Non Involuntary Servitude Debate

[unionblue]

Bill,

Surely comparisons with other countries actions under simillar circumstances should be considered relevant, should they not? As a matter of fact, it was comparisons with England and Scotland that brought about certain aspects of the US Constitution and unilateral secession.

"(James) Madison appeared to build on Blackstone's account of the indissoluble union of England and Scotland in 1707, a union that furnished a high-profile paradigm for what the Philadelphia framers were proposing in 1787. Draftsman Gouverneur Morris, who put the finishing stylistic touches on the Preamble (of the US Constitution), used language strongly resembling, and perhaps consciously borrowed from, the British union. The phrase "a more perfect Union," blended language from the official 1707 enactment, which spoke of "rendering the union of the two kingdoms more intire and compleat," with language from Queen Anne's July 1, 1706, letter to the Scotch Parliament, which spoke of "an entire and perfect union." This language from Queen Anne appeared verbatim in The Federalist No. 5, as Publius (here, John Jay--later America's first chief justice) explained exactly what kind of new, more perfect union was now being proposed to Americans. A few essays later, Hamilton/Publius in The Federalist No. 11 spoke of the need for a "strict and indissoluble" union. More generally, the entire opening section of The Federalist urged Americans to emulate the British by permanently unifying their landmass for military and geostrategic reasons.

Federalists from north to south sang from the same hymnal. Pennsylvania's Wilson contrasted traditional "confederacies" that historically "have all fallen to pieces" with the proposed Constitution, in which "the bonds of our union" would be "indissolubly strong." North Carolina's Governor Samuel Johnston declared that "the Constitution must be the supreme law of the land; otherwise, it would be in the power of any one state to counteract the other states, and withdraw itself from the Union." Both Wilson and Johnston had emigrated from Scotland, and their visions of the proposed American union doubtless drew upon their intimate understanding of the British union that England and Scotland had achieved some four score year earlier.

America, Publius argued, must avoid continental Europe's fate by permanently unifying their New World landmass, as Britons had earlier permanently unified their island. When England, Wales, and Scotland were separate kingdoms, military competition between them invited invasion and foreign intrigue, triggering a heightened domestic militarization that threatened liberty. The indivisible union of England and Scotland at the outset of the eighteenth century gave island residents more room to breathe free.

Publius thus urged that 1787 America emulate 1707 Britian by forming its own more perfect, "strict and indissoluble" union."

From the book, America's Constitution: A Biography, by Akhil Reed Amar.

Looks like America has England partly to thank for the idea of a more perfect and indissoluble Union of States, or do you read it differently, friend Bill?

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[bill_torrens]

Neil,

Comparisons with other countries which suffered secession crises would be interesting, although they could not, in themselves, constitute an absolute defence either of secession or of coercion. The problem with citing Britain is that it has never experienced a secession crisis (I'm discounting Ireland for the reasons I gave yesterday).

But mentioning Britain's colonial possessions is entirely beside the point, unless one is seriously putting forward the proposition that the Federal government's relationship with the various states is comparable to the British government's relationship with its colonies. That would be a very interesting proposition indeed, but I cannot imagine that any pro-Unionist would advance it.

Bill

[unionblue]

Bill,

I am not ready to let go of Ireland just yet, even though you are of the opinion it was viewed as a colony, I am not convinced it was always looked upon as such. Even today, does not Northern Ireland claim to be a part of the UK? And did not government troops fight those who wished to reunite with the rest of Ireland? Was it not government policy to resist such efforts? Does this not fufill the requirements of the majority of a region wanting one thing while the majority of a nation denies it?

It boils down to this for me. When does a government have the right to resist, by armed force if need be, the wishes of a violent minority? Is it ever right to do so and if not, why?

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[bill_torrens]

Neil,

I am really not trying to avoid the issue here, but I am extremely reluctant to discuss Ireland in any depth. Simply because it is such a huge and complex subject...you really would be opening Pandora's Box.

When you talk about the British government resisting Irish attempts at breaking away from Britain you have to be extremely precise in defining your time frame. Irish nationalism has waxed and waned. Many uprisings lacked popular support. The Easter Rising of 1916 is a classic example. As the rebel prisoners were led away from the G.P.O. building, Dublin's poor actually jeered at them. So you cannot claim that the suppression of that uprising was the suppression of the aspirations of the Irish people. Just as you cannot claim that for several hundred years the majority of the Irish people consistently aspired to national independence. That simply isn't true.

Do you see what I'm driving at? Unless you are prepared to invest some weeks of your time in researching Irish history you cannot hope to use Ireland as a meaningful analogy for what happened in America in 1861.

It boils down to this for me. When does a government have the right to resist, by armed force if need be, the wishes of a violent minority? Is it ever right to do so and if not, why?

My view would be that, if a violent minority was seeking to seize the reins of power and replace the duly-elected government with one of its own choosing which would then govern the whole nation, that would constitute rebellion and the government would be entitled to resist forcefully. But where we part company is that I cannot agree that leaving a government and a country behind you is a rebellion. It isn't. Nobody is entitled to kill you because you want to govern yourself. Period. Full stop.

Bill

[unionblue]

Bill,

It constantly comes down to this one point, does it not? It seems to me that you are saying that if there is enough land mass, it is alright to have an illegal rebellion, even though that land mass is part of the same nation.

