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.
Is liberty possible without union? A form of union?
You (and Hal) have made clear that liberty should be chosen over union. But at what point is the 'critical mass' of numbers that no longer permits liberty?
Didn't Davis say that the Confederacy, if it failed, would have on its tombstone, 'Died of a Theory?' Was it the inability of the Confederacy to truely unite that caused its downfall? Would it be possible to say that the region's inability to form a 'more perfect union' doomed it's chance at what you percieve it to be its bid for 'liberty?'
Is determining one's nationality no longer a valid point? Is consent now part of the equation in order to define true liberty? Whose consent? How many? Does not consent imply a loss of liberty? When I consent, do I gain or lose some of my liberty? Bill, old friend, what is perfect liberty?
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
Lee was a military man, and as such he didn't make policy for the confederacy. Davis did, though.
Cash:
But as leader of the AONV, General Lee was entitled to an opinion, and his goal was not the oppression of black slaves.
In his farewell address to the US Senate, Davis said, "It has been a belief that we are to be deprived in the Union of the rights which our fathers bequeathed to us -- which has brought Mississippi to her present decision. She has heard proclaimed the theory that all men are created free and equal, and this made the basis of an attack upon her social institutions; and the sacred Declaration of Independence has been invoked to maintain the position of the equality of the races."
"Here, as we see, Davis identifies two reasons for secession--an attack on slavery and the possibility of racial equality."
Mr. Davis' very eloquent speech in its entirety:
"On Withdrawal from the Union
Washington
January 21, 1861
I rise, Mr. President, for the purpose of announcing to the Senate that I have satisfactory evidence that the State of Mississippi, by a solemn ordinance of her people in convention assembled, has declared her separation from the United States. Under these circumstances, of course, my functions are terminated here. It has seemed to me proper, however, that I should appear in the Senate to announce that fact to my associates, and I will say but very little more. The occasion does not invite me to go into argument, and my physical condition would not permit me to do so if it were otherwise; and yet it seems to become me to say something on the part of the state I here represent, on an occasion so solemn as this.
It is known to senators who have served with me here that I have for many years advocated, as an essential attribute of state sovereignty, the right of a state to secede from the Union. Therefore, if I had not believed there was justifiable cause; if I had thought that Mississippi was acting without sufficient provocation, or without an existing necessity, I should still, under my theory of the government, because of my allegiance to the state of which I am a citizen, have been bound by her action. I, however, may be permitted to say that I do think that she has a justifiable cause, and I approve of her act. I conferred with her people before that act was taken, counseled them then that, if the state of things which they apprehended should exist when the convention met, they should take the action which they have now adopted.
I hope none who hear me will confound this expression of mine with advocacy of the right of a state to remain in the Union, and to disregard its constitutional obligations by the nullification of the law. Such is not my theory. Nullification and secession, so often confounded, are indeed antagonistic principles. Nullification is a remedy which it is sought to apply within the Union, and against the agent of states. It is only to be justified when the agent has violated his constitutional obligation, and a state, assuming to judge for itself, denies the right of the agent thus to act, and appeals to the other states of the Union for a decision; but when the states themselves, and when the people of the states, have so acted as to convince us that they will not regard our constitutional rights, then, and then for the first time, arises the doctrine of secession in its practical application.
A great man who now reposes with his fathers, and who has been often arraigned for a want of fealty to the Union, advocated the doctrine of nullification, because it preserved the Union. It was because of his deep-seated attachment to the Union, his determination to find some remedy for existing ills short of a severance of the ties which bound South Carolina to the other states, that Mr. Calhoun advocated the doctrine of nullification, which he proclaimed to be peaceful, to be within the limits of state power, not to disturb the Union, but only to be a means of bringing the agent before the tribunal of the states for their judgment. Secession belongs to a different class of remedies. It is to be justified upon the basis that the states are sovereign. There was a time when none denied it. I hope the time may come again, when a better comprehension of the theory of our government, and the inalienable rights of the people of the States, will prevent any one from denying that each state is a sovereign, and thus may reclaim the grants which it has made to any agent whomsoever.
