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.
And here I thought we were never going to share a tall glass of papaya again...back to the blender.
"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?"
I understand that President Buchanan denied the legal right of the states to secede, but he also maintained that the federal government could not legally prevent them from doing so. President Lincoln's election on November 6, 1860 was all that was needed for South Carolina to secede on December 20th; given the President's prior views on secession.
Rather silly position for Buchanan, don't you think? Rather like having a law against robbing banks, but then claiming if anyone chose to rob a bank there's nothing the police or anyone else could do about it. If the President is going to take the position that secession is against the law, then his duty is to enforce the law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawna
"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.!
I see. The South consisted of arrogant, petulant, and beclouded children who imposed their will by invading a foreign country, destroying it's homes and lands, and killing innocent civilians along the way. Are we comparing this to political imposition?
In this war, nobody invaded a foreign country. But the southern politicians were, for the most part, arrogant, petulant, and beclouded children who imposed their will on the other states and the Federal Government throughout the Antebellum period, and when the rest of the country had enough and decided not to annoint the south's chosen candidate for President, the arrogant, petulant, and beclouded children decided to have a temper tantrum to try to get their way. The rest of the country, tired of this behavior, put their foot down and would not have it anymore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawna
"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."
I'd have to say that's not very neighbourly Cash. Do you really believe that thousands of innocent civilians were deserving of the suffering and death inflicted upon them because of a handful of politicians, regardless whom you think started the Civil War?
Innocents don't deserve suffering or death. But the blame for that lies at the feet of those who chose to bring on the war, which was the confederacy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawna
I think we would all agree that slavery is "one of the worst institutions known to mankind." But with respect to slavery and self determination, your argument is very much one dimensional. How is it that the North was fighting to free a race of people, when four of the Northern states were slave states, and some would not allow blacks to live within their boundaries? What of the Northern factories that supported their own particular brand of slavery, and mistreatment of immigrants? And again, for killing their own brethern who only sought their right to independence?
Well, it wasn't until the last half of the conflict that the Federals were fighting to free a race of people. Throughout the conflict, though, the confederates were fighting to keep that race of people enslaved.
As to the rest, every state in the North had free blacks residing in it, so apparently they did allow blacks to live within their boundaries. The vast majority of industry had no such slave-like conditions. You are pointing to a miniscule minority of bad characters and claiming they represent the whole. That simply isn't correct. As to killing their own brethren, it was their own brethren who chose the war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawna
"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."
It's not such a disingenuous statement if you believe as I sincerely do that the South was exercising their right to liberty and self-determination.
Ah, but it is, because you're making the claim that the reason used to prosecute the war was that Fort Sumter, once taken over by the confederates, posed a danger to the security of the United States. That simply is not true. The danger to the security of the United States came from the concept that any member of the Union could walk away from their constitutional obligations on a whim without the consent of the other parties to the constitutional compact. That danger is addressed in great detail in The Federalist Papers and in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawna
"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."
It sounds as if those Southerners still haven't grown up, and that the United States has yet to produce an authentic historian who has not been duped by the Southern cause.
Most of them have grown up. It's just a small minority who make claims on the internet who use that false claim. One would think they never read any memoirs by confederate generals, never read any of Pollard's works, never read anything by the Agrarians, never read anything written by any descendents of confederate soldiers, etc. And one would think the only histories of the Vietnam War they see on their bookshelves are those written by Vietnamese historians, not American historians.
Plenty of authentic historians have not been duped by the confederate cause. In fact, the vast majority have not been duped by the confederate cause.
As always, Dawna, it's a pleasure conversing with you. I hope my zeal for my position has not led me to use any language or phrases that may be offensive. I do sometimes allow my passion for my position to influence my language choice a bit too much.
I would add this. I've seen the estimate that there were a total of about 900,000 confederate troops in the Civil War. According to Freehling, there were about 450,000 southerners who served in the Union armies. So fully 1/3 of all southerners in arms felt strongly enough about the illegality or inadvisability of secession to actively fight against it wearing blue uniforms. Add to that the significant amount of unionist feeling in the south at the time and you have a very sizeable bloc of people who held unionist views throughout the war. It's no wonder a large number of people were looking with favor on the Union in the days before Fort Sumter.
I would add this. I've seen the estimate that there were a total of about 900,000 confederate troops in the Civil War. According to Freehling, there were about 450,000 southerners who served in the Union armies. So fully 1/3 of all southerners in arms felt strongly enough about the illegality or inadvisability of secession to actively fight against it wearing blue uniforms. Add to that the significant amount of unionist feeling in the south at the time and you have a very sizeable bloc of people who held unionist views throughout the war. It's no wonder a large number of people were looking with favor on the Union in the days before Fort Sumter.
