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.
In other words, when the divergence occurs, what reasons could a minority give that would justify it's version triumph over the majority?
We really are speaking different languages. If a minority splits from a majority it is not imposing on it. It's "version" is not triumphing over that majority. It is merely leaving. In the way that a wife leaves her spouse, or a member leaves a club. We've been over this so many times, haven't we?
In order to answer this, look 50 years after the war. As it was our ability to stay out of WWI was tenuous at best. If we let the south go, who's to say that Zimmerman telegram in 1915 wouldn't have been directed at Richmond, promising Wash DC instead of the SW as was promised historically when directed at Mexico?
Excuse me. I know this was addressed to Dawna, but may I express an opinion? Really, this is just another variation on the much simpler statement: "We won't let you go because it might be inconvenient to us in the future."
Quote:
The south had a legal alternative if it wanted to leave, to seceede and rebel against a government because you cannot leave legally due to the lack of votes is what I would call hubris.
It is easy enough to talk about the supremacy of the will of the majority when you know that the demographic statistics have swung to the point where your region has a guaranteed permanent majority. It is quite a different matter when your region is in the minority. Everyone from Lincoln to Thad Stevens would have been singing a quite different song if the South outnumbered the North. In that case you would have heard rather more about "natural rights" and "invoking the spirit of '76" than about "obedience to the laws".
Everyone from Lincoln to Thad Stevens would have been singing a quite different song if the South outnumbered the North. In that case you would have heard rather more about "natural rights" and "invoking the spirit of '76" than about "obedience to the laws".
Bill,
The South had effectively controlled national politics up until the election of Lincoln, and the North had not "seceded." Should the country split itself apart every few years depending on demographic shifts and political influences?
best,
marc
__________________ "It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues." - Abraham Lincoln
Bill,
No problem with you commenting at all, I value your unique perspective on things.
Considering that southerners like Jefferson, Madision, Monroe, Clay and Calhoun, had no trouble running or achieving the Presidency, a claim of northern superiority is hard to believe. In fact the first three comprise the "Virginia dynasty" which held the presidency for 24 of the most crucial years ever to influence US law.. Its especially surprising since the south (Taney) controlled the Supreme Court in the years prior to the war, ie Dred Scott.
Respectfully,
Matt
We really are speaking different languages. If a minority splits from a majority it is not imposing on it. It's "version" is not triumphing over that majority. It is merely leaving. In the way that a wife leaves her spouse, or a member leaves a club. We've been over this so many times, haven't we?
In fact, they are indeed imposing their view on the majority. In 1860 and 1861 the majority of the country said there was no such right to unilateral secession. A minority imposed their views on the majority and attempted unilateral secession.
If liberty is the 'state of having freedom,' then it seems to me that in destroying state's rights, Southern people were left without liberty or individual rights.
State rights, except as would be tolerated by the majority, were effectively destroyed with the ratification of the Constitution.
If we define liberty as "the state of having freedom," because I am forced to stop at a red traffic light does that mean I have no liberty? When the police officer writes out the traffic ticket, do I protest that my having liberty demands that I must have the freedom to ignore traffic laws if that is my choice?
I have to obey the law, do I not? Isn't that an obligation I take on as a member of society?
Did the southern people, as members of the United States, have an obligation to obey the law they had a part in creating? I would say they did.
They cannot release themselves from that obligation. Rather, the other parties to the Constitution have to release them from it, just as when you take out a loan from a bank you cannot unilaterally release yourself from the obligation of repaying that loan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawna
I've repeatedly asked myself why, and what was so sacred about the Union cause that it had to be preserved at all costs. Could God and the rest of America really not have managed without the Southern states? I'm intrigued and chagrined by a concept that embraces liberty and opportunity, but then pulls up the drawbridge once you're in.
----------------------
"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 June 1798]
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawna
If it be asked, Who are the proper judges to determine when rulers are guilty of tyranny and oppression? I answer, the public. Not a few disaffected individuals, but the collective body of the state, must decide this question; for, as it is the collective body that invests rulers with their power and authority, so it is the collective body that has the sole right of judging whether rulers act up to the end if their institution or not." (The Right to Rebel Against Governors: Reverend Samuel West, Boston, 1776)
------------------------------------
The collective body. And who are the proper judges to determine if the rulers of the United States are guilty of tyranny and oppression, not a few disaffected states but the collective body of the nation. The people of all the states.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawna
Was the justice of the Union cause greater than that of the South
In 1860 and 1861 the majority of the country said there was no such right to unilateral secession. A minority imposed their views on the majority and attempted unilateral secession.
My bed calls, but I can manage a last, weary post before I disappear.
Disagreeing with someone is not the same thing as imposing your views on them. Only someone with fundamentally undemocratic views would want to outlaw disagreement. Nobody with healthy democratic instincts would ever, under any circumstances, be happy with a situation in which people are compelled to remain part of a country against their will. Why on earth would any democrat want to coerce other people?
Disagreeing with someone is not the same thing as imposing your views on them. Only someone with fundamentally undemocratic views would want to outlaw disagreement. Nobody with healthy democratic instincts would ever, under any circumstances, be happy with a situation in which people are compelled to remain part of a country against their will. Why on earth would any democrat want to coerce other people?
Bill,
Holding an opinion about the legality of unilateral secession is not the same as instigating an armed rebellion. Enforcing the law is not the same as imposing your view on someone. Coercion is often necessary when enforcing the law. Those who believed in the legality of unilateral secession were free to find ways to test their beliefs in the court system without resorting to warfare.
best,
marc
__________________ "It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues." - Abraham Lincoln
Disagreeing with someone is not the same thing as imposing your views on them. Only someone with fundamentally undemocratic views would want to outlaw disagreement. Nobody with healthy democratic instincts would ever, under any circumstances, be happy with a situation in which people are compelled to remain part of a country against their will. Why on earth would any democrat want to coerce other people?
This went beyond mere disagreement. They actually acted, thus imposing their view on the majority who opposed them.
I have to obey the law, do I not? Isn't that an obligation I take on as a member of society?
Cash:
We are discussing responsible liberty and not absolute liberty...yes?
"Did the southern people, as members of the United States, have an obligation to obey the law they had a part in creating? I would say they did."
And I would say that Southern people, like the rest of U.S. citizens, had every right to self-determination.
"They cannot release themselves from that obligation." There is no obligation by any group of people to live in a climate of oppression.
"The collective body. And who are the proper judges to determine if the rulers of the United States are guilty of tyranny and oppression, not a few disaffected states but the collective body of the nation. The people of all the states."
A few disaffected States? Are you suggesting that the North should also have determined whether or not the Confederacy had legitimate concerns...that Southern people were incapable of distinguishing their own needs and establishing their future?
I'm having a difficult time understanding the concept that liberty should be settled by the numbers; that a group of people who peacefully left an unsuitable government are viewed as having imposed (a tricky feat when you're the minority) their will on the majority; and that anyone would want to keep another beyond and against their will. The very notion chills me to the bone.
"Yes."
Cash, please explain to me in what way (s) the Union cause was more noble, sophisticated, and just, than that of the South.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