I therefore say I concur in the action of the people of Mississippi, believing it to be necessary and proper, and should have been bound by their action if my belief had been otherwise; and this brings me to the important point which I wish on this last occasion to present to the Senate. It is by this confounding of nullification and secession that the name of the great man whose ashes now mingle with his mother earth has been invoked to justify coercion against a seceded state. The phrase "to execute the laws" was an expression which General Jackson applied to the case of a state refusing to obey the laws while yet a member of the Union. That is not the case which is now presented.
The laws are to be executed over the United States, and upon the people of the United States. They have no relation to any foreign country. It is a perversion of terms, at least it is a great misapprehension of the case, which cites that expression for application to a state which has withdrawn from the Union. You may make war on a foreign state. If it be the purpose of gentlemen, they may war against a state which has withdrawn from the Union; but there are no laws of the United States to be executed within the limits of a seceded state. A state finding herself in the condition in which Mississippi has judged she is, in which her safety requires that she should provide for the maintenance of her rights out of the Union, surrenders all the benefits (and they are known to be many), deprives herself of the advantages (they are known to be great), severs all the ties of affection (and they are close and enduring), which have bound her to the Union; and thus divesting herself of every benefit, taking upon herself every burden, she claims to be exempt from any power to execute the laws of the United States within her limits.
I well remember an occasion when Massachusetts was arraigned before the bar of the Senate, and when then the doctrine of coercion was rife and to be applied against her because of the rescue of a fugitive slave in Boston. My opinion then was the same that it is now. Not in the spirit of egotism, but to show that I am not influenced in my opinion because the case is my own, I refer to that time and that occasion as containing the opinion which I then entertained, and on which my present conduct is based. I then said, if Massachusetts, following her through a stated line of conduct, chooses to take the last step which separates her from the Union, it is her right to go, and I will neither vote one dollar nor one man to coerce her back, but will say to her, God speed, in memory of the kind associations which once existed between her and other states.
It has been a conviction of pressing necessity, it has been a belief that we are to be deprived in the Union of the rights which our fathers bequeathed to us, which has brought Mississippi into her present decision. She has heard proclaimed the theory that all men are created free and equal, and this made the basis of an attack upon her social institutions; and the sacred Declaration of Independence has been invoked to maintain the position of the equality of the races. That Declaration of Independence is to be construed by the circumstances and purposes for which it was made. The communities were declaring their independence; the people of those communities were asserting that no man was born - to use the language of Mr. Jefferson - booted and spurred to ride over the rest of mankind; that men were created equal - meaning the men of the political community; that there was no divine right to rule; that no man inherited the right to govern; that there were no classes by which power and place descended to families, but that all stations were equally within the grasp of each member of the body politic.
These were the great principles they announced; these were the end to which their enunciation was directed. They have no reference to the slave; else, how happened it that among the items of arraignment made against George III was that he endeavored to do just what the North had been endeavoring of late to do - to stir up insurrection among our slaves?Had the declaration announced that the negroes were free and equal, how was the prince to be arraigned for stirring up insurrection among them? And how was this to be enumerated among the high crimes which caused the colonies to sever their connection with the mother country? When our Constitution was formed, the same idea was rendered more palpable, for there we find provision made for the very class of persons as property; they were not put upon the footing of equality with white men - not even upon that of paupers and convicts; but, so far as representation was concerned, were discriminated against as a lower caste, only to be represented in the numerical proportion of three-fifths.
Then, Senators, we recur to the compact which binds us together; we recur to the principles upon which our government was founded; and when you deny them, and when you deny to us the right to withdraw from a government which, thus perverted, threatens to be destructive of our rights, we but tread in the path of our fathers when we proclaim our independence, and take the hazard. 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.
