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.
You understand of course that the first side to resort to a military draft was the Confederacy. I find it equally amazing that many who support the South seem to forget this fact. So what does this say about the fighting spirit of the South, in your opinion?
The fact of the matter is, hundreds of thousands of Northern men volunteered at the beginning of the war and many of them remained, long after the excitement of adventure had died, reenlisted and saw the war through. The core of these volunteers are the ones who served, bled and died to see their cause through. Read Bruce Catton's series of three books, The Army of the Potomac, and see if this is not true.
You also state that the South changed the tariff system. Yes, they did, in a very fundamental way. Instead of placing a tariff on imports as the US had done since it instituted a tariff system, the South enacted a tariff on both imports and exports, a very significant change. Not because the Northern one was unfair, but because this change would bring in much needed revenue to the South.
I am glad that you view that this issue was not as big a deal as slavery, for it wasn't to the Southern people of the time either. South Carolina said the tariff is not what the people considered important enough to leave the Union, but the issue of slavery was.
And you are wrong concerning the range of Confederate cannon in Charlestown harbor being unable to reach Union territory. Ft. Sumter was federal property and considered U.S. soil, under the operation of the Federal Government which represents the people of the United States, hence the Union.
As for Lincoln ignoring the Constitution, what about the often overlooked fact that when a state seceded, it was violating the Constitution and voiding the entire document by not legally obeying the results of a lawful and peaceful election?
No, my new found rebel friend, I do not consider the terms of 'rebellion' and 'treason' comical, nor do I use them lightly. General Robert E. Lee said about the same thing. That 'secession was nothing but rebellion.' Did he lie?
As for Lincoln holding down Maryland enough to force men of that State to serve, check and see how many Maryland men volunteered for service at the beginning of the war to fight for the Union. Then read about Lee's expectations when he marched through the state expecting thousands of Marylanders to flock to and enlist in his army. History records he and the Confederate government were somewhat disappointed by only the few (in the hundreds) that chose to do so. Again, Bruce Catton's series, The Army of the Potomac, has something to say on the subject and can be easily found in the public library. I'd be curious to hear what you think if you read them.
As to the last of your post, I agree, the war was going to happen if it started at Ft. Sumter or not, due to the South's desire to protect slavery (and yes, I know my hammering on this point is getting quite old to some), but remember, the choice to fire on Ft. Sumter was decided by Davis and that Confederate government, because they considered it important enough to send a message to both the North and the South. The issue of slavery and Ft. Sumter was NOT irrevelent to them.
And those excited young boys on both sides paid in blood for that choice, more's the pity.
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
It never ceases to amaze me how elementary this really is. The cause of the Civil War was Lincoln's refusal to let the South secede, and the motives as opposed to rights have been muddied far too long now. Irreconcilible differences led to the war, but secession caused the war.
Hello, Dawna.
The 7 cotton states all seceded prior to Lincoln's taking office. James Buchanan also refused to recognize the legality of secession. If Lincoln's refusal to accept secession caused the war, how come it didn't start the moment Lincoln took office? How come it didn't start when Buchanan refused to accept secession?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawna
At some point in time, the United States decided that the strength of the Union was determined through it's ability to hold the country together by the use of force. And after all, the entire world was watching. Strangely enough, when the war motives changed, the Republican administration decided that it was quite alright to keep killing their own brethren, under the pretext of emancipating the slaves - the same race that the North refused to live with themselves.
Who were those 343,988 free blacks, according to the 1860 Census, who lived in the unseceded states?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawna
Larry noted those "looking up at the chains and whips and perhaps watching their loved ones being hauled down a dusty road towards another owner" is to say the least, a horrific and very real scenario. But lest we forget that tens of thousands of slaves died in appalling conditions on U.S. slave ships; which was far less than the number who died from mistreatment on Southern plantations.
Actually, that number can not in any way be confirmed. The number of slave ships flying US flags was small in comparison with the total slave trade. So the number itself is meaningless. It cannot be applied with any degree of accuracy to US slave ships.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawna
The 'wilful deception and deliberate confusion' is no more apparent than with those who still believe that the creation of the Confederacy was invalid, and that it operated without backbone. I'm certain that the likes of Robert E. Lee would disagree that the Southern cause was without merit.
