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,
With all due respect, we are democratic republic set up by the founding fathers. Although it has become more democratic over time, it still remains at its core a republic. (ie the 13th-15, 17th Amendments) Unlike the British Empire, the ethnic and social divisions that abound with the empire made separation from the central UK and each other relatively easy (not bloodlessly) as nationalism could be used legitmately to obtain autonomy and sovreignty. In the US, those social and ethnic distinctions, have little effect on government and consequently make it that much harder to separate the territory of that govt, should some of it wish to seceede. Of course the policies of said govt is related by the factors I mentioned, i'm just dealing with how they tie to secession.
Respectfully,
Matt
Last edited by milhistbuff1; 12-18-2005 at 05:07 PM.
I'm afraid that we'll have to disagree on this and in the words of President Jefferson Davis:
"I tried all in my power to avert this war. I saw it coming, for twelve years I worked night and day to prevent it, but I could not. The North was mad and blind; it would not let us govern ourselves, and so the war came, and now it must go on till the last man of this generation falls in his tracks, and his children seize the musket and fight our battle, unless you acknowledge our right to self government. We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for Independence, and that, or extermination."
Dawna
Hi Dawna,
The South had effectively governed the nation until Lincoln's election, and apparently couldn't abide losing that control. Other than unhappiness over the very existence of abolitionists, anti-slavery activists, and free-soilers, what possible complaints could they have had? And please don't bring up tariffs, that is a complete red herring.
best,
marc
__________________ "It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues." - Abraham Lincoln
Where our Northern friends delude themselves is in the belief that such cold-blooded and selfish behaviour is somehow an expression of democracy. And I'm afraid it doesn't matter how earnestly they wave their pieces of legal paper in our faces and protest that they were only after the pound of flesh which was their due: it still chills us to the bone, doesn't it?
Bill:
Yes, it's mind-boggling...and chills these Dumb Foreigners to the bone.
Jefferson was quoted of as being in favor of re-assessing/re-ratifying (with appropriate changes) the constitution every 20 years!! That was the whole point to such rights of man concepts such as self-government/self-rule. It certainly appears to me that Southern secession was made in the spirit of this principle of self-rule. If it can be determined that the southern states' secession was indeed the will of the people (and not some sort of rebellion/militancy like armed overthrow of Richmond, for example, which of course it was not), it appears to be quite anti-constitutional in nature to compel by force what was obviously a voluntary pact in origin. The AoC were voluntary and were seceded from also as precedent - yet we so no coercion or declaration of rebellion involved there. Perhaps because of this and how Fed power has since been abused in certain instances, this was not a "more perfect union" (as the anti-Federalists argued/warned to stick with the Confederation decades earlier)?
This boils down to a basic premise - a sort of general rule of history that I see and am curious what others think - I might start a new thread on it. That is, the general rule of history which states that if there is force/coercion involved, those on the receiving end of this force are generally on the side of right/truth. The truth, being the truth, can be trusted to stand on its own merit (and the individual can find it if idealists such as a Plato, Christ, or even a Jefferson are right - I think they are) and does not require force/coercion. I am Christian and can look at Christ as exemplifying this notion - as well as all the prophets from God who were killed (on the receiving end of might/force yet from God and representing truth). The South, tending to seek peaceful coexistence and the fact that it was begun peacefully (not armed rebellion/coercion) may tend to meet this criteria, and the North seeking to impose its will, did not (its imposed might makes WRONG). Lincoln could have used his vast reasoning linguistic skills to debate/reason with those reasonable (and many pro-Union) in the South, and if truth/reason was on his side he would have won this (pen/reason over sword/coercion). I think that would have been Jefferson's stance. Lincoln's immediate and definitive belligerency forced those "fence-sitters" in the South to defend their rights and legitimize the secession more IMHO - to the point that it was more on the side of "right".
We are discussing responsible liberty and not absolute liberty...yes?
I'm not sure. That's why I'm trying to clarify. It seems to me the confederates were being very irresponsible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawna
"Did the southern people, as members of the United States, have an obligation to obey the law they had a part in creating? I would say they did."
And I would say that Southern people, like the rest of U.S. citizens, had every right to self-determination.
