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.
Bill,
The reason I put this argument forward is because they had an active part in the formation of this country's government. those slave states were adequately represented not only at the Dec. of Independence convention but also of those for the Articles of Confederation and US Constitution. If its terms that reprehensible to them, they could have walked out. None of the other delegates held a gun to their head and forced the southern delegates to sign. These delegate were creme de la creme, so they fully understood the portent and implications of the Hamiltonian economic system as opposed to the Jeffersonian system of elite farm owners.
that is no moral argument for forcing people to be part of a country against their will.
If southerners had sat peacefully on their farms and cities maybe you would have a point.
But they didn't. Instead they attacked United States troops at Fort Sumter.
Quote:
It is cynical and self-interested, and quite indistinguishable from the arguments put forward by totalitarian regimes to justify their behaviour.
And Britain building a global empire is not self-serving?
George III was certainly not willing to give up the 13 colonies. The British didn't give the Arabs their independence after World War I and it took decades for India to be free.
Quote:
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?"
Their liberty was not at stake and they possessed representation in a government. They started an insurrection to maintain their cherised "property."
__________________
Last edited by Admiral_Porter; 11-29-2005 at 08:20 PM.
Thanks for your comments. I think, for now, I’ll just make some general comments vis-à-vis:
“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. [Dawna #77]
“I have a slight quibble with the collectivism v. individualism argument. The Confederacy was also an exercise in collectivism; it was simply a different collectivist endeavour to the U.S.A.” [Bill Torrens #68]
“So what happens when that group of people discover that their interests and aspirations are no longer mutual? That they are pulling in two different directions? For me, this is the absolute heart of the issue.” [Bill Torrens #68]
The simple, but regrettable and unfortunate, answer to the above is: you have a war. Indeed, that is that very nature of war, is it not? You’ll have an ‘opposing’ collective against Adolf Hitler, too, right? I think two things are going on here and I’m either misunderstanding the nature of the conversation or I don’t understand what we’re talking about. Well, or maybe both (this is probably the most likely!)!
Obviously, I can’t speak for everyone here on the board; I can only speak for myself. It occurs to me that perhaps there is a mistaken assumption here (on my part) that somehow ‘we’ (the Union or the Confederacy) should ‘justify’ why we went to war against each other. Bill (and Dawna), theoretically, there’s no ‘moral’ argument for kicking Indians off their native lands, blowing away 6,000,000 Jews, blowing up Pearl Harbor, blowing up Hiroshima, sending people to gulags….etc., and so forth…there’s no ‘moral’ argument for half the crap you see on the news every night. Despite the (no doubt) tiresome long-windedness of my original post (you know, the mammoths and Cro-Magnon stuff? Of course, the post was so long, perhaps I failed in communicating the one obvious thing I was trying to say…..heaven help me!), that was intended to be inherent in my point…..people aren’t nice to each other….they just aren’t.
I can’t ‘defend’ that, nor do I feel compelled to ‘apologize’ for it…it’s just the way it is. To that end, that’s why I suggested in my tiresome post (#47 & #48) that this is really a philosophical question….and, even at that, it could go on ‘forever’ (i.e., what about this groups’ rights, what about that groups’ rights?…Fair enough questions, indeed, but that’s how you work out government). And then we end up right back where we started:
“When you're confronted with two opposing collectives, how do you resolve the dissension?” [Dawna #77]
Dawna, with all due respect, I can’t answer your question (indeed, it’s a question that’s been in existence since cavemen burnt their thumbs while discovering fire). What I can do, perhaps in lieu of an explanation for how to resolve conflict, is provide how George Washington might have proposed to handle it:
“…It is obviously impractical in the federal government of these states, to secure all rights and independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all: Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on the situation and circumstances, as on the object to be obtained. It is at all times difficult to draw with precision the line between those rights which must be surrendered, and those which may be reserved; and on the present occasion this difficulty was encreased [sic] by a difference among the several states as to their situation, extent, habits, and particular interests.
In all our deliberations on this subject we kept steadily in our view, that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our Union, in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps our national existence. This important consideration, seriously and deeply impressed on our minds, led each state in the Convention to be less rigid on points of inferior magnitude, than might have been otherwise expected; and thus the Constitution, which we now present, is the result of a spirit of amity, and of that mutual deference and concession which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensable.”