The prisons are full of criminals who defend their actions. The US Constitution, US Case Law, the Proclamations of Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln, the writings of James Madison and George Washington, and the rulings of the Federal Courts and the US Supreme Court regarding secession all show the creation of the confederacy was invalid.
I don't mean to offend, Dawna, but using your own usage above, those who claim the confederacy's creation was valid are the ones engaging in willful deception and deliberate confusion. Every legal decision, before and after the Civil War, that touched on issues such as state sovereignty and Federal supremacy, before the war, and secession during and after the war is consistent with secession being an illegal, unconstitutional act.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawna
The South imposed it's 'will' on no one,
Unfortunately, that's a disingenuous statement. They most certainly imposed their will on the Federal Government prior to secession, and they attempted to impose their will with and after secession. That the rest of the country finally got fed up with their arrogance, their childishness, and their dissembling and refused to allow them to do so again is not evidence they imposed their will on no one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawna
yet they became the recipients of an onerous army that could not accept the notion that the Southern motive in leaving the Union might not be nefarious.
They started the war. No sense in them whining about the results of a war they themselves started in order to perpetuate one of the worst institutions known to man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawna
And since Fort Sumter held such insignificant military value and was hundreds of miles away from the nearest state remaining in the Union, it seems ludicrous for anyone to believe that Fort Sumter posed a threat to the security of the United States; making Fort Sumter completely irrelevant.
Sorry, but that's another disinenguous statement.
Fort Sumter didn't have to be a threat to the security of the United States per se. The idea that anyone could fire on a fort garrisoned by US troops with impunity is a threat to US security. The idea that any state could, on their own, for whatever reason they wished, simply secede from the United States is a threat to US Security, as outlined by Thomas Jefferson and the authors of the Federalist Papers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawna
If it's true that the 'victors' are entitled to write history,
It's not true in the case of the Civil War. That statement is a cop-out by supporters of the confederacy who are upset their deceptions have not been believed by actual historians.
Dear Bill,
How dare you sir try to be reasonable when discussing the Civil War with Yankees.
Insults, Ashley?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
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.
Enough of them did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
My Northern friends also like to ignore the draft.That's right citizens being forced to fight in Union armies against their will.
A rather disingenuous comment, since it was preceded by the confederate draft. That's right. Citizens being forced to fight in confederate armies against their will.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
So whether you say for the Union or abolition or whatever not enough boys at the time believed in fighting for this glorious cause.
Another disingenuous statement.
So whether you say for slavery, for state rights, for home and hearth, or whatever, not enough southern boys at the time believed in fighting for this glorious cause.
And there were enough Northern boys who went into the army, fought bravely, and triumphed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
There was not one gun at Fort Sumpter or in South Carolina that could have reached the Union.
Irrelevant, as Fort Sumter firing on the Union was never the issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
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.
That is a falsehood.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
Neil my friend why to you continue to assert that the tarrif wasn't an issue.
Because it wasn't. The claim that it was is another false claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
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.
Poor logic.
They also implemented a single six-year term for their president. Using the logic you used above, the single six-year term for president was why they seceded and started the war.
They implemented a line-item veto. Was the line-item veto an issue?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
How you guys throw around words like rebellion and treason is really comical.
If you find the Constitution funny.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
Of course Mayland wasn't really allowed to choose sides in the war.Lincoln felt it democratic to choose for her.
In writing before, I did not think of myself as defending Bill's line of thought. I found it wonderfully aimed at attempting to coolly and logically and removed from emotion to explain profound bases of how the War came to be. His follow up post answering Ole (#14) follows this line of reasoning. So now I must come to the defense of Bill's line of thought.
