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.
Dear HenryJackson,
As per post 64, while its a cliche that history is written by the victors, I don't know if that's the case with the Civil War. A very deliberate attempt to formulate and promote a pro-Confederate interpretation of the war, starting in the 19th century, has resulted in that interpretation being the general consensus. I'm from Maine, and we were herded into "Gone with the Wind" as a school field trip.
In more recent decades a lot of that interpretation has been challenged, and this new scholarship is what a lot of posters here, and frankly most historians, accept.
As per your post 68, any analogy with the Revolution is flawed. The citizens of the South were full and equal citizens with any other American citizen. In fact, you might argue that the 3/5s Compromise gave slaveowners special privilege and power within the Constitution. American colonists were not represented in Parliament, and were without a voice in the British government. The colonists were literally 2nd class subjects, and because of the distances and communication of the 18th century, they could never be anything but 2nd class subjects.
If you read the entire ordinance of secesssion of South Carolina and of the other seceding states, the defense of slavery is the most prominent feature of those documents.
As we have been discussing elsewhere, at great length, the Slavery Issue, the Tariffs Issue, and the Secession Issue, in varying amounts, all played a part in the Secession of the Confederate South.
The War, however, was another matter, (Usually, at this point, we can get mired waist-deep in the fiasco known as Fort Sumter...)
But if we can look for a moment at what the Secession ordinances are actually saying, we can read something else, (if we don't stop and highlight the word SLAVERY every few inches, simply because it is so foreign to us, today, in our present culture, that we are as fascinated at looking at it as we are at riding by a small fender-bender auto accident...)
There is, however, something deeper, here, still.
In my 'humble' opinion, I see the use of the word SLAVERY, used to excess, as a tool by which the South could separate itself from the North in as peaceable a manner as possible. By invoking the term, and making it
as flourescent as possible, those in the North who were
abolitionists would be more satisfied to separate and be free from these 'reprobate' slaver-owners. This could have been an attempt to divide the two-headed monster, one head of which was
spoken of by Robert Lewis Dabney in one of Henry Jackson's posts. {"The Old party of Federal Usurpation and Centralization"... (otherwise known as Federalists/Whigs/Liberals) , who had met up with sufficient Conscience Whigs from the South, and Abolitionists from all other points... in order to form the two-headed dragon of which the later Federal 'Union' is formed, once the South exits the scene}.
To wit: That party, combined of Abolitionists and Northern Collectivist Capitalists, was only 39% of the entire American opinion during the vote which got Lincoln elected...
If the South used the word SLAVERY every few inches, these abolitionists and many at the North, who were not on the take from the Radical Republican Liberal patronage system, would rather see the South 'let go'. It was, as I see it, an attempt to separate the very two-headed dragon of Abolition/ Totalitarian (Collectivist) Union, and divide their power base.
Of course, as to their cause, it backfires once the war plays out, and 150 years go by... the modern-day self-styled Unionists like to see the word as proof of the
righteousness of their army's invasion, and as an exoneration for anything in which the means could be used to justify such an end.
And so all the South is only heard saying SLAVERY, and nothing (more important) else.
The documents of Secession clearly say one thing, if one holds them up to the light, and reads them aloud...
"We, the People of the South, wish to be allowed to stop having to answer to those people elsewhere who wish to either profit from our efforts, without balance... or else
wish to govern us from afar, with no knowledge of what we need for our safety, protection, and well-being".
If you can't get that out of the secession ordinances, then you haven't really read them without being dazzled by the S word!
Dear Beowulf,
If you actually read the secession ordinances, you see that the bulk of the items were dealing with slavery. Slavery is not exaggerated by modern day observers, as you suggest, but was the core issue. Again, I suggest you read Charles Dew's "Apostles of Disunion," which studies the various ordinances in detail.
If I am reading your post right, you are suggesting that the South emphasized slavery, but falsely, as a way to make the South loathsome to the North, so the North would be prone to let the South secede? Points for creativity, but what evidence?
Again, I would argue that the stringing together of labels as in collectivist-capitalist-totalitarian-abolitionist etc. sounds like you're the last hold out from Chairman Mao("imperialist running dog lackeys"). It obscures the actual people and their motivations.
It's an interesting theory, but weren't the secesh hoping for English intervention? And weren't they angling for the addition of six states? Sounds a bit far-fetched to suspect that they were making themselves as loathsome as possible.
It is different.
