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.
This is the purest fantasy. I invite you to search the historical record and find a single word uttered by Lincoln which suggested that he was minded to recognise the Confederacy until they fired on Sumter.
That is a misrepresentation of what he said. He said nothing about Lincoln recognizing the confederacy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_torrens
(Having said that, I am amused beyond words to find that you believe that some issue of self-determination was involved in the 1745 Jacobite Rebellion. Who would have thought that one of Bud Robertson’s pupils could show himself up as such a dunce? You presumably think that Culloden was a battle fought between Scottish & English armies. And, presumably, that “Braveheart” is an historical source. That’s rather sweet.)
I'm not aware that Admiral Porter is one of Prof. Robertson's pupils, but your personal insult to him, calling him "such a dunce," is noted. Perhaps you can now complain about the lack of civility on the board.
Another 'S' word was a matter that sooner or later our country was going to have to address- Secession. For whatever the reason, that concept was going to have to be put to bed one way or another, like nullification. As long as any segment of the society believed it held the power to pull out of the Union whenever and for whatever reason, that Sword of Damocles was going to stay suspended over the nation's head. The Constitution (Federal and Confederate both) did not spell it out in so many words, leaving the issue to be decided at a later time if decided it must be, which of course, as we know, it came to must be. It is no good having a 'Perpetual Union' if one part or another could bug out if it felt like it.
__________________ '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'
That is a misrepresentation of what he said. He said nothing about Lincoln recognizing the confederacy.
A case of mistaken identity, in which the dunce is clearly me. I addressed the post to Cash when it was written by Admiral Porter. My apologies go to both parties. Nevertheless, I stand by what I said: if the North was minded to let the South go until Sumter, this should be reflected in the recorded utterances of the only person in the North whose opinion really mattered: Lincoln.
Quote:
I'm not aware that Admiral Porter is one of Prof. Robertson's pupils, but your personal insult to him, calling him "such a dunce," is noted. Perhaps you can now complain about the lack of civility on the board.
Coming from someone who accused a fellow member of being a racist, your indignation about the word "dunce" is just too, too rich. Which is the more serious accusation?
Coming from someone who accused a fellow member of being a racist, your indignation about the word "dunce" is just too, too rich. Which is the more serious accusation?
Hmmm....as a defense, it sounds much like the time-honoured plea of the naughty schoolboy: “Please, Miss, the others were doing it too.”
Cedarstripper
Last edited by cedarstripper; 11-28-2005 at 06:49 PM.
I stand by what I said: if the North was minded to let the South go until Sumter, this should be reflected in the recorded utterances of the only person in the North whose opinion really mattered: Lincoln.
No, it shouldn't. There were more people in the North than just one man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_torrens
Coming from someone who accused a fellow member of being a racist, your indignation about the word "dunce" is just too, too rich. Which is the more serious accusation?
You should read over what I wrote again. I didn't accuse anyone of being a racist. I asked some questions about some posts whose implications troubled me which could have been easily dispelled by the person's answering my questions. In one case he did answer one of my questions. And I'm not so much indignant regarding your use of the word as I am about the one-sided complaints we see periodically regarding "civility," conveniently ignoring insults from those with whom they agree. So from time to time I will point these out in an effort to prevent them from being missed. You don't see me posting about the civility of the board except to show the double standard, nor do I send mail to the moderators complaining about anyone or their posts. I simply will point out the discrepancies as I see them and let everyone else judge for themselves.
Though we've done a helluva job not discussing slavery, we have now certainly proved we do not need slavery to raise one helluva stink!! (Hmmm, can't seem to find an emoticon holding his nose...) (okay, this one will do - .) Regards, kids, e
Hmmm....well, it would appear that the conversation has moved on to other things; however, if you don't mind, I'd like to take the opportunity to go ahead and post my responses to (mostly) Bill and Dawna. Of course, you all are welcome to read through it; but it addresses posts #18-#20, which is what I originally wanted to reply to.
Guys, it's long (gee, what a surprise), so feel free to skip it; however, I would like Bill and Dawna to at least read it and respond (if they care to). [You all are welcome to, of course, I just figured I'd let you know ahead of time the nature of this post.] Ya better go pee now.....and let the dog in.
Okay...here goes [CChartreux's latest manuscript]: (Gawd...it comes in two parts...this IS a long post!!)
The American Civil War is a reflection of, indeed the very essence of, the nature of existential conflict inherent in human nature and, by extension, human community. It’s my contention that this, whether we are consciously aware of it or not, is what captivates us and compels us to continue staring at it (the Civil War) through the ghost-like fog of 150 years. Because it reflects a conflict (albeit on a much smaller scale) that exists in all of us...that’s ultimately why the ‘slavery’ argument is so stupid (on both sides). [Nevertheless, I tend to be a ‘big picture’ girl, in case you haven’t noticed already!; so I should restrain myself from treading on the enjoyment of the ‘details’ people. To that end, in calling the argument ‘stupid’, I’m not intending to suggest it’s unworthy of discussion in the way that Unionblue proposed and no offense is intended there.]
