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.
We live in a polychromatic world. Reducing it to black and white ignores its beauty.
Ole
At times, all the color gets washed out, and only black or white are left as options. It happens quite frequently, actually. And the choice must be made between black or white.
At times, one must either embrace the right of people to govern themselves, or one must condone coercion to deny that right.
Hal,
I am not saying each individual is not responsible for their own actions or that they cannot be self-sufficient. I would argue the Liberty and Union are intertwined, because one would not exist, in the US context, without the other. Since both were born out of the same conflict with Britain, I would argue the other 37 states have been add ons (no offense) to that basic east coast framework and values, starting with the NW ordinance straight through to the statehood vote of Alaska and Hawaii. Of course there were separate reasons for picking up individual states or groups of them ie the SW, but on the whole it was an expansion of the status quo born on the atlantic coast, with the mason dixon line as the eventual dividing line.
Respectfully,
Matt
At times, one must either embrace the right of people to govern themselves, or one must condone coercion to deny that right.
Respectfully, nonsense.
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
Hal,
I am not saying each individual is not responsible for their own actions or that they cannot be self-sufficient. I would argue the Liberty and Union are intertwined, because one would not exist, in the US context, without the other.
No offense, but surely you can see the baselessness of this statement? It is simply not true, assuming you are speaking in terms of a union of states. Any state of the current union could exist in happy and complete liberty without any political connection whatesoever to any of the other states.
Individual colonies declared their independence prior to the united declaration, and were quite willing and happy and even expected to go it completely alone. Obviously, there are often benefits to union that outweigh the benefits of going it alone, so political ties are formed with others.
Many of our states are larger in area and have more natural resources than scores of nations all over the world. There is absolutely no reason any of them could not prosper in every way without any political ties binding them to another state.
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?
They had made an obligation to the Constitution and to the other parties to the Constitution. If they wished to be released from that obligation they had to have the consent of those other parties. They cannot release themselves from an obligation to others they freely entered into any more than you can release yourself from the obligation of paying off the mortgage on your house.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
Why weren't they free to dissolve whatever political bands they saw fit? I thought our founders declared that right, in no uncertain terms.
Our Founders set down specific criteria to be met in order to exercise the natural right to revolution. The seceding states of 1860 and 1861 did not meet those criteria.
In regard to your request, I'll submit one point: The right of the South to govern itself.
They were indeed governing themselves. They elected local and state governments and they elected people to represent them in the national government. They had a say in who was elected to be President and Vice President of the national government as well.
They were indeed governing themselves. They elected local and state governments and they elected people to represent them in the national government. They had a say in who was elected to be President and Vice President of the national government as well.
Regards,
Cash
I have a say in who is elected in the federal government. Does that mean I am governing myself?
Originally Posted by hawglips
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 had made an obligation to the Constitution and to the other parties to the Constitution. If they wished to be released from that obligation they had to have the consent of those other parties. They cannot release themselves from an obligation to others they freely entered into any more than you can release yourself from the obligation of paying off the mortgage on your house.
What obligations are you speaking of?
Those leaving the union were willing to settle any part of the bill they owed.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
Why weren't they free to dissolve whatever political bands they saw fit? I thought our founders declared that right, in no uncertain terms.
Quote:
Our Founders set down specific criteria to be met in order to exercise the natural right to revolution. The seceding states of 1860 and 1861 did not meet those criteria.
So, even the natural right to revolution is not actually natural, but rather has conditions that must be met before a people can revolt?
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