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
Dear Beowulf,
If you actually read the secession ordinances, you see that the bulk of the items were dealing with slavery. Slavery is not exaggerated by modern day observers, as you suggest, but was the core issue. Again, I suggest you read Charles Dew's "Apostles of Disunion," which studies the various ordinances in detail.
If I am reading your post right, you are suggesting that the South emphasized slavery, but falsely, as a way to make the South loathsome to the North, so the North would be prone to let the South secede? Points for creativity, but what evidence?
Again, I would argue that the stringing together of labels as in collectivist-capitalist-totalitarian-abolitionist etc. sounds like you're the last hold out from Chairman Mao("imperialist running dog lackeys"). It obscures the actual people and their motivations.
Not falsely. I do not say that. But deliberately. Intended to make the difference plain. In order to show a separation.
In reading some Southern diaries, it strikes me as wonderful the amount of separation the Southerners felt from the North. Almost as much as the Southerners of the 1860's would feel from the Southerners of today, who have been indoctrinated into rock music, scant clothing, open
displays of show, and the various and sundry other atrocities they would consider as unacceptable. Our lack of a decent language. Our complete loss of culture and breeding. Our inability to withstand any hardship at all.
This is the same gap they saw between themselves and the Yankee North.
from a diary, by Letitia Burwell:
"On a trip to New York in 1855, everything and everyone seemed to be in a mad whirl. The March of Material Progress, they told us. They said if Old Fogey Virginia did not make haste to join this march, she would be left a wreck behind. Never had we seen white servants before, and upon being waited on by them, were at first embarrassed. But soon it became clear that they were used to a lot more hard work and a lot less consideration than were our negroe servants at home."
(Incidentally, Letitia, who never married, had a servant named Lucinda Burwell. She remained with Miss Lettie
until she died in 1897, and Lucinda was buried in the Burwell family plot, though she was black. And when Lettie followed in 1905, she was buried right beside her).
"We never think of buying presents for our servants," said a woman, on Fifth Avenue.
"But Virginia, the Mother of States, answers them in kind. 'I don't care about your water pipes and elevators'."
It continues on in like fashion for a goodly while. She even
refers to 'our peculiar institution', and while that seems to destroy my fight to free them of racism (which they didn't have, so much as they did class and economic castes),
it was done intentionally to make the North want to go away!
The point is this; the culture of the South had so developed that it was a separate country, whether or not it ever seceded from the Union. Union was third in line, after one's State, and County,( and then Continent)...
This is the culture and the nation of the Old South, and it must forever be maligned and misinterpreted, or else it might garner some sympathy, and that would never do!
And so now, we have a "train of thought" that says the South was merely an insurrection, and a rebellion.
It was an entirely different culture, and country. It was almost an entirely different planet!
Those darn kids with their crazy music!
Indeed Shakespeare was grumpy about the youth of his day:
"And Children Forget,
Or did not learn the sciences that should become our country,
Instead they grow like savages--as soldiers will--
who do nothing but mediate upon blood,
Swearing, stern looks, diffuse attire,
and Everything that seems unnatural."
So Southerners of that time emphasized slavery because they saw it as the obvious difference between them and the rest of the country?
By the way, I like the line "we never think of buying our servants presents." Of course not Letita, because the servants are BEING PAID ACTUAL MONEY. And the children of these servants are going to be professionals, business people, firemen or whatever they can be, and their grandchildren will end up senators and governors.
It's an interesting theory, but weren't the secesh hoping for English intervention? And weren't they angling for the addition of six states? Sounds a bit far-fetched to suspect that they were making themselves as loathsome as possible.
It is different.
ole
This is my theory...
To be seen as culturally different to the North! As peculiar, and different, and AS A SEPARATE PEOPLE! Incorrigible.
Not given to assimilation into the Yankee culture, and ways.
(They were not desiring to be assimilated by the "Borg Collective" of the Radical Republican Liberals, nor their Collectivist culture!).
As to England, and her 'intervention'...
You forget, sir! England was still smarting from her loss to this new form of government called a representative republic. Here, Empire was trying to reassert itself, to preserve "Union," and family squabbles amongst the disobedient children of the colonials... well, Qui Bono?!
Who benefits from partisanship? Wait it out. (And yes, the British clearly saw through the Emancipation thing! Who didn't?)
Britain was an empire, what better revenge, as a dish best eaten cold, and alone, than to see Jefferson's and Franklin's eighty year prediction of disunion happen accurately ...very nearly to the year!?