And I still say that attempting to do a wrong thing, no matter how much territory there is to go around, is not a noble cause to be admired.

Sorry its so short and sweet, but I have to go home now.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[bill_torrens]

Neil,

Here is something for you to read when you wake up later today. (Tell me, when you are trying to go to sleep do you count letters jumping into sorting boxes?)

The fundamental difference between us lies in how we conceive of "a nation".

I think that you see a nation as a creature with a bone structure. Take off a limb and it will bloody well hurt, as well as endangering the creature's life. Whereas I see it as one of those jelly-like marine creatures which can divide and subdivide without any harm coming to anyone.

You see a nation as something which can be defined by what has been written on bits of paper. Something which can be defined precisely by lawyers. I see it as an idea in peoples' minds, an idea which only has any validity when all the people agree that they want to be part of it. Take away that shared consent to be part of it, and the nation crumbles into dust.

Bill

[unionblue]

Bill,

You are correct on this one. I do see a nation as a living, breathing person, each individual connected, with one persons actions impacting on all the others in that body of the nation. 'No man is an island' maybe?

But I do not dream of letter jumping into sorting boxes. I dream of computers and machines being serviced by myself that makes the letters jump into sorting boxes.

Take care, my friend.
Unionblue

[milhistbuff1]

Bill,
A nation may be embodied by its people, but their culture and govt are defined with the consent of the people by those "bits of paper" For the English, Bede, Beowulf and the Magna Charta would be early examples. even if the majority were not affected by a given document, it still recorded for posterity, the values held by a given society at that time.
Respectively,
Matt

[Alabaman]

Dear CChart., Bill, Dawna, All neo-unionists & all, :-)

Please forgive my intrusion upon all your fine posts, but please allow me to make a comment and then pose questions with great respect. I would be very appreciative.

First, it WAS my direct ancestors who chose to fight the Union from 1861-1865 for a seperation from the same. This discussion affects me personally, today IMHO. What I'm giving here are my credentials for imposing upon this discusion. Hence, the 'rebellious'people discussed her are MY ancestors.
On most posts, my opinions on the causes of the WBTS are quickly cast-off as non-supported by official sources. Maybe I can get the chance to ask my question here, without being labelled something I'm not, due to someone's personal opinion regarding only my State of origin, or the fact I'm a Southern man.

My Question:
***Why are my ancestors perceived as traitorous, and scandulous plebes for desiring to seperate from a section of the country to which they no longer felt justly and fairly represented by, in union with?*** My
ancestors did not properly write their reasons for their actions, but the fact that they took up arms, joined the rebelling army and fought the Federal forces which had invaded their homeland and endangered their wives and children, is proof of their strong belief that seperating was best. Just because some 'leader' or some important 'state legislature' gave it's reason offically for secession, my direct ancestors felt compelled to face three to one odds against them (somtime 10-1 odds) to fight for something they held dear: to live seperately and peacefully from a group of people that they not only disagreed with totally, on most every issue of that day, but to live their lives as they saw fit. Their failure, IMO has much affect on how Southern people as a whole, are received & taken today.

Question # 2:
Why is it that the North had the perceived "official" capacity to deem what was good & what was bad in regard to the other one-half of America; the Southern states? In other words, What gave one group of people (the north) the right to dictate what the other people (the South) what was THE right manner to run it' own affairs, when both were equal in intelligence & reason?

Note: one word, that 's' word has been purposely left out of this discusson...Thank God & Neil's thoughfulness! In answering, please, dearly PLEASE don't mundanely answer by quoting that often used document, the US Constitution. Just please answer my question, if you'd be so kind, with a well conceived idea.

It's so invigorating to see such fine discussion, not only by American citizens, but by fine folk's from other countries as well. Anytime I've attempted to discuss this with my Yankee friends, or given my opinions in the causations, I'm quickly & summarily dismissed through pure prejudice in my being a Southern man, IHO; but certainly not by ALL. It seems having people from other countries, with different & unbiased thought, makes for a much better field of discussion. Thanks immensely for this!

As CChart. says, please excuse my lengthy writing. ;-)

Respectfully
Rob Adams (Alabaman)

[MobileBoy]

My problem with the line of thinking that poeple are bound to a contract made before they were born is that it's against the founding principles of our government.This country was created by Americans breaking away from Britain to form a government to better suit their needs.So America was created by secession which certainly wasn't lawful.Britain despite propaganda about their oppression of the colonies was by far the most lenient mother country in the world to its colonies at the time.At any rate 1/3 of our country decides to rebel and America is eventually formed.Then less than 100 years later the Southern states are permamently bound to a group they freely joined because of a piece of paper.That idea is paramount to slavery to the nation in my opinion.I just can't agree that a piece of paper bound the the Southern states to the North particularly when the North hardly strictly obeyed the Constitution themselves.How many states would have ratified the Constitution if they knew this meant they were permamently bound together and that to leave would mean invasion?My guess is not many.
Rob,
You indeed pose some interesting questions.To a large degree I think our opinions today are shaped by where we live though everyone is convinced we all derived at our conclusions through research.Bill and Dawna as non-Americans probably are able to more objectively evaluate the scenario of the war than you,I,Neil, or whoever.