Union sympathisers on these boards have previously told me that the number of "Americans" who supported the Revolution and the number who remained loyal to Britain were roughly equal. If a minority of Southerners maintaining loyalty to the Union invalidates the existence of the C.S.A., it follows that an equal number of loyalists more than invalidates the existence of the U.S.A. Which means that the U.S.A. has never been anything other than a criminal conspiracy from which secession has, by definition, to be justified.
On the other hand you can argue, pragmatically, that the U.S.A. has a right to exist because it won the war for its independence. Fair enough. But that means that the C.S.A. would have had an equal right to exist if it had managed to defeat the coercionists. And that means that drawing any moral distinction between the C.S.A. and the U.S.A is an insult to everyone's intelligence. And it also casts Lincoln in the role of George III/Lord North.
On the other hand you can argue, pragmatically, that the U.S.A. has a right to exist because it won the war for its independence. Fair enough. But that means that the C.S.A. would have had an equal right to exist if it had managed to defeat the coercionists. And that means that drawing any moral distinction between the C.S.A. and the U.S.A is an insult to everyone's intelligence. And it also casts Lincoln in the role of George III/Lord North.
There is a difference though. The colonist never voluntarily joined in the United Kingdom. They formed a confederacy to defend themselves against the King. After the war they met “to form a more perfect union”. The Continental Congress met to form a federal government because a confederacy was an inadequate defense against the world powers of the day. The southern states joined that union by free will. That is the difference. The Constitution did not say that they could not withdraw, but it didn’t say that they could either. Unfortunately it took a war to settle the issue.
__________________ "We made a great mistake in the beginning of our struggle.... We appointed all our worst generals to command our armies, and all our best generals to edit the newspapers"
- Robert E. Lee
The Battle Flag of The Madison Light Artillery (Louisiana) MOODY'S BATTERY - 24 Pound Howitzers
Alexander's Battalion
Longstreets Corps
Some of you Northerners are just plain ridiculous or plain ignorant.Is it that hard to comprehend that Southern according to Freelingh doesn't mean citizens of the Confederate states of America.Now here's the breakdown in the Confederate states of troop enlistments.
Alabama 197,421 Confederates to only 2,835 Yanks
South Carolina 133,602 Confederates to only 93 Yanks
Virginia 281,205 Confederates to only 2,595 Yanks
Texas 159,031 Confederates to only 4,370 Yanks
Mississippi 173,935 Confederates to only 903 Yanks
Arkansas 108,020 Confederates to only 12,496 Yanks
Florida 35,245 Confederates to only 2,835 Yanks
North Carolina 197,314 to only
Georgia 244,812 Confederates to only 195 Yanks
Loisiana 128,256 Confederates to only 14,686 Yanks
Tennessee 195,805 Confederates to only 54,086 Yanks
Why the ridiculous effort to deceive fellows?Not even 100,000 Confederate citizens fought for the Union.Or not even 1 out of ten.Really shame on you fellows.The source is biased right?Oh yea the National Park Service records of soldiers enlisted is a Southern conspiracy.The question is why would you guys try to mislead.Truly pathetic fellows.
I think I was the 'Union sympathizer' that gave you the information concerning the rough numbers of Americans who supported the Revolution and those who remained loyal to England.
What I said was that roughly one third of Americans supported the Revolution and one third supported the Crown, while fully one third remained neutral and just waited on the side lines to see who won. I got this information from a book titled, The Winter Soldiers, but I forget the author of it.
I ask that your forgive me for taking so long to reply to your post#27, as it seems this thread took off like a gunshot on other angles of your premise. I would like to respond to that post now, if I may.
You are right to say that the points of the cause of secession is a case of 'clear water' between us on this point. It is. It is my own opinion that the rights and wrongs making up the causes of secession are the point, for without those causes, there would have been no secession.
In your second paragraph of your excellent post, I agree completely with your statement that people, all people, have the moral right to determine their own nationality, by means of revolution if need be. I too, believe that right is possessed by all human beings.
And I can understand your concern that the repeated mention of slavery does tend to exasperate and the issue could be deminished by excessive reference to it, and that it could even be in danger of becoming a 'bore'.
May I tell you my concern about that Peculiar Institution? One that I am truly afraid of? That this putting aside of slavery as the cause and effect of the war, the one that drove the South to exercise its 'moral right' at determining their nationality, will once again recede into that darkness some would like to consign it to, so they can get on with the 'real' causes of the war and not trouble themselves with this irritating, real, historical fact.