If the South wins, the old Union is preserved. The sovereign entities known as states survive with no superior. The Southern states rule themselves.
"Sovereign" in Britain refers to the Crown, as superior...
If the North forces Union, then Britain is justified in its fight with the colonies, as well as its 'manifest destiny' over Scotland and the British Isles. (And as I said elsewhere, Londoner (Northern) Anglo-Saxons versus Celtic Southrons). The United States becomes
its own ruler, and the states are mere subjects to its authority.
(Seriously, there was so much going on with France and Spain that the "colonies" would just have to settle it for themselves, and whatever came out would get recognized).
Had Lincoln gone into Canada, however, Britain would have been there in an instant!
"There is much about what happened that has not been made known."
I suggest you go to your search engine on your internet provider and type the words "US Civil War" and then count the number of posts, sites, articles, etc., and just see how untrue your statement is.
Quote:
"There is much information that has been ignored and buried by those who are pro-North."
Mr. Jackson, I must confess this oft-repeated charge has worn very thin with me over the past few years I have posted here and at other sites. It would be nice if we could all point to some vast conspiracy on the North's part to ignore or bury information concerning that late war. I think what infuriates those who support a neoconfederate (not yours) view of the war is that their modern, 21st century attempts at revision of actual historical events has been ignored. And yet, their books can be found everywhere, their partisan websites abound on the internet. If this information is being ignored, it is by the choice of the majority of Americans. Certainly not for lack of effort to promote such books and sites.
Quote:
"The victors write the history books."
And another, old reply to the above is, "The losers write the myths."
Again, what "victor" wrote The South Was Right! , The Real Abraham Lincoln, and countless other books supporting the Southern views of the war and secession? Again, go to Amazon.com, type in Southern secession, Southern rights, etc., and see the books that come up as a result. If someone higher up is in charge of either suppressing, ignoring or burying books with a Southern point of view about the war, their doing a poor job at it.
Quote:
"I agree when you say "we", instead of "you" or "them."
As you will.
Quote:
"Unfortunately Southerners did do things right after secession..."
And in some cases, committed illegal acts BEFORE their states seceded.
Quote:
"...that can't be justified."
But those acts can be rationalized, over and over again, hence these threads and replys and the next sentence, which begins with the word, "However."
Quote:
"However, after things had calmed down a bit,"
I'd be very curious to know what period of time you are referring to in this part of your statement.
Quote:
"the South made many overtures for peace that was rejected by the Lincoln Administration."
This is often a bit of missrepresented bit of history. The South did not make MANY overtures for peace. After taking/stealing federal property and being unable to remove Anderson's men from Fort Sumter, they sent three commissioners (NOT "peace" commissioners, as they never reffered to themselves as such nor were they ever given such a title) to then President Buchanan to demand the government turn over the fort to them and to settle the price on the property they had stolen. When Buchanan wouldn't meet the demands, they left.
As with Lincoln, they tried again to meet with him, not for the purpose of peace, but to try and get official recognition of their secessionist government during this attempt at negotiation. They failed. Please tell me of any other attempts at peace before the firing on Fort Sumter.
Quote:
"There is plenty of blame to go around."
You say this, but you really don't mean it, hence your next sentence.
Quote:
"Unforunately, South Carolina let itself be tricked into firng the first shot, thus giving the U.S. the excuse it was looking for to invade the CSA."
First, South Carolina was NOT in charge of the forces firing on Fort Sumter. These had been placed under the command of the Confederate Government who DECIDED to fire upon the fort, and thus was not tricked, fooled, misled, etc., but in a deliberate act, fired the first shot. I must admit I weary of this tired old excuse every time it is brought up.
If the leadership of the South was so stupid, so inept, to be tricked by a western bumpkin of a lawyer and one term member of Congress, while the CSA was led by a man who had served as a Secretary of War, graduated West Point, and served as a Senator in the US Government for many year, then the South should not have fired a shot, retreated to its States and declared the whole secession thing was a mistake on its part. Just how stupid do you consider Davis and his cabinet to be to be 'tricked' into firing onto Fort Sumter? Please.
In reference to my biblical quote, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.", this is all of the reply I get?
Quote:
"That applies to both sides."
No sir, it does not, not even close.
In 1993, I believed then exactly as you do now, the war was not over slavery, it was over tariffs, states rights, etc., etc. Since that time in my research and debate on this and other web sites concerning the Civil War, I have found it far more likely that faith comes into play when one is defending the South of that time than evidence.
