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.
Ashley:
I have never considered Missouri a "real" Southern state either. No offense to anyone living there with Southern sympathy or Northern. Kentucky is another state I consider not "real'Southern, although CS units came from that state. Maybe its our (MobileBoy & Alabamans) very far-South geographical location? The South: The upper Tallapoosa County, Alabama line and below. The South. I'm an upper South Alabamian.
Sorry about 'today' Ashley. Tomorrow will be a new day, my friend! We will take it from there. :-)
I went back over the posts on this thread and came across your post #58.
Will you forgive an old man and his ever increasing short attention span? I wish to repeat a part of your post for clarification:
"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."
Bill, I don't think I have ever stated that secession was wrong just because of slavery.
My sole concern has been to state that primary reason for the secession of the Southern states was caused by slavery, not that the concept of secession was wrong in and of itself.
If I have failed to make this clear during our recent exchanges or have misread your intent on this thread, I apologize.
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
Sometimes one doesn't want to stir up trouble but one finds that a point of principle is involved which cannot be ignored. And so a certain amount of stirring up cannot be avoided. I feel like that this morning on this issue of one member suggesting that another might be racist. I am going to choose my words very carefully because, in the climate of raised tempers which has been simmering away for several weeks, intemperate language will only make matters worse. I ask you to check whether what I am about to say is reasonable.
Our discussions on CWT aren't important. We enjoy them, and it's possible that the site has some marginal educational value. But ultimately it's just ephemeral entertainment. We derive harmless fun from plotting our little strategies and aiming for our little victories.
But calling someone a racist in a public forum is actually important. People can really be damaged by this sort of behaviour. What if Mobile Boy has mentioned CWT to his class, or to his colleagues? What if they tuned in to read a fellow-member insinuate that he doesn't regard Negroes as human?
I have no desire to incite a witch-hunt. But I cannot accept that this should simply be swept under the carpet and forgotten. As a relatively new member of CWT, Mobile Boy surely deserves better. Do we care so little about his reputation that we turn a blind eye to this?
As you have probably worked out, my post above is in response to your #79 rather than your #82.
Quote:
My sole concern has been to state that primary reason for the secession of the Southern states was caused by slavery, not that the concept of secession was wrong in and of itself.
Whisper it quietly, but we are perilously close to agreeing on this. My view is that secession was caused by a whole range of concerns but that slavery was one of the most prominent.
Unfortunately, we part company very soon afterwards! Because I take the view that Southern concerns over slavery were, within the context of the times, perfectly proper ones. And, which is more germane to this thread, I take the view that secession was justified in and of itself.
But this is an interesting development. Because if you take the view that there was nothing inherently wrong with secession and that it wasn't wrong because of slavery, it leaves you free to participate in this thread and tell us why you think it was wrong in practice.
We may be a lot closer on this than either of us think.
Here is where my views on slavery might be confusing a lot of our Southern-leaning friends. I too, take the view, that Southern concerns over slavery were, within the context of the times, were perfectly proper to them. In effect, they truely felt there was nothing wrong in their actions over this concern.
As to your statement concerning you take the view that secession was justified in and of itself, I must tell you that the closest I come to this view is stated by a dear friend of mine. If I may:
"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,--a most sacred right--a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to recognize it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority, was precisely the case, of the tories of our own revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones."
It is in within my friend's above parameters that I agree that the South had the right to rebellion/secession.
For myself, the basic flaw with the South's attempt at secession/revolution was that it did not have the power, for one, in the physical world and the Southern leadership that advocated this path, did very poorly by the people they supposedly led.
I also feel the South and the Southern leadership lacked the moral power to shake off the existing government. In other words, the Southern people and leadership that led them on this quest, did not meet the requirements that would impell them to 'rise up and shake off the existing government.'
I am certain, from reading my history, those in the South who wanted to secede, were so inclined. And I agree with my friend when he says a 'majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize.' It is in this area where I also find the Southern attempt at secession coming up short, as it were, as it fails to meet one of the most important criteria for what I consider what should be a justifiable and successful revolution.
Simply that the majority of the people in your nation should agree that the existing government deserves to be shaken off.
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
As to your post #83, I believe I have made myself clear to you on this subject in a previous, private email.
I am sure you will understand. If you do not, I suggest you email me for a futher explanation.
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
"In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you....
...Unless, of course, you don't allow us to collect the duties, and allow us hold forts in your harbors with our military... but beyond what is "necessary" to force you to pay duties to us and to allow our troops to stay on your soil, "there will be no invasion -- no using of force against or among the people anywhere."
And then right after declaring his intended invasion, he has the gall to say:
Quote:
You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to 'preserve, protect, and defend it.'