That said, it’s about ‘slavery’ insofar as slavery is an ingredient existing within the scope of the argument, much like Germans and Jews are the ‘ingredients’ of the holocaust. It’s not about ‘slavery’ if you expand the thing out to its fullest extent and understanding of human nature. If you want to stay on the ‘personal’ level of it, then we can rant away about how crappy Germans are and how victimized Jews are. If you want to get out of the ‘personal’ scope of it, then kick it up there to the broader category of human nature. It’s not about Jews, Germans, whites, blacks, slaves, non-slaves…..it’s how human beings treat each other (towards the good and the bad).
But, it’s even more than that. The Civil War, in all its drama, is a reflection of the innate human conflict between self and other; between individualism and collectivism. It’s just the nature of life and existence and it started all the way back when Caveman A didn’t like Caveman B’s deer picture he drew on the stony surface of the Cro Magnon cave (ha ha….it was probably a deer with a Confederate flag!!). If we accept this premise, then addressing the ‘cause’ of the Civil War outside of the attending ingredients (i.e., slavery) automatically moves this discussion into the political and social philosophical realm and the study of human behavior (which I’m not sure that Unionblue had as his intention of going there; I think he wants to keep it to attending ingredients, but not slavery). I suppose it depends on the scope of this thing. That said, however, I’d like to go ahead and express my views on this (‘big picture’ as they are) and address some comments made by Bill and Dawna, if I may. [I know my posts are long; and I thank you in advance for your generous patience.]
Bill – Regarding your Post #19; thank you very much for your kind compliment. Dawna Post #18) and Bill (Posts #19 & 20) – both of your posts are fascinating indeed; thank you for writing them.
I agree with Bill’s closing sentiment on Post #19….’I’d like to discuss this further, but it will have to be on another thread.’ I agree, because what both of you are suggesting in your respective posts (in my opinion) is a discussion about government…which then removes us from the subject at hand (i.e., non-slavery related causes of the Civil War). Indeed, I would propose that any non-slavery discussion about the Civil War automatically turns into a question of what government means within the context of balancing ethical and practical elements that are always continuously evolving. Isn’t that really the question here, folks? How do you govern millions of people with differing points of view, pre-existing habits of mind, biases, prejudices, beliefs, ideas, etc., and so forth, ad infinitum.
To that end, I’m going to comment on these posts here (#s 18-20), as I said, and Bill & Dawna (or anyone else)….if you all want to pursue this, we can discuss (via email if you want) how you all want to approach another thread (something along the lines of the relationship of government to the Civil War or how the Civil War reflects government, etc; something like that, I would think for the sake of this site we need to keep it Civil War related in some way). If you all want to do this, we’d better dust off our copies of the Federalist Papers (or, I should anyway) and dig out our old philosophy books in the back of the closet or the basement!! I’m game for it, but I’ll leave it to your all’s discretion and decision; I don’t want to further interfere with Unionblue’s thread by shepherding this thing off in a direction he doesn’t care to go (i.e., over-arching political and social philosophy as a non-slavery topic).
End first part:
Last edited by CChartreux; 11-28-2005 at 07:33 PM.
First, let me also start by saying that both Bill (Posts #19 & 20) and Dawna’s (Post #18) are very insightful and thought-provoking posts because, in my mind, they strike right at the very essence of the paradox that is America. First, that self-autonomy and collective group-interest – which appear to be mutually exclusive things – reside side-by-side (the one within the many and the many within the one) [Dawna’s post]. Secondly, Bill’s point (Post #19) about “the subject we cannot discuss on this thread was at once an ethical issue and a practical one”. Thus, illustrating (quite well, in my opinion) that a collision between the ethical and practical is imminent; indeed, unavoidable. On a broader perspective, however, it’s not altogether outside how change normally collides and explodes through history, is it not?…the Protestant Reformation comes to mind (I think that might be a useful metaphor later in my post).
I sincerely hope both of you will forgive me if I sound…well, pathetically patriotic American; I hope you’ll understand that it comes from a place of deep humility founded on an abiding understanding within myself that my well-being and freedoms today are the byproduct of the workings out of those who came before me and their astounding ability to work tirelessly towards securing freedoms they viewed as inherently good and worthy (indeed, a reflection of what most anyone wants in life….the freedom to live their lives as they see fit – the question of how, exactly, to do that is the challenge). It’s because of them that I can sit, as a quasi-atheist, in my little cubicle at work right next to a born again Christian in his little cubicle at work, and across the way from this Jewish guy and his cute little menorah with blue lights….and be perfectly okay with their freedoms to believe as they choose. I have to pay taxes, stop at stop signs, and not rob convenience stores or murder people – so do they. In other words, provided we all live within the scope of civil law (i.e., stopping at stop signs), we can individually practice the self-autonomy that allows me to sleep in on Sunday morning, a Christian to go to church, and a Jew to attend temple on Friday evening at sundown.
