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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
So, even the natural right to revolution is not actually natural, but rather has conditions that must be met before a people can revolt?
Quote:
I think you misunderstand the definition of a "natural right."
Regards,
Cash
Perhaps I do.
Or do I?
Benjamin Franklin: Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can.
Which of these natural rights do you think carry conditions which must be met in order to exercise them?
I have a say in who is elected in the federal government. Does that mean I am governing myself?
Hal
Hal,
In my opinion it does. Did you want the ability to personally choose who serves in the federal government, or have veto power over Constitutionally elected officials if you don't approve of the choice?
best,
marc
__________________ "It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues." - Abraham Lincoln
Forgive me, Hal, for the offense!! Swithing from a personal to a formal style was my hamhanded way of trying to convey no disrespect is intended. Does come off oafish, so indeed sorry about that!
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
Ed, if you have answered it, perhaps I missed the post.
Can you refer me to a post # to help me find it? If I missed it I apologize.
No worries at all, Hal. It is i who apologizes for being so hasty. i was thinking of the third paragraph in my original post and the tenor of my responses, not just on this thread but also '76/'61, Vermont Secedes etc, which is making the mistake of painting with too wide a brush and the asinine assumption that my word is eagerly awaited by the vast adoring cwt fans.
I shall try to explain: Each side had its 'conception' of liberty. Each side felt the other had violated its' ideal of liberty. And primordialy, each side felt its conception of liberty was unsafe in the hands of the other. The Union saw that the South refused to abide by the results of a lawful national election in which it fully participated, thus showing contempt for the rule of Law and the rights of the majority. (Granted Lincoln did not receive a majority of the popular vote, but there were 4 candidates to split the vote, not 2, and he won the electoral vote.) What's more, instead of regarding Northern abhorrence about the extension of slavery, the extension of slavery was demanded. In other words, the appearance was one of Southerners not caring at all about what the North thought important, about the rule of Law, and about the rights of the majority.
To the South, the North understood nor cared a whit about their position in the Union, a diminished political voice by virtue of numbers, nor the presence of more slave states that would contribute to the balance of concerns for Southern rights. The North in other words, meant to rule by right of majority and the South would have lesser and finally no say in issues which deeply affected its culture and society and well being. The North (or sections of it) could even applaud an attempt to incite a murderous slave uprising (John Brown's raid) against their own countrymen! What manner of brutish being was this??!!
Neither section could any longer trust its conception of liberty with the other. This all happened over the course of generations, but its evolution and the dissolution of the trust needed to make a union work made the likelihood of compromise (also needed to make union work) less and less likely. And so the South takes the tack of setting up its own protective-of-its-own-liberties union. This new union is regarded as illegitimate by the former inclusive Union. I know Hal that you feel a war was unnessary, but how do these jealous and distrustful 'unions' coexist side by side with these issues unresolved between them? War can only result, again, as i see it. Which leads me to-
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
I have such a hard time comprehending how liberty was preserved by fighting to thwart it, or whatever one prefers to call it.
Thanks!
Hal
My answer is that liberty was preserved by staying true to one's conception of liberty, sacrificing a part of one's self interest for the good of the whole, and a willingness to preserve it against all threats. As each side was a threat to the other, I do not say liberty was preserved by fighting to thwart it, but that the fight was to defend its own.
Lastly I would add Hal, that you list on pg 1 of this thread, all those countries- 'examples of dis-union for the goal of greater liberty'- that there was an element of union within each country which could fight for its liberties, and that each did have to fight for it in some manner to gain it. it was not granted to any of them for the mere wishing.
My hat is off to you Hal, an indomitable warrior for the conception of liberty of your 'union,' the Confederacy. greatest regards (no sir this time ) 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'
-Father Dennis Edward O'Brien, USMC.
Last edited by ewc; 12-16-2005 at 04:04 PM.
Reason: What i meant to say.....
So, the only obligations you are referring to are those that presuppose the Hotel California theory of union?
Hal
Hal,
South Carolina, et al, did not check into the "Hotel California," they became part of the "Hotel California." You can check out of a hotel any time you want, assuming you've paid your bill, but you can't take a wing of the building with you when you go.
best,
marc
__________________ "It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues." - Abraham Lincoln
Replying to Hal leaves me with no time to review the rest of the thread- they have a habit of expanding by leaps and bounds and running away from one, making them sometimes impossible to read- I hate it when that happens. But a few things:
Concerning Alabaman's discourse (post #24), it is my turn to extend plaudits for his understanding of the issues behind the Southern drive for independence- two things in particular, the first being the assumption of the planter aristocracy in its drive to maintain slavery in presuming to represent the interests of the entire South when it was the interests of themselves that was of most importance to them. In many ways, their interests and that of the common southern man were the same or interlaced, but it does not mean that they were the be all and end all of the Southern spectrum. Secondly, Rob stands firm in that the interests of the Southern man were not necessarily seen by him as being adequately represented by the Union. They too felt the threat to their liberties in the rise of the Republican Party and they had doubts about their safeguards within the Union. And that they too felt a safety of their liberties in the Confederacy regardless of the interests of an aristocratic class.
We need to continue this type of discourse where proponents of each side can weigh the pros and cons, strengths and weaknesses, inherent in the history of 'his' section. Excellent job, Alabaman.
Also, i haven't seen UnionBlue since he started this great discussion. Where are you, Neil, buddy? you are always right in the thick of things! Are you sitting back this time, letting the rest of us butt heads while you relax, smile, and enjoy? A page from my book; we have switched roles. I am getting mighty bruised up i tell you. That Hal though, we got alot of arrows in him, but he doesn't seem to notice. If there had been more like him with Bragg on Missionary Ridge, I don't think we get up there so well.
__________________ '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'
Bill, what is liberty? Your own, personal view, if you would.
Blimey, talk about a big question. Well, in this context I take it to mean the liberty to determine one’s own nationality and the form of government to which one gives consent. If anyone else gets to make either of these decisions for you, you aren’t remotely free. It doesn’t matter whether the people taking the decision on your behalf are your neighbours from other counties/states/countries, or your own grandparents who signed documents supposedly committing you to an allegiance about which you were never personally consulted.
They had made an obligation to the Constitution and to the other parties to the Constitution.
Actually, “they” – the people who signed the ordinances of secession in the various states – had done nothing of the kind. Their grandfathers or great-grandfathers may or may not have done. Do you feel bound by the whims and preferences of your long mouldering ancestors? I confess that I don’t.
Every nation has its own mythology. That's entirely natural. Part of yours appears to involve imbuing the Founding Fathers with disproportionate qualities of perception, intellect and judgment. Is it really likely that they were so much brighter than their descendants? Is it really likely that, from the perspective of the late 18th century, they devised a system which nobody living one or two hundred years later should ever think about criticising? It's nothing to do with me, but this notion strikes me as improbable.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Swithing from a personal to a formal style was my hamhanded way of trying to convey no disrespect is intended. Does come off oafish, so indeed sorry about that!
Linear Mode