I find in myself, perhaps, a type of the general feeling of my constituents toward yours. I am sure I feel no hostility to you, senators from the North. I am sure there is not one of you, whatever sharp discussion there may have been between us, to whom I cannot now say, in the presence of my God, I wish you well; and such, I am sure, is the feeling of the people whom I represent toward those whom you represent. I thereore feel that I but express their desire when I say I hope, and they hope, for peaceful relations with you, though we must part. They may be mutually beneficial to us in the future, as they have been in the past, if you so will it. The reverse may bring disaster on every portion of the country; and if you will have it thus, we will invoke the God of our fathers, who delivered them from the power of the lion, to protect us from the ravages of the bear; and thus, putting our trust in God, and in our own firm hearts and strong arms, we will vindicate the right as best we may."
The parenthesis is from your previous posting, and the bolding is mine.
I interpret this paragraph and the rest of Mr. Davis' speech quite differently than you do. Mr. Davis states that the 'equality of men' was understood to be found within the realm of political community; and the belief that 'negroes' were morally, socially, politically, and intellectually inferior was a conviction held by all United States citizens.
I see the premise of Mr. Davis' speech to be a final averment that the South should be left alone to exercise government of their own consent. And I think it's important to remember that not only did Mr. Davis and his wife adopt a black child into their family, but President Davis also encouraged and supported the education of his own black slaves, contrary to the law.
"Davis' reaction to the Emancipation Proclamation is instructive."
As leader of a newly formed country, I would expect Mr. Davis to be justifiably outraged at not only invasion by the United States of America, but subsequently by a proclamation that was exclusive, less than noble, and clever political maneuvering.
Bill, I am not claiming safety in numbers here, although it is applicable. Each of the examples i mention in post #119 either sought to oppress a given group or groups and divest it's people of the right to consent. Consent cannot happen without independence from undue influence or if necessary, political control. how are the the people hostage if their chosen representatives (Swiss example) sign the agreement. The Magna Charta was never meant to apply to the average citizen, but if you at it strictly from how it affects the barons alone, then the consent was not only there, but the people's decision was literally forced on the King.
Respectfully
Matt
Is liberty possible without union? A form of union?
Unionblue
Neil:
I think that 'liberty without union' depends on the relationship between the principle and the alliance.
The graveyards of history are full of corpses who were deceived by claims of national security, economic equality, or 'this is for your own good.' The poorest, most anguished places in the world are prime examples of countries where government-guaranteed security has replaced the spirit and liberty of the people.
This is a very interesting theoretical discussion of freedom, liberty, union etc. and it has ranged across the globe and through the centuries.
However, in the 1850s, in the run up to the war, the men who cried for secession had no interest in the consent of the governed, or state's rights, or the danger of an overweening federal government. They were interested in GETTING THEIR WAY. And they were ready to jettison the ideals of consent, and liberty and the rest to achieve their goals.
Looking at the Fugitive Slave Act, and the use of federal force, including military force, to ram it down the throats of nonslaveowners, looking at Kansas, where the ideal of local people voting to decide to admit or bar slavery was thwarted by slaveowners' fraud and violence, loyally backed by slaveowners in Washington, we can conclude that, while the posters here are very sincere, the slaveowners of 1860 used or discarded these concepts as it suited their interest to do so.
But as leader of the AONV, General Lee was entitled to an opinion, and his goal was not the oppression of black slaves.
Everyone's entitled to an opinion, Dawna. But Gen Lee didn't determine the goals of the confederacy. Gen Lee also said that he regarded the relationship of master and slave as the best that can exist between the white and black races while they were intermingled in this country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawna
In his farewell address to the US Senate, Davis said, "It has been a belief that we are to be deprived in the Union of the rights which our fathers bequeathed to us -- which has brought Mississippi to her present decision. She has heard proclaimed the theory that all men are created free and equal, and this made the basis of an attack upon her social institutions; and the sacred Declaration of Independence has been invoked to maintain the position of the equality of the races."
"Here, as we see, Davis identifies two reasons for secession--an attack on slavery and the possibility of racial equality."