George Washington, President By unanimous Order of the Convention.
[excerpted; transmittal letter….from the Federal Convention President to the President of Congress, Transmitting the Constitution of the United States of America; September 17th, 1787]
Read through it carefully and thoughtfully; take in his words and understand what he’s saying. When you think you've understood it; read it again.
I can’t ‘justify’ anyone’s ‘rights’ over anyone else’s ‘rights’ (and I don’t imagine that anyone participating in this thread can); all I can say is, if it took a war for us to ‘find’ ourselves, then it did and I am only the humble beneficiary of the result. Obviously, everyone has their own point of view. For me, at the end of the day, the South’s desire to leave the Union was a declaration that their particular ‘rights’ were more important than everyone else’s. That’s not to say that their ‘rights’ aren’t important; they’re just not more important than any other state’s. The essence of what’s written above (in the transmittal letter), I think, pretty much covers it.
I’m not ‘against’ the South; I never was and never will be. I only want her not to leave; for her leaving will break us indeed. Roll your eyes all you want….I don’t care; I’d rather be a whole nation than a fractured one. I’d rather be with her than without her. It’s as simple as that….can I ‘justify’ it. No. But, I want it all the same.
Last edited by CChartreux; 11-29-2005 at 08:24 PM.
Imagine the political ramifications, if the south had won. We would essentially have pre imperial Germany (1871-1918) on a different scale. Presumably the confederacy would eventually fall apart without any pressing threat demanding its continuation since states rights were paramount to the breakaway from the union on the southern perspective at the time. The diplomatic confusion would be paramount with a baker's dozen worth of foreign policies to deal with. Since General Lee would most likely turn down a run for CSA president, that leaves Gov. Zebulon Vance of NC as a strong contender and would probably do a credible job keeping the CSA from breaking apart, while he was still involved in politics.
Respectfully,
Matt
Thank you so much, Neil, for this thread. While Dawna and Bill have tried valiantly to express different positions in others threads that would do what you're attempting here, to completely leave out one portion of the war, their efforts were thwarted by being shut down. I so hope that this thread will survive and that we can look at the war from many angles. I would truly love to hear from many of the "lurkers" out there, too.
I have noticed that several have used the "s" word. I promise that I absolutely will not be one of them.
First off, I would remind people of some of the little known history that as Robert E. Lee said, "shows the principles for which the South contended and which justified her struggle..."
June 7, 1776: Richard Henry Lee, a Southern delegate from Virginia to the 2nd Continental Congress meeting in Philadelphia, proposed a resolution calling for independence from Great Britain. A dispute over the legislature in London trying to tax the colonies had been brewing for over ten years. ("no taxation without representation") These British colonies wanted to secede and this Congress appointed a Virginian, Thomas Jefferson to write the Declaration of Independence. They voted to adopt it and all thirteen colonies declared independence on July 4, 1776.
Each state acted as a sovereign nation, but they acted together. The Declaration is clear about this, key phrases show it: ...."These united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES;" .......that,as Free and Independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, which INDEPENDENT STATES MAY OF RIGHT DO."
Please note these are INDEPENDENT STATES. Each acted as an independent State before and after the war with Britain. They banded together to strengthen their resistance against a common enemy. They were only united in their effort to be free and independent of a king that was attempting to tax them and destroy their liberties.
......"That when any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government......"......"it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government, and provide new guards for their future security."
(Notice two things already present here from the earliest inception: their refusal to be over taxed and the assertion that if this new government becomes injurious to them, they will throw it off, it is their right and their duty to do so!) In other words they had decided that never again would this happen to them, they would get out of any such compact.
The Articles of Confederation were drawn up and took more than three years for ratification; this first united states lasted only from 1781 until 1789 but again the theme was the same: "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in congress assembled." Article II
(Please note that these sovereign states agreed to delegate, not grant, some of their authority to a confederate government for specific task. And the British Crown did not make peace with the single nation called the United States, it made peace with each individual State, but it acknowledged, by name, to be a nation as free, sovereign, and independent in its own right in Article I of The Paris Peace Treaty of 1783.)
Taxation and anything injurious to them individually were on their minds even then. They wrote and wrote that they would not accept such a situation again. Why is it so hard to understand this part of what happened later?
