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.
Hal has brought up an interesting point, when he asks the question which is more important, liberty or union?
To further explore the question, I would like to ask one of my own.
Is liberty possible without union?
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
"The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts." [George Washington, "Farewell Address," 1796]
The non-question, union or liberty, presumes one or the other. Kind of like, "do you still beat your wife?" The ability to separate the two says volumes about the asker.
What is liberty? Do what you please when you please? Let the devil take the hindmost? The mountain man had liberty, but he still had need of the organization that purchased his furs.
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
To argue that our founding fathers -- those whose fame and destiny was based on severing political ties with a larger entity; those that seceded from the British empire; those that sealed their libertarian convictions with their own blood -- did not believe liberty was possible without union, is simply amazing.
What is liberty? Do what you please when you please? Let the devil take the hindmost? The mountain man had liberty, but he still had need of the organization that purchased his furs.
Ole
But do you give him the liberty to organize according to the dictates of his own will and self-interest?
Or does someone else force him to do what they want him to do for the sake of unity?
To argue that our founding fathers -- those whose fame and destiny was based on severing political ties with a larger entity; those that seceded from the British empire; those that sealed their libertarian convictions with their own blood -- did not believe liberty was possible without union, is simply amazing.
Amazing but true. Read the Federalist Papers. They believed Union was essential to liberty.
Cash, i would submit the founding fathers meant that Union was essential to the 'preservation' of liberty. A piddling little entity of a state or a loose confederation of states would be easy pickings for the first foreign power, particularly the British lion, to come along, thus extinguishing the newly gained and treasured, but highly vulnerable liberties and independence. What was won must be kept through a unity and coordination of strength, a togetherness requiring a Union. It was a necessity for survival in a hostile world, akin to the herding of hooved animals, protection in one group of large numbers. A lessening of self, a gaining of the whole.
It seems to me the Confederacy understood this- the Deep South seceding closely together and very quickly forming their own 'Union.' Wouldn't one think their newly 'won' independence might make them cherish this freedom a little while. Instead, these states went right to a new union of their own, submitting their own individuals wills as it were to a greater good- a more protective union, a Confederacy of like states. Furthermore, they had the wherewithal and will to protect their union as 5 years of war shows.
For good or ill, what we have are 2 unions and two conceptions of union, each guarding their own liberties, threatened by one another's existence. On the one hand, we have a union saying- 'We prefer it this way', and on the other hand, the Union saying- 'This new creation puts us at peril.' As Lincoln said, 'A house divided against itself cannot stand.' The house is halved, both sides topple. There is no way as I see it that these two 'unions' can stand side by side not a threat to one another, clash must result or either side's conception of and preservation of liberty is in peril. It has nothing to do with coercion, it has everything to do with the preservation of liberty.
__________________ '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'
Here's a few examples of dis-union for the goal of greater liberty:
North Carolina
Singapore
Denmark
Ukraine
Lithuania
Latvia
Belarus
Vermont
Georgia
Armenia
East Timor
Taiwan
Slovenia
Croatia
Serbia
Czech Republic
Slovakia
Norway
Sweden
Kazhakstan
Estonia
Kyrgyzstan
Uzbekistan
Moldova
Tajikistan
Uzbekistan
Azerbaijan
Venezuala
Ecuador
Finland
Bangladesh
Congo
Iceland
Eritrea
Cash, i would submit the founding fathers meant that Union was essential to the 'preservation' of liberty. A piddling little entity of a state or a loose confederation of states would be easy pickings for the first foreign power, particularly the British lion, to come along, thus extinguishing the newly gained and treasured, but highly vulnerable liberties and independence. What was won must be kept through a unity and coordination of strength, a togetherness requiring a Union. It was a necessity for survival in a hostile world, akin to the herding of hooved animals, protection in one group of large numbers. A lessening of self, a gaining of the whole.
A good point, but I will also stand by Union being essential to liberty. As they conceived that a republic was the best form of government to--pick your verb: preserve? establish?--liberty, I would add to that this from Thomas Jefferson:
"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]
Quote:
Originally Posted by ewc
It seems to me the Confederacy understood this- the Deep South seceding closely together and very quickly forming their own 'Union.' Wouldn't one think their newly 'won' independence might make them cherish this freedom a little while. Instead, these states went right to a new union of their own, submitting their own individuals wills as it were to a greater good- a more protective union, a Confederacy of like states. Furthermore, they had the wherewithal and will to protect their union as 5 years of war shows.
I would respectfully disagree, since they lost territory nearly every day, and the fighting was over in only 4 years. They never won their independence. In order to fight for their independence they had to unite to be strong enough, just as the 13 colonies had to unite to be strong enough to gain independence from Britain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ewc
For good or ill, what we have are 2 unions and two conceptions of union, each guarding their own liberties, threatened by one another's existence. On the one hand, we have a union saying- 'We prefer it this way', and on the other hand, the Union saying- 'This new creation puts us at peril.' As Lincoln said, 'A house divided against itself cannot stand.' The house is halved, both sides topple. There is no way as I see it that these two 'unions' can stand side by side not a threat to one another, clash must result or either side's conception of and preservation of liberty is in peril. It has nothing to do with coercion, it has everything to do with the preservation of liberty.
I think I essentially agree, although with a few quibbles.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Liberty & Union? 
Linear Mode
