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.
Great Britain was governing the American Colonies with no representation from those colonies. The south was part of the government of the USA, that governed them.
Beowulf, the Confederates claimed that secession was not the same as revolution; was that claim objective?
In any case, The Fact remains; an unemcumbered right of secession as espoused by the minority slave ologarchy in the south before and during the CW, was never a consensus opinion of the Nat'l Gov't, nor the citizens of the USA, nor the states of the Union. If Beowult has objective, contrary, proof, now is the time for its presentation.
The fact that Beowulf thinks Cash is in the minority, certainly seems to call Beowulf's ability to judge objectively, into question. Is it possible for an unobective person to even recognize an objective truth?
In any case, The Fact remains; an unemcumbered right of secession as espoused by the minority slave ologarchy in the south before and during the CW, was never a consensus opinion of the Nat'l Gov't, nor the citizens of the USA, nor the states of the Union.
The process described is not workable.
The reason for which a state or group of states wishes to leave the Union is (and has been) that being in the Union is to its great disadvantage.
If that disadvantage gives a reciprocal advantage to the other states (the majority) then the proposed secession would never be approved.
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
The "objectivity" sought is a ball bouncing so errantly, it's becoming difficult to follow.
How about we stick to the subject -- secession as a right -- and open threads on all other questions. Like the north's participation in and profit from slave trading. Or Lincoln's advocacy of the right of rebellion. Or how many freed blacks lived where.
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
The reason for which a state or group of states wishes to leave the Union is (and has been) that being in the Union is to its great disadvantage.
If that disadvantage gives a reciprocal advantage to the other states (the majority) then the proposed secession would never be approved.
So seven southern states rebelled. Isn't that what we have been talking about?
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 was not describing a process, I was stating, that secession was never seen as an unencumbered right by a consensus of any of the main constituent parts of the Union and definitely not by a majority of any of them either.
Ole is correct, Battalion, has succintly (if not very clearly) described the thought process that led certain southrons to assume they could secede any time they chose.
I'm thin on one bit about Secession, was Secession permitted in the CS Constitution? Maybe I'm missing that point.
It is my understanding that Revolution with England was only supported by approx 25% of the Colonists. It is also my understanding that Secession was only supported by about 30-35% of the CS w/ much voting done w/ CS soldiers standing next to the ballot boxes.
Over the years I have seen far too much information that leads me to believe that Secession was actually, a minority view even in the South, in 1860. From soldiers in polling places in half a dozen states to actions before the vote I really do see Secession as accomplished by a few instead of by the masses. Self Determination by a majority had little if anything to do w/ it.
Lincoln was no Emperor or dictator, he weathered an election in 1864 and won it.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
The reason for which a state or group of states wishes to leave the Union is (and has been) that being in the Union is to its great disadvantage.
If that disadvantage gives a reciprocal advantage to the other states (the majority) then the proposed secession would never be approved.
I had not done the math on that, but why would a majority of the states be necessary for Secession if the problem was A MAJORITY OF THE STATES, in the first place!
I see now where Patrick Henry "smelled a rat" in reference to this Constitution. The South was thinking freedom and the North, as usual, opportunity...
And as usual, the majority Mob Rules!
"If you listen to fools, the Mob Rules!" - Black Sabbath
I'm thin on one bit about Secession, was Secession permitted in the CS Constitution? Maybe I'm missing that point.
It is my understanding that Revolution with England was only supported by approx 25% of the Colonists. It is also my understanding that Secession was only supported by about 30-35% of the CS w/ much voting done w/ CS soldiers standing next to the ballot boxes.
Over the years I have seen far too much information that leads me to believe that Secession was actually, a minority view even in the South, in 1860. From soldiers in polling places in half a dozen states to actions before the vote I really do see Secession as accomplished by a few instead of by the masses. Self Determination by a majority had little if anything to do w/ it.
Lincoln was no Emperor or dictator, he weathered an election in 1864 and won it.
Depends upon whom you talk with, as to Secession or not.
And when... and about whom...
From 1789 to 1824, the Blue States hold it is okay for other Blue States to secede.
From 1861 to 1865, the Red States ACTUALLY SECEDED (ahem) and formed their own country. For five years.
Without anyone's permission. They were not a part of the United States government for five years...
(According to the South, and the rest of the Knowne Worlde). Who helped and who didn't help, notwithstanding.
According to the Blue States, however, they were IN REBELLION and were never separated. (This changes back and forth, after the war, depending upon what the Republican Liberal party needs to pass, legislatively).
Beowulf; you failed to answer if Secession was permitted in the CS Constitution? I don't think Blue States/Red States terminology is really appropriate to this discussion as it really doesn't apply unless you wish to bring a modern political agenda into the discussion.
One thing that has always fascinated me has been the diversity of support for both the CS & US by modern Americans. I have seen men I know to be downright foaming at the mouth Liberals agree w/ people diametricly opposed to their modern viewpoint on both sides of the CW argument. I've seen gun toting Hard core Conservative Republicans who would not even think about agreeing with a liberal upon the color of the sky passionately argue both sides of the CW equation. In fact you'll see it here or anyone of a score of other sites about the CW on the net.
Have you by chance asked the big D if he recalls the query from Dawna, that was posted earlier, to defend his work on this site? Does he still defend his premises that have been blown full of holes on so many sites (not just this one), or his practice of creative out of context editing that would have guaranteed me an F from any professor while at University? I can understand if we're just waiting for the corrections in a future edition but I've never seen evidence of such.
Now if you are one of his students rellying upon a favorable grade I understand fully that you dare not ask such difficult questions of the man. I have no idea of his professional practices but I had my own problems w/a prof that never gave anything higher than a C to those who dared disagree w/ him... ironically he was an Ethics prof. If you are in such a predicament I sympathize.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Secession: Always viewed as a right? 
Linear Mode
