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.
But, Tim, that would have meant standing between the majority and it's desire for higher tariff protection. Surely you can see that the departure of the unhappy members of the Union frees up the majority to enact whatever economic policies they might desire. The unhappy former members just said, do whatever you want, just count us out of the deal. Surely that isn't such a bad thing.
You have very strange notions of government. The North did not want the states to secede and had done much over the years to accomodate them.
That would be 54 votes out of 70. How do you think the other 16, who managed to stay conveniently silent, vote once the parties start twisting their arms?
But, as they were seated in April, the Kansans' votes would have been difficult to count in February.
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
But, as they were seated in April, the Kansans' votes would have been difficult to count in February.
Ole
Yes. And since the Senate had adjourned in March and was not scheduled to return until December, those votes would be meaningless unless the Senate was recalled. Naturally enough, the Senate was recalled for an emergency session -- because the Confederacy attacked Ft. Sumter.
Yes. And since the Senate had adjourned in March and was not scheduled to return until December, those votes would be meaningless unless the Senate was recalled. Naturally enough, the Senate was recalled for an emergency session -- because the Confederacy attacked Ft. Sumter.
Regards,
Tim
They had the votes...
...it was just a matter of time.
Revenue for the gov't could also be reason for an "emergency session."
They had the votes...
...it was just a matter of time.
Revenue for the gov't could also be reason for an "emergency session."
Hmmm. Actually, it doesn't look like the Republicans had the votes, particularly if they had not tried to ensure Republican success in 1860. It appears that you are blaming secession on Southern self-defeatism.
John, the apologists for secession, which you have declared yourself, always say this.
I did not say I was an apologist for secession. I am an historian, one with more than a unidimensional view of the events of ante-bellum period. I have an understanding of both sides of the conflict, which is unfortunately, more than can be said for some on this board.
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
Here is where I get the strange ideas from: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
The pity is when these two laudable ideals clash. When the idea that all men are created equal becomes incompatible with the idea that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. In 1860-61, these two were deemed by the people of the South to be incompatible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
The North did not want the states to secede and had done much over the years to accomodate them.
But the northern States wanted other things more. For example, some of them hated slavery so much they were willing to kill those who tolerated it, while other Northerners would protect those murderers. And apparently many Northerners wanted to keep the South as their cash cow.
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
I think Abraham Lincoln stampeded the southern states to secede, via his Cooper Union speech in New York City, prior to his election.
The election of Lincoln sent the message, that the U.S. would tighten the slavery rules in the territories. That no new slave state would get admitted in the Union during Lincoln's term; probably true.
As mentioned the South could see their loss of power, especially in the House of Representatives, where immigration was swelling the populations of northern states.
The South probably correctly assumed that the enforcement of the fugitive slave laws would not be a high priority in the Lincoln administration.
The political leadership and slavery oligarchy was perhaps criminally negligent for committing to a war, that logistically they would not win, except with huge manpower and treasury losses. The Confederacy expended much in terms of manpower and treasury and still lost.
Of course, Southerns had a different concept of patriotism. If Virginia seceded, they would secede as Virginians.
I've never had a problem with the private in the ANV who answered the call of local and state leaders.
But to the West Pointers of Virginia, where did you ever get the idea that Virginia and the Confederacy could defend the western part of the state?
Even R.E. Lee thought it was possible or at least wrote so in dispatches.
Here is where I get the strange ideas from: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
The pity is when these two laudable ideals clash. When the idea that all men are created equal becomes incompatible with the idea that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. In 1860-61, these two were deemed by the people of the South to be incompatible.
Yes, those are pretty standard American beliefs. I fail to see the clash you are describing. Please detail it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
But the northern States wanted other things more. For example, some of them hated slavery so much they were willing to kill those who tolerated it, while other Northerners would protect those murderers. And apparently many Northerners wanted to keep the South as their cash cow.
So? Some of them wanted only to live in peace. Some of them wanted to trade with the South. Some of them just didn't care about the whole mess. Who are you to select only a few of the whole to count?
Should we say then that the only Southerners were men like James Hammond, despicable human being that he was? Or rabid fire-eaters out for personal glory, as it appears Rhett was? Or all bent on conquest of new slave territory, no matter the cost? I don't think so -- but it is the logical extension of the arguments you present for your own view. History is all of the people and all of the events, not just the ones that make your own argument look good.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
