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.
Dawna,
Consent of the governed does not mean that each person has the right to give or revoke consent at any moment. It means that legitimacy rests on a democrat process that allows those being governed to fully participate in the political process and decision-making. Once an election is over, as in the fall of 1860, those who lost could not just take their ball and go home, crying "consent of the governed." They had participated, and lost. They had every right and ability to continue to participate in order to influence legislation, have access to the courts, and organize to try again in the next elections.
Marc:
Knowing that the North would never agree to letting the South go, and rather than encumber the Courts for decades with unresolvable secession issues; I believe that the actions of the Confederacy were both responsible, and within reason.
Knowing that the North would never agree to letting the South go, and rather than encumber the Courts for decades with unresolvable secession issues; I believe that the actions of the Confederacy were both responsible, and within reason.
Dawna
Dawna,
I guess we disagree on this.
best,
marc
__________________ "It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues." - Abraham Lincoln
Actually Neil, I was responding to Samgrant's statement, "The war was not 'fought over slavery' it was fought because of a rebellion of states which valued the institution of slavery above the concept of Union." I didn't infer that the South was blameless, but I am quite certain there would not have been a war if President Lincoln had not invaded Virginia, since the South had already peacefully withdrawn from the Union.
But I would be interested to hear why you think preservation of the Union was more important than the security of over 600,000 lives.
Dawna
Dawna,
Was a failed attempt to split the Union for the purpose of preserving slavery worth over 600,000 lives?
best,
marc
__________________ "It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues." - Abraham Lincoln
Marc has done very well responding for my on this one, but I will add one more question to you.
Did the South have the right to risk the enormous loss of life that a war could bring?
I'm sorry, but I need a reason, a real reason. In what way was the South being hurt or denied, that led them to believe that war was the only alternative?
Not the tariff, not $1.94 a year. Not an intrusive federal government, one that could barely man all of its outposts and forts with its army and only having a handful of federal marshalls. What harm was being done? What legislation was passed or enacted that harmed Southern rights or representation or legal means?
We have all agreed on this board, the North did not go to war over slavery. So what was it? What drove the South to go with acts of war? With your own question, I ask, what was worth the spilling of hundreds of thousands blood? What was worth the risk of bloody war that had the only answer of inevitable armed conflict?
And don't delude yourself that the Southern leadership thought that there was going to be any other conclusion to their acts of rebellion. They KNEW this was a possibilty when they embarked on such a course of action and with millions of people being affected by this course, they gambled with all the nation's lives.
Give me an answer from your heart, your guts, if you will, give me a reason I can believe beyond staples and stock replies, and I will listen.
But give me a reason.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
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
And don't delude yourself that the Southern leadership thought that there was going to be any other conclusion to their acts of rebellion.
Amidst the questions of what was worth the loss of 600,000 men, I think it probable that not in the wildest dreams of any of these men would it have been considered that the war would in the end be so long and costly. Isn't that true of most wars?
In fairness to the secessionists, had several other things turned in their favor early on, war might have been shortened, or avoided altogether. Had the rest of the slave states joined the confederacy; had Europe backed them and intervened in the embargo; had Lincoln balked; had Washington been taken; had many turn of events taken place, the CSA might today be celebrating their independence and Jeff Davis might adorn their dollar bill......or they might have diossolved within a decade. Had some things gone well for the Union early on, the South might have reconvened and aborted the act.
I will agree beforehand with what's coming: that men who start wars should have the foresight to seriously consider the maximum expense in all areas vs the political goals. But in the real world, when does this ever happen? 600,000 loyal casualties, but the men who start wars usually die in bed of old age.
I'm sorry, but I need a reason, a real reason. In what way was the South being hurt or denied, that led them to believe that war was the only alternative?
Neil, I don't mean to answer for Dawna, I'm interested in her answer, too. I just wanted to say one thing. Regardless of the reason, and IMO there wasn't "a" reason, but several of them, the country was split. It was more than dislike or disapproval of one another, it was downright hatred. We shouldn't have been forced to stay together.
I've never believed that the amount of area the U.S. occupies or how many U.S. citizens we have is what made this country great. If Lincoln ever said why he was so obstinate about letting the South go (other than questioning who would pay for the government) I'm not aware of it. I can only conclude it to be greed, because I don't believe that Lincoln reasoned that the Southern states would make or break the Union as far as being a great nation. Neither he nor the Northern people held that high of an opinion of the South or her people.
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
The Greed and Money of the North East States whom saw themselves looseing out as far as low overhead that the south enjoyed {Slavery} felt threatened. And acted, Pure and simple.
Then you must consider greed in its proper place. You must track this greed down to its source. My advice is to 'follow the money.' 'Pure and simple' it ain't.
If the North Eastern states were so eager for war, why did the businessmen lobby so hard against those New England abolishionists for fear that the slavery question would upset business? Why did New York City consider secession from the Union so that it could continue to be a 'free port' open for business? Why was Lincoln so upset with business leaders who came to the White House to warn him against war as it would upset business?