If you have grown tired of hearing it and seeing it on every thread, I must confess that I get extremely tired of reminding those who deny it that it was a very obvious fact of history, of the war, of the times. I grow extremely exasperated that it is not even worthy of serious consideration, that it had nothing to do with secession or controversy or politics or law or debate in the years proceding the war or as a cause of the war, in spite of the vast record available to anyone serious about studying the war and its causes. I sympathize with you, BIll, I understand your weariness of the subject, trust me, it gives me no particular joy to be the 'town crier' on the subject.
But I keep reading documents and speeches from the times and I cannot help keep drawing the conclusion that the Peculiar Institution is the key issue of the times and the key factor in bringing on the terrible war. Just a very few words on the subject from the period itself, if I may.
"This is the real issue. That is the issue that will continue in this country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be silent. It is the eternal struggle between these two principles--right and wrong--throughout the world. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time; and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the right of common humanity and the other the divine right of kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, "You work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it." No matter what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle."
"Will they be satisfied if the Territories be unconditionally surrendered to them? We know they will not. In all their present complaints against us, the Territories are scarcely mentioned. Invasions and insurrections are the rage now. Will it satisfy them, if, in the future, we have nothing to do with invasions and insurrections? We know it will not. We so know, because we know we never had anything to do with invasions and insurrections; and yet this total abstaining does not exempt us from the charge and denunciation.
The question recurs, what will satisfy them? Simply this: We must not only let them alone, but we must, somehow, convince them that we do let them alone...
These natural, and apparently adequate means all failing, what will satisfy them? This and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right...
Their thinking it right, and our thinking it wrong, is the percise fact upon which depends the whole controversy...."
Lincoln's address at Cooper Union, New York City, Feb. 27, 1860.
I appreciate your comments, Bill, and your observations concerning the importance of slavery as a contributing factor to secession, but again, here is where we have that 'clear water' between us.
I cannot fathom (forgive the nautical term, as the water theme seems the best way to go) how the merits of secession can be determined without an analysis of the motives that caused it. It is as though you are asking me to formulate 2+?=4. Without the full equation, how am I to arrive at an answer that makes sense? How can I determine the truth of 2+?=4?
Moving on to your last paragraph concerning Sumter, again I appreciate your statement that you understand its impact on Northern public opinion. But I ask you to please understand what some historians of note have brought up concerning the real fears of the Confederate leadership who felt their search to determine their national identity might fold up and blow away in the indifference to secession by the Southern people. Several behind the secession movement voiced real concern that the Southern people had no fire for secession or that their enthusiasm for it was quickly fading, if not some drastic measure be employed to stiffen their resolve.
You comment that war had to follow as a result of the refusal or inability of the Federal government to recognise the Confederacy. Might it be just as possible that war had to follow because those in the secession movement would not recognize the possibility of the movement losing steam and cooler heads wanting to reconcile with the other section of their country? That in fact, it was the Southern leadership wanting secession at all costs, that was unwilling or inable to co-exist with the US?
Until next time...
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
You do not advance your cause by calling other posters ignorant or of accusing them of willful misleading.
Again, calling on us of the 'Union' sympathy to provide our sources is all well and good. We should and will provide you with them for you to check and verify and then you can believe or disbelieve per your choice. The name calling does little to add to the debate.
Here is one of the web sites I used as a reference for the figure of those Southern whites who served in the Union Army, in addition to the ones I referenced from Prof. Freehling's book, The South vs The South.
I have found by doing a quick search on Yahoo that Kentucky had 75,000 men enlist for the Union, while Maryland had 46,000 and Missouri had 109,000, thus coming to a total of 230,000 white Southern men who enlisted for the Union, not counting the other Southern states who supplied men to the Union army. And not counting the 150,000 Southern black slaves who enlisted. I'll keep looking and see if I can find some other sites for you to view.
I also suggest you may want to reconsider your comments concerning Prof. Freehling. The man is considered an eminent historian who has won the Allan Nevins, Bancroft and Owsley Prizes for his many works of history. He is no slouch in this regard, I assure you.
May I ask if you got your figures from a Park Service web site or did you get them from a publication I might find and read?
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
Thanks for your most thoughtful post. A pleasure to read it, as always.
Yes, this thread has taken off. But, as is nearly always the case on CWT, the more posts come in, the hazier the focus on the subject in hand. How else could I have ended the day posting about the American Revolution?
As far as the clear water between us is concerned, I can only express it this way:
You can say that slavery was wrong.
You can say that secession was wrong.
What you cannot say is that secession was wrong because of slavery.