Sounds simple enough, or at least it’s theoretically simple enough….when it’s put like that; the practical application of all that (as you all know) has steadily evolved over 200 years. But, even in it’s simplicity, it evokes the fundamental quality of separation of church and state…which is a cornerstone of how a democracy can work (if it’s not the primary cornerstone). You find the ways you can separate the individual, but still keep him part of the group. Sound civil law is the best way to do it because it’s the easiest way to let people be individuals within a structured environment whereby they increase their chances of survival. Let me provide another metaphor that’s even simpler and goes all the way back to the stone age: for survival purposes, it’s just plain easier to get 25 guys to take down that mammoth than it is to do it all by yourself. But, and this is the challenging part (and, really, the essence of Dawna’s question), those 25 guys have to agree on how their going to take down that mammoth and how their going to divvy up their little barbecue prize there. Otherwise, they’ll miss out on Mammoth Value Meal #3 with fries, starve, and die.
Look, I know it appears as though I’ve really wandered off in some other galaxy….first blathering about separation of church and state and then the next thing you know I’m blathering away about hunting mammoths 25,000 years ago….but there is a relationship here. Because, in the end, you’re talking about getting groups of people to live together so that they can survive; living as a ‘group’ enhances survival (at least that’s been true all the way up through the Neolithic age)…but in order to live ‘as a group’ (to enhance your survival), you’re going to have to figure out a way to do it….which, now, brings us full circle to Dawna’s (and Bill’s) thoughtful post as follows:
“If the South could not exercise their right to self-determination, and one of the purposes of the Constitution is to provide freedom and liberty for all; then what exactly is the definition of autonomy? Was the justice of the Union ideal greater than that of the South, and how specifically do you unite a country by force?” [Dawna]
and…
“Without self-determination, there is no freedom, and I'm inclined to believe that the freedom to choose is the only real freedom that we have. The availability of inspiration is based expressly on liberty - if the heart and spirit of the people does not come first, then surely freedom is a mere parody of itself.” [Dawna]
and
“One of the things which intrigues me is how we see this issue of self-determination in such a similar way. To us it is self-evident that a nation which forces several million people to be its citizens against their will is a mockery of a democratic state. And yet there are many people here at CWT, who are neither wicked nor stupid, who will argue the opposite.” [Bill Torrens]
I may be mistaken (and I’ll beg your pardon if I’ve taken your comments out of context), but it would appear to me that what you both are suggesting, in pointing out what appears to be a hypocrisy existent in the notion of ‘liberty’ in the American mind (an astute and fair point, if I may say so), is that there is such a thing as ‘absolute’ liberty. As though the notion of ‘liberty’ is the freedom to do whatever one wants and the notion of ‘self-autonomy’ exists in a vacuum irrespective of the environment in which it exists. ‘Absolute’ liberty would result in absolute anarchy and then, by extension, the elimination of any possibility of survival. It’s my contention that ‘liberty’ must be understood in a political and philosophical context and that it’s true meaning should be understood as ‘liberty within something’….not outside of something. If I can return, for a minute to our Paleolithic/Neolithic foundation for a minute to make a simple point: folks, agriculture is a great thing….it means more people can eat (hence survive), but in order to take advantage of it, we must successfully manage it…which means we must have some infrastructural organization in order to capitalize on the rice we just figured out we can grow as a crop and have food every year and we can quit this Paleolithic existence of chasing after herds of animals and berry-picking. As soon as you get to this place (i.e., agriculture as the foundation of civilization as the foundation of law and, therefore, the foundation of government), you automatically enter into a relationship of tension between the individual and the collective group – it just comes with the territory. Individualism cannot trump collectivism; but, neither can collectivism trump individualism….and therein lies the challenge of managing liberty and freedom and managing power (which is what government is all about). The concept of American liberty is a political concept and has to be understood within some kind of context (i.e., an organizing body or a structural framework).
See? And you guys thought I didn’t have a point to all this. I’m sure someone with better writing skills than I could say all that in a much more concise way with 1/8 of the words I used…but the point I’m trying to make in all this is that a U.S. Constitution that proposes ‘liberty’ doesn’t mean everyone gets to do what they want to do…what would be the point of federalizing in the first place then? The encompassing thing about the American Government is its ability to include disagreement within its working framework. But, ‘majority rule’ doesn’t mean that the majority gets it’s way all the time; the essence of democracy is that, through representational government, everyone’s ‘voice’ is heard – not that everyone gets their way, or even that the majority gets their way all the time.
