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.
To the unconditional Unionists of the board, I would like to propose a question....
John,
As it happens, I had never read the opening messages in this thread before today. I note that you seem to have been expecting some response from me. Apparently you number me among a group of "Unconditional Unionists" you were addressing, while I was ignoring the thread because I find the concept of unconditional unionism to have nothing to do with me.
If you review my posts on this forum, I am sure you will note that I have consistently, repeatedly, and continuously maintained that the South should have tried to leave the Union by legal and constitutional methods that are well defined and easily available. I have always asserted that they had a good chance of success if they tried this, and I have always admitted that the existence of a "right of secession" in 1860 was a very debatable point which might be decided by the Supreme Court either way.
My objections to the methods the South chose in December of 1860 to April of 1861, their consistent agressive, abusive, and violent acts, are also well documented.
Accordingly, I have no idea why you would consider me an "Unconditional Unionist", nor why you would choose to categorize my position in the way you have.
On the very extreme hypothetical example you have proposed, I think the answer already obvious. Faced with those conditions, and the absolute implacabilty of the rest of the Union you have contrived for your example, the answer for NJ would be clear. They can submit to the acts you describe, or they can choose to exercise the natural right of revolution.
The natural right of revolution is not a legal right. It is not a constitutional right. It is merely the right to attempt to revolt/rebel/rise in insurrection and change the situation. You will find Americans from every section believed in the "natural right of revolution" -- including Abraham Lincoln.
As such, it is merely trial-by-combat, whatever the means and arena. Win and you have established your point. Lose and you must submit to what follows. NJ against the rest of the nation is obviously a long-odds struggle, probably doomed. The Confederacy in 1861 clearly had better chances of winning against the Union than NJ would in your hypothetical example.
There was a large body of opinion, particularly among military men, that held the "natural right of revolution" was limited by the chances of success. The longer the odds seemed, the less justified it was held to risk the horrors of war. A revolution that had no chance of success was deemed to be improper in most cases, probably only justified by a threatened extinction or something close to it.
For example, in the post-Civil War period, many ex-Confederate West Point trained officers went to some pains to argue that Confederate military chances in 1861 were good, apparently seeking to justify their actions to their Union comrades. You will find a long passage in Longstreet's memoirs that seems dedicated to this.
But it is noted that Confederates generally denied they were exercising the "natural right of revolution". Men like Jefferson Davis maintained they were not revolutionaries, and that they had a perfectly legal, constitutional "right of secession". This is clear and well-documented. The concept of secession is definitely not the "natural right of revolution".
In your hypothetical example, NJ would be free to attempt the "natural right of revolution" if they felt the risk their only acceptable alternative. Their revolt might be judged acceptable or not in the court of international opinion, but it seems likely to me they would be crushed if they tried.
They considered starting the war with an assault on Ft. Pickens, but rejected that because they thought their losses would be high and they might fail. Finally, they attacked Ft. Sumter, firing over 3,000 rounds of heavy artillery into the fort, attempting to kill US soldiers.
....
Those who argue for the "right of secession" think all this abusive behavior is somehow justified, and that it was outrageous Federal acts that justified it. The outrageous Federal acts: Anderson moved from Ft. Moultrie to Ft. Sumter, and Buchanan's attempt to send support to the fort using a single hired merchant ship, followed by Lincoln's attempt to reprovision Ft. Sumter.
Those who argue for secession as it was attempted in 1860-61 see no reason that the rest of the nation should have resented this offensive treatment, the Confederacy's repeated seizures, threats, and finally their assault upon the US. History shows us that the rest of the nation did resent it, and when Davis and the Confederacy chose to attack Ft. Sumter, they lit the fuse to the explosive wrath of those they had insulted and abused.
In this, the Confederacy chose trial by combat as the means of deciding whether or not there was a "right of secession". I think that was a foolish decision on their part. I think they had approximately a 50% chance of success by using the other methods. That would have avoided this war at this time and in this place. If they failed, they still could resort to rebellion/war, so what exactly was the reason for all this aggressive abuse they chose to inflict upon the rest of the nation in December 1860 to April 1861? Why make war their first choice?