Suppose a man has the right to vote, but he exercises his vote in a way which strikes you as immoral. Does he lose the right to vote because of this? Is his right to vote inextricably connected with the motives which prompt him to place his cross in a particular square? Substitute “right to secede” for the words “right to vote”. Does this make things any clearer?
As far as slavery is concerned, I want to make it quite clear that I am not interested in sweeping the issue under the carpet. It is a matter of huge historical significance, and I have no sympathy with people (even if they are Southerners) who seek to distort the historical record by deliberately minimising it. But if we permit it to intrude into every single topic of discussion some important issues will never be aired. That is one of the purposes of this thread and I will, I’m afraid, take it seriously amiss if people raise it here.
Quote:
Several behind the secession movement voiced real concern that the Southern people had no fire for secession or that their enthusiasm for it was quickly fading, if not some drastic measure be employed to stiffen their resolve.
It is perfectly true that some people voiced these concerns. But that does not mean that those concerns were grounded in objective fact. Such views were frequently voiced by fire-eaters who were frustrated by the way in which secession had turned into a “conservative revolution”, that is to say a revolutionary movement led by essentially moderate men rather than men like Yancey & Rhett. Let us acknowledge the heartlands of Southern Unionism: northwest Virginia, eastern Tennessee, western North Carolina, northern Alabama. Let us also acknowledge those states where residual (but strictly conditional) Unionism delayed the process of secession: North Carolina, Virginia, Tenessee. When these factors have been taken into consideration, the plain fact remains that secession was still a great popular movement. The primary sources do not lie: read the contemporary letters, diaries and newspapers. Consider the words of a neutral, William Howard Russell, a man who had no love for the Confederacy at all:
“I expressed a belief in a letter, written a few days after my arrival (March 27th), that the South would never go back into the Union. The North think that they can coerce the South, and I am not prepared to say that they are right or wrong; but I am convinced that the South can only be forced back by such a conquest as that which laid Poland prostrate at the feet of Russia. It may be that such a conquest can be made by the North, but success must destroy the Union as it has been constituted in times past.”
Quote:
That in fact, it was the Southern leadership wanting secession at all costs, that was unwilling or inable to co-exist with the US?
I’m afraid you’ve lost me here. The Confederate Government was perfectly willing to co-exist with the U.S. as neighbour and fellow republic.
And here is where you have lost me. One does not fire on a fort with the idea of peaceful co-existence.
Take care, my friend. And thank your for your words on my Peculiar topic. They are appreciated.
But as I cannot seem to separate that institution from the South's motives or consider it in any way irrelevant, I will refrain from comment on this, your thread, so that you might persue your investigation in the manner you desire it to unfold.
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
Mobileboy, your source fails to include USCT men. There were 198 USCT Organizations w/ 31 being State Organizations. And as the NPS Source you are quoting doesn't quite match up I'm going to assume that black troops are not included in the totals. I too would like to check the NPS source as the numbers you list have some states providing more & some less.
Statistical Record of the Armies of the United States page 10.
I might also suggest a few other titles to broaden your mind.
Current, Richard Lincoln Loyalists: Union Soldiers from the Confederacy
Degler, Carl THe Other South: Southern Dissenters in the 19th Century
Escott, Paul Jeff Davis and the failure of Southern Nationalism (this title is off slightly as I received the book through interlibrary loan and don't recall the exact wording)
Quarles, Benjamin THe Negro in the Civil War
Tatum, Georgia Lee Disloyalty in the Confederacy
Williams, David Rich Mans War: Class, Caste and Confederate Defeat in the Lower Chattahoochee Valley
If reading these titles has made me ignorant... well at least I can still say I'm in good company.
In April of 1862 the CS enacted the Draft tha wealthy men could avoid by buying a substitue or paying an exemption fee. I believe it was later in 1862 that slaveholders w/ twenty or more slaves were automatically exempted from the draft. THen there was the Confiscation or impressment of private property.... that the average farmer bore the brunt of.
By the summer of 1863 at least half of the men in Alabama were associated w/ the Peace Society.
Some deserters, draft dodgers & such banded together for protection against CS authorities and some of these groups were more effective the any US troops in the area.
THe Red River Valley of Texas & Louisiana, the West Texas frontier, Okefenokee Swamp area of Southern Georgia and Jackson County Alabama Officially Seceded from the CS & rejoined the Union in March of 1864.
3/4 of the black men who served in the USCT were Southerners combined w/ atleast 100,000 you have been kind enough to list that comes to a quarter of a million men from the South fighting against the CS.
250,000 men... w/ the total CS troops being under arms? Not insignificant and certainly not something the CS was happy about. And the contribution of those 250,000 troops was hardly insignificant.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