Mr. Davis' very eloquent speech in its entirety:
[I snipped some out for brevity]
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawna
"On Withdrawal from the Union
Washington
January 21, 1861
I rise, Mr. President, for the purpose of announcing to the Senate that I have satisfactory evidence that the State of Mississippi, by a solemn ordinance of her people in convention assembled, has declared her separation from the United States. Under these circumstances, of course, my functions are terminated here. It has seemed to me proper, however, that I should appear in the Senate to announce that fact to my associates, and I will say but very little more. The occasion does not invite me to go into argument, and my physical condition would not permit me to do so if it were otherwise; and yet it seems to become me to say something on the part of the state I here represent, on an occasion so solemn as this.
It is known to senators who have served with me here that I have for many years advocated, as an essential attribute of state sovereignty, the right of a state to secede from the Union. Therefore, if I had not believed there was justifiable cause; if I had thought that Mississippi was acting without sufficient provocation, or without an existing necessity, I should still, under my theory of the government, because of my allegiance to the state of which I am a citizen, have been bound by her action. I, however, may be permitted to say that I do think that she has a justifiable cause, and I approve of her act. I conferred with her people before that act was taken, counseled them then that, if the state of things which they apprehended should exist when the convention met, they should take the action which they have now adopted.
And let us not forget what Mississippi said was the reason for its secession.
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery." [Mississippi Declaration of Causes] Davis admits that he conferred with thenm and counseled them prior to the action of secession, and that he approved the act as well as the reasons for the act.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawna
[font=Comic Sans MS]It has been a conviction of pressing necessity, it has been a belief that we are to be deprived in the Union of the rights which our fathers bequeathed to us, which has brought Mississippi into her present decision. She has heard proclaimed the theory that all men are created free and equal, and this made the basis of an attack upon her social institutions; and the sacred Declaration of Independence has been invoked to maintain the position of the equality of the races.
What could be clearer? Mississippi has heard the theory that all men are created free and equal, that this has been the basis of an attack on slavery and white supremacy [her social institutions] and the DoI has been invoked to favor equality of the races. The only rights their fathers bequeathed them that was imperiled by this was the right to own slaves, to take those slaves into territories, to be the superior race, and to oppress the "inferior" race.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawna
That Declaration of Independence is to be construed by the circumstances and purposes for which it was made. The communities were declaring their independence; the people of those communities were asserting that no man was born - to use the language of Mr. Jefferson - booted and spurred to ride over the rest of mankind; that men were created equal - meaning the men of the political community; that there was no divine right to rule; that no man inherited the right to govern; that there were no classes by which power and place descended to families, but that all stations were equally within the grasp of each member of the body politic.
These were the great principles they announced; these were the end to which their enunciation was directed. They have no reference to the slave; else, how happened it that among the items of arraignment made against George III was that he endeavored to do just what the North had been endeavoring of late to do - to stir up insurrection among our slaves?Had the declaration announced that the negroes were free and equal, how was the prince to be arraigned for stirring up insurrection among them? And how was this to be enumerated among the high crimes which caused the colonies to sever their connection with the mother country? When our Constitution was formed, the same idea was rendered more palpable, for there we find provision made for the very class of persons as property; they were not put upon the footing of equality with white men - not even upon that of paupers and convicts; but, so far as representation was concerned, were discriminated against as a lower caste, only to be represented in the numerical proportion of three-fifths.
Here he denies that the Declaration of Independence applied to black men, and proclaims that the Constitution embraced white supremacy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawna
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.[/b]
Those rights being the right to have slaves and to be the superior race and continue oppressing the "inferior" race.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawna
I interpret this paragraph and the rest of Mr. Davis' speech quite differently than you do. Mr. Davis states that the 'equality of men' was understood to be found within the realm of political community; and the belief that 'negroes' were morally, socially, politically, and intellectually inferior was a conviction held by all United States citizens.
Davis' reasons for secession are quite clear--the threat to slavery and the possibility of black equality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawna
I see the premise of Mr. Davis' speech to be a final averment that the South should be left alone to exercise government of their own consent. And I think it's important to remember that not only did Mr. Davis and his wife adopt a black child into their family, but President Davis also encouraged and supported the education of his own black slaves, contrary to the law.
Davis could be personally kind and charitable to individual blacks, but that doesn't change the fact that he was a full-fledged supporter of slavery who denied the equality of blacks and maintained they were an inferior race.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawna
"Davis' reaction to the Emancipation Proclamation is instructive."