Regards,
Tim
"Those who argue for the "right of secession" think all this abusive behavior is somehow justified, and that it was outrageous Federal acts that justified it. The outrageous Federal acts: Anderson moved from Ft. Moultrie to Ft. Sumter, and Buchanan's attempt to send support to the fort using a single hired merchant ship, followed by Lincoln's attempt to reprovision Ft. Sumter."
~~~
You conveniently left out the fact these ships had 200 troops on board to re-enforce the fort....
...and Lincoln's attempt included several war ships...
...and which purpose was to provoke the war that caused over 600,000 deaths-
CONDOLENCE OVER FAILURE OF FT. SUMTER RELIEF TO GUSTAVUS V. FOX.
WASHINGTON, D.C., May 1, 1861
CAPTAIN G. V. Fox.
MY DEAR SIR:--I sincerely regret that the failure of the late attempt to provision Fort Sumter should be the source of any annoyance to you.
The practicability of your plan was not, in fact, brought to a test. By reason of a gale, well known in advance to be possible and not improbable, the tugs, an essential part of the plan, never reached the ground; while, by an accident for which you were in no wise responsible, and possibly I to some extent was, you were deprived of a war vessel, with her men, which you deemed of great importance to the enterprise.
I most cheerfully and truly declare that the failure of the undertaking has not lowered you a particle, while the qualities you developed in the effort have greatly heightened you in my estimation.
For a daring and dangerous enterprise of a similar character you would to-day be the man of all my acquaintances whom I would select. You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result.
"Those who argue for the "right of secession" think all this abusive behavior is somehow justified, and that it was outrageous Federal acts that justified it. The outrageous Federal acts: Anderson moved from Ft. Moultrie to Ft. Sumter, and Buchanan's attempt to send support to the fort using a single hired merchant ship, followed by Lincoln's attempt to reprovision Ft. Sumter."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
You conveniently left out the fact these ships had 200 troops on board to re-enforce the fort....
...and Lincoln's attempt included several war ships... ...and which purpose was to provoke the war that caused over 600,000 deaths-
No, I have frequently mentioned the small force of troops onboard and the ships included in the force. You and I have already discussed them in another thread. It is pretty clear the force sent by Lincoln was minimal, and also that the orders were to do nothing with that force unless the attempt to reprovision the fort was interfered with. As you already know that, and know as well that Lincoln had informed the Governor of South Carolina all this in advance, why are you making this false claim here?
Lincoln's purpose was to reprovision the fort. If the Confederacy wished to initiate a war, he was willing to defend the nation and prosecute the war. As he had said earlier, if the tug had to come, it might as well come now.
Your post here is exactly what johan_steele was referring to, the refusal of the pro-secessionists to look at what the Fire-Eaters, the secessionists, and the Confederacy actually did. Rather than trying to divert attention from the events you don't want to see, why don't you go back and explain all those aggressive and violent acts from December of 1860 to April of 1861 the seceding states actually did commit -- many of them while Lincoln was still at home in Illinois, before he ever entered office.
I'd suggest a new thread for it if you actually want to do it. Going through something like that line by line does not fit with this topic.
Lincoln's purpose was to reprovision the fort. If the Confederacy wished to initiate a war, he was willing to defend the nation and prosecute the war. As he had said earlier, if the tug had to come, it might as well come now.
Lincoln's reply-
"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result."
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice/steele
Your post here is exactly what johan_steele was referring to, the refusal of the pro-secessionists to look at what the Fire-Eaters, the secessionists, and the Confederacy actually did. Rather than trying to divert attention from the events you don't want to see, why don't you go back and explain all those aggressive and violent acts from December of 1860 to April of 1861 the seceding states actually did commit -- many of them while Lincoln was still at home in Illinois, before he ever entered office.
Yet during all these "aggressive and violent acts" from the secession of South Carolina through the events culminating in the surrender of Fort Sumter...
.....not a single Federal officer or official was harmed...in any way...
Lincoln's reply- "You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result."
Yes, you posted that before. So what? EXPLAIN what you think this means and why, in detail, if you think it has meaning in discussing "Unconditional Unionism"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
Yet during all these "aggressive and violent acts" from the secession of South Carolina through the events culminating in the surrender of Fort Sumter...