It is too easy to toss off a phrase 'greed' or 'money' without backing up such phrases with fact. Cedarstripper, Cash and myself, to name just a very few, have dug into the background to the charge that the tariff did it, and frankly there has been no adequate reply other than the same old charges of greed.
The charge of greed has been laid at the feet of the railroads, but further, detailed research proves this charge just as groundless as the tariff charge. Canals and other modes of transportation are brought up, as though somehow the means of raising money for these projects were somehow such a force of contention as to cause the war. Where is your proof? I have seen the stock phrases and words, but where is the proof?
And the proof is there, in the recorded proceedings of the government, in the Congressional Globe, government statistics and documents. It is in these documents to my satisfaction. Even Battalion has been good enough to provide some of it, although he intended it to go the other way.
Rose, while I accept that it is your belief that the size of the United States would make or break the Union, we must both concur that this is your opinion, nothing more. It matters little, just as little as mine does. The people of the US in the 1860s thought differently.
I also gather your opinion in what you believe the people of the North thought of the people of the South. Such is the conclusion you have drawn on your own readings and observations, but again, what is the proof of your beliefs on this opinion? My own is that the people of each section, the majority of which never traveld more than a few miles from where they were born, had no idea of what each section liked or disliked, accept for what they read in newspaper editorials.
We must let the people of the time speak for themselves. No matter how we feel about what they said and did.
Pure and Simple.
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
It is too easy to toss off a phrase 'greed' or 'money' without backing up such phrases with fact. Cedarstripper, Cash and myself, to name just a very few, have dug into the background to the charge that the tariff did it, and frankly there has been no adequate reply other than the same old charges of greed.
I’m sorry Neil, but I must to beg to differ. I, and others, have presented facts here. They are usually ignored or disregarded.
I do not believe the tariff was the sole cause of secession any more than I believe slavery was. There was a multitude of causes and that is why the proof you want hasn’t been as cut and dried as you would like. Georgia, in her causes for secession document claimed that once the protectionist tariff had been lowered to a reasonable rate that most people could live with comfortably the protectionists had to find another way to gain control in order the bring the tariff back up to a high rate. Because slavery had long been a source of disagreement between the North and South that is the course they chose to pursue. Georgia declared that it only needed someone to fan the embers in order to bring it up to a roaring fire. So…Georgia believed it was a tariff issue, only not on the part of the South but, on the part of the protectionists.
If it wasn’t greed, why did the Northern shipping tycoons and merchants get so irate over the Southern announcement of a near free trade policy? They became positively livid and some called for the immediate closing of Southern ports by force.
At any rate, the tariff was costly to the South with next to no benefit to be seen from it for them. This alone may not have been enough to secede over, but it was an important reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by unionblue
Rose, while I accept that it is your belief that the size of the United States would make or break the Union, we must both concur that this is your opinion, nothing more. It matters little, just as little as mine does. The people of the US in the 1860s thought differently.
Some of the people may have thought differently but, as you say, where’s the proof? I’ve never read where the Northern people believed the United States needed the Southern states in order to be a great country. In fact if there were anyway to ask them, I believe they would reply to the opposite. The North wanted the South for what she contributed to the Union. Had she been a liability I’m sure those lofty ideals of maintaining the Union would have flown out the window fast enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by unionblue
I also gather your opinion in what you believe the people of the North thought of the people of the South. Such is the conclusion you have drawn on your own readings and observations, but again, what is the proof of your beliefs on this opinion? My own is that the people of each section, the majority of which never traveld more than a few miles from where they were born, had no idea of what each section liked or disliked, accept for what they read in newspaper editorials.
My proof is in what the people said. I’m an avid reader of antebellum diaries, journals and letters. They may not all say the same thing, but read enough of them and an overall picture begins to emerge. Regarding the people relying on newspaper editorials, again my opinion, but I believe the editorials closely followed the sentiments of the people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by unionblue
We must let the people of the time speak for themselves. No matter how we feel about what they said and did.
I agree with that 100%.
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
Georgia, in her causes for secession document claimed that once the protectionist tariff had been lowered to a reasonable rate that most people could live with comfortably the protectionists had to find another way to gain control in order the bring the tariff back up to a high rate. Because slavery had long been a source of disagreement between the North and South that is the course they chose to pursue. Georgia declared that it only needed someone to fan the embers in order to bring it up to a roaring fire. So…Georgia believed it was a tariff issue, only not on the part of the South but, on the part of the protectionists.
That is entirely false. When Georgia's declaration writes of casting about for new allies, the time period she is referring to is 1846. There was not thereafter a northern campaign for protection or high rates, and in 1857 when the tariff was reduced further, it had 43% support of the northern Senators.
The Georgia Declaration does not even insinuate that slavery was used to stir up the flames so that protectionism could roll over Washington. After saying that the 1846 act's free trade and low duties were the verdicts of the American people, and that there was no hope of reversal, tariffs are never again mentioned in the Declaration. Slavery monopolizes the remainder of the document.
If Georgia believed it was a tariff issue, she would have written so in the plain and unambiguous language in which she complained at length about hostility towards her slavery.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