Too often I have seen this faith carried out to such extremes as to deny, hide, distort, twist and reject historical documents and facts, all to maintain the faith. Again, all one has to do is simply run down the sources at such sites, and nine times out of ten, they will be found wanting in historical evidence.
Belief is not truth. Evidence is truth. And belief is not evidence.
Quote:
"So the best that can be said is that both sides moved the Country toward war."
No, this is the worst possible thing that can be said about the situation. All during the time immediately after Lincoln was elected in a fair and honest election, the South committed war-like acts. Please list the number of war-like acts committed by the Federal Government BEFORE Lincoln was sworn in as President? Please list the number of war-like acts done by Lincoln AFTER he was sworn in as President? Total them up and see which side moved the most towards war.
Quote:
"Never said the South did no wrong. I left the SCV because no one in that organization will admit to the South's sins."
What you say here is true.
You have never stated that the South did no wrong. My argument with you up until this point in your reply has been in the degree of what the South did wrong. I salute you for the courage of your convictions concerning your leaving the SCV. I am aware that all is not at peace in that organization and it could not have been easy for you to make such a step. You have my respect in this.
Quote:
"Do you think the North is blameless."
Not at all. I think the North was just as guilty when it comes to the issue of slavery just as much as the South was in practicing it. The North was the great carrier of slaves, not just to the US, but to everywhere else in the Northern hemisphere. Slavery was a NATIONAL sin and the entire nation was made to pay for it in blood and treasure. Northern indifference and lack of courage to face the slavery issue, its continual compromise with that institution, shows how it could compromise with evil when it felt it was in its interest.
Quote:
"You may be right, I will have to examine myself."
Thank you for that.
Quote:
"The Scriptures say that God is sovereign and rules over all things. I do believe that God ordained all that you mentioned above, for His purposes and ends."
I will not presume to tell you what to believe when it concerns your faith and view of God. That's between you and Him. I just personally have trouble with the concept of free will and this view. It makes no sense to me.
Quote:
"He did not have to allow any of us to exist. Since we are born sinners, He would have been justified in sending us all to hell the second we were born."
Again, I have no wish to debate your personal religious views.
Quote:
"I agree that we are not puppets. The fact that we can act and make our own decisions and are responsible, and at the same time our acts and decisions are all God's design is a paradox."
And a matter of personal faith.
Quote:
"It seems contradictory but it is not."
Yes it does, and yes it is, in my personal view.
Quote:
"God is able to accomplish this paradox because He is God. We can't understand it with our limited, created abilities."
Then I will leave the paradox's to God, as the rules of human conduct and logic to not apply to him and be mindful that he gave us our minds to question those paradox's when it comes to the acts of men during the Civil War.
Quote:
"Good point. Just because the South had the correct view of the Constitution and the Scriptures, doesn't make their personal actions or the intent of their hearts any less evil."
I'm sorry, but I do not agree that the South, in particular its leadership, "had the correct view" of EITHER the Constitution or the Scriptures. You will find that I agree that their personal actions or the intent of their hearts was the driving force behind secession, not the other two works you mention.
Quote:
"The theological view is the most important."
Again, a personal view, not one that I share. Unless you are talking about right and wrong, good and evil. But attempts at laying at the feet of one people that they were evil and absolving another people of evil because they quote scripture is not a theological view. It is merely a very human attempt at excusing human faillings.
Quote:
"Everything that has happened in history is a result of God directing all things for His ends and His Glory, throuh His interaction with man."
Who is free to accept or reject that interaction.
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
I suggest you go to your search engine on your internet provider and type the words "US Civil War" and then count the number of posts, sites, articles, etc., and just see how untrue your statement is.
True, but it seems to me that for most of the time since the war, most history books were written with a pro-North twist.
Mr. Jackson, I must confess this oft-repeated charge has worn very thin with me over the past few years I have posted here and at other sites. It would be nice if we could all point to some vast conspiracy on the North's part to ignore or bury information concerning that late war. I think what infuriates those who support a neoconfederate (not yours) view of the war is that their modern, 21st century attempts at revision of actual historical events has been ignored. And yet, their books can be found everywhere, their partisan websites abound on the internet. If this information is being ignored, it is by the choice of the majority of Americans. Certainly not for lack of effort to promote such books and sites.
I consider most of what has been published over the years about the war to be revisionist, pro-North propaganda.
And another, old reply to the above is, "The losers write the myths."
