Unconditional Unionism

[Scribe]

Originally Posted by Elennsar

As someone who just saw this thread, and who probably falls in the group of "Unconditional Unioniststs", whatever that means...

Based on his conversation with General Nathaniel Banks, I would nominate Adm. David Farragut as an Unconditional Unionist.

"What matters it," Farragut said, "General whether your or I are killed or not? We came here to die. It is our business and must happen sooner or later. We must fight this thing out until there is no more than one man left and that man must be a Union man. Here's to his health?"

Once the sun gets over the yardarm I think I'll lift one to Farragut's memory.

[OpnDownfall]

If the southern states (or any state, I suppose) seceded through a Constitutional process. I could be convinced to step aside and let the erring sister(s) go. Even though much against my inclination and very, very reluctantly.

[M E Wolf]

Dear OpnDownfall;

The latest post of yours; in letting a state secede through the Constitutional process; to leave peacefully; is exactly what General Winfield Scott had wished --"leave peacefully."

However, having shells aimed at the ship and fired; as it approached Ft. Sumter as well as shelling Ft. Sumter is not what I call--peaceful.

Now that said, purely an assumption on my part: I would consider that even in peaceful secession of the "Cotton States," that their inability to clothe, feed an army and or navy; to create a defensive posture; the governmental process by which started to crumble as they were winning many battles; I think in time--may have found it an economic defeat by leaving the Union as to function as an independent nation. Those citizens within may have been more disatisfied with the new government; having no soldier/sailor/Marine enlistments to the degree of the Rebellion as known in the Civil War. The many instances, to where the southern residents were loyal to the Union but, compelled to take up arms to defend their southern soil; taking away the taking up of arms--I would assume would change the character of the 'non-violent' secession. The reversal of secession may have taken place when the citizens who tired of the corruption and top heavy government; by vote and return to the Union/Federal governmental system.

Further, still an assumption on my part; IF the secession of the "Cotton States" was peaceful; with no violence; I can only assume the needs of the US Army officers to leave service so 'rashly' would have been more peaceful and less dramatic. I would not even begin to assume which or how many US Army, Marine and or Sailors would have enlisted into a peaceful secession when there were militias already there, in their native states and perhaps those close to retirement and those offered commissions might have gone but, it still is a wonderful 'what if.' Unfortunately, I am using logic of my time--not theirs.

Again, based only on assumptions; the best that might have happened is something similar to Canada and Quebec.

Just some thoughts.

Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf

[Scribe]

Originally Posted by Scribe

Based on his conversation with General Nathaniel Banks, I would nominate Adm. David Farragut as an Unconditional Unionist.

"What matters it," Farragut said, "General whether your or I are killed or not? We came here to die. It is our business and must happen sooner or later. We must fight this thing out until there is no more than one man left and that man must be a Union man. Here's to his health?"

Once the sun gets over the yardarm I think I'll lift one to Farragut's memory.

Add Brig. Gen. Nathaniel Lyon to my list of Unconditional Unionists.

Shortly after taking command in Misouri Brig. Gen. Nathaniel Lyon agreed to meet with Missouri Gov. Claiborne Jackson and Pap Price concerning the military situation in the state.

Lyon heard the case for the earlier agreement between Price and Union Brig. Gen. David Harney that was supposed to keep peace in the state by turning complete military control over to state authorities. Lyon listened for a time and then stopped the discussion saying: "Rather than concede to the state of Missouri the right to demand that my government shall not enlist troops within her limits, or bring troops into the state whenever it pleases, or move its troops at its own will into, out of or through the state; rather than concede to the state of Missouri for one single instant the right to dictate to my government in any matter however unimportant, I would [here Lyon stood, and pointed in turn to each man in the room] see you, and you, and you, and you, and you, and every man, woman and child in the state dead and buried."

That's unconditional.

[Baggage Handler #2]

Even a "peaceful" secession would have had problems.
Would the non-cotton states have stayed in, or would they, feeling a slight to their power have seceded from secession?
What about the Ohio River - would the Underground Railroad now operate openly? What of the gangs that would cross that river to reclaim fugitives? How could this not have sparked a border war that would have festered for years?

I can't see a way for the south to make this work without violence, and even then not for long.

The cause was lost long 'ere it started.

[OpnDownfall]

In actual fact, using a Constitutional process to secede was problematic, at best. To do so, legally, would require a overwhelming majority in All the states and as the southern leaders knew, such a majority, favoring secession was just not that likely. Which is why they developed their 'theory' of a state right to unilaterally secede, that existed outside the purview of the Constitution.
But, Theorectically, If there were a overwhelming (or at least a significant majority in) support of a specified type of secession, then it would necessarily be peaceful.
If the separation was legal (Constitutional) and thus, peaceful, then The csa stood a good chance of maintaining its unity for a while, as long as cotton prices remained high.
The stultifying effects on a society and economy, based on slavery (Reactionary and Rigid) the country would not respond well, to changing its economic or social priorities, as required by changing times.
The biggest threat to southern unity would, in fact, be the precedent they set in seceding when things did not go their way. Whether done legally or not.

