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.
If the issue of 'states rights' was so sacrosanct to the secessionists, it is most ironic that before the ink was dry on the Confederate Constitution, that those 'rights' were being diminished by the very own government which they had created.
Don't ask me - refer to the statements of the governors and other politicians of the Confederate states.
__________________ -
"It was a very peculiar time." - Franklin D. Cossitt
Ancestors in USA Army: 6th IA Inf, 11th IL Cav, 1st AL Cav; 122nd NY Inf; 6th MI Cav; 35th MA Inf; 100th IL Inf; 1st CO Inf/Cav; 22nd IN Inf
Cedarstripper, my comment to Neil: "I’m not aware of the Southern states making any kind of stand for or against secession prior to 1860, so I can’t comment on that.", was in response to his remark:
"Even as late as the 1850's, most SOUTHERN states agreed that secession was nothing but treason and rebellion (Mississippi said so in no uncertain terms)."
The DeBow review you are offering here does not support what Neil says. I never doubted the Southern states believed in the right to secession. I had just not heard of them making any kind of a defiant stand for or against it prior to 1860. Secession wasn't thought up overnight. Southern states weren't even the first to entertain the idea. That much I'm aware of.
Regards,
Rose
__________________ "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names".--J.F.K.
The War Between the States established... This principle that the Federal Government is, through its courts, this final judge of its own powers.
-- Woodrow Wilson
Would you not agree that the keystone of any democracy is that the people consent to be governed? And if President Lincoln could break the Constitution to instigate war, then I'm inclined to believe that the President could have also broken the Constitution to avoid war, thus making an impeachment highly unlikely.
After all, Lincoln was a brilliant lawyer and a master wordsmith.
You suggest that the natural right to revolution is one which can only be resorted to in desperate circumstances.
I’m not sure I can agree. The Declaration of Independence avers that governments derive “their just Powers from the consent of the governed”, but it doesn’t say anything about the consent of the governed only being withdrawable under desperate circumstances. This is your own, bespoke rule which you’ve just made up.
And it certainly wasn’t a rule which governed the behaviour of American revolutionaries in the 1770s. I have much sympathy with some of their grievances, but you can hardly tell me that their position was truly desperate.
Moreover, as you have patiently explained to me in the past, one can’t even say that a clear majority of colonists favoured the Revolution.
And while the legality and constitutionality of secession in 1861 is a subject which prompts lively debate, there isn’t the slightest suggestion of any legal basis (that is, a basis in British law) for the rebellion in the 1770s.
And while you will obviously seek to make hay out of the slavery issue, I look at 1776 and see a slaveholders’ rebellion then as well.
All of which is my preamble to reminding you that your nation was founded on a bedrock of treason and rebellion. They constitute the very foundations of your culture and society. I mean no criticism by this: I think that a little treason now and then can be a good and healthy thing.
But it does present Unionists with a major credibility problem when they try to come on all aghast and offended at Southern “rebellion”. Of all the nations on the earth in 1861, the one which had least right to object to “treason” was the one whose own traitorous origins were still warm in everyone’s memories. It’s a classic case of “Don’t do as we did; do as we say.” There’s a simple word for it, and that is “hypocrisy”.
It takes a special kind of chutzpah to celebrate July 4th while at the same time calling Jeff D. a “treasonous bastard”, as one of our plain-speaking fellow-members does from time to time. Chutzpah, and a certain deficiency of logic. When you come right down to it, the argument seems to be that “rebellion” in 1776 was “okay” because the discomfited party was Britain; but “rebellion” in 1861 was a moral outrage because the discomfited party was the United States. I’m not remotely offended by this vaguely Anglophobic reasoning, but you can’t expect me to be taken in by it either.
Bill
Last edited by bill_torrens; 02-03-2006 at 05:07 AM.
There is so much I agree with in your recent post.
Yes, the Rebellion of 1776 was just that, an illegal rebellion conducted by about one third of the population of the American colonies of the time. There was no legal basis for the rebellion in 1776 nor did the American colonists claim any. They merely stated their grievences in the Declaration of Independence.
This is not a rule 'that I have just made up' the rule that one can only rebel under desperate circumstances. Rebellions are made up, on the whole, of desperate people who feel this action is their last, desperate course of action.
I too, tend to think, that a little rebellion now and then, is a good thing. But don't try to hide it as some sort of legal action and then act surprised when others object to it.
I still contend Bill, that the South had nothing in common with the Rebels of 1776 when it came to their grievences, that to claim the South was taking a dubious legal action to ensure its liberty and independence does not even come close to the Declaration of Independence. In my own opinion. I would contend the Union said, "Do as we did, Not something out of mid-air for the worst of reasons."
You do not have to be taken in, dear friend, nor feel our celebration of the 4th of July is some massive contradiction. It is meant to celebrate our separation from England by a successful revolution. Nowhere do we mention our court battle was a success.
Take care,
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
Would you not agree that the keystone of any democracy is that the people consent to be governed? And if President Lincoln could break the Constitution to instigate war, then I'm inclined to believe that the President could have also broken the Constitution to avoid war, thus making an impeachment highly unlikely.
After all, Lincoln was a brilliant lawyer and a master wordsmith.
Dawna
Dawna,
I don't believe that Lincoln broke the Constitution, nor do I think that he "instigated war." Was it unconstitutional to send a resupply convoy to a federal facility? When calling for troops, he was acting on the explicit authority granted by the Militia Act of 1795.
best,
marc
__________________ "It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues." - Abraham Lincoln
And if President Lincoln could break the Constitution to instigate war, then I'm inclined to believe that the President could have also broken the Constitution to avoid war, thus making an impeachment highly unlikely.
I would be most interested in the specific instance of breaking the Constitution to instigate war. If you please.
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
After all, Lincoln was a brilliant lawyer and a master wordsmith.
And, he firmly believed in the Constitution, treading very lightly with actions that might seem unconstitutional.
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
And if President Lincoln could break the Constitution to instigate war, then I'm inclined to believe that the President could have also broken the Constitution to avoid war, thus making an impeachment highly unlikely.
Dawna,
I respectfully suggest that this is a classic example of "begging the question."
I will also suggest this:
The parallel between 1776 and 1861 is that both were illegal rebellions.
The difference is in who won and who lost.
Rebellion is not an unusual response when a people believe that a government is unjust. However, those who rebel need to remain mindful of the consequences.
__________________ "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
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
I would contend the Union said, "Do as we did, Not something out of mid-air for the worst of reasons."
Linear Mode