Again, what "victor" wrote The South Was Right! , The Real Abraham Lincoln, and countless other books supporting the Southern views of the war and secession? Again, go to Amazon.com, type in Southern secession, Southern rights, etc., and see the books that come up as a result. If someone higher up is in charge of either suppressing, ignoring or burying books with a Southern point of view about the war, their doing a poor job at it.
I am choosing my words poorly. Yes in the past 20 years or so much pro-South literature has been published. I believe this is a reaction to what I mentioned above.
As you will.
And in some cases, committed illegal acts BEFORE their states seceded.
You miss quoted me. I think I said or meant to say Southerners did things WRONG after secession.
But those acts can be rationalized, over and over again, hence these threads and replys and the next sentence, which begins with the word, "However."
I'd be very curious to know what period of time you are referring to in this part of your statement.
When things were at a standstill before the first shots were fired.
This is often a bit of missrepresented bit of history. The South did not make MANY overtures for peace. After taking/stealing federal property and being unable to remove Anderson's men from Fort Sumter, they sent three commissioners (NOT "peace" commissioners, as they never reffered to themselves as such nor were they ever given such a title) to then President Buchanan to demand the government turn over the fort to them and to settle the price on the property they had stolen. When Buchanan wouldn't meet the demands, they left.
That is the Northern interpretation. The Southern view is that South Carolina had left the Union, that they had a right to leave, and there was no reason why the Fed. should not have sold it's interests back to a State that was no longer a part of the Union. The peaceful solution would have been for the Fed. to sell it back. I think Lincoln did not evacuate Ft. Sumter because he wanted to provoke a confrontation.
As with Lincoln, they tried again to meet with him, not for the purpose of peace, but to try and get official recognition of their secessionist government during this attempt at negotiation. They failed. Please tell me of any other attempts at peace before the firing on Fort Sumter.
What is not peaceful about trying to gain recognition?
If the Lincoln would have recognized the CSA, there would have been no war.
You say this, but you really don't mean it, hence your next sentence.
Yes I do. The South did commit acts of aggression by taking over Fed. installations. The North tried to re-supply Sumter with soldiers and ammunition. This also was an aggressive act. The CSA believed it had no choice but to defend itself. This is what Lincoln was hoping for.
First, South Carolina was NOT in charge of the forces firing on Fort Sumter. These had been placed under the command of the Confederate Government who DECIDED to fire upon the fort, and thus was not tricked, fooled, misled, etc., but in a deliberate act, fired the first shot. I must admit I weary of this tired old excuse every time it is brought up.
If the leadership of the South was so stupid, so inept, to be tricked by a western bumpkin of a lawyer and one term member of Congress, while the CSA was led by a man who had served as a Secretary of War, graduated West Point, and served as a Senator in the US Government for many year, then the South should not have fired a shot, retreated to its States and declared the whole secession thing was a mistake on its part. Just how stupid do you consider Davis and his cabinet to be to be 'tricked' into firing onto Fort Sumter? Please.
Of course they decided to fire. I don't understand why you said that. Just because someone was tricked into doing something, doesn't mean they didn't choose to do it. Again maybe I am not explaining myself very well. My explanation is above.
In reference to my biblical quote, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.", this is all of the reply I get?
No sir, it does not, not even close.
In 1993, I believed then exactly as you do now, the war was not over slavery, it was over tariffs, states rights, etc., etc. Since that time in my research and debate on this and other web sites concerning the Civil War, I have found it far more likely that faith comes into play when one is defending the South of that time than evidence.
Northern apologists have faith that their interpretation
of historical events are true, just as the Southern apologists.
Too often I have seen this faith carried out to such extremes as to deny, hide, distort, twist and reject historical documents and facts, all to maintain the faith. Again, all one has to do is simply run down the sources at such sites, and nine times out of ten, they will be found wanting in historical evidence.
Belief is not truth. Evidence is truth. And belief is not evidence.
Belief is not always truth. If you believe in something that is true, then your belief is true.
Belief in what is true is based on one's interpretation of the evidence.
One can say "The evidence tells us this" another can say
"No, the evidence tells us that". This is why you and I will have to agree to disagree on much of what we have discussed.
Northern apologists look at the evidence one way, Southern apologists look at it another way. You believe your view is right, I believe mine is right.
What you believe to be true, I believe not to be, and vice versa.
