coercion. That is the rock on which my (hypothetical) sympathy for the Union cause breaks.
You then go on to ask some pretty big questions. As you say, the answers to them aren’t simple or easy.
Was secession the best option for the South in 1860? Given how things turned out, plainly not.
What did they hope to achieve, or preserve? My opinion is that the most important thing they hoped to achieve was a Southern republic in which all issues of importance could be discussed and determined by Southerners alone. The surgical removal of Northern opinions and votes on matters Southern was the ultimate goal and, again in my opinion, it was a reasonable and laudable one.
What did they create in the CSA? There will be a lot of disagreement over this. My view is that, as is the way with revolutions (even those led by conservatives), what they created wasn’t what they expected to create in 1861. They created a de facto nation, if not necessarily a de jure one. Confederate nationalism was a reality by the time the country died. But, under the pressures of war, it was a more centralised nation than any of the idealogues would have envisaged back in ’61. And it was also one which was ultimately prepared to consider destroying its most distinctive social institution in return for a chance at securing independence. In ’61 that would have appeared an absurd exchange.
Regards,
Bill
Last edited by bill_torrens; 10-17-2005 at 04:40 PM.
Very well presented, very well indeed! Your words have explained in a tidy & reasonable manner, what I desired to say but failed. This is one of numerous reasons why I appreciate people from another Country and perspective, participating on CWT with an unoccluded view! Thank You, Mr. Torrens!
I disagree with one thing you stated, however. You, a "simpleton"?...I think most definitely not! :-)
I believe the right of secession of my ancestors was just and very applicable. The total war waged upon the South was certainly not worth the human cost.
Hey Ole,
My opinion on the protectionist leaning Republicans comes from the fact that as soon as they gained power the average tarrif rate went from a nominal 15% average rate to 47%.Before you the war as an excuse you should know this tarrif remained in place decades after the war.You may want to reconsider your views as to the Republican party and it's protectionist nature.I would think their actions paint a very different picture.
Why would economics be a feeble reason for prosecuting the war?Wars have been waged throughout history again and again for economic reasons.It would be extremely naive in my humble opinion to think that economics played no role.
You may wish to reflect apon these comments by Abraham Lincoln."My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman’s dance," he declared: "I am in favor of a national bank . . . the internal improvements system, and a high protective tariff."
Those comments are pretty self-explanatory don't you think?
Regards,
Ashley
Another masterfully crafted set of thoughts! Thank you.
However:
"Confederate nationalism was a reality by the time the country died." Canard. The Confederacy died from its lack of nationalism as much as it did from overwhelming resources. Its soldiers fough well and valiantly. Most of its citizens were supportive of their men in arms, but not anywhere close to all (which is my definition of nationalism). A goodly number of planters ignored the need for food crops and planted cotton. Many German POWs held in the states during WWII wore CSA uniforms -- warehouses full of much needed supplies were not released to national forces. Collaboration and outright conspiracies thrived.
To find something good to say about Davis, he worked long and hard to achieve nationalism. He was partially successful, but ultimately failed to develop completely the necessary nationalist enthusiasm among the populace.
Other than that, I thoroughly enjoyed your insightful post.
Ole
We're crossing posts, Ashley. I missed your most recent.
"My opinion on the protectionist leaning Republicans comes from the fact that as soon as they gained power the average tarrif rate went from a nominal 15% average rate to 47%."
Timelines, Ashley. The tariff rate went up after the war started with the purpose of financing the war. It was never an imposition on southern imports. That it remained long after the war might be expected, as it helped retire war debts.
"Why would economics be a feeble reason for prosecuting the war?Wars have been waged throughout history again and again for economic reasons.It would be extremely naive in my humble opinion to think that economics played no role."
That wars have been waged for economic reasons does not support your contention that this particular war was. Economically speaking, the country would have been better off without it. Of course, wars stimulate the generation of money, so there was a benefit to northern industry. But maintaining the status quo was very much a goal of northern industrialists -- they did not welcome war as an economic advantage.
"You may wish to reflect apon these comments by Abraham Lincoln.'My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman’s dance,' he declared: 'I am in favor of a national bank . . . the internal improvements system, and a high protective tariff.' "
And you may wish to reflect upon the idea that "protective tariff" is not, in and of itself, a pair of naughty words. The south didn't like tariffs that protected northern industry, but they loved tariffs that protected its products. By his statement, it's clear to me that Lincoln was committed to national development.
Ole,
Buddy according to your definition of nationalism I'd say the Union propaganda failed to achieve nationalism in the North as well.By your definition of nationalism friend neither country fit the bill making nationalism irrelevant to the war's outcome.I'd say an easy estimate of quote Confederate nationalism would be over 90 percent of its citizens.What government wouldn't take that?Mr.Vance of North Carolina could be be a nuisance as could Stephens of Georgia.However, neither of these men wished Confederate defeat or hoped for a Union victory.So where would you count them?They both in fact wanted a Confederate victory though yes they hurt the cause by their actions.
Regards,
Ashley
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
