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.
Great Jefferson quote, by the way. Goes a long way in explaining your basic premise, with which i basically agree.
Rob, thank ye kindly sir- much appreciated. 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'
"But if on a temporary superiority of the one party, the other is to resort to a scission of the Union, no federal government can ever exist." [Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 4 Jun 1798]
That is due to the nature of a republican form of government.
However, it doesn't touch the topic of liberty vs. union.
I think you're right that Union is essential to the preservation of liberty, but Union was also essential to establishing liberty for the 13 colonies. Otherwise the 13 individual colonies would have been easily crushed in detail. So I think I'll stand by my original position that Union is essential for liberty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ewc
Great Jefferson quote, by the way. Goes a long way in explaining your basic premise, with which i basically agree.
Thanks. It has the virtue of direct applicability to 1860 and 1861.
In the case of your USA/CSA example, exactly what liberty was being preserved by coercing the southern states?
Hal, where you see 'coercion', I see 'war.' I don't see any way these entities North and South split and there is no war. Your concept of coercion is intriguing to me as mine no doubt is to you. To me, 'coercion' is a double edged sword that cuts both ways, yet you will apply it only one way. I am afraid on this issue we will have to agree to disagree.
__________________ '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'
Hal, where you see 'coercion', I see 'war.' I don't see any way these entities North and South split and there is no war. Your concept of coercion is intriguing to me as mine no doubt is to you. To me, 'coercion' is a double edged sword that cuts both ways, yet you will apply it only one way. I am afraid on this issue we will have to agree to disagree.
I was using your words:
Quote:
It has nothing to do with coercion, it has everything to do with the preservation of liberty.
But never mind. It doesn't matter.
Just what liberty was being preserved by "it" (insert your preferred terminology for the north's actions to prevent the south's secession)?
Just what liberty was being preserved by "it" (insert your preferred terminology for the north's actions to prevent the south's secession)?
Hal, 'It' as i see it is the sanctity of the Union and the establishment of a second union for its own reasons, each guarding its ideal of liberty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
I, on the other hand, see no reason whatsoever for war.
God love you for that, Hal, but that sounds more like fancy than practicality. One side sets up its union within the bounds of what the already established union considers part of it and this setting up illegitimate. No matter the ins and outs of the thing, there is going to be trouble.
We are simply never going to look at this particular elephant but from one of us at the trunk end and the other at the tail end. Wanna wrassle over who gets put at the tail end??
__________________ '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'
Originally Posted by hawglips
Just what liberty was being preserved by "it" (insert your preferred terminology for the north's actions to prevent the south's secession)?
Quote:
Hal, 'It' as i see it is the sanctity of the Union and the establishment of a second union for its own reasons, each guarding its ideal of liberty.
OK, you defined 'it.'
Can you now explain what liberty was being preserved by 'it'?
Can you now explain what liberty was being preserved by 'it'?
Hal
Hal, respectfully sir, i believe i have already done so. i will acknowledge though that it is highly unlikey i or anyone will to your satisfaction. That's okay though, you likewise have not explained why all our liberties were not preserved in our sacred Union and you must have another which noone could look at crosswise to my satisfaction. i hear that elephant trampling, till we wrassle, you get the hind end!! 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'
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