Through many other transformations such as the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, this same theme reappears over and over, as in Article X in the Bill of Rights: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Read what each of the States say when they ratified the Constitution. It shows an essential theme. Hal, in the past has spoken of the "Hotel California card" referring to the Northern assertion literally of the states: "You can check in but you can never check out." The South certainly did not subscribe to the "Hotel California card". They had not fought a war with such an esteemed nation as Britain just to tie themselves to some upstart nation.
Dawna has spoken of liberty. I assert that it was the South's wish for their liberty that made the South want to leave the Union, along with the threats of collection of tariffs by Lincoln. But the North had no intention of ever granting the South its liberty because it was not in their interests . Industrialization takes money. The South had money. (And the North had their factories, no thought being given to child labor laws so they could utilize extremely cheap labor...no one thought anything of it.)
Liberty was lost with the election of Lincoln. Article II of the Constitution commits the president to protect and defend the Constitution from all. Nowhere is there a provision to "Save the Union" or protect the union! The question of legality and Constitutionality would play no part in his decision to make war on the seceded States. As president, he provoked the Southerners to fire on Ft. Sumter when he sent those warships, he declared war without consent of Congress, he arrested thousands, held prisoners without due process, and suppressed hundreds of newspapers. He prevented the secession of other border states by use of martial law, which he had no legal authority to impose. All these things pertain to lost liberty.
Each decade after the break with Great Britain only intensified the differences between North and South. The great principle enunciated in the Declaration of Independence that "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" was overturned by force of arms.
Did not even one Yank marching towards the South to "Save the Union" think at all that they were forcing their Southern brothers to accept "their ways" rather than allowing them to leave peaceably and to have liberty? They were descendents of men who'd fought for just such principles. How did they drift so far apart? This answer comes to mind: power and money and who is going to control it.
__________________ Thea
No one has permission to use any material from any of my posts on any CWT forum, the archives, or any other forum without my express written permission.
The thing is Thea, the Hamilitonian vision of an industrial power with a strong standing army and navy was the only way entangling alliances would become unnecessary. If you allow the country to become independent Yeoman farmers relying on themselves for defense, you break up into a loose confederation, each state focused on themselves. That does not lend itself to forming a united country.
I’m not ‘against’ the South; I never was and never will be. I only want her not to leave; for her leaving will break us indeed. Roll your eyes all you want….I don’t care; I’d rather be a whole nation than a fractured one. I’d rather be with her than without her. It’s as simple as that….can I ‘justify’ it. No. But, I want it all the same.
CChatreaux:
I really do admire your patriotism and I've even managed not to roll my eyes. But it is precisely this idea of a whole nation versus a fractured one, and the strength of the conviction that you would "rather be with her than withhout her," that both mystifies and fascinates me. The answer to the 'war issue' would have been not to invade Virginia, and the obvious benefit would have been the preservation of over 600,000 lives. Is there really a concept more preponderant than this?
I'm quite stuck on the sentiment that the quality and mana of any relationship is based entirely on consent.
Thank you for your kind words about the creation of this thread. I do feel that other lines and threads tried to explore other causes and reasons for the war, but were not very explicet in defining what boundries such a thread should have. I hoping all who post here understand the restrictions and do their best to stay 'on the field' and explore other areas and causes of the war.
Now, as to your post number 86, I must admit that I have very little to disagree with right up until you make the claim about the Kingdom of Britian making peace with 13 separate nations. But I will set that aside for another time, as we have discussed this on another thread in detail.
The main area I disagree with you (at this time) is your contention that the states did not know they were joining a Union with what you and Hal have come to term, a 'Hotel California card' or clause, that 'you can check in, but you can never check out' is something that the Southern states never agreed to. That this is somehow a Northern plot or exercise in denying the Southern states their reserved right to leave the Union anytime they chose to do so.
When you get the chance, Thea, do yourself a favor and check out from your local library the book, America's Constitution, A Biography, by Akhil Reed Amar (see his bio at the web stie below).
In Chapter 1 of his book, Mr. Amar goes into great detail about that each and every state at the time of ratifying the Constitution KNEW exactly what was going on if it joined this new union of states.
On page 34 trough page 39 of that chapter, examples are given of state representatives voicing their concerns that once their states joined the Union, they could not leave of their own accord. New York, Virginia, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Maryland, etc., all had those who warned their citizens that once they ratified the Constitution that their states would surrender the right to "unilaterally nullify or secede in the event it later became dissatisfied."