They elected their state and local governments and participated fully in the national government. They had self-determination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawna
"They cannot release themselves from that obligation." There is no obligation by any group of people to live in a climate of oppression.
They weren't being oppressed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawna
"The collective body. And who are the proper judges to determine if the rulers of the United States are guilty of tyranny and oppression, not a few disaffected states but the collective body of the nation. The people of all the states."
A few disaffected States? Are you suggesting that the North should also have determined whether or not the Confederacy had legitimate concerns...that Southern people were incapable of distinguishing their own needs and establishing their future?
The people of all the states. Don't forget the Western states as well as the Southern states. All the states together are the proper judges to determine if the national government is being tyrannical and oppressive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawna
I'm having a difficult time understanding the concept that liberty should be settled by the numbers; that a group of people who peacefully left an unsuitable government are viewed as having imposed (a tricky feat when you're the minority) their will on the majority; and that anyone would want to keep another beyond and against their will. The very notion chills me to the bone.
The confederates weren't interested in liberty. They were interested in imposing their views on the majority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawna
"Yes."
Cash, please explain to me in what way (s) the Union cause was more noble, sophisticated, and just, than that of the South.
Dawna
Easy. The confederates' goal was to oppress black slaves and to continue to oppress them. There was no goal of liberty involved. The Federal cause was to maintain the Union, which is the source of strength with which we won our liberty and maintained it, and then later in the war they included the goal of destroying slavery. I fail to see how anyone could seriously claim the confederate cause had any morality or nobility at all.
Dear Dawna and Bill,
You're so right. We are bone chilling. We're the political version of great white sharks: cold blooded, remorseless eating machines. And selfish? We make Scrooge look like Mother Theresa. In our evil plots to maintain democratic government and abolish slavery we have no conscience. There is no device too low for us to stoop to, no crime too bloody for us to commit. We're Hannibal Lector without the classy accent and sense of style. Another poster recently opined that the Union side of the CW was either the same or similar to the Nazis and Communists. Ha! You're got that right buddy. Merry Christmas everybody. Enjoy it before we ruin it forever like everything else.
Jefferson was quoted of as being in favor of re-assessing/re-ratifying (with appropriate changes) the constitution every 20 years!!
And Madison said very clearly there was nothing constitutional about unilateral secession.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdory
The AoC were voluntary and were seceded from also as precedent - yet we so no coercion or declaration of rebellion involved there.
The ratification of the Constitution was not a secession from the Articles of Confederation. It was replacing the AoC with the Constitution as the governing document of the Union.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdory
This boils down to a basic premise - a sort of general rule of history that I see and am curious what others think - I might start a new thread on it. That is, the general rule of history which states that if there is force/coercion involved, those on the receiving end of this force are generally on the side of right/truth.
We need to make a distinction between criticism of the cause and criticism of its exponents. It would be pure hypocrisy if Dawna and I tried to pretend that our blood isn't chilled by what we see as unwarranted aggression. But that's only the mirror image of posts which claim that the cause which we both support was an anti-democratic conspiracy by selfish slave-holders. The latter is a reasonable assertion with which I disagree completely, but I'm not offended by people making it.
Both causes were supported by decent people. Many decent people sacrificed everything they had for one cause or the other. Who can say who was right? Here at CWT we enjoy the freedom to express our opinions, but I hope that most of us remember that we might be wrong and the obnoxious person in the other camp might just be right.
Please don't be offended if we cannot honestly say that we see good in your cause. That doesn't make you the spawn of the devil. As has already been established on another thread, we British fill that role!
Dear Bill,
Don't try to spare my feelings. I have none.
Dear tdory,
Welcome to CWT. Interesting premise "Might makes wrong" IMO it depends on the circumstances, and can't be a general principle. Trail of Tears, wrong. Beating the living daylights out of the Japanese military, firebombing, then atomic bombing their cities, occupying the country, replacing their form of government, and informing them that hey, your living god is actually a stunted nerd, was...right.
Trouble is, recently the US seems to think it has so much might, it doesn't matter if its actions are right, or even wise.
Well, I'm off to deny some people their rights, at the bidding of my corporate masters.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