No, this is the worst possible thing that can be said about the situation. All during the time immediately after Lincoln was elected in a fair and honest election, the South committed war-like acts. Please list the number of war-like acts committed by the Federal Government BEFORE Lincoln was sworn in as President? Please list the number of war-like acts done by Lincoln AFTER he was sworn in as President? Total them up and see which side moved the most towards war.
His war like act was refusing to evacuate Sumter and trying to reinforce it.
What you say here is true.
You have never stated that the South did no wrong. My argument with you up until this point in your reply has been in the degree of what the South did wrong. I salute you for the courage of your convictions concerning your leaving the SCV. I am aware that all is not at peace in that organization and it could not have been easy for you to make such a step. You have my respect in this.
Not at all. I think the North was just as guilty when it comes to the issue of slavery just as much as the South was in practicing it. The North was the great carrier of slaves, not just to the US, but to everywhere else in the Northern hemisphere. Slavery was a NATIONAL sin and the entire nation was made to pay for it in blood and treasure. Northern indifference and lack of courage to face the slavery issue, its continual compromise with that institution, shows how it could compromise with evil when it felt it was in its interest.
Thank you for that.
I will not presume to tell you what to believe when it concerns your faith and view of God. That's between you and Him. I just personally have trouble with the concept of free will and this view. It makes no sense to me.
Again, I have no wish to debate your personal religious views.
And a matter of personal faith.
Yes it does, and yes it is, in my personal view.
Then I will leave the paradox's to God, as the rules of human conduct and logic to not apply to him and be mindful that he gave us our minds to question those paradox's when it comes to the acts of men during the Civil War.
I'm sorry, but I do not agree that the South, in particular its leadership, "had the correct view" of EITHER the Constitution or the Scriptures. You will find that I agree that their personal actions or the intent of their hearts was the driving force behind secession, not the other two works you mention.
Again, a personal view, not one that I share. Unless you are talking about right and wrong, good and evil. But attempts at laying at the feet of one people that they were evil and absolving another people of evil because they quote scripture is not a theological view. It is merely a very human attempt at excusing human faillings.
Who is free to accept or reject that interaction.
Why do you believe that man is free to accept or reject interaction with God? Even if one rejects God, that person has interacted with Him in rejecting Him.
I disagree. the majority of history textbooks in the schools over the years have a Northern twist.
In reference to post 68, I am aware of the references to slavery in the secession ordinances. I was trying to show
that slavery was not the only issue.
The point in the South Carolina ordinance was that like the colonists, the South was being unfairly taxed. The colonists were not second class citizens. Parliament governed England. The colonies had their own government and were accountable directly to the King.
Parliament had not power to tax the colonies. To say they were second class citizens is to possible imply they had no legal right to Independence?
Dear HenryJackson,
As per post 64, while its a cliche that history is written by the victors, I don't know if that's the case with the Civil War. A very deliberate attempt to formulate and promote a pro-Confederate interpretation of the war, starting in the 19th century, has resulted in that interpretation being the general consensus. I'm from Maine, and we were herded into "Gone with the Wind" as a school field trip.
In more recent decades a lot of that interpretation has been challenged, and this new scholarship is what a lot of posters here, and frankly most historians, accept.
As per your post 68, any analogy with the Revolution is flawed. The citizens of the South were full and equal citizens with any other American citizen. In fact, you might argue that the 3/5s Compromise gave slaveowners special privilege and power within the Constitution. American colonists were not represented in Parliament, and were without a voice in the British government. The colonists were literally 2nd class subjects, and because of the distances and communication of the 18th century, they could never be anything but 2nd class subjects.
If you read the entire ordinance of secesssion of South Carolina and of the other seceding states, the defense of slavery is the most prominent feature of those documents.[/quote]
Dear HenryJackson,
Thank you for taking the time to reply to my post. If you say that recently, textbooks seem to have a "northern twist" or as I would put it: reflect the most recent scholarship, you could be right.
I understand that South Carolina felt it was unfairly taxed. If they felt that, they could have changed the tariff rates through their senators and representatives in Congress, as indeed they did on several occasions. The American colonists did not have that option, since they had no members of Parliament, hence the slogan "no taxation, without representation."
As far as Parliament having the right to tax the colonists, well Parliament thought it had the right. The Americans had no legal option to leave the British Empire. They had the natural right of revolution. The Declaration of Independence doesn't assert a right of secession, it argues that British rule is intolerable tyranny. That is why the Declaration is a timeless document of the human spirit and the dignity of the individual, and the Ordinance of Secession makes one's skin crawl in its whining about slavery.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