.....not a single Federal officer or official was harmed...in any way...
.....not one drop of blood shed...
Yet this "justified" a full scale invasion.......
This is simply the usual avoid-the-facts approach johan_steele was pointing out. Again, if you want to discuss these issues, please start a new thread with a relevant topic to do so. While you are at it, this is also incorrect: blood was shed during the assault on Ft. Sumter, and I am not talking about the man killed in the cannon explosion after the surrender.
__________________ 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
Trice,
I too have wondered why the issue of secession was never brought to the Supreme Court.It certainly wouldn't have hurt to try it.However, as you know the Us government never submitted the fact to the Supreme Court either until after the fact.My own belief is despite what was said by the leaders of the time neither side CSA or USA was really sure whether it was legal or not.I think many things get overlooked when studying the politics of the war.Mainly most poeple focus on the politicians who in my view were worried about nothing, but serving their own interest on both sides.But to really understand everything I like Shane love reading the words of the common poeple.You also should read the newspapers of the day(not for historical accuracy)but as they were the main source of news from the day it is relevant to what information was being talked about from town to town.I've found numerous accounts of Southerners(some slaveowners) traveling North and speaking of the rudeness of Northerners and how they were looked down on(due to slavery I guess?).You guys also know the country's major churches had split North and South.Unlike our time I've discovered many poeple in the South really didn't like Northerners(though most had probably never net one).I've also discovered many Northerners didn't really like Southerners.Yes both assumed the worse in many cases about one another but the country was deeply divided and their was a lot of sectional animosity.The sections didn't like one another very much.Sure slavery was the big issue but there were others.The South was losing political power in the government and nobody knew that better than the Southern politicians.It's always suggested slavery was all they were worried about.It may have been number one,but leaving one slave republic to form another if that was the only cause just doesn't make sense.In fact it's retarded were that the only focus.I don't believe(I may be wrong) the Southern leaders really felt slavery would be abolished by Lincoln.Had they stayed they could have blocked that in the Senate for years and years and if we know it I'm sure they knew it.I think they exploited the John Brown case ,fears of abolition, and slave insurrection to whip up popular support for secession.I think the hunger for power and not just slavery was heavy on their minds.True I think the quote money hungry Yankee was blamed for far too much.But if you look at it honestly what need did the South have in 1860 for the Union.Rememeber most poeple didn't foresee a long and bloody war.If secession was peaceful what did the South have to lose by going it's own way?Most economist agree that an imdependent South with its booming cotton exports would be a wealthy nation.The manufacturing the South imported from the North could easily be imported from Britain.Most Southern politicians voted and felt the same way about tarrifs,internal improvements etch... which we know was different from the North.So barring the horrible bloody conflict most never foresaw incorrectly called the Civil War(I prefer War for Southern Independence) the South would be as good if not better off without the USA.I see the point about Lincoln looking like a dufus if he did nothing following Sumpter.Buchanan did nothing and looks like a dufus(that's debatable) but he simply didn't believe in a democracy enforced by the bayonet.Per your comments earlier I imagine most poeple from Tennessee,North Carolina, and Virginia didn't see the attack on Fort Sumpter as you guys see it.They saw a fort in South Carolina territory.There was no weapon around that could have reached the Northern states from Sumpter.So it was seen differently than an attack on New York or on Washington DC would have been.Also everyone forgets you're talking about a time when loyalty was first with the home state, and then with the Union to most citizens(at least in the South).Today we're Americans first then citizens of whatever state.I'm not particularly patriotic about Alabama.I am patriotic about America.But though slavery may have been the biggest part of the quote states rights South I find it ignorant for it to be totally dismissed.Before the war you were a citizen of a state after the war you were American.Some think that's beautiful others at least partially are correct in that states rights died with the Confederacy.There is now no state challenge to our mighty federal government.Our government isn't all bad,but it isn't all good either.Like most Southern sympathizers I wonder could things have been better?
__________________ "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
Not sure Samgrant.I assume it means that a state or citizen would favor remaining in the Union even if remaining in the Union was disadvantageous for a myriad of reasons.This could include economic concerns,public safety,being taken advantage of etch...
__________________ "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
Not sure Sam, but it's something about making a law against New Jersey.
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