So how is Ft Sumter irrelevant? Because some type of resolution must necessarily come of these acts of secession and the establishment of a rebellious government to Federal authority. And that resolution was going to be war. There is a body of thought, exopostulated here ably by Ole, that war need not have followed. That is a sticking point of debate, I for one have wondered that issue. Bill's point is that President Lincoln was duty bound to treat the United States to which he was the Chief Executive of an entire body as a whole , Northern States and Southern, Democrats and Republicans all. Not everyone liked it and not everyone needed to; they did need to obey the laws and accept Federal authority. Is that not necessary of every American president?
So once secession happened, there was going to be crises and crises management. I am in accord with Bill in that the Civil War starts from here and not with the firing on Ft Sumter. What happened at Ft Sumter, and I am not downplaying its' importance, could have been any incident that set hostilities openly and clearly to the forefront. It could have been, and wasn't, the taking of Federal forts, arsenals, and mints, customhouses, etc in the Southern States. It could have been and wasn't Anderson's removal of his troops from Ft Moultrie to Ft Sumter. It could have been and wasn't the surrender of Texas, or the firing on the Star of the West, or it could have been another fort. It just happened to be Ft Sumter. Not that it was unimportant, but hostilities were going to generate from some event, which happened to be Sumter; it ultimately being immaterial which of these events it should be.
As to slavery and secession, Bill is saying that though slavery was a motive of secession, the right of secession is a completely different animal. And he says this is the source of our debate. And in this again I find his statement entirely logical. We debate ad inifinitum and with great relish and sincerity and enjoyment these issues. And they are so often lumped together when they can rightly be considered apart, and that can only help to cloud these issues. We argue the importance of slavery to the fate of the Union, a legitimate debate. We argue whether the South had a right to secede, another legitimate debate. It seems to me Bill is saying that we can argue secession without arguing slavery. And by so arguing, what then is most important to America going to war with itself was that a group of states said they were independent, for whatever the reason, and the other group of states, backed by the Federal authority, said sorry but there is only one group of states and that's us, including you and you don't have to like it. Thus though slavery was a dividing issue, conceivably the deciding issue, it was a secondary issue to whether the Southern States could secede, and thus an irrelevant one to the basic problem. Bill doesn't say that slavery should not be addressed, but that secession must be addressed in the order of things. In the secession crisis, this is how President Lincoln saw it.
The Right of Secession, many at the time, and now, beleive it existed. The Southern States believed they had it. What matters is that this is how they saw it. I will go further than Bill and state that even the Right of Secession was irrelevant. What was ultimately relevant to the Southern people, their leaders, the States was the perceived necessity of protecting their culture, heritage, social structure, and economic system against a growing threat which looked to begin to engulf them. No amount of law or constitutionality or promise by Federal (or monarchical or whatever system it might be) authority can interdict what a people must have and use to protect themselves. If the South or any peoples feel themselves sufficiently threatened, that in itself is argument and reason enough to go to war to protect themselves; if there existed an argument of law, or an argument of constitutional protection, fine, we'll use it. But in the end, even that is not needed, hence irrelevant, to the need of securing to ourselves the structure of our society, of who we are, whoever we are.
__________________ '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'
One question, if I may. What was the cause of secession?
Before secession took place, did there not have to be a reason to committ such a drastic action? You will agree that secession did not take place in a social and political vacum, that there was a reason that was so compelling to the Southern leadership that necessitated this course of action.
Then ask yourself this question. Why did Jefferson Davis order that Ft. Sumter be taken, fired on and subdued? Why was it so important to him? Why was that small garrison in the middle of the harbor so important to the Southern leadership as to order an overt act of war?
It is obvious that something caused secession. It is obvious that Ft. Sumter was important.
Secession was the result, not the cause, the reason for the South leaving the Union. It was simply the symptom of the conditions that caused this action.
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
Neil- i have answers to your questions, answers the Southerners do not cotton to. That the Southern states seceded primarily because of the impasse over slavery and their dwindling, rapidly disappearing power in the Union to protect it is not mitigated by the fact that they believed they they had the right to secede and acted upon it- wisely or foolishly. In my eyes- foolishly. And Lincoln and the Union were perforce compelled to react to an outward display of force by the seceded union of states. It's not that the firing on Ft Sumptewr was unimoportant, but that it (the firing on Federal authority) could have been anything- Sumter, Pickens, Star of the West, anything, but happened it was Ft Sumter the focal point.
