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.
Did the South have the right to risk the enormous loss of life that a war could bring?
Neil:
There is a vast difference between the risks that follow a peaceful secession, and a full-scale invasion launched by your own countrymen. But regardless, the Confederacy believed they had every right to secede and did not attack the North in order to exercise their inalienable rights.
The Northern viewpoint that President Lincoln had no choice but to honour his Presidential oath is lost on me. There was an alternative to war and the President ignored it, even after the South attempted peaceful negotiations with the Republican party.
"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?"
Firsty, I propose the South did not believe that war was the only alternative - that was Lincoln's choice. And secondly, it's impossible to answer the question of secession without taking a serious look at the historical settlements between the North and the South; and the differences that were spawned from the onset. Sectional animosity was apparent as early as 1776, and this expressed itself in social, political, economic and religious differences - to the point that the United States of America had already become two nations. And these apetures grew until secession began.
"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?"
The South seceded for the same reasons as the early Colonists - independence and liberty; and fought to protect their homes.
"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."
Each state believed that they were sovereign and independent, and were only part of the Union because they had volunteered to do so. The South was more than willing to co-exist peacefully with the United States, and President Davis made this clear from the beginning. But while we are discussing the actions of the South which you think were rebellious and irresponsible, it's important to remember that while the North was basking in the aroma of their freshly brewed moral conscience, they offered no solution, nor did they consider the consequences of liberating four million people into the South. This defines irresponsibility and the blatant hypocricy behind this Northern indignation is quite mind boggling.
Neil, it doesn't really matter why the South chose to secede...only that eleven States expressed their desire to become an independent nation. Without the right to do so the Colonist's struggle was simply bombastic, and freedom becomes little more than a parody of itself.
But as in all wars the driving factors instigated by a smattering of politicians are money, power, and arrogance.
"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."
It's quite possible that now I will need a triple by-pass and a tablespoon of Malox.
Of course it matters why the South chose to leave. People don't just get out of bed one fine morning and say to themselves, "I'll think I'll call in sick for work today. I want to really get out and forment a revolution instead."
You would give us the impression that such a monumental action was considered as lightly as blinking ones eyelids. You again say that the course of rebellion the South took was a peaceful one and again ignore the violent acts leading up to the most bloody war in this nation's history. As I recall from my high school dance lessons, it takes two to tango. Or as Wild Rose says in the States Rights Myth thread, "...one group can't have a war without the other opposing side being involved."
Again, the South gets a free pass for any of the acts of violence that contributed towards the path to civil war, while the North is painted broadly with the same old, tired brush as the sole, evil aggressor.
You again retire to the worn-out comparison between the Revolution of 1776 and the exact same course of action of 1861, but refuse to believe that rebellion in 1776 is still rebellion in 1861. Neither act was considered legal by the standards then or later and I fail to understand what was different when examining either act. And to compare the grievences of the colonists to that of 1860's Southern America is almost laughable.
The South did not simply fight for liberty and independence. Such a stand takes a determined amount of ignoring their own words concerning their reasons for rebellion and condeming a vast amount of recorded history to the ashheap. The states were not independent sovereign entities and several presidents before Lincoln were more than willing to hang anyone who advanced that theory. No matter how many times that fairy tale is told or how beautiful it sounds, at the end of the day, the Constitution, the Supreme Court and the majority of the nation had long discarded this notion. And such repeated stock phrases continue to ignore the desparte condition of four million slaves, that in spite of such continued denial, were mixed up in this little fracas somehow.
Again, the easy path has been chosen, the one where we can all feel comfortable with ourselves and our historical mind-sets, the one where we can blame it all on money, power and arrogance and not learn the hard, uncomfortable lessons of history.
And thereby risk the chance of repeating it.
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
Of course it matters why the South chose to leave. People don't just get out of bed one fine morning and say to themselves, "I'll think I'll call in sick for work today. I want to really get out and forment a revolution instead."
Well Neil, you've completely missed my point. Once the South seceded, it no longer mattered why. The significant factor became what President Lincoln's response would be to the South's withdrawal from the Union.
"You would give us the impression that such a monumental action was considered as lightly as blinking ones eyelids. You again say that the course of rebellion the South took was a peaceful one and again ignore the violent acts leading up to the most bloody war in this nation's history. As I recall from my high school dance lessons, it takes two to tango. Or as Wild Rose says in the States Rights Myth thread, "...one group can't have a war without the other opposing side being involved."
Again, the South gets a free pass for any of the acts of violence that contributed towards the path to civil war, while the North is painted broadly with the same old, tired brush as the sole, evil aggressor."
At no time have I said that the South was squeaky clean, or guilt-free. And to my knowledge no one of the Southern persuasion on these Boards has ever eluded to such a one-dimensional viewpoint. I'm also aware that "...one group can't have a war without the other opposing side being invoved."
What specific acts of violence, committed by the South, were enough to measure the verdict of invasion?
"You again retire to the worn-out comparison between the Revolution of 1776 and the exact same course of action of 1861, but refuse to believe that rebellion in 1776 is still rebellion in 1861. Neither act was considered legal by the standards then or later and I fail to understand what was different when examining either act. And to compare the grievences of the colonists to that of 1860's Southern America is almost laughable. http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_decl.html"
Contrary to what you might believe Neil, I have studied the Revolution of 1776, but thanks for the link. I haven't compared the grievances of the Colonists to that of Southern America - only their desire for indendence.
