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.
Hal,
Any group is free to determine its own criteria, though in my opinion the Southern secessionists came no where near meeting the criteria established by the Declaration of Independence. However, any legitimately established government has the authority to enforce the law and to suppress an unlawful rebellion. Here is where the distinction between the "natural" right of revolution and the "legal" right of states to unilaterally secede is important.
We really are speaking different languages. If a minority splits from a majority it is not imposing on it. It's "version" is not triumphing over that majority. It is merely leaving. In the way that a wife leaves her spouse, or a member leaves a club. We've been over this so many times, haven't we?
Best wishes,
Bill
Bill, at the risk of inserting unwanted commentary, yes, we have been over this many times.
But it isn't working. You see, there MUST be some way to construe the northern states as victims. Otherwise, the inescapable conclusion is that the war to suppress southern self-government was immoral and barbaric. This cannot be allowed, or the hard-won myth is laid to waste.
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.
The federal cause was indeed a noble one -- force an unwanted government on those that wished to govern themselves. To dominate others for economic and imperialistic reasons.
Quote:
Here, as we see, Davis identifies two reasons for secession--an attack on slavery and the possibility of racial equality.
You left out this part:
This is done not in hostility to others, not to injure any section of the country, not even for our own pecuniary benefit; but from the high and solemn motive of defending and protecting the rights we inherited, and which it is our sacred duty to transmit unshorn to our children.
This is done not in hostility to others, not to injure any section of the country, not even for our own pecuniary benefit; but from the high and solemn motive of defending and protecting the rights we inherited, and which it is our sacred duty to transmit unshorn to our children.
Hal
The right they inherited to own slaves, which they saw as their sacred duty to transmit unshorn to their children.
My mind is really being broadened with the new definitions of "liberty" and "self-government."
Wow.
Hal
Hal, agreed that your mind needed broadened . Glad to be of service. And here was me thinking pure was required to do the broadening. regards, ed
__________________ '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'
My main intent when I began this thread was to try and discover if liberty was possible without union.
BIll has pointed out that maybe our ideas of what liberty and union are could be suspect or different from one another.
Hal has asked which is more important, liberty or union? He has also brought up the idea of self-government, a term which I have tried to explore by asking what is self-government and what is its lowest common denominator? He has answered, 'One. One person would be the absolute smallest number I can think of.'
Does Hal's answer mean that by governing one's self, one achives true liberty? And when Bill answers my question, 'what is liberty?' with the reply,
'I take it to mean the liberty to determine one's own nationality and the form of government to which one gives consent.' does this mean one truely has liberty if one can determine one's own nationality? And one must determine the form of government to which that person or people give consent?
Is one person truly free when he (or she) has only himself to govern? Does a person (or persons) have true liberty if he (she or they) can determine their own nationality?
How many on this board have determined our own nationality? How much say did we have in this determination?
My own daughter was born in the nation of Turkey on a US military installation. Did she determine her nationality at birth? Did she have much say in the matter? She was moved from Turkey, to Texas, to Okinawa, Japan, back to Texas and then to Hawaii. What would be her nationality? Confused, perhaps?
Now, I admit, she had the option of opting for Turkish citizenship on her 18th birthday. But by some strange happenstance, she made no mention of the fact that she could opt for Turkish citizenship, even when it was pointed out by me during her troubling teenage years. Why didn't she consider this option if she could determine her nationality? Perhaps because of the fact her nationality was already a moot point? That perhaps we have very few chances to determine our own nationality?
I am also very curious about Hal's idea that self-government can take place at the one person level. Does this mean true liberty and self-government can take place with individuals only? That there is no need for any kind of government because we ourselves can only be at true liberty on our own?
It paints a pretty picture. I am truly free because I am responsible to no one, I answer to no one, I am bound by no one!
But what happens when I meet someone who is bigger than me? What happens if I want something from my neighbor and he refuses to give it to me?
Better yet, what if I get married? What happens to my perfect liberty? Are there now restrictions to that liberty? Have I not incurred responsibilities?
What if I have children? Is the liberty to do as I pleased when I was only responsible for myself now restricted? Changed? Limited?
Do any of us have perfect liberty?
Bill stated earlier in one of his posts something about safety in numbers. There is truth to this. Why do people form partnerships by marriage, by forming families, tribes, towns, cities, city-states, countries, nations, alliances? Why is there this drive, from earliest history to form collective groups of individuals?
Is liberty possible without union?
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 do not believe it is possible for one to exist without the other, unless opression is involved. Go back to the dark ages and Medieval times both in Europe and Asia. Those with an independent or automous government often was united, either by common oppression, ethnicity or some combination of factors. For the Irish, the separate nature of the clans allowed British control in the 1100s. Uniting of the Clans in Scotland them independence from English rule for four centuries. Furthermore, the Scottish allied with the French to present a united front against the English, and to preserve their long sought freedom from England won at Bannockburn in 1314. The same almost occurred in Ireland as well under Brian Boru before the Scots, and the O'Neils centuries after the Scots. In 1291, Swiss Cantons named Schwyz, Unterwalden and Uri signed an agreement and united to win their liberty from the Habsburgs. One could argue they already were in a state of union under the Habsburgs, with significant liberty. But for the standards necessary for it relate to the civil war it does not work if it is under the undue influence of a superior power, ie an empire. Britain's Magna Charta, although dealing with the Baron's property rights and obligations, reduces that undue influence and required agreement and union among the barons who signed it.
As for Asia, the Chinese warlords and Japanese Daimyo's stifled liberty and unity by conciously maintaining the then current system of keeping the land separated stifling union through clan wars fighting over a shogunate with little real political power.
What does this have to do with self-government, everything. Without freedom from oppression, whether it be an empire or slavery, people cannot be leaders of their own destiny. But, let me make this clear, if that liberty is sought so it can oppress others then it is not liberty. It's only substituting a power structure that is enabling or preventing said oppression, to one that is causing the oppression.
Respectfully,
Matt
Last edited by milhistbuff1; 12-20-2005 at 02:35 AM.
I don't think anyone disputes the fact that there is strength in numbers.
But the unity which provides that strength has to be based on collective consent. If you ignore the issue of consent then your "comrade" is nothing more than a hostage whom you are using as a human shield.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
. Glad to be of service. And here was me thinking pure 
was required to do the broadening. regards, ed
Linear Mode