One of the most dramtic examples of the above came about when New York was debating to ratify the Constitution or not. Those against the ratification tried to get language inserted into the ratification "upon condition" that the new Congress make way for certain constitutional amendments. This was beaten down by those who supported the constitution. Then another attempt was made by offering a proposal that "there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the Union after a certain number of years, unless the amendments proposed " were taken up. It was defeated. In defeating this measure, "it was made clear to all observers--both in New York itself and in the many other places across the continent where men were following the New York contest with interest--that the Constitution did not permit unilateral state secession."
Now here is historical evidence that ALL states that joined the Union under the Constitution knew for a fact they were joining a nation and that they had given up the right to unilateral secession, that they had to get the approval of all of the states in order to leave. Up until they joined the Union, they were free and independent states, but what they had to decide was to join, or not to join. Once in, you had to get permission to leave and all knew it, to include the states of the South.
As to your observations concerning 'the South had money' and the tariffs, a quick cruise through the threads concerning the tariffs simply will not support this premise for war. The South was not being asked to provide more than her share of the revenue provided by the tariff then in force, the lowest in 50 years nor did she come close to providing 80% of tariff collections during that period before the Civil War. There's too much documentation proving otherwise.
I am not sure where you get from Article II of the Constitution that the President is committed to 'defend and protect the Constitution from all.' However, I read in Article II the President's oath of office: "I do solemly 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." Not to defend and protect it from all. And you seem to confuse Union by consigning it a Northern flavor. The Union was meant at the time to be the nation, not a section of it.
As to your idea as to what the 10th Amendment means, I offer this site in reply. In short, it does not mean what you think it means:
Again, I marvel at just how stupid the representatives of the South were in allowing themselves to be tricked, provoked, gulled, etc., into firing on Ft. Sumter. It's an old argument wearing very thin and Jefferson Davis should be given more credit. While I accept the fact that Lincoln surely wanted the first act of war to come from the South, if it came, the South had already produced several acts of war before firing on Ft. Sumter and please accept the fact that Jefferson had what he considered good reasons for being the first to fire on the fort. He was hardly tricked or provoked.
As to your further observations, I have yet to see it proved that Lincoln suppressed 'hundreds of newspapers' although I see this statement fly though the internet time and time again. My own research, and it has been somewhat extensive, doesn't even come close to 100, or 50 or 40 or 30, etc. As to the idea that somehow free expression was quashed in the North under Lincoln, again, it doesn't hold much historical water and again, I see Jefferson Davis's administration is ignored when he does exactly the same thing (shutting down newspapers, arresting citizens without warrent, holding thousands without trial, etc.)
And I am afraid you miss that part of the Constitution that permits a President to suspend Habeas Corpus (Article I, Section 9) and where he can supress a rebellion (Article 1, Section 8). But then, that all comes with his oath as President, doesn't it?
And finally, I will ask you, did not one Southern leader realize, that it was they who were doing all they could to force their ways upon the rest of the nation, even at the expense of other states rights and a bloody, 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
And Britain building a global empire is not self-serving?
George III was certainly not willing to give up the 13 colonies. The British didn't give the Arabs their independence after World War I and it took decades for India to be free.
What we are discussing here is whether the U.S. Government had the moral right to invade and conquer the Confederacy. Comparisons with the behaviour of other countries are utterly irrelevant. Unless, of course, you wish to accept that what the U.S. did was wrong; you can then enter the mitigating plea that such behaviour was not unusual at the time.
But otherwise you're wasting your breath. As far as I'm concerned you are perfectly welcome to declare that Britain is the most unprincipled and aggressive nation which has ever dominated the planet. It has absolutely nothing to do with the matter under discussion.
If, on the other hand, you're simply trying to be provocative (which is a valid tactic in debating) you're still wasting your time. I don't "do" patriotism. I despise flags and anthems. I will only object to abuse of Britain if it is based on factual inaccuracy. Otherwise, I couldn't give a stuff.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
) is your contention that the states did not know they were joining a Union with what you and Hal have come to term, a 'Hotel California card' or clause, that 'you can check in, but you can never check out' is something that the Southern states never agreed to. That this is somehow a Northern plot or exercise in denying the Southern states their reserved right to leave the Union anytime they chose to do so.
Linear Mode
