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.
Frankly, the more I consider it, the less I am inclined to go with the idea that Harpers Ferry was a cause of secession.
Proving that one historical event had nothing to do with causing another is pretty difficult.
Quote:
Originally Posted by unionblue
I am more inclined to believe …
Why would you have this inclination?
Quote:
Originally Posted by unionblue
… it was simply an excuse, an incident in a long continuing campaign to bring about secession by those who were determined to break up the Union to further their own agenda.
Quote:
Originally Posted by unionblue
For men like Robert Barnwell Rhett, you might have a case. Rhett was pro-secession in 1838. But you still haven’t explained why, in December 1860-April 1861, secessionism became the position of the majority of Southerners. So you challenge the premise, again without any reference to the historical record to back up that challenge. Somehow, apparently, wily secessionists “tricked” Southerners into embracing secession. It really wasn’t a popular policy. Yet, you remain unable to show from original source material that this unpopularity was real and widespread. Curious. Respectfully, John Taylor
__________________ "In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
At another time, not that long ago, elektratig, I believe, posted some strong evidence that state governments became gerrymandered to skew political clout in favor of the slave owner (and the mill owner, etc.). I can agree with the evidence because political groups still do it -- it's a natural adjunct to any republican government.
This political clout afforded the slaveowner a disproportionate voice in local, state and federal administration -- including conventions held to determine whether to secede, as well as representatives sent to construct a state constitution. Had there been statewide, secret ballots, there might have been different conclusions. But that is not provable, either way.
Just a thought.
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
At another time, not that long ago, elektratig, I believe, posted some strong evidence that state governments became gerrymandered to skew political clout in favor of the slave owner (and the mill owner, etc.). I can agree with the evidence because political groups still do it -- it's a natural adjunct to any republican government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ole
This political clout afforded the slaveowner a disproportionate voice in local, state and federal administration -- including conventions held to determine whether to secede, as well as representatives sent to construct a state constitution. Had there been statewide, secret ballots, there might have been different conclusions. But that is not provable, either way.
Just a thought. Ole
Ole, that certainly was the case in Virginia, where representation was based on tax-paying, not one-man, one vote. But even in this case, since slaves under 12 years of age weren't taxed, they were "represented" either. And in the case of Virginia, the people weren't in for of secession until after President Lincoln called for troops to invade the South. Then there was a large majority in favor of secession. (132,201 to 37,451 in favor, although a few counties' results, both in the east and the west, have been lost). This vote was one man, one vote, so slave-owners were not over-represented. Secession was popular in Virginia in May 1861.
In Texas, there was also a referendum, and secession won the popular vote, 46,153 for and 14,747.
It also won in Tennessee, 104,471 to 47,183.
I believe that these were the only States that held referenda. In every case, the decision was a popular one.
It is difficult to imagine that, in South Carolina (unanimous in convention), if a referendum had been held, that secessionism would not have won the day, yet, half of South Carolina families were nonslaveholding. In Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi, there were significant minorities in each convention, yet, because of the democratic nature of the selection of delegates, it seems unlikely that referenda would have reversed the conventions' decisions. People voting for delegates knew the positions of the various delegates, and indeed selected their delegates based on the delegates' stated views on secession.
Underlying your post (and Neil's as well) is the unstated assumption that democratically-arrived at decisions in favor of secession (or against, theoretically), were therefore legitimate. That explains why modern-day Unionists seek to question the democratic credentials of those decisions. Respectfully, John Taylor
__________________ "In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
Underlying your post (and Neil's as well) is the unstated assumption that democratically-arrived at decisions in favor of secession (or against, theoretically), were therefore legitimate. That explains why modern-day Unionists seek to question the democratic credentials of those decisions.
I'm not one who holds that referenda in every state would have produced results much different than those realized. It is a subject for discussion and verification, but hardly demonstrates illegitimacy.
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
I'm not one who holds that referenda in every state would have produced results much different than those realized. It is a subject for discussion and verification, but hardly demonstrates illegitimacy.
Ole
Ole, just for the sake of argument, if the decision to secede had been arrived at democratically,would you look with more favor on such a decision?
__________________ "In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
Fair is fair. If it was proven that the choice for secession was NOT arrived at democratically, would you look with more favor at the decision to keep the Union intact?
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
Ole, just for the sake of argument, if the decision to secede had been arrived at democratically,would you look with more favor on such a decision?
It wasn't arrived at democratically?
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
Fair is fair. If it was proven that the choice for secession was NOT arrived at democratically, would you look with more favor at the decision to keep the Union intact?
Unionblue
Neil,
yes, I would. If someone could demonstrate that secession was not democratically chosen, I would view the unionist position with more favor. You see, I am not pro-slavery, nor specifically pro-southern. I am pro-constitution (as originally intended) and, more broadly, pro-self-determination.
I have not arrived at these positions becuause I think they are right. I have come to these positions from looking at the historical record, and examining how the Founders dealt with these issues.
Of course, which demos one selects to determine how democratic the decision was is an important one. The Founders decided that the people of each State would decide for itself whether to join the Union or not.
__________________ "In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
__________________ "In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
Not really. Many a bad law is passed democratically; e.g., Jim Crow, Prohibition, secession declarations, state nullification of constitutional provisions... I believe the constitution intended for there to be no unilateral secession. Irregularities in conducting the secession processes were nothing new, impossible to curb and (lacking any guarantee of absolute fairness) ought to be taken as valid -- however illegal the object.
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
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