That something caused secession is plain, one of our great debates is what is the importance of these various factors. Like you, I hold slavery was the defining factor, the one irresolvable issue. But the War happened because of secession. That other great debate. That was the issue that no American president could back down from. If nowadays a body of us, and I likely would be in this body, rebelled over the abortion issue, what becomes of immediate import to the country is our rebellion and addressing it, in other words, requiring us to cease and desist and obey the laws, and not changing our minds over the acceptance of abortion.
To go further, who is going to tell me and those with me that I can't revolt over abortion, we bloody well will if we've a mind to. The Federal authority, alright, let them try and do just that. I will fight them. So what must the President do? He must put me and my friends in our place, subject to the Federal authority, he must war upon me (I use the term war broadly). And then he can address the abortion issue.
__________________ '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'
Thank you both. This discussion has now become very interesting.
Quote:
One question, if I may. What was the cause of secession?
Neil, one of my principle points is that the cause of secession has nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of the same. I am not necessarily disagreeing with you on the importance of slavery as a contributing factor to secession (I am more sympathetic to your viewpoint on this than most Confederate supporters would be) but I reject the idea that the merits of secession can be determined by an analysis of the motives behind it. There is clear water between us on this point, I think.
There are two issues to consider here: the legal right (or otherwise) to secession, and the moral right (or otherwise) to what one may call secession or revolution. Some people concern themselves primarily with the first, poring over the minutiae of the Constitution. That is of relatively little interest to me personally; I am more concerned with what I would call the moral right to revolution, the absolute moral right to determine one’s own nationality, which I would argue is possessed by all human beings. Thus, for me, the issue could not be simpler: as all people possess the absolute right to determine their own nationality there isn’t, there could never be, a situation where constraining them is right. I cannot see beyond the obscenity of compulsion. I can’t put it any other way.
But, of course, there are counter-arguments. One could argue that the nation state has a right to preserve itself in its entirety. One could argue that the majority have the right to impose their will on a minority under the provisions of the democratic process. These are arguments which are worth hearing, and if we could just put slavery to one side for a while I think it would be productive to talk them through. When I say we should put slavery to one side, I do not mean to discount its significance; but I grow tired of every single thread on every single topic being dominated by references to the Peculiar Institution. The moral significance of slavery is, if anything, diminished by excessive reference to it; the subject is in awful danger of becoming a bore.
A brief comment on Sumter. It was important in the sense that it had a significant impact on Northern public opinion. Nobody denies that. But I struggle to see any evidence to suggest that recognition of the Confederacy by Washington, or voluntary dissolution of the Confederate States by either its own government or its own population, was ever a possibility in 1861. It therefore follows, as night follows day, that a war was going to occur. And we have to face the fact that the war was a result of the refusal or inability of the U.S. Government to recognise the existence of the C.S.A. Saying that does not mean that Washington was necessarily responsible for the war; that’s a different matter entirely. But it does mean that the war sprang from their unwillingness, or inability, to co-exist with the new “republic”.
Bill
Last edited by bill_torrens; 10-03-2005 at 09:13 AM.
It's always a pleasurable experience when we find something to agree on, but I fear that it will not be Fort Sumter and Slavery, within the premise of this Thread. :-)
To answer your question on slavery from Post # 12, it is certain that thousands and thousands of slaves lived and died in appalling conditions on slave ships flying under the U.S. flag, long before they reached American soil. And I am in no way justifying or excusing this national blight upon America. But Southern plantations were not exterminations camps, and since slaves were considered 'valuable property,' it was not in the economical interests of slave owners to abuse and diminish their 'profits.' It was in the best interests of slave owners to feed, house, and in general, keep their slaves 'healthy,' since unchecked illnesses could incapacitate an entire work force, or wipe out their 'valuable property.' But that is not to say that brutalities did not occur.
