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.
What an interesting thread. And yet, at the same time, what an incomprehensible one.
Quote:
Is liberty possible without union?
Without union with whom? The word means nothing unless you qualify it.
Whether or not a group of people enjoy liberty has nothing to do with the number of people who are their fellow-citizens. It has everything to do with the reciprocal relationship between government and citizen.
There seems to be some confusion between the concepts of liberty and security. There is no doubt that liberty is, to some extent, dependent on security. Which generally means security through strength. But that is not at all the same thing as saying that it is impossible to enjoy liberty without being a global superpower. Nevertheless that is what I understand most pro-Union people on these boards to be saying. Unless you cling relentlessly to every square foot of territory which has ever formed part of the Union you appear to fear that you will be sucked down into a nightmarish existence of impotence and oppression.
In so doing you have made a Faustian pact in which you have surrendered the real liberty which comes from the right to self-determination, in order to hang on to the illusory liberty which comes from being bigger and stronger than everyone else. Ah, my foolish friends. It will come back to haunt you in the long term.
In so doing you have made a Faustian pact in which you have surrendered the real liberty which comes from the right to self-determination, in order to hang on to the illusory liberty which comes from being bigger and stronger than everyone else. Ah, my foolish friends. It will come back to haunt you in the long term.
If they possessed that right, then why did Lincoln and the northern states prevent them from exercising i?
Hal
Self-government is not anarchy. They were free to exercise it through the political, legislative, and judicial processes within the Union. They were not free to dissolve the Social Contract. Self-government does not mean that each and every one of us has the right to do whatever we want and get whatever we want regardless of the outcome of free, fair, and Constitutional elections. I can't declare my home a sovereign self-governing nation. My neighborhood cannot do so, the local mall, if they don't like the local tax codes or employment regulations, cannot do so, and neither can my city, county, or state. The concept of self-government itself only has meaning within a specific social context, otherwise it is merely a Hobbesian war of all-against-all. Of course, the Southern secessionists could try to break the social contract, but the federal government was entitled, and in fact bound, to resist this unlawful rebellion against the Social Contract, i.e. the U.S. Constitution. The Southern Secessionists were very willing to invoke the Constitution against the right of self-government when it came to defending slavery, so barring a legal right to withdraw from the Union, the appeal to self-government by the secessionists falls rather flat.
best,
marc
__________________ "It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues." - Abraham Lincoln
Self-government is not anarchy. They were free to exercise it through the political, legislative, and judicial processes within the Union.
You are right. Self-government is not anarchy. It is a beautiful and inalienable right.
Are you saying that they were free to exercise "self-government" only within the Union? That as long as they agreed to be governed by who the union said they had to be governed by, then that kind of "self-government" was allowed? But any other kind, like the kind where they actually governed themselves, is not allowed?
Quote:
They were not free to dissolve the Social Contract. Self-government does not mean that each and every one of us has the right to do whatever we want and get whatever we want regardless of the outcome of free, fair, and Constitutional elections.
Why weren't they free to dissolve whatever political bands they saw fit? I thought our founders declared that right, in no uncertain terms.
If they were not free to decide for themselves regarding their own government, then there was no freedom to govern themselves.
Quote:
I can't declare my home a sovereign self-governing nation. My neighborhood cannot do so, the local mall, if they don't like the local tax codes or employment regulations, cannot do so, and neither can my city, county, or state.
So your city, county or state is not allowed to exercise their right to self-government.
Who then, qualifies for the right to govern themselves?
Quote:
The concept of self-government itself only has meaning within a specific social context, otherwise it is merely a Hobbesian war of all-against-all. Of course, the Southern secessionists could try to break the social contract, but the federal government was entitled, and in fact bound, to resist this unlawful rebellion against the Social Contract, i.e. the U.S. Constitution.
So, if I understand you correctly, the idea of government by consent of the governed, is not to be taken literally? Because no people can exercise that right without others' consent?
May I add: Not only the elite slaveholding aristocracy are held by me in disdainment, but the people responsible for capturing, transporting, selling or utilizing slaves or products made via slave labor, in any manner for profit. It wasn't ONLY the "slaveholders" proper who were responsible for the destruction of the South and thus my contemporary inability to state the numerous valid points the South had in desiring independence.
Marc, FYI: any valid point a pro-confederate member posts in regard to the South's validity in seperation from the union perpetually results in dismissal by (some/most) pro-union members due to a minority of slaveholders denying Liberty to slaves.
In regard to your request, I'll submit one point: The right of the South to govern itself.
I cannot see how our union could be described as faustian. Unlike when we were under the British crown, we directly elect the majority of those that make govt work in Wash, DC, or elect those that would appoint them. Even though the appointees are not directly elected by the US people, the congress, which is elected by the people cross-examines them. I humbly submit that it is not the concept of union that sparks such fear, but the inherent corruption within the system nowadays, not unlike those parliament (HOC) seats resulting from boroughs that could be bought. it is that corruption that led Rome, and still might lead us to a rather nasty fall. Obviously an incorruptible system is impossible to create when it comes to us humans, but by ensuring the penalties catch up with the corrupt before the fruits of the ill gotten labors do, i believe we can avoid the internal causes of Romes fall. You dont throw a gold ***** because it needs a pin for it's band do you? why permit the destruction of a system that has outlasted 2 centenials with one major internal fight? With all due respect to Hl, most of the nations on that list you typed up cannot let 2 decades go by without some kind of internal repression or strife.
Respectfully,
Matt
Union and Liberty are not mutually exclusive terms. There is however a responsibility not to let liberty go beyond the realms of common sense. On the other hand, Union should not be overbearing.
__________________ F. S. Powers
Union Ancersor: Pvt Arnuah Norton, 60th Ohio. (G-G-G Grandfather) Died at Salisbury NC, November 3, 1864
Confederate Ancestors: Captain Thomas A. Morrow, 29th Texas Cavalry (G-G-G- Uncle) and 2LT George W. Morrow, 31st Texas Cavalry (G-G-G Grandfather). Both survived the war
You make some interesting statements. Would you both answer some questions so that I may understand your postions?
Bill, what is liberty? Your own, personal view, if you would.
Hall, what is self-government? What is the lowest common denominator of what you would call self-government?
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
We live in a polychromatic world. Reducing it to black and white ignores its beauty.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