As leader of a newly formed country, I would expect Mr. Davis to be justifiably outraged at not only invasion by the United States of America, but subsequently by a proclamation that was exclusive, less than noble, and clever political maneuvering.
I suggest you read Allen Guelzo's Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation: The End of Slavery in America for a more true view of the EP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawna
Rum and eggnog?
If you don't mind, I'll take my eggnog without the rum.
Thank you for your excellent post # 122 which provides the entire text of President Davis's speech and not 'snippets.' In uneditited form, we can read for ourselves exacly what Mr. Davis clearly intended in his "all men are created equal" statement in (that) 'political men' who represent their people are equal. The neo-unionist attempt to negatively portray the statement is most evident after your clarification.
Again, Dawna, thank you for providing a non partisan and historically accurate record regarding this matter which provides immense clarification and isolates neo-union agenda and fallacy.
Thank you for your excellent post # 122 which provides the entire text of President Davis's speech and not 'snippets.' In uneditited form, we can read for ourselves exacly what Mr. Davis clearly intended in his "all men are created equal" statement in (that) 'political men' who represent their people are equal. The neo-unionist attempt to negatively portray the statement is most evident after your clarification.
Again, Dawna, thank you for providing a non partisan and historically accurate record regarding this matter which provides immense clarification and isolates neo-union agenda and fallacy.
Most Respectfully,
Alabaman
Alabaman,
To quote an entire text of a primary document does indeed provide a "non partisan and historically accurate record." It is in the misinterpretation of the text, or parts of it, that fallacy appears and an agenda is revealed. The speech clearly shows that Davis advocates secession to preserve the right to own slaves. He also distorts the meaning of the Declaration of Independence to serve his agenda of preserving racial inequality. Here is a passage from his speech, as Dawna quoted it:
[begin quote] It has been a conviction of pressing necessity, it has been a belief that we are to be deprived in the Union of the rights which our fathers bequeathed to us, which has brought Mississippi into her present decision. She has heard proclaimed the theory that all men are created free and equal, and this made the basis of an attack upon her social institutions; and the sacred Declaration of Independence has been invoked to maintain the position of the equality of the races. That Declaration of Independence is to be construed by the circumstances and purposes for which it was made. The communities were declaring their independence; the people of those communities were asserting that no man was born - to use the language of Mr. Jefferson - booted and spurred to ride over the rest of mankind; that men were created equal - meaning the men of the political community; that there was no divine right to rule; that no man inherited the right to govern; that there were no classes by which power and place descended to families, but that all stations were equally within the grasp of each member of the body politic.
These were the great principles they announced; these were the end to which their enunciation was directed. They have no reference to the slave; else, how happened it that among the items of arraignment made against George III was that he endeavored to do just what the North had been endeavoring of late to do - to stir up insurrection among our slaves?Had the declaration announced that the negroes were free and equal, how was the prince to be arraigned for stirring up insurrection among them? And how was this to be enumerated among the high crimes which caused the colonies to sever their connection with the mother country? When our Constitution was formed, the same idea was rendered more palpable, for there we find provision made for the very class of persons as property; they were not put upon the footing of equality with white men - not even upon that of paupers and convicts; but, so far as representation was concerned, were discriminated against as a lower caste, only to be represented in the numerical proportion of three-fifths.
[end quote]
Davis has taken the great words of Jefferson declaring the equality of all men, emerging directly from the universal ideals of the Enlightenment, and hobbled them to apply only to an already ascendant ruling class. Then, in the last sentence of the above passage, has the temerity to claim that the Constitution provided for representation of slaves. It does no such thing, of course. What it does is give slave-owners greater representation than free people. Slaves get absolutely no representation at all, and their masters' power is further enhanced.
best,
marc
__________________ "It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues." - Abraham Lincoln
This is the same writer who got so many people's dander up before. I just couldn't resist the temptation to put something else out here for perusal.
__________________
__________________ 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.
And a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and all the members of Civil War Talk.
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
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
