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.
The relationship between liberty & Union that no one seems to mention is a sense that there is something greater than self.
Liberty in its simplest definition is freedom from oppression, tyranny, false imprisonment, slavery...
Freedom is political independence; possesion of political rights; liberty.
Very simply put for liberty one must have freedom. Freedom from what? Freedom from oppression, tyranny, false imprisonment, slavery...
Union is a group of states joined under one govt for a common purpose; it might also be thought of as a marriage between two consenting adults. Of coarse there is always divorce... highly frowned upon even w/ just cause in the 19th Century... the only just cause I've seen was fabricated but that is for another thread. Joined together for a common purpose? Perhaps that purpose is enrichment, personal protection... what exactly is Union? Is it nationality? Similar cultural, religious & political backgrounds... not in the US.
Is liberty possible w/out Union? Not in this world. Hal how long would you last as a Nation of Hal? About long enough for somebody to see you as a target... A nation of self can't call for help from the police unless he hires them to watch them himself.
Union is a collection of states; a marriage if one will. Union, a nation is civilization. Divorce is far more acceptable today than in the 19th Century. Lets leave the divorce anologies alone as most are merely rhetoric. One doesn't leave a nation without consent. Same as saying that one does not leave a contract w/out consent.
Is liberty possible w/out Union... not for very long.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
So it is your view that a state (one of the states currently in the US) can be a viable nation, that is, this would be a fair example of a self-government entity, is that correct?
That is correct. Not only a fair example, but the natural entity, and the component part that combined to create our union of states.
Quote:
But, for example, what if part of that state did not wish to be part of that entity and it wished self-government? What do you feel the proper course of action of the original state should be?
Unionblue
If the people of a city, say Los Angeles, wished to sever her political ties with California, they should not be forced to remain against their will.
Practically speaking, they would of course weigh the benefits against the drawbacks, and decide whether it made sense or not.
I don't know, but I imagine it would be difficult to establish that a legal right exists for a city to secede from one of our states, unlike one of our states seceding from our union of states. The US Constitution was written to protect a state from any such divisions without her consent, so that could complicate the legal picture for LA. But California should indeed allow her to govern herself if she so wished.
So, in the case of 1776, the view of the people of the English Empire was the only legitimate one on the question of whether her American colonies had a legitimate gripe?
Cash, at least you are consistently against liberty.
My point concerning the failure of the Confederacy to become a nation has to do with it's inability to unite behind a common ideal or concept of liberty and self-government. Jefferson Davis was NOT lamneting the lack of troops in the armies when he made the statement that if the Confederacy failed as a nation, it should have written on it's tombstone, 'Died of a Theory.'
I'm more inclined to believe the CSA died of the theory of might makes right. Death tends to follow extreme physical trauma inflicted by grape and 50 caliber.
It would have been very interesting to see what would have happened had they been allowed to operate in peace. I'm inclined to think she would have quickly proven to be a more perfect union than the previous one.
Unless I am very much mistaken, the argument being put forward here goes something like this:
1. Unless you are a citizen of one of the most powerful countries in the world, you can never be sure that some bigger nation isn't going to come along and conquer you.
2. Your apparent freedom is, therefore, illusory.
3. If, therefore, you do happen to be a citizen of a powerful nation and your region/state tries to leave it, the rest of the country is actually acting in your interests if it kills your neighbours in sufficient numbers to force your region/state to return to its allegiance. It is saving you from a fate worse than death: that of being a citizen of a relatively small nation.
All that matters is belonging to an entity which is powerful.
At the time when I first started dabbling in CWT I was happy for my government to routinely back American foreign policy. After a couple of years of absorbing the various opinions floating around CWT I can safely say that I now have a nearly opposite point of view.
At the time when I first started dabbling in CWT I was happy for my government to routinely back American foreign policy. After a couple of years of absorbing the various opinions floating around CWT I can safely say that I now have a nearly opposite point of view.
Up until a few short years ago, I never imagined that Americans have the sorts of opinions of liberty and self-government that seem to be the majority view on the various boards I have participated in.
It saddens me to no end, and makes me wonder what will become of us.
So, in the case of 1776, the view of the people of the English Empire was the only legitimate one on the question of whether her American colonies had a legitimate gripe?
The English Empire is not the American people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
Cash, at least you are consistently against liberty.
On the contrary. I'm not the one defending people who rebelled for the purpose of continuing to keep slaves.
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery." [Mississippi Declaration of Causes]
If the people of a city, say Los Angeles, wished to sever her political ties with California, they should not be forced to remain against their will.
Then you disagree with the founder's intentions and find their philosophy lacking?
Quote:
Practically speaking, they would of course weigh the benefits against the drawbacks, and decide whether it made sense or not.
And of course the founder's allowed the state, in this case California, to have the same option, to decide if it was in their best interest.
Quote:
The US Constitution was written to protect a state from any such divisions without her consent, so that could complicate the legal picture for LA. But California should indeed allow her to govern herself if she so wished.
The second sentence above doesn't seem compatible with the first, but instead embraces a philosophy of general and automatic autonomy to any entity 'so wishing.' The US Constitution requires mutual consent for the separation, with coercion to remain in union with California, if necessary, the constitutional result if mutual consent cannot be had. It can be judged by modern lofty ideals of absolute liberty that such coercion is contradictory to freedom, yet it appears to me that the US Constitution thus holds absolute liberty for self-government in second place to the authority the federal government and the Constitution are empowered with.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
