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.
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.
I, too, have a problem with this. I don't see how any generation of human beings can sign up to something which constrains the freedom of choice of their great-grandchildren. It seems wrong in principle. As I've said before, a bunch of dead people don't have the right to decide things for me or you.
Surely every generation which inhabits this earth should have complete freedom to choose their own politicial affiliations, nationality etc. Is that an unreasonable proposition?
Hey Rob,
Yes you certainly have a point.I'm going to quote General Gordon here who spoke of exactly what you are talking about.
There were those, a few years ago, who were especially devoted to the somewhat stereotyped phrase that in our Civil War one side (meaning the North) "was wholly and eternally right," while the other side (meaning the South) "was wholly and eternally wrong." I might cite those on the Southern side of the great controversy, equally sincere and fully as able, who would have been glad to persuade posterity that the North was "wholly and eternally wrong"; that her people waged war upon sister States who sought peacefully to set up a homogeneous government, and meditated no wrong or warfare upon the remaining sister States. These Southern leaders steadfastly maintained that the Southern people, in the exercise of the freedom and sovereign rights purchased by Revolutionary blood, were asserting a second independence according to the teachings and example of their fathers.-John Gordon
"We had, I was satisfied, sacred principles to maintain and rights to defend for which we were in duty bound to do our best, even if we perished in the endeavor."-R.E. LEE
The idea that the forbidden word was the biggest cause is accurate and inaccurate at the same time.The seceded states could have simply laid down their arms and had the the forbidden word protected forever as offered by Ape Lincoln but they fought on indicating that clearly wasn't the reason most were fighting.Southerners had a totally different Jeffersonian view of government while the North was more in agreement with Hamilton.
Also I might add most Confederates truly saw themselves as the true American patriots upholding what they considered the principles this country was founded on.They considered the Northern soldiers as traitors.I consider neither as traitors but my loyalty lies with the South.As I've said before and historians(even Yank ones) admit poeple in the antebellum era considered themselves as Virginians or Ohians first and as Americans second.So it shouldn't be shocking to anybody that some poeple went with their home state who they considered their country.For someone to fight against their community and family would make them much more of a traitor in my opinion than someone fighting against a mythical idea of nationhood many Southerners never had in the first place.For example though I respect him greatly George Thomas fought against his family.His sisters never spoke to him again, turned his picture to the wall, and considered him a vile traitor.So what defines traitor?Do only Northen poeple get to define traitor?To fight against your family and friends is being a traitor.To fight against your country and say help Germany in WW2 would definitely make one a traitor.To fight for your family,friends,community, and state who as I said earlier many considered their nation could never be treachorous in my opinion.
Bill,
As usual you take my humble thoughts and make them sound much better.I agree with you here totally.It's funny how you how make my thoughts clearer to even me after you have expounded on them.Good job friend.If only you could've done the same for my essays in graduate school.
__________________ "The sword is mighty, but principles laugh at swords. Overwhelming force may crush truth to earth but, crushed or not the truth is still the truth." Regards, Ashley
Very well put, Ashley. You certainly have a fine propensity to describe matters just as they are!
Now...if we could only get one of our neo-unionist members to kindly answer, why the North held their perceived omniscient power to tell the South how to run it's own affairs. I have awaited this moment for a long time.
Nearly every time I've posted a reply with a reasonable idea, it's quickly dismissed as "illegal" "immoral" "idiocrity"? or just a racist old southern boy blowing off steam, type thinking. Krike! I just desire a good explanation, is all. And one is deserved if such a "omniscient" Northern cognition is indeed the truth? I don't think so. I think both sections were great, on their OWN.
If you listen to an "extreme minority" of posters on this board, you would think the South was a bunch of backward-uncultured-bumpkins who couldn't make a go in life if given the chance; of course that's not true and we weren't allowed "that" chance. After all, many neo-unionists talk about how much money the Southern economy was bringing in. Some Southerners must have been doing SOMETHING right! My ancestor was doing just dandy, until his homeland was invaded by the US army.
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?***
Because unilateral state secession is an unconstitutional act, and by law they were still part of the United States, owing allegience to the United States. Article III of the US Constitution defines treason as levying war against the United States. The treason statute defines treason as levying war against the United States by one owing allegience to the United States. It doesn't matter if they didn't believe they owed allegience to the United States any more than it matters if a bank robber believes he deserves all the money in the bank.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alabaman
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?
Your premise is false. Nobody was dictating anything to the south other than obey the Constitution and the law. In fact, it was the other way around. Southerners were dictating to the rest of the country. They demanded that Northern states repeal their personal liberty laws. They demanded that Northern citizens actively seek out and capture "fugitives from labor," making those Northern citizens "fugitive from labor" catchers whether they wanted to do that or not. They applauded when US troops invaded Boston to return one person, Anthony Burns, to a life of bondage.
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?
All of them. Read the debates over the ratification of the Constitution. As Neil has shown from Prof. Amar's book, the Anti-Federalists pointed out that the Constitution would be binding and no state would be able to free itself from the Union once it was ratified. Nobody ever countered that claim because everyone knew it was true.
The seceded states could have simply laid down their arms and had the the forbidden word protected forever
But not expanded into the territories.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
as offered by Ape Lincoln
I now wait patiently for the howls and catcalls about referring to President Lincoln as "Ape Lincoln."
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
but they fought on indicating that clearly wasn't the reason most were fighting.
They specifically said the peculiar institution would be dead inside the Union and they could only protect it outside the Union, so your point is wrong.
Now...if we could only get one of our neo-unionist members to kindly answer, why the North held their perceived omniscient power to tell the South how to run it's own affairs. I have awaited this moment for a long time.
That is the logical fallacy known as Ignoratio Elenchi, also called the "Red Herring." Nobody was telling the South how to run its own affairs.
Let's see what Neil, the originator of this post, feels about how your useage of "peculiar institution" & "bondage" is ruled. I believe it's another word (the exact same meaning) as another word which is forbade in this discusion. Of course, Cash, take away your Constitution & that 'forbidden word' and you can't give a good reasonable answer to my questions??
BTW: you'll have to look to someone else to evolve into the 'official CWT police' in the "A. Lincoln' "ape" foul-ball plea. Sorry, man. You utilize "bondage" & "peculiar institution" & call foul for 'ape.'?
Leave your perpetually pocketed Constitution at 'the bar' and join us in the 'discussion' room for your 'off the top of your head' answers, please?
Let's see what Neil, the originator of this post, feels about how your useage of "peculiar institution" & "bondage" is ruled. I believe it's another word (the exact same meaning) as another word which is forbade in this discusion.
Like "s-word."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alabaman
Of course, Cash, take away your Constitution & that 'forbidden word' and you can't give a good reasonable answer to my questions??
Take away the forbidden word and you can't talk seriously about why the war came about. Take away the Constitution and you can't talk seriously about the law of the land.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alabaman
BTW: you'll have to look to someone else to evolve into the 'official CWT police' in the "A. Lincoln' "ape" foul-ball plea. Sorry, man. You utilize "bondage" & "peculiar institution" & call foul for 'ape.'?
Like I said, I'm waiting patiently for the howls and catcalls. Unless, of course, there's a double standard being applied.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alabaman
Leave your perpetually pocketed Constitution at 'the bar' and join us in the 'discussion' room for your 'off the top of your head' answers, please?
I prefer historical accuracy, thank you very much. And when talking about why confederates are properly termed "traitors," one has to refer to the Constitution and the law to see why that term is properly applied.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