"The South did not simply fight for liberty and independence. Such a stand takes a determined amount of ignoring their own words concerning their reasons for rebellion and condeming a vast amount of recorded history to the ashheap. The states were not independent sovereign entities and several presidents before Lincoln were more than willing to hang anyone who advanced that theory. No matter how many times that fairy tale is told or how beautiful it sounds, at the end of the day, the Constitution, the Supreme Court and the majority of the nation had long discarded this notion. And such repeated stock phrases continue to ignore the desparte condition of four million slaves, that in spite of such continued denial, were mixed up in this little fracas somehow."
Firstly Neil, my opinions and answers are always from the heart, and based on my own personal research from the hundreds of letters that I've read, and documents/diaries etc. of the time. And of course biographies and books exclusively written on the Civil War - I gave up Nancy Drew mysteries long ago.
Secondly, to suggest that the Southern cause was nothing more than a fairytale, wrapped up in heresay and nonesense, does not promote meaningful discussion; nor does it give credibility to your statement that it's the easy wayout. Also, the arrogance, money and power that I spoke of was not meant to be exclusive to Northern politicians.
No one has denied the horrific plight of four million people and I think we are all agreed that slavery was one of the most evil crimes ever committed against another human being. But let's remember that slaves were still owned in the North at the time of the Civil War, and in 1857, the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court declared that black men were inferior and that "it was too clear for dispute that the enslaved African race was not intended to be included" in the proclamation that all men were created equal; and that negroes "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect."
As a Canadian, I have no stake in the WBTS, other than the fact that I'm exceedingly proud of the number of Canadians who fought and died for both the Confederate and Union cause.
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.
Cedarstripper
No, it is not false. Read the document...again, if necessary and it was written in "plain and unambiguous language".
"But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all."
Time and issues upon slavery were necessary to its completion and final triumph. The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity. This question was before us. We had acquired a large territory by successful war with Mexico; Congress had to govern it; how, in relation to slavery, was the question then demanding solution. This state of facts gave form and shape to the anti-slavery sentiment throughout the North and the conflict began. Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation and demanded the prompt and efficient exercise of this power to that end."
The document says exactly what I said it did.
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
No, it is not false. Read the document...again, if necessary and it was written in "plain and unambiguous language".
I agree that the document is written unambiguously, and it does not state tariffs or protectionism as a cause for disunion. You are reading between the lines for something that is not there.
Quote:
The document says exactly what I said it did.
No, it doesn't. The following is what you claimed it said:
"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 [protectionists] chose to pursue. Georgia declared that it only needed someone to fan the embers in order to bring it [protectionism, I presume] 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."
The Georgia document clearly is referring to the ascension of anti-slavery sentiment and the formation and coming to power of the Republican party. It lists no further griefs over tariffs , nor does it imply tariffs nor taxation nor protectionism as the qualities of the Republican party which it feels it must escape from.
Just who is the "they" referred to in the document? Its these guys:
"The Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery an to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere. This is the party two whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated. They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded.
The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers. With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers. The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization."
No, it doesn't. The following is what you claimed it said:
"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 [protectionists] chose to pursue. Georgia declared that it only needed someone to fan the embers in order to bring it [protectionism, I presume] 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."
The Georgia document clearly is referring to the ascension of anti-slavery sentiment and the formation and coming to power of the Republican party.
Yes, exactly. "All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success." Best chance for bringing protection back into government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cedarstripper
It lists no further griefs over tariffs , nor does it imply tariffs nor taxation nor protectionism as the qualities of the Republican party which it feels it must escape from.
Nor did I claim it did. You haven't shown where I'm wrong on either of my above statements.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cedarstripper
Just who is the "they" referred to in the document? Its these guys:
"The Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery an to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere. This is the party two whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated. They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded.
Or put more simply, the protectionists, as I mentioned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cedarstripper
The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers. With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers. The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization."
Georgia Declaration of Causes
Cedarstripper
What is the purpose of this excerpt? There is no one here that doesn't know that Georgia and the other seceding states were outraged at having slavery banned from the territories.
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
Perhaps the emphasis that is placed all out of proportion to one phrase or part of the declaration and the lack of same on other parts of it?
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
Once you get beyond the retorical expressions of Southerners, how did they ever think the Confederacy could take all that land out of the United States, and pay no price.
I think they hoped that their former Americans wouldn't invade them and enforce their Northern will by a knife to the throat.It's like a husband kidnapping his wife trying to divorce him at gunpoint and forcing her to stay with him.Whether the lady was a unfaithful or whatever personal flaw she had she has a right to make up her mind.Yea some shining light of democracy America was to the world.I don't think Lincoln or anyone foresaw the number of casualties that would occur(well maybe Sam Houston),but the North fought for greed pure and simple.By the North I don't mean the Union soldiers most of whom were heroic and deserving of admiration.I mean common sense is that the North would've been poorer and weaker minus the Confederate states.It's truly mind boggling some poeple can fool themselves into believing that wasn't the key issue to the North.All the Union talk and the EP etch... was political propaganda in my opinion(and very good propaganda)to motivate the masses who wouldn't have bled for simple greed.All the Northern poeple weren't bad Americans and wouldn't have supported the true reasons behind the Northern invasion of the South.
__________________ "The sword is mighty, but principles laugh at swords. Overwhelming force may crush truth to earth but, crushed or not the truth is still the truth." Regards, Ashley
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