In my mind, the creation of the United States is the byproduct of everything that is truly great about Europe (namely Britain)…..without the blood (our little Civil War excepted) . Bill – I hope you’ll overlook the romantic sentimentality of that and understand I mean that in the best of ways and as a compliment. European political science and philosophy had already made provision for the foundation of something like the United States, the Founding Fathers of the United States brought it into reality….but they didn’t ‘invent’ the stuff, they had only to work out what it would look like in ‘real life’ from already existing treatises (Locke and Hobbes come to mind). Europe, thankfully, had already solved the problem of separation of church and state and Europe paid the blood-price for it, we didn’t have to (we were fortunate enough to be able to get that one ‘to go’). We were able to take concepts that were already developing, form them into a more encompassing government (i.e, the ‘ordinary people can govern themselves’ idea), and, once having written “all men are created equal”….have continued to expand the meaning of ‘all men are created equal’ so that it eventually did, and will, indeed actually mean what it says. So, there’s a hypocrisy insofar as we’re enroute from Point A to Point B (you’ve got to start somewhere), but we’ve also kicked the can down the road a little further too. It just takes time – indeed, centuries – to evolve thinking patterns and ideas that have been around for hundreds of years.
But, there something else also. Yes, outwardly, you probably do have an appearance of hypocrisy; but, in another way, it’s not. It’s a paradox. It’s a paradox of the individual and the collective….combined together for the same reason that 25 guys, 30,000 years ago, decided it would be easier if they hunted the mammoth as a group. And it was fine...until one of the guys wanted to paint a Confederate flag on his little bow and arrow contraption there and thought he should be allowed to do so, even though the rest of the group thought the blue and red colors would scare away the mammoth. See how this stuff gets started?
That’s why there is no ‘settlement’ to the Civil War…if you view it in the context of a conflict between the individual and the collective...both sides are ‘right’. But if, in the end, individualism trumps collectivism….then we ALL put our survival at risk…we become tyrannized by the minority; if collectivism wins then we risk losing our individuality and our ability to choose the religion we participate in, the personal beliefs we have, etc., and so forth, and become tyrannized by the majority. They’re both tyrannies of one sort or another. So, it can’t be an either/or...it has to be an ‘and-and’ (i.e., individual AND collective). And while it appears that the Union ‘won’ and the Confederacy ‘lost’; it appears as though ‘collective’ won over ‘individualism’….the question really transcends that. If we’re not in this all together as individuals in order to form a collective in the first place, then we have nothing. Please pardon the dripping sentimentality….it evokes the Chamberlain (Jeff Daniels) line in the movie Gettysburg: ‘In the end, we’re fighting for each other’.
So – Bill and Dawna – you get liberty AND conformity (collective) together….and, for the most part, it works….well, except for when that same guy painted that Confederate flag….
Thank you for your gracious patience in hearing me out; I’m sorry my posts are so long!!
So,...er....you guys up for my Protestant Reformation metaphor on this, or what? Just kiddin’! (I’ll shut up now).
This is the purest fantasy. I invite you to search the historical record and find a single word uttered by Lincoln which suggested that he was minded to recognise the Confederacy until they fired on Sumter.
Until the south started shooting no one was willing or outraged enough over secession to use force. Hence Buchanan's hesitation.
The south made a fatal wrong move by attacking Sumter. Then Lincoln had a legitimate reason for going to war: to subdue an agressive violent rebellion in his own country.
Should we discuss what the British did during the Easter Uprising of 1916?
Quote:
You can dangle that bait for as long as you like, but I’m not biting. You may, if it pleases you, construct an argument showing England to be the most unscrupulous nation on earth. I don’t care. It is no defence of what the U.S. did in 1861-1865. What you are uttering, in effect, is the time-honoured plea of the naughty schoolboy: “Please, Miss, the others were doing it too.”
It's not bait but rather making a point.
You act as if the actions of the United States during the Civil War are somehow unique but the British have acted no different during their own history.
Quote:
(Having said that, I am amused beyond words to find that you believe that some issue of self-determination was involved in the 1745 Jacobite Rebellion. Who would have thought that one of Bud Robertson’s pupils could show himself up as such a dunce? You presumably think that Culloden was a battle fought between Scottish & English armies. And, presumably, that “Braveheart” is an historical source. That’s rather sweet.)
Get over yourself.
__________________
Last edited by Admiral_Porter; 11-28-2005 at 09:32 PM.
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
.) Regards, kids, e
Linear Mode