[Glorybound]

Gen Nathaniel Lyon as posted by Scribe

"Rather than concede to the state of Missouri the right to demand that my government shall not enlist troops within her limits, or bring troops into the state whenever it pleases, or move its troops at its own will into, out of or through the state; rather than concede to the state of Missouri for one single instant the right to dictate to my government in any matter however unimportant, I would [here Lyon stood, and pointed in turn to each man in the room] see you, and you, and you, and you, and you, and every man, woman and child in the state dead and buried."


That's unconditional.

Amen. Wow. That is too awesome. Rarely in my lifetime, if at all, (I'm 54) have I met anyone who spoke, or could speak, with such conviction for a cause, then lay down his life for that cause.( Lyon would be the first Union general to die in battle. Killed at Wilson's Creek, Missouri, Aug. 10,1861. In the confusion immediately after the battle, his body was mistakenly left on the battlefield. Confederate soldiers buried him on farmland belonging to a Union soldier. Later after the error was discovered Union soldiers disinterred Lyons body and transported it to his native Connecticut where he was interred in a cemetery near Phoenixville. His funeral service was attended by approx 15,000 people.)





An Unconditional Unionist.


Respectfully,
Leland

[JohnTaylor]

Originally Posted by Baggage Handler #2

Even a "peaceful" secession would have had problems.
...What about the Ohio River - would the Underground Railroad now operate openly?

In the Virginia Convention of 1861, Mr. Summers of Kanawha County said, on March 12: "We are to become, to use a homely phrase, the outside row in the corn field. We are to protect slave property in States south of us, but to lose our own. So far from secession rendering the institution of slavery more secure in Virginia, it will be the potent cause of insecurity."

Originally Posted by Baggage Handler #2

What of the gangs that would cross that river to reclaim fugitives? How could this not have sparked a border war that would have festered for years?

A letter writer using the nom de plume, "Caution," wrote this in October 1860, on the effects of secession: “One thing, however, we suppose is certain. They can never make any treaty with us, which does not stipulate that they shall surrender or pay for, every fugitive slave who passes within their limits. Some time may transpire before they come to this. But they will have to come to it, or have no intercourse with us." Charleston Mercury, October 25th, 1860, pg. 1, col. 2-4.
This guy was suggesting a peaceful way to deal with the issue.
My guess is that any post-secession raiding party that tried to recover, by force, escaped slaves in Ohio (especially with a Governor Like William Dennison) would find it tough sledding.

[JohnTaylor]

Originally Posted by cw1865

The example provided is trying to get you to think, specifically, under what circumstances would even the most ardent Unionist (myself), support the secession of a state from the Union?

cw1865, that was exactly my point. Not that such a chain of events is likely, but to establish a limit case for further discussion. It was my intent to define a case in which the majority chose to inflict intolerable oppression on a minority in violation of the provisions of the Constitution.

It seems that trice's response leads to some further philosophical inquiries:

1. If in such a case as that described above (intolerable oppression in violation of the provisions of the Constitution), all that an oppressed minority have is the right of revolution, then the United States would seem to be a scant improvement over the system from which they withdrew in 1776. In a political system in which the purposes of Union are declared (form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty), if the general government is not answering the purposes for which it was created, then the threat of being fired (as the government of dissatisfied portion of the union) might cause it to reconsider how it was conducting business, potentially for the benefit of all.
2.If there were some means of withdrawing an oppressed minority from the reach of the oppressing majority, it would act as a brake on any malicious intentions of the majority. Go too far, and the victims will leave. Can a less oppressive polity be such a bad thing? Please note that I am not suggesting that states should withdraw for light and transient reasons, just that the possibility would cause the majority to reconsider.
3. In the situation described above, most folks are okay with the way things are being run, yet, the self-perceived oppressed minority, in what seems to be trice's view, must attempt to destroy the whole political system to escape its oppression. This hardly seems fair or logical. Some form of secession (without the approval of the oppressive majority) would leave the majority with their government intact, it would only remove the oppressed minority from the reach of its oppressors.

PS: None of the above says anything, one way or another, about the views the Founders held in 1787-1790. I provide it as food for thought only. It is an entirely philosphical argument, not an historical one.

[cw1865]

The fear of a centralized government lies on the claim that the centralized government will be too far removed from its citizens and will be an instrument of tyranny. If anything, the history of our nation has taught us that, in point of fact, its not so much the location of the government, but rather the government exercising the police power that has endangered individual liberty.

If you're looking for a history of tyranny in this country, look first to the states.

Over the last 50 years, the Supreme Court has interpreted the XIV Amendment, defined 'suspect classes' and acted as the appropriate check and balance against mostly state actions infringing the individual rights of US Citizens.