While Robert E. Lee did originally believe in the preservation of the Union, he also made a very clear choice as to what and where his loyalties lay, once President Lincoln called up 75,000 troops.
"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."
But we are specifically discussing the act of secession in 1861, and a government that sent an army to crush an independence movement by a people who had peacefully withdrawn from a government that no longer suited their needs. In order to achieve this purpose, the South did not unleash an army to pulverize the North.
"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."
If the South had not seceded, Lincoln would not have launched an invasion and there would not have been a war....yes? If the South had announced it's intent to abolish slavery as the opening act of the Confederacy, would President Lincoln have accepted secession? If the answer is no, then secession caused the Civil War. But if the answer is yes, then doesn't that make Fort Sumter and Slavery extraneous factors regarding the Civil War?
"I hope you are enjoying England."
I'm enjoying England immensley...thanks for asking. I get lost constantly and I'm still having trouble understanding these strange accents - English people keep asking me where I'm from and they never get it right! But I'm going to become a 'nana' anytime now, so brace yourself for photos and gloating, ad nauseum.
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.
I’m glad you had a good laugh. It’s always a tonic, isn’t it? However, the fact that someone like EWC appears to agree with the substance of my argument reassures me that it isn’t entirely ludicrous.
Bill
Last edited by bill_torrens; 10-03-2005 at 06:08 AM.
So how is Ft Sumter irrelevant? Because some type of resolution must necessarily come of these acts of secession and the establishment of a rebellious government to Federal authority. And that resolution was going to be war.
Not necessarily. Secession had been stopped at seven states. The nascent confederacy was relatively tiny. "At the very least, as the most modest of the Southern imperialists envisaged it, the full-grown Confederacy would have to include Virginia, Maryland, and other slaveholding states of the Upper South and the border." [Richard N. Current, Lincoln and the First Shot, p. 131] The Virginia convention voted 89-45 against secession on 4 April. "Thus, in early April, it appeared that (unless something drastic were done) the Confederacy was doomed to carry on, if possible, as a mere string of seven states, an aborted empire.
"What was worse, it appeared that, given time, one or more of the seven might abandon the Confederacy and return to the Union. If, in the lower South, true Unionists or 'reconstructionists' were few, they were nevertheless too numerous to suit the thoroughgoing, fire-eating secessionists. Especially in Alabama, the home state of the Confederate government, reconstructionism in one guise or another seeemed a threat to Southern independence. The outstanding secessionist, William L. Yancey, a resident of Montgomery, had failed to win election to the Confederate Congress. In one Alabama town this 'fire-eater' had, in a sense, actually eaten fire: he had been burned in effigy. 'We are in danger,' the Charleston Mercury warned (March 25), 'of being dragged back eventually to the old political affiliation with the states and people from whom we have just cut loose.' " [Ibid., pp. 132-133]
The Mobile Mercury said, "The country is sinking into a fatal apathy and the spirit and even the patriotism of the people is oozing out under this do-nothing policy. If something is not done pretty soon, decisive, either evacuation or expulsion, the whole country will become so disgusted with the sham of southern independence that the first chance the people get at a popular election they will turn the whole movement topsy-turvy so bad that it never on earth can be righted again." [Quoted in Current, Ibid., p. 134]
"One Alabamian had warned Davis, 'Unless you sprinkle blood on the face of the Southern people they will be back in the old Union in less than ten days.' A sprinkle of blood, too, should bring the fencesitters--Virginia and the other border states--into the Confederate fold." [W. A. Swanberg, First Blood: The Story of Fort Sumter, p. 286]
There is a very good case that Lincoln's policy of steering a middle course was working. Absent the confederates starting the war by firing on Fort Sumter or Fort Pickens, the southern states eventually realize the error of their ways and make their way back into the fold, thus ending the rebellion peacefully. It was already happening, and Davis saw it happening. That and the need to bring the upper south into the confederacy were the reasons why he ordered the firing on Fort Sumter. He needed a war to unite the confederate population and to bring the upper south into the confederacy.
The idea that Fort Sumter was of little importance is historically inaccurate and quite plainly laughable.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
