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.
There is no one in the UK who does not support the idea of 'secession'? That feels the country should take 'firm' action to keep the nation intact? That the consent of all the people should be given in order for a section of the nation to strike out on its own?
And were there not attempts by parts of the country in the past to leave the United Kingdom that were met by force by the govenment in London? And did not such forceful methods take place even more recently than the American Civil War?
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
I honestly don't believe that there is a single person who believes that "the country should take 'firm' action to keep the nation intact."
Quote:
And were there not attempts by parts of the country in the past to leave the United Kingdom that were met by force by the govenment in London? And did not such forceful methods take place even more recently than the American Civil War?
You must be referring to Ireland. Strictly speaking, you are correct. But my own belief is that Ireland was treated like a colonial possession rather than an equal partner in the United Kingdom. It would be a distortion of history to suggest that the British government ever thought of Irish people as its own citizens in the way that English, Welsh & Scottish people were. That is no defence of what the British government did. Quite the opposite. But the government which was willing to shoot people on the streets of Dublin would have blanched at the prospect of shooting "its own people" in Manchester or Glasgow or Cardiff.
I'm going to be stubborn about this. You say your 'own belief' that Ireland was treated like a colonial possession rather than an equal partner in the United Kingdom. Did not Ireland have representation in Parliament at the time?
And Bill, during some of the riots in the English mainland in the 19th century, did not government forces take the lives of some of those English citizens who wanted change? I submit to you that your nation's own history does tell the story of citizens being struck down in some of those cities you mention for various social and economic causes.
I submit to you that mainland England avoided bloodshed over the issue of a section of the country leaving because that particular cause did not surface, not because the forces of the government would have been reluctant to use deadly force to prevent such an event coming to pass, even to its own citizens.
Would you not concur that as little as 140 years ago, the government in London would have reacted in much the same way the government in Washington reacted to an unlawful separation of part of its country? That the mood of the government is not the same as it is in the present?
And Bill, just a little off topic, I once heard the expression on a TV show called 'Crackers' where the main character told an English detective, "You are presumed innocent until proven guilty or Irish." That pretty much a true statement today in the UK?
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
Concerning Scotland and Wales, isnt it also true the've had an independent legislature for roughly 10 yrs of the last 3 and 5 centuries respectively?
Respectfully,
Matt
Union Blue:
While government forces may have killed people in England, I don't think secession was ever the cause. Labor unrest, etc., but no one advocated partition of the country into parts.
Bill is also correct in his statement that Ireland was treated more as a colonial possession than a equal apart as Wales and Scotland. Members of Parliament were from the Protestant minority because of disenfranchisement of the Catholic majority. After Catholic emancipation in the mid 19th century, MPs were sent from Ireland that began to reflect the population more, given property restrictions that continued in Northern Ireland into the 1960s. However an early and key issue for Irish MPs was Home Rule. Britain used force to suppress nationalist revolts throughout the 19th and early 20th century.
Colonial possession or constitutional neighbor notwithstanding, the actions are not flattering to the "natural right" of self-determination.
CC's explanation made a good deal of sense. For the relative safety and the cooperative benefits of a group, some individual commitment is required. That the group benefits and grows to depend on each member only strengthens the need for that commitment. We might consider that the shrinking world, even then, made the need for solidarity greater.
Ole
__________________ 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
[Continued]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….
CChartreax:
Well, I battoned down the hatches and read your postings with great interest.
"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."
I'm not suggesting 'absolute liberty' as this would earmark the harshest kind of tyranny. The responsibility that comes with freedom is to operate within the confines of the law; for the individual and collective good.
"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?"
With respect to the Civil War, we're discussing a collective known as the Confederacy; which came to the conclusion that their current government was no longer meeting their needs, so they quietly withdrew.
When you're confronted with two opposing collectives, how do you resolve the dissension? And in the case of the WBTS, how exactly would the Union have been 'starved' or destroyed without the Confederate states?
The religious aspect of this has long fascinated me, since both sides ardently claimed to have God on their side. How do you reconcile one God with two adamant groups; and who decides which cause shrinks and which one dilates?
" 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 what way was the 'voice' of the South heard?
I can't help but think that if you are not free to withdraw from a government that no longer suits your needs, then you really have no rights at all. And surely imposed idealogy and dominance defeats the entire concept of 'liberty' and undermines the importance of 'how you got there.'
Dawna,
If we did what the south asked long term, we would be a 3rd world power today. Essentially, what the south was asking was to foresake any hope of maintaining industrial, and thus economic parity with Europe, specifically the UK and France. the consequences of what the south was asking for was economic suicide with serious national security issues attendant to it. What was to stop Napoleon III from advancing North out of Mexico, or retaking Louisiana etc? Kind of hard to fend off France or anyone else for that matter with 10K men.
Respectfully,
Matt
Last edited by milhistbuff1; 11-30-2005 at 12:04 AM.
Concerning Scotland and Wales, isnt it also true the've had an independent legislature for roughly 10 yrs of the last 3 and 5 centuries respectively?
I'm sure people are bored with all this stuff about Britain, but as long as you and others keep asking, I'll keep answering.
The Scottish & Welsh Assemblies have not replaced Scottish & Welsh representation in the British (not English) Parliament. Their elected representatives still sit in Westminster. Meanwhile, where is the English Assembly? It doesn't exist. So English people are under-represented in comparison to their Welsh & Scottish fellow-citizens.
Quote:
If we did what the south asked long term, we would be a 3rd rate power today.
First of all, I disagree with your premise. Power comes from industrial might, and the loss of eleven agricultural states wouldn't have made the slightest dent in the U.S.A.'s power base. But, even if it had, that is no moral argument for forcing people to be part of a country against their will. And yet I have lost count of the number of pro-Unionists who have put it forward. It is cynical and self-interested, and quite indistinguishable from the arguments put forward by totalitarian regimes to justify their behaviour. Could you really look a Southerner in the eye and say "Sorry. You can't have your liberty because it might impair our plans for global power?"
First of all, I disagree with your premise. Power comes from industrial might,
Industry does you no good if you can't feed your people. Plus this ignores the industrial buildup of the south. It also ignores the military manpower that came from the south as well as the scientific pursuits that southerners engaged in. All of these are factors in national power. Industrial capacity is only one of many factors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_torrens
Could you really look a Southerner in the eye and say "Sorry. You can't have your liberty because it might impair our plans for global power?"
They already had their liberty. They were seeking to continue to deprive others of their liberty.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