And note Lincoln's typical and often-used distortion. He took no such oath, but slyly did the old bait and switch sleight of hand. What a man!
Here's the oath he ACTUALLY made:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."
I do not see an oath to protect the government. I don't even see the word government anywhere in that oath. Do you? He had such a hard time understanding the difference between "government" and "Constitution." Either that, or he intentionally and routinely sought to make the two synonymous to further an agenda.
Quote:
"I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."
Lovely sounding words. What a talent!!
But as this thread has shown, Aesop was right when he said:
Now you're claiming I called poeple liars.I have never called anyone a liar in my entire life.
"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."
An "effort to deceive" is a lie.
"Why would you guys try to mislead" means "Why would you lie?"
Let me reiterate, 1/3 of all southerners in arms, that is southerners of all races from southern states, fought for the Union. Of those, about 100,000 were white soldiers from confederate states, and my point is that they felt strongly enough about the Union to lay their lives on the line for it, leaving their families behind to be oppressed. Then there were the Unionists in the confederacy who were arrested for their viewpoints. We hear about arbitrary arrests in the Union all the time, but not a day went by during the war when the confederacy didn't have political prisoners themselves. I maintain this significant bloc of Unionist feeling that actually existed would be the nucleus of a reunification movement that would take hold if Jefferson Davis had not started the war by firing on Fort Sumter. Already in March and April we were beginning to see signs of it in the incidents I posted previously.
...Unless, of course, you don't allow us to collect the duties, and allow us hold forts in your harbors with our military... but beyond what is "necessary" to force you to pay duties to us and to allow our troops to stay on your soil, "there will be no invasion -- no using of force against or among the people anywhere."
And again I say he never attempted to collect any duties from confederate ports, which were miniscule anyway. And since secession was an unconstitutional act, the United States had every right to have troops in South Carolina and in Florida, which were both still United States soil. So all Jefferson Davis had to do to avoid a war was to not fire on Fort Sumter or on Fort Pickens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
And note Lincoln's typical and often-used distortion. He took no such oath, but slyly did the old bait and switch sleight of hand. What a man!
Here's the oath he ACTUALLY made:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."
I do not see an oath to protect the government. I don't even see the word government anywhere in that oath. Do you? He had such a hard time understanding the difference between "government" and "Constitution." Either that, or he intentionally and routinely sought to make the two synonymous to further an agenda.
A distinction without a difference. The Constitution provides the framework and the basic rules for the structure and operation of the Government.
Well well- be gone for a day or two and see what happens?! I feel like the US minister to Russia arriving home in December, 1860! I suppose it had to happen- emotions, insults, entrenched viewpoints, an admonishment from Ami to behave! Actually it looks a good bit like what happened in America those days leading up to the firing on Ft Sumter. Now I wonder if that helps make Ft Sumter relevant?
Quite frankly, my friends, I am both amused and disheartened at how the thread has progressed (and I use the term 'progressed' loosely.) i guess I am maybe a little surprised too, and maybe not so surprised. I'll explain:
I was delighted with this topic of Bill's because it emphasized a different and to my mind a very rational way of examining this problem of secession and its' relation to Ft Sumter and slavery. It looked like a good way to get those of a Northern way of thinking and those of a Southern viewpoint realigned. Lo, it turns out i am the only Northerner to line up with Southerners and there seem to be no Southerners lining up looking the other way. We also seemed to very quickly slip into that 'Dang Yank/ Gawdawful Reb' mentality which quickly degenerated into potshots and insults. Seriously, friends, you must do your utmost to refrain from this type of incivility. Contrary to what Bill may opine, this forum does have great educational and informative qualities, but this type of thing can only lead to discredit that.
For myslef, it did me much good to examine the questions as laid out by Bill, and then have go arounds with it with the clearly Northern viewpoints of Unionblue, Cash, and Ole. This is a very interesting philosophical and intellectual question which can lead a person away from his one's own view of the war and its questions if one will allow it. The trick is to remove emotion from one's thinking and do one's best to blunt one's already well established views on the war. You can still end up on the same side of the fence, but give yourself the chance maybe to land where you don't know where.
Maybe part of the problem is Bill's use of the word 'irrelevant'. i have seen it used in a number of different ways on this thread. It may be his British understanding of the word is not in tune with our American understanding or it may be as i think it is a way of Bill's stirring the pot. I think of its' meaning for this thread as 'immaterial' or 'not of primary importance.' Perhaps that might change the meaning of Bill's original post for some folks.
Anyway, do try to enjoy this attempt to view the matter of war/secession etc a little differently.
regards all, ed
__________________ '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'
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
